Attorney O’s Midnight Musings: Connecticut Law

Pennsylvania County Continues Program for Child Support Payors

Published on GoErie.com

Crawford OKs continuation of jobs program for those who owe support payments

By TIM HAHN
tim.hahn@timesnews.com

MEADVILLE — Crawford County will continue a program that has generated more child- and spousal-support payments by helping those who owe them to find work.

County commissioners on Thursday approved a memorandum of understanding between the county’s Domestic Relations Office and Pennsylvania Career Link that will keep in place a 3-year-old program.

The county pays $3,190 per year for Career Link’s assistance in helping some people who are behind on their court-ordered support payments develop job skills and find work. Two-thirds of that amount is reimbursed by the state, Crawford County Court Administrator John Shuttleworth told commissioners Thursday morning.

Since the program’s inception in 2006, 344 noncustodial parents have participated in the program, Domestic Relations Director Carla Smith said.

The first phase of the program involved out-of-work people who owe support being referred to Career Link for assistance. Of the 144 clients who were court-ordered into that phase of the program between September 2006 and June 2007, 87 clients became employed or were otherwise removed from the program, and the county collected $86,000 in unpaid support.

During the second phase, in which Domestic Relations took a more active role in its clients’ involvement, Crawford County collected $144,000 in unpaid support, officials said.

The third phase, which started in February 2008, involved devoting a full-time Domestic Relations worker to the program to provide more one-on-one assistance to clients. That helped generate $32,543 in unpaid support in 2008 and $70,323 so far in 2009, Smith said.

Domestic Relations has averaged 15 to 20 clients in the program at one time during the third phase, with participation increasing because of the economy and the high unemployment rate, Smith said.

TIM HAHN can be reached at 392-7821 or by e-mail.

[Source: Florida Divorce Law Blog]

New Hamshire Detective Testifies Wearing Ski Mask

I couldn’t resist passing on this short excerpt from a post published today on A Public Defender Blog:

New Hampshire’s Supreme Court recently ruled that it’s okay for a police officer to testify at a criminal trial while wearing a ski-mask to protect his identity because he was working in an undercover unit at the time of the trial.

Yes, you read that right. In State of New Hampshire v. Jose Hernandez, a police officer who had conducted an interview with the complaining witness was permitted to sit there like a cat burglar, with a ski mask on his face. The State’s reasoning – bought by the trial court – was that the officer’s identity needed to be protected. Never mind the fact that the jury viewed the interview with the complainant in which his face was uncovered and that everyone knew his name.

[Source: A Public Defender blog]

Men More Likely to File for Divorce When Wife Diagnosed with Cancer

MSNBC announced that according to new research, men are 6 times more likely to file for divorce when their spouse is diagnosed with cancer than women in the reverse situation. The divorce rate is 21 percent compared to 3 percent when a husband gets sick.

Read Men more likely to leave spouse who has cancer. [MSNBC]

[Source: Lee's Divorce & Family Law Blog]

Update to “Superior Court Ruling Protects Jobs of Domestic Violence Victims”

I posted about the Heather Gilles case on September 29, 2009. Today’s Hartford Courant ran a piece providing more information on the case as well as additional information on domestic violence.

Read Fired Worker’s Lawsuit Puts Spotlight On Workplace Treatment Of Domestic Violence Victims.

[Source: Hartford Courant]

Filing Fee for Divorce in Connecticut

In order to bring a divorce action in a Connecticut court, the party commencing the action must pay a filing fee of $300. In addition, the divorce summons and complaint must be served upon the other party by a State Marshal. The fee for service of those documents is approximately $50 to $75.

If you cannot afford the filing and marshal fees, you may submit a fee waiver to the court. A judge may grant or deny your request to waive all or some of the fees. To apply for a fee waiver, you must complete form JD-FM-75 which is a financial affidavit.

Finally, if you have minor children born to the marriage, BOTH parties must attend state mandated parenting education classes (usually held in 2 three-hour session). You may apply for a fee waiver for the classes if you cannot afford them, using form JD-FM-75.

Divorce is an Emotional Rollercoaster – But Are You Paranoid?

Editor’s Note: This was a thoughtful and insightful post that I felt would benefit my readers who are embroiled in divorce actions.

Divorce is an emotional rollercoaster – but are you paranoid?
[originally posted by Marilyn Stowe]

How healthy is divorce litigation for everyone involved: clients, their families, the lawyers and others? How healthy is it for anyone involved in these cases?

Paranoia is a profound distrust or suspicion of others, which goes hand-in-hand with the belief that one is being persecuted. In divorce, these feelings can have some basis in reality. There may indeed be someone out to get you. Usually, it is the person to whom you had hitherto been closest: your spouse.
Unfortunately, divorce causes some people to become irrational or even delusional. Their perceived “persecutor” is nothing of the sort and may actually be a spouse who wants nothing more than to move on with his or her life.

The painting above is called “Paranoia”. What are the figures in the painting staring at and so worried by? There is no-one visible outside, so what or who do they think may be coming in through the door? Are they right to be worried or are they paranoid?

Its painter, Neo Rauch, is a stellar artist who was born in East Germany. His parents died in a train accident when he was four weeks old and he has clearly been profoundly affected by his background. A collection of his art was exhibited under the title Para at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 2007, to rave reviews. I was in New York and visited the exhibition with my son Ben.

I must confess that only recently have I come to appreciate Neo Rauch’s work. His paintings can be very difficult to understand. They need a lot of thought. They certainly appear to be telling a story, but Rauch denies this. His paintings pose questions. Rauch says that his pictures can mean “anything to anyone”. So it is up to each one of us to decide what they actually mean.

Likewise, the emotional rollercoaster that is divorce encourages different people to respond in different ways. Innocent spouses can be accused of harassment and misconduct. The accuser may then refuse to allow the other parent to see a child. Thus the paranoia continues to play out, all the way into the courtroom, with the hapless child caught in the middle. Sadly, this is not uncommon behaviour in my experience.

In other cases, paradoxically, what appears to be delusional or paranoid behaviour is actually a perfectly valid and healthy response to a sinister situation. In such cases the persecutor will stealthily, relentlessly and deliberately increase the pressure and the cost – financial and emotional – upon the victim, while going to great lengths to make others believe that the victim is to blame. When the victim complains, the complaints are dismissed and he or she is wrongly criticised.

In all cases the perpetrators may be assisted by others, frequently members of their own family, close friends and unwittingly, even their own lawyers. I recently saw a TV programme about this phenomenon, which is called “groupthink”. The word is used to describe what happens when a group of people support one another, without questioning their plan of action. Lawyers will be familiar with clients who insist on bringing a family member or close friend with them, to provide unquestioning support. Lawyers, who act on their client’s instructions, may also become part of that unconditionally supportive group. But is this healthy?

Divorce causes emotional turbulence, which can affect the minds of both parties and their supporters. Profound love can turn into profound hate. Most people come through the divorce process bruised – but recover. But in a few, thankfully rare cases, those with controlling personalities may find it difficult to let go. Supported by their ‘group’, they may stalk their former partner playing mind games, determined never to stop until the spouse is worn out, exhausted and beaten.

All this of course, is why we have our Courts of Justice. The judges are there to level the uneven playing field, to identify the victim and to protect them from the perpetrator. Our courts are a bastion of strength, and their function is to apply justice.

Even so, I must confess that as a family lawyer, I enjoy the luxury of extended thought. I am currently advising the scriptwriters of a top British TV programme about a fictional court case. It is good fun because it gives me free rein to let my imagination run riot!

It has occurred to me, as I consider all the mind games that could play out in the courtroom, that perhaps a judge, alone in his ivory tower, could also play mind games with the parties before him. His motives could be many and varied. He would enjoy his power over them all. The parties would think he was administering justice. Despite all the evidence, however, the victim would become his prey.

Scary stuff! Could it happen in real life? Think of life as a Neo Rauch painting: I will let you make your own mind up!

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on “Marilyn Stowe Blog”. I happened upon it from a post I read on the “Massachusetts Divorce & Family Law Blog”

Alimony: Using Craigslist to Get Out of Paying?

Editor’s Note: I happened upon this post a few nights ago while searching for articles on the topic of alimony. It was posted in February 2009 on the Mississippi Family Law Blog. It’s an interesting post with some good advice on what NOT to do if you are ordered to pay alimony to an ex-spouse.

Man Offers to Pay for Someone to Marry Ex-Wife

Imagine sitting at your computer and you are browsing the classified ads on Craiglist and suddenly you come across the following ad:

Nice well taken care of ex-wife. Mid 40’s. Pretty and loyal. Never smoked and very little drinking. Will make someone a good companion (I know)…. Will pay 10K to the man or woman who marries her in a way that stops me from having to pay her alimony.

There’s the hitch. The man, trying to end his alimony payments to his ex-wife, is offering to pay a potential suitor to marry his ex-wife. Not being totally callous, the guy actually had some “terms and conditions” for this transaction.

• 1. This transaction offer only valid if she is not aware of it.

• 2. Must treat her good, no abuse tolerated by me.

• 3. This offer is null and void if it is determined to be illegal in any way — I am not a lawyer.

• 4. The end result must be that I am no longer liable to her for alimony and you make best effort to be good to her.

• 5. This ad is not in any way intended to demean my ex-wife. She is a nice person and is a fine catch for anyone.

OOPS. I think the cat’s out of the bag on condition #1. With news of the post hitting newspapers, she or some friends might find out. He might also have a problem with condition #3. At least he did not want to “demean” his ex-wife in any way–what a guy.

In Connecticut, if you are paying alimony to your ex, don’t use this tactic to end the alimony. Not only will it fall flat in front of the judge, but you can be assured your ex will not find the humor in being marketed on Craigslist.

[Special thanks to the source: Mississippi Family Law Blog]

Discuss Financial Issues Before You Get Married

As a Connecticut lawyer, I often represent people who are seeking divorce. One of the most common reasons they site for the breakdown of the marriage is money. Rather, differences in opinion over financial issues and strategies.

An article published in the New York Times suggests that couples talk about four main points before walking down the aisle: financial ancestry (history), credit (history and habits), control (who will pay bills, etc.) and affluence (individual goals for wealth).

Read the article: Money Talks to Have Before Marriage.

[Source: Alabama Divorce & Family Law Attorney Blog]

Does Cohabitation of Ex-SPouse Terminate Alimony?

In a divorce, one party may be obligated to pay alimony to the other. Divorce agreements may state that alimony terminates on the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving the alimony.

If the party receiving alimony chooses to cohabitate with another person without entering into marriage, does the alimony obligation automatically terminate? No.

However, the legislature passed Connecticut General Statute 46b-86b which states that, “[i]n an action for divorce, dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annulment brought by a husband or wife, in which a final judgment has been entered providing for the payment of periodic alimony by one party to the other, the Superior Court may, in its discretion and upon notice and hearing, modify such judgment and suspend, reduce or terminate the payment of periodic alimony upon a showing that the party receiving the periodic alimony is living with another person under circumstances which the court finds should result in the modification, suspension, reduction or termination of alimony because the living arrangements cause such a change of circumstances as to alter the financial needs of that party.”

In other words, the party paying alimony may file a motion to modify the amount of alimony paid — and a judge has the discretion to suspend, reduce or terminate the payment of that alimony.

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Bridgeport Sex Abuse Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, which appeals a state court decision to make public more than 12,000 pages of clergy sexual abuse files.

Read the Hartford Courant article here: High Court Refuses To Hold Hearing On Sex Abuse Cases

[Source: courant.com]