Buying one’s way out of court appointments
Posted Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Under South Carolina Appellate Court Rule 608, most South Carolina attorneys are required to be on either the criminal or civil court appointment list, in
Posted Friday, October 2nd, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Adoption/Termination of Parental Rights, Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The Court of Appeals’ decision in Michael P. v. Greenville County Department of Social Services, 385 S.C. 407, 684 S.E.2d 211 (2009), has all the makings of
South Carolina Supreme Court allows writ of certiorari to challenge discovery order
Posted Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The September 21, 2009 Supreme Court opinion in Hollman v. Woolfson, 384 S.C. 571, 683 S.E.2d 495 (2009) approves an unusual use of a writ of certiorari:
Orange juice and toast: Creating maximum damage from partial answers in depositions
Posted Monday, September 21st, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
If I am deposing a hostile witness or opposing party, I often start with an innocuous line of questioning I call “orange juice and toast.”
How family court law on payment of attorneys fees alters negotiation strategy
Posted Monday, September 21st, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In a typical negotiation each party’s initial offer is the least generous offer they might hope the other party will accept. The rationale behind such
Could a different priority on custody factors lead to reduced acrimony between estranged parents?
Posted Sunday, September 20th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
In Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973), authors Anna Freud (Sigmund Freud’s daughter), Joseph Goldstein and Albert Solnit recommend that in a typical
Seeking criminal contempt for denied visitation
Posted Sunday, September 20th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific, Visitation
A few months ago I prosecuted a rule to show cause in which the mother had refused to let my client (her ex-husband) take the
The problematic jurisprudence of uncitable appellate opinions in the internet era
Posted Friday, September 18th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
Why should appellate courts be able to overrule or alter the decisions of lower courts? Why should they have the authority to make important and
Supreme Court holds that waiver of adultery’s bar to alimony does not violate public policy
Posted Monday, August 31st, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The South Carolina Supreme Court decision in Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 682 S.E.2d 804 (2009) corrects an obvious injustice, holding that a written agreement between
Does procedural due process mandate testimony at family court temporary hearings in South Carolina?
Posted Thursday, August 27th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Our Supreme Court is confused and conflicted on testimony at family court temporary hearings. Rule 21(b), SCRFC (a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court) states, “ [e]vidence
