Posted Friday, May 20th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Clients, and the young attorneys I mentor, often ask me to render an opinion on their cases when their cases have just started. Specifically clients
Posted Sunday, April 24th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public
Non-custodial parents of teenagers often complain when the custodial parent doesn’t stop their child from engaging in typical risky teen behavior. One hears stories of
Should guardians give opinions?
Posted Friday, April 22nd, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Guardians Ad Litem, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
A former mentee of mine, who is developing a thriving practice as a guardian ad litem in private custody cases, recently asked for my opinion
“Hammered” by the family court, Court of Appeals hammers Husband again
Posted Saturday, April 16th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
There are some family court smack-downs that beg for an appeal. And there are some Court of Appeals decisions that beg for a petition for
Why join stepparents as opposing parties to family court proceedings?
Posted Friday, March 25th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
The short answer is discovery. While I understand the logic of joining stepparents as parties to custody or visitation proceedings when that stepparent will not
Husband’s lack of credibility on financial disclosure has multiple adverse consequences
Posted Saturday, March 19th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The March 16, 2016 Court of Appeals opinion in Conits v. Conits, 417 S.C. 127, 789 S.E.2d 51 (Ct. App. 2016) rejects many of Husband’s allegations of
Posted Friday, March 11th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Humor?, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Where’s the time machine that a sizable portion of family law clients, and potential clients, think I have? My colleagues inform me that their clients
Why not divide up legal custody?
Posted Saturday, February 27th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Deciding who will have legal custody–final decision making authority for a child–can be one of the more contentious issues in custody cases. Often one parent
Don’t end a long-term marriage unless you’re ready to amputate
Posted Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Divorce and Marriage, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to General Public
I spend a bit of time talking folks in long-term marriages out of separating from a spouse with whom they are unhappy. It’s amazing how
Using opposing parties’ evasive discovery responses against them
Posted Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Often opposing parties will respond to discovery with evasion: giving answers that respond to some, slightly different allegation; providing lengthy responses to “yes/no” questions without
