Hold on pardner, where’s the fire?
Posted Thursday, March 1st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
One of the hardest tasks of family court client control is counseling clients to be patient when they want immediate results. This task is rarely
Mixed signals from the South Carolina bar
Posted Friday, February 24th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Continuing Legal Education, Law and Culture, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
A few days after posting this, I learned that the “M” in “MCLE” did not mean that this CLE qualifies for ethics hours. -GF Recently our State
Counseling the aggrieved spouse to move on
Posted Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Divorce and Marriage, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
I finalized a divorce earlier this week in which the other party discovered my client’s adultery a few years ago and filed for divorce twenty
Combining rehabilitative and permanent alimony
Posted Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
For reasons that are only marginally explicable, South Carolina attorneys and judges are reluctant to issue orders or enter agreements that combine rehabilitative alimony with
The authoritarian nature of anticipated substantial change of circumstances jurisprudence
Posted Saturday, February 18th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
No modern authoritarian government acts “lawlessly.” Instead such governments cloak their actions with the veneer of due process but they manipulate the law so that
Overnight paramour restraints and homosexual relationships
Posted Saturday, February 18th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
A state that denies homosexuals the right to marry has no right to punish them for living together without being married. In 1967, the United
Stupid (overly broad and vague) parental restraining orders
Posted Friday, February 17th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Law and Culture, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
My one-man war against overly broad restraining orders continued this week, as I observe an accelerating trend towards guardians, litigants and judges wanting to micro-manage
Posted Thursday, February 16th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
So far in the month of February, 2012 the South Carolina Supreme Court has issued six decisions, five of which were attorney disciplinary opinions. While
To reduce the coverture fraction, file then negotiate
Posted Sunday, February 12th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Typically, when a separated or separating spouse contacts me to negotiate a separation agreement, I suggest working towards reaching an agreement before I file an
(Un)important unpublished rehabilitative alimony opinion from Court of Appeals
Posted Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions
I was eagerly awaiting the Court of Appeals decision in Allen-Hines v. Hines because I was hoping it would answer the question of whether a
