Daily finds Court of Appeals digging in the weeds of a multi-state visitation schedule
Posted Wednesday, February 10th, 2021 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The February 10, 2021, Court of Appeals opinion in Daily v. Daily, 432 S.C. 608, 854 S.E.2d 856 (Ct.App. 2021), sees that court examining the
Posted Wednesday, December 9th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Custody, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, South Carolina Appellate Decisions
The December 9, 2020, Court of Appeals opinion in Jackson v. Jackson, 432 S.C. 415, 853 S.E.2d 344 (Ct.App. 2020), demonstrates the problems that can
Refiled Sellers opinion adds one footnote and one clarification
Posted Wednesday, December 9th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
A refiled December 9, 2020 Court of Appeals opinion in Sellers v. Nicholls, 432 S.C. 101, 851 S.E.2d 54 (Ct. App. 2020), makes two minor
Are you seeking to modify or enforce that family court final order (or do both)?
Posted Saturday, October 10th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In my eleven-plus years of doing this blog I’ve yet to write about the different procedures and goals in modifying versus enforcing a final order
Expert testimony bolstering a child’s credibility is improper
Posted Tuesday, October 6th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Despite repeated opinions from the South Carolina appellate courts indicating that expert testimony bolstering a child’s credibility is verboten, it continues to happen. Perhaps this
It is the parent’s job to get along with the teen, not the teen’s job to get along with the parent
Posted Sunday, October 4th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public
I handle my share of custody disputes in which a teenager is miserable at my client’s home and my client attempts to explain or justify
Teenagers and weekend visitation
Posted Sunday, October 4th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
For parents who have a minority of custodial time, especially those whose school-year time tends to be concentrated on weekends, the teenage years create new
Court of Appeals rejects father’s numerous challenges to custody and support modification decision
Posted Wednesday, August 26th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The August 26, 2020 Court of Appeals case of Whitesell v. Whitesell, 431 S.C. 575, 848 S.E.2d 588 (Ct.App. 2020), finds the Appellant making numerous
Posted Friday, August 21st, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public
A few months ago, the New York Times posted a story, Divorcing Parents Have a Right to Post Their Stories Online, Court Says, discussing a
Court of Appeals affirms custody modification and continuance denial
Posted Friday, August 7th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions
This opinion was slightly revised on December 9, 2020: Refiled Sellers Opinion Adds One Footnote And One Clarification The August 5, 2020 Court of Appeals opinion in
