Posted Tuesday, January 17th, 2023 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The January 4, 2023, Court of Appeals opinion in SCDSS v. Scott, 438 S.C. 400, 883 S.E.2d 229 (Ct. App. 2023), granted a new trial
Best practice is to blind courtesy-copy clients on emails to opposing counsel
Posted Wednesday, November 30th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Law Practice Management, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
I have long believed it to be best practice to courtesy copy clients on all emails one sends in that client’s case. Doing so helps
Supreme Court remands for new custody trial based on stale record
Posted Wednesday, November 23rd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Appellate Procedure, Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
On November 23, 2022, the South Carolina Supreme Court partially granted a writ of certiorari, and remanded the case of Rossington v. Rossington, 438 S.C.
Why I’m sticking with remote mediations
Posted Thursday, November 17th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Law Practice Management, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Early in the COVID era, the South Carolina Supreme Court authorized mediations using video conferencing. Despite the return of relative normalcy to the operation of
Whose signatures are needed for family court consent orders?
Posted Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In the pre-COVID days, one could typically get temporary orders approved with just the attorneys’ signatures and could almost always get procedural orders approved with
Supreme Court declines invitation to define “supported spouse” in South Carolina’s alimony statute
Posted Thursday, October 27th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
I won’t blog about my own appeals until remittitur issues as I don’t want to be seen as trying to influence the appellate courts (not
Posted Wednesday, September 14th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
On September 7, 2022, the Court of Appeals published an opinion in Holland v. Holland, 438 S.C. 69, 881 S.E.2d 766 (Ct.App. 2021), reversing the
How to get 50/50 physical custody when you don’t have custody (and why it’s unlikely to happen)
Posted Friday, August 26th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
A significant number of potential custody clients come to my office with the goal of 50/50 physical custody. Often these are fathers who are not
Little known case has big impact on custody jurisdiction
Posted Friday, August 12th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisdiction, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Occasionally I blog on little known cases that I find myself referencing often. Thus today’s blog about Widdicombe v. Tucker-Cales, 366 S.C. 75, 620 S.E.2d 333
Posted Wednesday, August 10th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Just this May I lectured on how de novo review made appealing family court orders more viable. In the materials, I noted six post-Lewis reported
