Picking good witnesses for custody cases
Posted Friday, July 29th, 2022 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
Some custody cases can be tried with the parents being the primary witnesses. But when there are substantial disputes about who the children are more
The latest insane restraining order making the South Carolina family court rounds
Posted Friday, June 17th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
I am on repeated record in finding numerous provisions of the typical South Carolina custody order to be overly broad, stupid, and frankly reckless. Over
You willing to go to jail over that?
Posted Thursday, April 14th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
It amazes me how unseriously many folks subject to South Carolina child custody orders take the requirement of those orders. Per S.C. Code Ann. §
Court of Appeals affirms award of stepmother custody and grandparent visitation
Posted Thursday, March 17th, 2022 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
In the March 16, 2022 opinion in Jacobs v. Zarcone, 436 S.C. 170, 871 S.E.2d 211 (Ct.App. 2022), the Court of Appeals affirms an award
Court of Appeals’ Glinyanay opinion addresses numerous novel family law issues
Posted Wednesday, February 23rd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The February 23, 2022, Court of Appeals opinion in Glinyanay v. Tobias, 436 S.C. 137, 871 S.E.2d 193 (Ct.App. 2022), addresses numerous novel legal issues
Parents who allow unfit co-parents to provide unsupervised care for their child(ren) are also unfit
Posted Monday, February 14th, 2022 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
But for the human capacity for self delusions, I would find the ability of parents to claim their co-parent was unfit while they allowed that
Anyone has standing to seek custody of a neglected or delinquent child
Posted Saturday, February 12th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
I thought it was well known that when a child’s caretakers are unfit literarily anyone has standing to seek custody. Yet when two lawyer friends
Notice provisions in custody agreements
Posted Wednesday, December 1st, 2021 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
Not enough care is given to drafting notice provisions in custody orders. There is an inherent tension between the needs/goals of the non-custodial parent and
Court of Appeals opinion unwittingly exposes serious flaws in South Carolina’s Family Court Rules
Posted Monday, July 26th, 2021 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 Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The July 7, 2021, Court of Appeals opinion in Taylor v. Taylor, 863 S.E.2d 335, 434 S.C. 307 (Ct. App. 2021), unwittingly exposes serious flaws
Posted Tuesday, May 18th, 2021 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
I see a number of attorneys and pro se litigants who try to finesse the issue of final decision making authority by making both parents
