Misguided child support decision from South Carolina’s Supreme Court
Posted Tuesday, July 7th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Support, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
N.B. The holding of Floyd v. Morgan that it took a higher burden of proof to modify support agreement was subsequently overruled in the case of Lewis v. Lewis,
Is the application of civil contempt in South Carolina’s “daddy round-ups” improper?
Posted Friday, June 19th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
“The problem is, chronic non-supporters do not have dependable jobs, nor tax refunds, nor seizeable property. That’s why they are chronic. . . . As
Supreme Court decision reestablishes deference to family court judges’ credibility findings
Posted Monday, June 15th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
I have been eagerly awaiting today’s [June 15, 2009] South Carolina Supreme Court decision in McCrosson v. Tanenbaum, 383 S.C. 150, 679 S.E.2d 172 (2009). Not only
A legal education can be expensive
Posted Saturday, June 13th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Jurisprudence, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
I love contempt. See Enforcement (or Defending Enforcement) of Family Court Orders. Folks tend to forget (if they ever realized) that court orders aren’t simply
Are the new South Carolina pro se divorce forms a good idea?
Posted Wednesday, May 6th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
On March 17, 2009 the South Carolina Supreme Court approved and adopted forms for unrepresented spouses to obtain divorces without the use of attorneys. Most
Correct result, questionable rationale on multi-state child custody jurisdiction appeal
Posted Tuesday, May 5th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In 2007 South Carolina substituted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) for the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). S.C. Code Ann.
What makes a family court judge’s order “judicial”?
Posted Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public
A court order, including an order from family court, is just as much “law” as the statutes passed by our legislature. Just as with statutes,
Did the Supreme Court limit laches too much in defending back alimony and child support claims?
Posted Tuesday, April 21st, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Support, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Two recent South Carolina Supreme Court opinions: Ables v. Gladden, 378 S.C. 558, 664 S.E.2d 442 (2008) and Strickland v. Strickland, 375 S.C. 76, 650
Does the term “custody” cause more problems than it solves?
Posted Tuesday, April 21st, 2009 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
I am frequently asked by clients or potential clients to explain all the nomenclature that surrounds custody orders: “shared,” “sole,” “joint,” “legal,” “physical,” “primary.” In my view these terms are ill-defined or
