Caught in a circular firing squad
Posted Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Guardians Ad Litem, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
I have increasingly come to the conclusion that being a guardian ad litem in South Carolina for private custody cases is an impossible task if
Did the attorney believe in my case?
Posted Saturday, March 10th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
A colleague of mine recently blogged about “How to Find the Right Divorce Attorney for You.” Among the checklist of questions the prospective client was
Posted Saturday, March 10th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
The past few weeks I’ve taken over a few cases from dabblers, provided second opinions to a few family court litigants represented by dabblers, litigated
Crossland appeal offers interesting guidance on alimony and equitable distribution
Posted Wednesday, March 7th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
On July 2, 2014 the South Carolina Supreme Court completely reversed this Court of Appeals opinion. See Supreme Court completely reverses Court of Appeals and reinstates
A switch in justices revives previous South Carolina law on college support
Posted Wednesday, March 7th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Audience:, Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Less than two years ago, the South Carolina Supreme Court, in Webb v. Sowell, 387 S.C. 328, 692 S.E.2d 543 (2010), overruled Risinger v. Risinger,
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
