Parenthood

“Martin” Turns Back Into “Messiah” After Tennessee Judges Overrules Lower Court :: Separation and Divorce Lawyers in Charlotte, North Carolina

Published on: September 3, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “What does uncontested divorce mean?”

A judge in Tennessee has reversed the ruling of a chancery court judge from Cocke County regarding the ability of a couple to name their 8-month-old son “Messiah.” The case began last month when the boy’s mother and father were in court arguing over the child’s last name. Oddly enough, the two had actually agreed that the boy’s first name would be Messiah.

While in court, Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew said that she was offended by the name choice and said that the child should instead be called “Martin.” Ballew based her decision on the religiosity of those living in the rural area of the state, saying that the child might have a hard time being raised in an area that is so predominantly Christian. Ballew told the parents that “Messiah” is a title and the title has only been earned by one person, Jesus Christ.

The parents were shocked to discover they could not name their child as they wished and appealed the decision. The mother’s attorney said they appealed because the couple was in agreement about the first name and had never chosen it for religious reasons. Instead, the mother claims she thought that the word sounded nice.

Just this past week Chancellor Telford Fogerty overturned Ballew’s initial decision, deciding that the lower court acted unconstitutionally in changing the child’s name to Martin. Judge Fogerty said that the lower court’s decision amounted to a violation of the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and added that the purpose of the proceeding was to determine the child’s last name, not to litigate the appropriateness of the child’s first name. The Establishment Clause, one of the first pronouncements contained in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This has generally been interpreted to prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress and to prevent the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. Given that the lower judge’s ruling was based on Christian theology and not the law, Judge Fogerty had no choice but to reverse course. And just like that, Martin was turned back into Messiah.

Fight Over Last Name Leads To Judge Ordering ‘Messiah’ Changed To ‘Martin’ :: Separation and Divorce Lawyers in Charlotte, North Carolina

Published on: August 6, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “How is the amount of child support decided in North Carolina?”

A recent Yahoo article discussed a Tennessee judge’s recent decision to prevent a couple from naming their seven-month-old son ‘Messiah’. The magistrate judge from Newport, TN instead changed the boy’s name to Martin, saying that Messiah was reserved for Jesus Christ and him alone.

Oddly enough, the matter ended up before the judge due to a fight between his parents over the child’s last name. While they both agreed on ‘Messiah’, they wanted the judge to settle the dispute over their son’s last name. When the judge heard the child’s first name, she decided that it needed changing too. Ultimately, the judge settled on Martin DeShawn McCullough, a name that incorporates the last names of both parents.

The judge said her decision to change the child’s name was the first time she has ever issued such an order. The judge said that if the child is raised in Cocke County, TN the name could end up causing him trouble later in life due to the area’s large Christian population. The judge said since the child was too young to have say in the matter, changing the name to something less controversial was an important step to spare the child of a potentially difficult future.

The child’s mother said that she intends to appeal the decision, claiming that she chose Messiah not for religious reasons but because she thought it sounded like a good name. According to a list compiled by the Social Security Administration, Messiah ranked number four on the 2012 list of fastest-rising baby names.

Young Girl Sues Parents For Trying To Force Her Into Abortion :: Family Law Firms in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Published on: February 7, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

It’s no secret that there are times when parents and their children are not on the same page regarding important life choices. In some of the most extreme cases, a resolution is only reached with the help of the family law system. This seems to be the case involving a teenage mother-to-be in Texas who is fighting for her right to determine the fate of her unborn child.

The case involves a pregnant teenager in Texas who was embroiled in a lawsuit against her parents, claiming that they were trying to force her to have an abortion. Attorneys for the girl say that they were granted a long-term injunction against the girl’s parents by a family court judge earlier this week.

The girl, who was represented by the Texas Center for Defense of Life, filed a lawsuit arguing that her parents were violating her federal constitutional rights to carry her child to term. The suit claimed the parents were coercing her into having an abortion through harassment along with verbal and physical threats. When her parents found out about her pregnancy, her father became extremely angry and insisted that the decision was not up to her and that she would be having an abortion, end of story. They then took away her cellphone, removed her from school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car to try and force the girl to get the abortion.

The girl is currently 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction is scheduled to last for the remainder of her pregnancy. The order goes on to say that the 16-year-old is entitled to use her car to go to school, work and doctor appointments. The family court judge also ordered that the parents be responsible for half of the hospital bills when the girl gives birth. The only way the parents will be excused from the expenses is if she marries the child’s father.

Divorce in Mecklenburg County, NC and Facebook

Published on: May 10, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Facebook recently received tons of attention thanks to its disappointing IPO. Its’ now in the news for a different and surprising reason, a survey that revealed that in 2011 one-third of all divorce filing contained the word “Facebook.” The Wall Street Journal mentioned the shocking statistic and highlighted the news that 80% of U.S. divorce attorneys believe social networking in divorce proceedings is on the rise, according to data from the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Attorneys cite examples of Facebook being brought up in the course of depositions, as evidence of infidelity or children’s pages being used to prove bad parenting. Once the information is released into the world it’s impossible to get it back and remains ripe for the picking when a contentious divorce takes place.

Only three years ago 20% of all divorce filings contained the word “Facebook.” Today that number stands at 33%, according to the AAML. Though the percentage increased the main reasons for the mentions have remained the same: inappropriate messages to people of the opposite gender and nasty comments between separated spouses.

One expert who researchers the relationship behavior of college students said that breaking up via Facebook is a way for some to permanently end a relationship that has been dragging on for far too long. Doing something so public is a good way to air dirty laundry and ensures that no attempt at reconciliation occurs.

Big Child Support Change Brewing in South Carolina

Published on: March 13, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article by The State, a single South Carolina mother occupied with running a day care and raising two sons won a South Carolina Supreme Court case recently that may end up requiring divorced parents who pay child support to also pay for their kids to go to college.

The woman, Kristi McLeod said she was so shocked she had to stop by her lawyer’s office to ensure that she had heard the news correctly. The justices voted 3-2 in her favor, ruling that college education is now so critical to success in today’s world that the state has an interest in ensuring that it is paid for.

McLeod and her husband divorced in 1993. His income subsequently skyrocketed from $29,000 to almost $250,000 a year by 2008. Despite this vast increase child support for Kristi McLeod stayed at $175 a week for the two children. The whole time she never made more than $40,000 running a day care.

When McLeod’s son decided to go to college his father agreed via email to repay student loans and pick up miscellaneous expenses. The father also unilaterally decided to reduce his child support payments for his other son to $100 per week.

The father ultimately failed to hold up to his end of the bargain and McLeod decided to sue. A Family Court judge ruled in the father’s favor, saying he wasn’t required to pay college costs. The lower court judge also reduced how much support McLeod collected and refused to require her ex-husband to pay her attorney.

But the South Carolina Supreme Court decided to hear the case and reversed all previous lower court decisions on the subject.

In her majority opinion, Justice Kay Hearn wrote that, “Although the decision to send a child to college may be a personal one, it is not one we wish to foreclose to a child simply because his parents are divorced.”

The son has since graduated from college and is working as a fingerprint analyst for the FBI.

Two justices dissenting, citing current state law which specifically mentions paying support until a child finishes high school but does not mention college costs at all. “Had the Legislature intended for a parent to pay college expenses as an incident of continuing child support, I believe it would have specifically included the phrase ‘college graduation.'”

Name Change Following Marriage Still a Sensitive Subject

Published on: February 28, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

One recent article on Yahoo.com, discussed the issues women face even in the modern age. Though women’s place in the world has risen dramatically, there are still instances where problems persist. One example of a semantic issue that nonetheless speaks to a woman’s role in the world involves the attitudes about women changing or not changing their names following marriage.

A study dedicated to examining the issue was authored by two Pennsylvania State University sociologists, Laurie Scheuble and David Johnson. Previous studies regarding name-changing focused on the New York Times wedding announcement page, something that resulted in a very limited pool of research subjects. This new study used data from two surveys (one from 1990 and the other from 2006) conducted at a Midwestern university. Additionally, the study surveyed hundred of students at Penn State asking about name-changing and their opinion on the practice.

Surprisingly, the 2006 survey showed that students were three times more likely to say that if a woman did not take her husband’s last name upon marriage, she was less committed to him and their future together. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Midwestern women were less likely than those at Penn State to say they wanted to keep their own names. The oddest part of this information is that the 2006 survey indicates stronger attitudes against name-changing than the 1990 survey.

In 1990, only 2.7% of students believed that a woman keeping her own name was less committed to her marriage. By 2006 this number jumped to 10.1%.

Regardless of the practice’s perception among Midwestern college students, a woman changing her name (or not) is no indication of commitment in a relationship. Evidence of this is that educated professional women tend to marry at a later age and thus hang onto their own names yet also tend to have more long-lasting (and hopefully happier) marriages.

Charlotte Divorcing Couples Should Watch What They Text

Published on: February 21, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, North Carolina couples who are heading for divorce should be careful about texting because their heated words could be used against them later in court.

According to statistics from the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML), many top divorce attorneys say they’ve seen a spike in the number of cases using evidence from cellphone text messages over the past several years as the prevalence of smartphones increases exponentially.

The rise in text message evidence becoming a part of divorce cases follows a rise noticed a few years ago by the AAML relating to evidence from Facebook messages. “With emails you can think about and rewrite them. There is a window of opportunity to rethink what you are saying but text messaging is immediate,” said Ken Altshuler, the president of the AAML. “We get a lot of text messages that people send out without thinking.”

Altshuler described text messages as “spontaneous venting” that often come back to haunt people. They’re very easy to write and distribute quickly but the implications can be far longer lasting. Text messages on your phone seen by others can also be mentioned and brought into divorce proceedings. Altshuler said, “I have used text messaging for cross examination.” He continued by mentioning that he had also submitted texts as evidence. “I would say in the last six months there have been a lot of text messages involved in litigation. For whatever reason, people are texting more and not thinking about what they are texting.”

According to the AAML survey text messages were simply the most commonly used form of electronic evidence derived from cellphones. Other information taken from smartphones include emails, phone numbers, call histories, GPS and Internet search histories. As such, North Carolina couples need to be careful with what information they have sitting around that may later be used against them.

Altshuler believes that the reason for the surge in text evidence is that people have their guards down because they mistakenly believe texting is safe, all because the messages aren’t easily printed out. This is a false sense of security, as the recent poll shows. While text messages cannot easily be printed, it can be done.

Discrimination and North Carolina Child Custody Cases

Published on: February 9, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to one recent article, a new bill before the Utah legislature, HB88, would add a statement to Utah’s divorce statute saying that courts, when making a child custody determination, may not discriminate against a parent based on age, race, color, national origin, religious preference or gender.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Ryan Wilcox, R-Ogden, said he intends for the bill to ensure that judges consider both parents when deciding issues of custody, giving a complete look to both instead of the antiquated notion that the mother is a better choice in all circumstances.

One family who recently lost a young child after the drug addicted mother who won custody of her failed to prevent her death said that they were told, “unless the mother was in a hospital or a coffin there was nothing they could do.” Dan Deuel, of the American parental Action League, said that “In my mind, no discrimination is a no brainer.”

While the committee unanimously endorsed HB88, some lawmakers expressed their displeasure at having to remind judges to be fair in the first place. Representative Curtis Oda said that, “The court is supposed to be balanced. It seems to be going in the other direction.” Another lawmaker, Representative Jennifer Seelig, said she supported the legislation because it addresses the long-held notion that mothers are better parents than fathers. “I think it has potential not only for changing the system but for changing hearts and minds,” she said.

Study says Divorce at a Young Age Hurts Worst

Published on: February 2, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

A new Michigan State University study finds divorce at a younger age hurts people’s health more than divorce later in life. Study author and sociology professor Dr. Hui Liu said the findings, published in the journal Social Science & Medicine, suggest older people have more coping skills to deal with the incredible stress that results from a divorce.

Liu said the findings indicate that there ought to be “more social and family support for the younger divorced groups.” Liu suggested that this might include “divorce counseling to help people handle the stress, or offering marital therapy or prevention programs to maintain marital satisfaction.”

Liu analyzed the self-reported health status of some 1,282 participants in a long-term national survey. She measured the gap in overall health between those who remained married during the 15-year study period and those who transitioned from marriage to divorce and at what age.

Liu found the gap was wider at younger ages. For example, among people born in the 1950s, those who got divorced between the ages of 35 and 41 reported more health problems in relation to their continuously married counterparts than those who got divorced in the 44 to 50 age range. Researchers were surprised to learn that divorce appears to have a more negative health impact for baby boomers than for individuals in older generations. Liu said she would have expected divorce to be less impactful for younger generations because divorce is so much more common among their age cohorts.

Liu offered an explanation for the difference. Perhaps because the pressure to stay married is so strong among older generations only those with the unhappiest marriages actually moved for divorce and thus, felt relief when the divorce was finalized.

The study confirmed something we mentioned in a previous post (Divorce Can Kill), that those who went from marriage to divorce experienced a generally more rapid health decline than those who remained married. It’s good to hear that those who remained divorced during the entire study period showed no difference with those who remained married.

Paternity and Child Support in North Carolina: The Impact of Senate Bill 203

Published on: January 26, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In 2011 the North Carolina General Assembly passed a bill addressing how to go about setting aside an order of paternity and to allow relief from a child support order when the man responsible for payment is not the child’s father. The bill has a potentially important impact on child support cases where paternity is a disputed issue and thus deserves discussion.

Senate Bill 203 was introduced in Raleigh by Don Eastman and Floyd B. McKissick, Jr., and passed the NC General Assembly during the 2011 legislative session. It’ s intent was to modify existing child support laws. Section 1 of the bill states:

Notwithstanding the time limitations of G.S. 1A‑1, Rule 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, or any other provision of law, an order of paternity may be set aside by a trial court if each of the following applies:

1) The affidavit of parentage was entered as the result of fraud, duress, mutual mistake or excusable neglect.

2) Genetic tests establish the putative father is not the biological father of the child.

The bill was proposed for several reasons, one being to address existing holes in North Carolina’s child support laws, another was to respond to the current economic climate and ensure that fathers are not forced to continue supporting children that they later discover are not biologically theirs.

The bill continues by clarifying that in any motion to set aside paternity it shall be the responsibility of the moving party (the person seeking to set aside the paternity determination) to meet the burden of proof. The legislature said that upon proper motion, courts should order the child’s mother, the child in question and the possible father to submit to genetic paternity testing.

If the court determines, as a result of genetic testing, that the potential father is not the biological father and that the order of paternity was entered as a result of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or excusable neglect, the court may then set aside the order of paternity. It’s important to note that nothing in the language is meant to alter the current presumption of legitimacy when a child is born to a mother and a father during the course of a marriage.