Charlotte Divorce Lawyer Blog

More North Carolina Couples Divorce in January

Published on: December 29, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Is there any truth to the belief that a new year brings new relationships? January is often referred to in family law circles as the “Divorce Month.” The Huffington Post reports that the combination of frantic holidays, family issues and financial stress can bring to light cracks in already strained marriages.

The January divorce label has been applied for a reason; according to statistics published by eDivorcePapers.com, January did indeed have the most legal breakups. One Maryland divorce lawyer confirms that “Divorce Month” really does exist, saying that “Some attorneys take the last two weeks of the year off to get ready for the rush. January really does see a lot of divorces.”

The single biggest day for filing a divorce remains in doubt, though some groups have attempted to identify a single “D-Day.” The Legal Services Commission claims that “the first Monday after the kids return to school” sees the most filings.

A founder of DivorcedWomenOnline.com, says that though filings are most popular in January, the search begins in December. Angry husbands and wives begin searching for information on divorce in the days immediately following the holidays. “I see a huge increase in pageviews and searches the day after Christmas. People start looking for information before the New Year starts, but they can’t do much until the attorneys are back in the office. January 12-16 seems to be the magic week for filings.”

There are many reasons for the New Year’s push, but one big reason is the kids. Often time couples have been struggling for months before the holidays. However, they attempt to put aside their issues to give their children a happy holiday season with an intact family. When January rolls around the magic is gone and often, so is the marriage.

Another big reason is year-end reflection. Unhappy spouses look at their lives and decide they need to make a change. Unhappy spouses take a look at their life more carefully following the rush of the holidays and decide they just cannot endure another year like that.

Taxes also impact a person’s decisions of when to file. Marital status is determined as of December 31 according to the IRS and if a couple wants to file returns jointly they must be married as of that day. Unhappy people facing financial stress may put off divorce until the New Year because they can’t afford to take the financial hit of filing separately.

Another spike occurs in July and August. The reason is that some parents file before the school year starts if they are thinking of relocating and enrolling the kids in a different school district. Summer routines are also important as most parents don’t want to put the children through a painful divorce while they’re at home with nothing to do. Once the school year starts parents are more apt to move forward with filing.

Young Couples Avoid Marriage like the Plague

Published on: December 27, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent report on FoxNews.com, with the share of married adults at an all-time low in the United States, new research by demographers and social scientists at Cornell and the University of Central Oklahoma offers clues about what’s holding back young couples from taking the plunge into marriage.

Through a series of interviews with 122 cohabiting men and women between the ages of 18 and 36, researchers found widespread apprehension about divorce – even in those who have never dealt with it personally. More than two-thirds of those interviewed said they worried about their ability to form enduring marriages. The respondents said that they feared facing the potential social, legal, emotional and economic consequences that come with divorce, or so says a new study published in the December issue of the journal Family Relations.

Co-authors of the study, “The Specter of Divorce: Views From Working- and Middle-Class Cohabitors,” were lead author Amanda J. Miller, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Central Oklahoma, and Dela Kusi-Appouh, a Cornell doctoral student in the field of development sociology.

The researchers interviewed 61 couples in the Columbus, Ohio region who were living with their partners for at least three months. Nearly 67% of the interviewees expressed concern about divorce. The most frequently discussed worry was a desire to “do it right” and marry only once. This led many to view living together as a kind of “test-drive” before making the big decision. The idea that marriage was a permanent choice and difficult to exit was mentioned frequently as an impediment. Fears of causing emotional pain, embarrassment, child custody issues along with legal and financial problems were also frequently mentioned by respondents.

Many of those interviewed suggested that the rewards of marriage were not worth the risk of a potential breakup. The high divorce rates were cited as proof of this with many saying the cohabitation was working well and saw no reason to fix what wasn’t broken.

Marriage May Be Down, But Don’t Count It Out Yet

Published on: December 22, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article by the Associated Press, couples are becoming increasingly less likely to tie the knot. One recently single woman described what is the both the benefit and the burden of cohabitation: “You start to see how people handle confrontation, financial realities, challenges, the housework load. If we had been married we would have been divorced, or fully on our way.”

Heading into 2012, barely half of all adults in the United States are married, and the median age at the time of a first marriage has never been higher – a hair over 26-years-old for women and nearly 29 for men.

By way of comparison, in 1960, the number of adults married was dramatically higher, a full 72 percent. By the year 2000, that number had fallen to 57 percent and today is only slightly higher than half at 51 percent, according to the Pew Research Center.

Experts believe the percentage of married adults could dip below 50 percent for the first time in a matter of a few years as the number of younger couples and single parents continues to grow. From just 2009 to 2010 the number of new marriages in the U.S. fell steeply, by 5 percent. While this drop may be partially attributed to the economy, the larger trend still holds true, fewer people are walking down the aisle.

Though the decline in marriage rates is widespread, it is especially prevalent among young adults. Nearly three out of every five people between 18 and 29 were married in 1960. Today it’s one in five.

Another dramatic marriage statistic relates to education levels. According to Pew Research, nearly two-thirds of all adults with college degrees, or 64 percent, are married, compared with only 47 percent of those with high school degrees or less. In 1960, college grads and those who had not gone beyond high school were equally likely to be married.

Race also impacts the likelihood of tying the knot. Pew found that 55 percent of whites are married compared to 48 percent of Hispanics and only 31 percent of blacks.

Though marriage may be down, it’s too early to count it out. Stephanie Coontz, who wrote “Marriage: A History” and teaches family studies at Evergreen State University said that she thinks “marriage is perceived as a very desirable good but no longer a necessity.” Backing this thought up another Pew survey found that while nearly 40 percent of respondents said marriage is becoming obsolete, 61 percent of those who were not married would like to be someday.

Baby Boomers in North Carolina Increasingly Decide to Call It Quits

Published on: December 20, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent report by the AARP, while the overall divorce rate in the U.S. has declined, divorce among those between the ages of 50 and 64 has spiked. What was once an oddity has now become commonplace.

“Historically we thought, ‘Older people, they don’t get divorced,'” said Susan L. Brown, co-director of the National Center for Family & Marriage Research at Bowling Green University in Ohio. “Now one in four people getting divorced is over the age of 50. In 1990, it was less than one in 10.” Such a huge change has intrigued researchers who are seeking to find out what led to the shift.

The divorce rate for those 50 to 64 increased from 6.9 divorces per 1,000 marriages in 1990 to 12.6 in 2009. At the same time, the overall divorce rate dropped from 18.95 to 17.92.

Researchers have said that the increase in divorce rates among older couples is because of the life transition that takes place upon retirement. Retired couples often face difficulties adjusting to life without children in the house and a busy career to keep them occupied. Retirement especially hits marriages hard as spouses who once defined themselves by what they did now are forced to find new meaning in their lives. Meanwhile, spouses used to being alone most of the day must adjust to having somebody else around.

If one or both of the spouses experienced divorce in the past, they are more at risk for a future divorce later in life, Brown said. The numbers speak for themselves; the divorce rate for aging baby boomers is twice as high for those who were previously divorced than those who were on their first marriage.

Unique issues arise for late in life divorcees. For those looking to remarry in their golden years, the pool of potential mates increases for men because the ratio of women to men increases with age. For women, however, it becomes harder to find a husband. Divorces late in life can also be financially devastating, with the woman typically qualifying for half the man’s retirement savings. Remarriage also raises concerns over estates and inheritances among the couple’s children from previous marriages.

Debt and Divorce in Charlotte, North Carolina

Published on: December 15, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent advice column on FoxBusiness.com, post-divorce debt is one crucial issue often ignored by parties in the aftermath of a divorce. Many mistakenly believe that everything has been resolved by the divorce decree. However, some unfortunate divorcees have discovered that things are not always so simple.

According to former bankruptcy judge and current attorney R. Glen Ayers, “Most divorce decrees allocate liabilities for pre-divorce obligations between the former spouses. So, the husband agrees or is ordered to pay certain credit card obligations and similar debts. The wife may agree or be ordered to pay a car note or some other debts. While the divorce decree may allocate responsibility between the spouses, that decree does not release either spouse from the obligation to the creditor.”

The fact is that even if a settlement agreement lays out who is to pay what debt, it does not mean that the other party is legally released from the formerly joint obligation. If the spouse responsible for making the payments falls behind, then the other spouse remains liable to the creditors, regardless of what the divorce decree says.

The Federal Trade Commission’s website contains advice for anyone considering divorce, saying to pay special attention to the status of your credit accounts. If you maintain any joint accounts with your ex-spouse, it’s critical that you continue making regular payments so that your credit score won’t suffer. As long as there’s a balance on a joint account, you both remain legally responsible for it.

If you do decide to divorce, a skilled North Carolina family law attorney would suggest that you close joint accounts or accounts where your former spouse is listed as an authorized user. You might also consider approaching the creditor directly and ask that they convert the account to an individual account.

Divorce and Sharia Law in North Carolina

Published on: December 13, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article in the Beaufort Observer, the North Carolina Court of Appeals this week handed down a somewhat surprising decision concerning Islamic Sharia Law. The Court of Appeals decided to grant an annulment to a man on the grounds of bigamy. The husband argued that his marriage of 12 years (and resulting in three children) was null and void because the wife was previously been married according to Sharia Law and that earlier marriage was never properly dissolved.

The North Carolina Court held that the wife’s first marriage was legal despite there being no marriage certificate and it not being performed by an imam or other licensed minister. Because no legal process to void the first marriage was ever undertaken, the Islamic wedding ceremony was upheld as an official legal marriage. Because the first marriage was deemed legal, the wife was already married when she met her second husband and that second marriage thus became null and void.

The decision was a split 2-1 decision which means it is appealable to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The woman in question is looking for assistance finding an attorney because she cannot afford to appeal at the moment.

The recent decision is both interesting and important. The decision upheld Sharia Law by legitimizing an Islamic marriage ceremony that was nothing more than one man pronouncing two individuals husband and wife. No marriage license was involved, no official minister. Yet the actions were condoned by the North Carolina Court of Appeals when they upheld the validity of the first marriage by granting an annulment for the second.

The wife in the case argued that she was divorced when she entered into her second marriage because she had complied with Islamic law for dissolving a marriage. Bizarrely, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument (the exact one they accepted from the husband). On one hand, the Court decided to enforce a religiously-based marriage that did not meet the legal requirements of marriage, while on the other hand the Court refused to accept the religiously-based divorce, instead requiring a civil termination.

Custody of Children Taken from Parents who Gave Nazi Names

Published on: November 24, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent report, the parents who gave their three children Nazi monikers have had their children taken away from them by the Department of Youth and Family Services. There appears to be a significant dispute about the basis for having the minor children taken from their parents. These three children each have Nazi style names. In fact, the family gained national attention when they went to the grocery store to get a birthday cake for their son, Adolf Hitler. The clerk at the cake counter apparently would not put the child’s name on the cake and reported the situation to authorities.

The interesting issue here, aside from the unique names of the children, is why were the children taking from their parents in the first place? While most of us would not choose to name our son “Adolf Hilter,” surely, no one wants to live in a society where the government can swoop in and take children away because it does not approve of the names of the children, do they? What if the government were to begin publishing a list of names which are forbidden? Or worse, what if it began publishing a list of acceptable child names?

There appears to be a significant disconnect here with respect to why the children were taken away from their parents. According to one source noted in the article, the children were taken away from their parents because there was evidence of domestic violence in the household. Candidly, this seems rather farfetched to this writer. Even if there were an incident of domestic violence, would that justify the government taking these children away from their parents? Indeed, one might wonder if there are enough foster homes in Mecklenburg County to house all of the children whose parents may have had an incident (isolated or otherwise) of domestic violence. The “domestic violence” angle seems to be a rather weak red herring.

What seems more likely is exactly what the Court of Appeals seems to have found: that there is no legitimate reason why the children were taken away from their parents. Or, more precisely, that the children were taken away from their parents because somebody did not like how these parents chose to name their children. What about these parents’ constitutional right to parent their children? What about these parents’ constitutional right to free speech?

Of course, as we all know, very little is black and white and there probably is no easy answer to this question. As much as it might seem Un-American to take someone’s son away from them for naming him “Adolf Hitler” (how ironic!), there does seem to be a counter argument. Might it be argued by the government that the act of naming a child “Adolf Hitler” is, in and of itself, a form of child abuse? Indeed, one might imagine that this child will suffer years of otherwise unlikely attention and, maybe, ridicule, scorn and taunting. What if little Adolf were to be a big time basketball player? What would the fans chant while he is on the free throw line? We all know how heartless and unthinking children and adolescents can be at times.

While this may be an extreme case, the notion of the government taking children away because they are not given “acceptable” names seems to be a very slippery slope. Who decides if a name is acceptable? By what standards is it determined whether a name is acceptable or not acceptable? Is the government to publish a list of acceptable and unacceptable names? Is a parent to get prior approval before putting a name on the birth certificate?

As a parent, moms and dads have a tremendous amount of responsibility for the wellbeing and development of their child. Decisions which moms and dads make every day have a huge impact on the upbringing and advancement of their children. Such decisions affect whether the child will be a good student, whether they will respect authority and the law, whether they will have a good work ethic. Even decisions as seemingly innocuous as how to have the child’s hair styled or what the child is to eat for dinner are within the parents’ discretion and can have an impact on the child.

Divorce Lawyers for Dads – Worthwhile or a Slick Marketing Campaign?

Published on: November 22, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

You have probably seen the “BIG D” divorce lawyer commercials on The Golf Channel or maybe on ESPN. They seem to run on channels that men would generally watch and they tug at the heartstrings of men going through, or potentially going through, a legal separation or divorce. The “BIG D” is omnipresent in the lives of the men portrayed in the commercial while a gentleman with a soft southern accent does a moving voiceover. The commercial makes reference to a dad’s perspective in child custody matters as well as illustrating how divorce can affect his financial position (apparently alluding to post separation support, alimony, child support or equitable distribution matters).

Alas, a “nationwide domestic law firm” from St. Louis, Missouri has set up shop in North Carolina. This law firm markets itself as a divorce law firm for men.

One question, obviously, is whether the “Divorce Lawyers for Dads” focus is an advantage or whether it is just a slick marketing campaign. One may also wonder if it is a good thing to hire a “nationwide domestic law firm” or whether it is better to have a lawyer who is local, with deep roots in the community. Obviously, you need to make these determinations for yourself. But, Fox News Charlotte has done this report:

Adoption and Child Custody Ruling Issued by North Carolina Court of Appeals

Published on: November 17, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the adoption and child custody case of Best v. Gallup, the North Carolina Court of Appeals examined a case involving both an adoption and nonparent child custody. In the adoption and child custody case at bar, mother and “father” were romantically involved and intended to be married. For approximately six (6) years, mother and “father” had custody of, and raised together, the minor child. Prior to marriage, mother adopted the minor child while “father” was in Iraq working. The intention of the parties was for “father” to adopt the minor child after the “father” returned from a job in Iraq and the parties were married. Before “father” returned from Iraq, before the parties were married and before the “father” could formally adopt the minor child, mother broke off the relationship with “father.” “Father” filed a civil lawsuit for child custody against mother.

The trial court dismissed “father’s” action for child custody. The trial court found that it would not be in the best interest of the minor child for said minor child to be cut off from “father” but that mother had not acted contrary to her paramount parental status. The trial court did not actually specify the exact reason for the dismissal of “father’s” child custody action. “Father” appealed and mother did not file any brief in opposition.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded the case back to the trial court for the establishment of a child custody and visitation schedule. The North Carolina Court of Appeals, based on the actual findings of fact by the trial court, reversed the trial court’s determination that mother had not acted contrary to her constitutionally protected status as parent. Rather, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that mother had, in fact, acted contrary to her constitutionally protected status as parent. The North Carolina Court of Appeals found as such based on two particular points. First, it found it compelling that mother had allowed “father” to make decisions relating to the minor child. Second, the North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that mother had brought another person (“father”) into the household for an indefinite period of time with no expectation of that relationship ending. Ultimately, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that “father” was entitled to child custody and/or visitation because mother had acted contrary to her constitutionally protected status as parent and it would be in the minor child’s best interest for “father” to have parenting time.

Grandparent Visitation/Custody Case Reviewed by North Carolina Court of Appeals

Published on: November 15, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the case of Powers v. Wagner, the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered a case where the trial court awarded primary custody of a minor child to the child’s grandparents. As with any grandparent visitation or grandparent custody case, the analysis is very fact specific and it is important to consider all of the relevant facts when considering such a case. Here, the mother and father had a child out of wedlock while they both lived in Florida. Mother and father did not marry. Mother eventually filed an action against father in Florida for paternity and child support. The paternity action determined that father was the biological father of the minor child. Mother also received an order for child support against Father. Importantly, no child custody determination was made in Florida.

Father took the minor child to North Carolina and the minor child lived with the paternal grandparents in North Carolina for an extended period of time. The paternal grandparents were granted temporary child custody of the minor child in September 2009. The paternal grandparents were granted permanent legal and physical custody of the minor child, with a structured visitation schedule for mother, in November 2009. Mother appealed and challenged two issues with respect to this family court opinion. First, mother contended that the trial court erred in finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction. Second, mother contended that the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact supporting its conclusion that mother had acted contrary to her constitutionally protected parental rights.

While the trial court’s order did not explicitly track the language of North Carolina General Statute § 50A-102(7), the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the trial court did make adequate findings of fact to support its conclusion that North Carolina had subject matter jurisdiction over this grandparent custody case. The North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that it is a better practice to for the family trial court to specifically outline its findings of fact pertaining to the “home state” of the minor child, it is not necessary.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed with mother that the trial court did not make adequate findings of fact to support its conclusion that mother had acted contrary to her constitutionally protected parental rights. The North Carolina Court of Appeals considered the recent decisions in Bozeman (discussed herein at North Carolina Supreme Court Considering Same-Sex Adoption, Same Sex Adoption without Same Sex Marriage? and Same Sex – Second Parent Adoption Case Decided by North Carolina Supreme Court) and Price to illustrate the importance of the trial court analyzing the intent of the parent who is alleged to have acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected parental rights. Specifically, the trial court is required to consider the parent’s intention with respect to the relationship between the minor child and the third-party (in this case the paternal grandparents) when the relationship begins and as it develops.