A divorce can provide many opportunities for credit destruction. The mere act of setting up two households can place a huge strain on finances not to mention extortionate levels of child support or alimony ordered by the court (I was ordered to pay 90% of my income in “temporary” support orders). 

On the other hand, there are also vindictive attacks on your credit. In Nevada, your assets and liabilities remain community property until the divorce decree is signed by the judge. Thus, your soon-to-be-ex wife can rack up debts, clear out bank accounts, and not pay bills – damaging the credit of both of you. Nevada has a provision for a “joint preliminary injunction” that orders both parties to not accrue debt. However, these orders can and do get violated all the time. 

My ex-wife has also used a creative ploy of not paying the co-pays for medical visits involving my children. The bills get sent to her address but I am the ‘guarantor’ on the health insurance policy. So when the bill goes to collections, the collection agency holds me responsible for the unpaid $15 bill that I have never seen. Two of these collections in the last six months have seen my FICO score plunge by 80 points. 

The solution is to file a motion seeking a) damages for credit destruction and b) a court ordered deletion notice to remove the negative information. While courts may find it difficult to quantify the damages (although services are springing up offering to value the effect of lost credit), they have an easier time of issuing a deletion notice that instructs the credit agencies to remove the offending information.

I was particularly impressed by three aspects of the interview:

1) The way that Alec dodged traps (by explicitly stating that he does not support abusers or deadbeat dads for instance) and by calling out Diane Sawyer several times on her attitude “What, you don’t believe what I saying?”  (about judges being corrupt and inefficient).

2) Alec also apparently took time outs when he began to get heated in the interview (and what was up with the hot room – was it premeditated to make him look flustered and “hot under the collar”?)

3) How he managed to slip sound bites into the interview (like judges in the divorce industry being like pit bosses at a Vegas casino keeping people at the tables). The latter point echoing many of the same observations I have made on this blog (here and here for instance).  

I think he has also done great service in bringing the debate on parental alienation into the public spotlight. I am looking forward to purchasing a copy of Alec’s book when it is released on Tuesday.

The bottom line is:

“if you hurt someone or threaten to hurt someone via actions or words (so that they had a reasonable fear of the threat being carried out) then you are guilty of domestic violence…Naturally, any case will be strengthened if there is more evidence than he said/she said testimony. Medical records, police reports, a criminal record, and witnesses all strengthen a case.”

A good rule of thumb is that if it comes down to “he said/she said” you will most likely lose – perhaps even finding that SHE gets a protection order awarded against YOU. At the very least, you should fully expect her to claim that YOU assaulted her (and self-inflicted wounds are not uncommon). This post is highly recommended to give you the correct state of mind on these matters. Good luck!

The head of the Virginia bar association is concerned because Virginia, which once had the highest percentage of lawyer-legislators in America, now ranks behind New York and Massachusetts and on par with New Jersey. Although I am a lawyer myself, I view this as cause for celebration, because the more lawyers are in a state legislature, the more unfair a state’s divorce laws tend to be, and the more anti-business they tend to be. The states with the weirdest, most lawyer-intensive divorce laws are New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts — states with lawyer-heavy legislatures. (Given the ideology of my classmates at Harvard Law School, this doesn’t surprise me).

Hans goes on to explore many freakish or bizarre cases that invite on-going litigation in a number of lawyer-heavy states.

Both sides have been encouraged to dig up as much dirt on the other as possible and the lawyers are looking forward to a “big trial”. Exactly how is this in the children’s best interests? This is a system seriously out of control.

A parenting coordinator is a licensed family therapist whose duties are to: 1) educate parents on communication and the damage that conflict does to children, 2) monitor compliance with custody agreements and 3) arbitrate disputes. The latter is the most controversial. The parenting coordinator will listen to both sides of the case and then make recommendations for resolving issues. However, unlike traditional therapy, these recommendations are passed on to the court – they are not privileged or confidential. The parents are also asked to sign an agreement to be bound by the coordinator’s recommendations unless they are over-turned by the court.

At $150 an hour (split 50:50 by the parties) the use of a parenting coordinator is considerably cheaper than using lawyers for litigation in court. It also frees up the court’s time that would otherwise be spent on relatively trivial issues.

As I approach my first parenting coordinator (PC) experience I am cautiously optimistic. The PC will have more time to listen to both sides of the case (unlike the judge) and will hopefully call my ex-wife on some of her destructive behavior. I will reserve my doubts until I can report back later on the experience.

Michael writes:

All parents—absent a finding of true harm—should have an absolute right to 50 percent custody of their children. Such a system—stripped of incentives to battle for more—would largely eliminate the harms just noted. Sure, there will be some inconvenience to the children. But children are inconvenienced all the time in intact families, and they survive just fine without the State butting in. Some kids have to get up early to milk the cows. Some have to bicycle miles to high school. Some are put in daycare. We don’t make huge issues of those “difficulties” when the parents are together … why should we do so when the parents are apart? Life comes with good and bad times—that’s part of growing up. Most parents—treated fairly, and left with the equality the Constitution mandates—will always be far more capable of, and dedicated to, ensuring what’s “best” for their children than any combination of judges, attorneys, and “experts.” Until real evidence is provided that the benefits of the current approach outweigh its costs, we should simply value the diversity of parenting styles, respect parental rights, and stop causing conflict.

I highly recommend reading the entire article. Bravo, Michael!

1) Presumption of shared parenting

Much time is wasted in court trying to win sole or primary custody and “prove” that the other parent is not worthy. A presumption of shared parenting awards 50% custody to each parent. Studies have shown that children do better with both parents in their lives. Any parent wanting to challenge the shared parenting must prove (beyond the balance of probabilities) that the other parent is unfit. This change would certainly reduce conflict and litigation but more importantly not cause the court to “choose” which parent is better.

2) Alimony formula

Unlike child support, the current system provides “factors” to determine alimony but no formula.  A formula has been proposed (called the Tonopah formula) but it has not been adopted by the Supreme Court. Establishing a formula provides more certainty and reduces litigation over the relevant “factors” and how to weight them. Fighting over child support and alimony are the two greatest areas of litigation and cost in the family law system today.

3) Revised child support formula

The current child support formula is based solely on the non-custodial’s parent income with the opportunity for the judge to make adjustments or offsets for various circumstances. If a shared parenting model is adopted then the formula will need to be adjusted to take both parents incomes into account. Ideally, child support should be based on the actual cost of raising a child and a formula used to determine how that cost should be divided between the parents. Many jurisdictions adopt an income-share model where the cost is split in proportion to income. Child support should not be a hidden form of alimony or welfare for custodial parents. 

Payments should also respond flexibly (and sympathetically) to a  loss of job or income. You should not face jail time or punitive arrears because of factors beyond your control. Reductions should be automatic upon application (with supporting documents) and not require a court order.  Reductions can be reviewed in a reasonable time period.

4) Make Temporary Support Orders Appealable

Temporary support orders (payments made for alimony/child support between filing for divorce and receiving a final decree) are currently not appealable in Nevada. This opens them up for abuse by judges who may order lengthy and onerous temporary support to force a settlement. In my case, I was ordered to pay up to 90% of my net income in temporary support with no way of appealing the ruling.

5) Penalties for false reports

The use of protection orders to exclude men from their homes on the basis of domestic violence (DV) has been seen as a legitimate “tactic” by many lawyers.  There is also a presumption that you will lose custody if you have a proven DV incident on your record not to mention the possibility of jail time.  The penalties for making a false report are rarely applied and many judges err on the side of caution in these cases by granting the protection order without additional evidence other than the petitioner’s testimony. To discourage false reports, the law should be changed to provide mandatory penalties for proven cases of false reporting. This would have a chilling effect on those using the tactics inappropriately.

6) End Community Property on Application

Community property ends in Nevada on the filing of the final decree. In some cases, this can be years after the initial petition for divorce. California, on the other hand, ends community property accumulation on the day of filing for divorce. Property, business, and pension accumulations thus end when at least one party signals they want the marriage over. The Nevada system allows a financial benefit for prolonging the case and should be changed. In fact, Nevada courts should allow a bifurcation – granting a divorce and ending community property – almost immediately if the grounds for divorce are met. There is no reason that ongoing litigation over financial and custody issues canot then be worked out later.