Family Law AdvisorŪ
The Divorce, Alimony, and Custody Reporter
Volume 3 Issue 2
October 1997
Inside This Issue
Book Reviews on Divorce and Children
A recent book entitled “Separating Together” deals with 100 families
with children undergoing divorce in Middlesex County in eastern
Massachusetts.
The authors describe men as men talking about “rights” and women
talking about “responsibilities” associated with divorce.
Men want access to their children and a significant role in raising
them. Women talk about feeling financially and emotionally overwhelmedas single parents.
Although the book was published in 1997, its authors may have missed a
new trend. An increasing number of fathers are primary custodial
parents. According to an article entitled “More Dads Raise Families
without Mom” in the October 3, 1997 edition of “The Wall Street Journal,”
“single-father families are growing at an annual rate of 10%,
while the growth of single-mother families has has leveled off and two
parent families have remained about the same. Altogether, 5% of
families with children under 18 are headed by single fathers today, up
from 1% a generation ago.”
There are no reports of noncustodial mothers talking about violations
of their rights or custodial fathers complaining about overwhelming
responsibilities as single parents. Some observers believe men are
better off financially than women after divorce. Hence, fewer
complaints.
A “must-read” for families in transition is “Growing Up with Divorce”
by Neil Kalter which deals with the psychological impact of custody
and visitation arrangements on children of different ages.
Written by a psychologist, the book is in plain English, free of
jargon. It also rises above the triteness which affects many other
books and publications on divorce..
A handy reference book is "The Divorce Manuel" by Sunny DeVese. The
book describes various psychological stages of divorce with a light
touch and also provides some tips on filling out a budget and advice on
courtroom etiquette. Readers may find all of the material available
from other sources, but its readability and conciseness make it easier
to digest than most.
Alienation of Affections
Yes, you may sue for alienation of affections in some states, but not
in most states. Massachusetts abolished the cause of action years ago.
A cautionary note: even if your state recognizes an alientation of
affections suit, a victory may have no monetary value. In a highly
publicized North Carolina case, the victorious wife felt vindicated, but
remains unpaid by the husband’s penniless girlfriend.
Update on Prenuptial Agreements
Some legal observers believe every couple should have a prenuptial
agreement. Others believe these agreements are only suited for couples
with children from prior marriages.
A recent Boston Globe article (“Don’t Let Headaches Follow a
Heartache,” October 6, 1997) features a woman, Lisa Lally, who wishes
she never signed a prenuptial agreement. Now divorced, Lally believes
her ex-husband defrauded her of a fair share of marital assets when she
signed the prenuptial agreement.
Lally’s situation merely points out the pitfalls of dealing with a
dishonest litigious spouse.
Tip: If you decide to use a prenuptial agreement, be sure you and your
fiancée have sufficient time before the wedding to exchange financial
statements. You should never use the same lawyer.
Enforcing Alimony Awards across State Lines
Collecting alimony across state lines is a daunting experience. A
recent law, called the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”
for short), is designed to make life easier for the collection and
modification of alimony awards. Thirty-four states have enacted the
law. Assuming you and your ex-spouse live in states which adopted
UIFSA, keep these rules in mind:
- Only the state granting alimony in the first instance can
modify or change its alimony order.
- Alimony may be collected in a new state if the alimony
recipient registers the alimony order following all of the
rules under UIFSA.
©1997 LawTek Media Group, LLC
all rights reserved
(This document is considered "advertising" under Supreme Court Rule 3:07)
http://www.divorcenet.com/fla1097.html