Category Archives: Divorce

ARIZONA’S FAMILY COURTS ARE OPEN, AND OPERATING EFFICIENTLY, DESPITE COVID-19

Posted on by

 

In the midst of the pandemic, you may be wondering how your family law matters will be affected by court closures and the constantly changing regulations caused by COVID-19. The Arizona courts are committed to minimizing spread of the virus and creating the safest environment possible while still serving the needs of the community. While family law matters are normally not an exciting part of life, sometimes they are necessary. If you are facing a family issue, such as a divorce or custody matter, a grandparent visitation dispute,  a relocation (move/away) request, or a modification or enforcement case that may need to be handled by the courts, rest assured that the Court’s COVID procedures and modification of in-person requirements will not prevent the work from getting done to help lead to a solution for you and your family. When we meet with you, we will cover all of the major points to help you understand how COVID-19 is impacting the family courts. If you want to check out the guidelines directly from the Arizona Courts here is a link.

The first thing you should know is that the family department will continue to address “essential services” in person. These include applications for orders of protections, contested hearings on orders of protection, motions for temporary emergency orders, and hearings on temporary emergency motions. In person court appearances do require the use of a mask and social distancing. Other court hearings may be held in person at the discretion of the judge.

Although emergency proceedings will continue in person, other matters are equally important. In this new era of Zoom meetings and video-conferences, the court system has adapted its process to be conducted via GoToMeeting. GoToMeeting is a secure platform that allows the judge to interact with the attorneys and the clients in a similar fashion to how they would in person. If you have an early resolution conference, mediation, open negotiations, decree on demand, parenting conference, or even a contested hearing or trial scheduled you can plan to take your video call from the comfort of your home via GoToMeeting. You’ll need to download the app, and although there is sometimes an occasional wifi related glitch, the court system and your attorney will proceed as usual in order to create a meaningful outcome.

In the early weeks of COVID-19, some cases were faced with delays and rescheduling. By now, the courts have managed to get things back on track and proceed as usual. In many instances, the Coronavirus may catapult the Arizona court system into a more modern era of technology. A video conference means dodging the stress of the courtroom, avoiding downtown traffic and parking, and preventing you from having to take unwanted time off from work for in-person court appearances. In the future, some types of court matters may be conducted by phone or video-conference permanently, even after the COVID-19 pandemic has become a thing of the past.

With the recent increase of COVID cases in Arizona, the courts have not determined when things will return to the way they were before. For now, and into the foreseeable future, the courts will operate telephonically and by video-conference as much as possible. But, in the meantime, your family law matter will continue to be a productive and meaningful process until a solution is reached.

 

At the Law Firm of Gary J. Frank P.C., both Gary Frank and attorney Hanna Amar are strong litigators and compassionate counselors. Gary Frank is a Family Law Attorney with over 30 years of experience as a litigator and mediator. He has also acted in the capacity of a Judge Pro Tempore in the Maricopa County Superior Court, and served on the Governor’s Child Abuse Prevention Task Force. Hanna Amar is a highly-skilled attorney with a passion for Family Law and children’s issues. She has extensive courtroom experience, and is also a certified mediator. Hanna is the President of the Young Lawyer’s Division of the Maricopa County Bar Association.  We handle Family Law cases in the areas of divorce, custody (now called “Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time), relocation (move-away), division of property, spousal and child support, modification actions, enforcement actions, grandparent and non-parent rights, and all other matters pertaining to families and children. If you are in need of a consultation, call us today at 602-383-3610; or you can contact us by email through our website at www.garyfranklaw.com.   We look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

 

It Does Not Take Two To Tango — Dealing Personality Disorders

Posted on by

Most people think that a “high-conflict divorce” necessarily involves two people who are angry and unreasonable. But that’s not always the case. When one party to a divorce suffers from a borderline, narcissistic, or other type of personality disorder, he or she can pull the entire family into a “knock-down/drag-out” litigation.  A person with a personality disorder often lacks basic compassion and/or the willingness to compromise for the benefit of the children.  He or she may be driven by revenge or the desire to inflict emotional pain and suffering — and appealing to this person’s sense of reason and logic is of no avail.  This may make it difficult or impossible to negotiate a fair settlement, leaving no alternative but to go to trial.  Our firm brings many different strategies to the table when dealing with an opposing party with a personality disorder. For instance, sending out subpoenas for medical or counseling records will allow us to obtain important information on the person’s physical and psychological background; Drug testing may be warranted if there is a history of drug or alcohol abuse; A deposition can give us great insight into the mind of the person being deposed — it can enable us to obtain admissions of guilt, and it will also give us clues which may lead to other critical information that can be successfully utilized at trial; And the appointment of court experts to conduct interviews, mental health evaluations, or family assessments can prove to be of great value in diagnosing a personality disorder that may not have previously been formally discovered. These are a few of the many strategies we typically employ in high-conflict Family Court litigation involving people who may have personality disorders. If you find yourself in this situation, then you’ll need a strong advocate — an attorney who will fight hard to protect your interests. If you are in need of a consultation, Contact us today.

 

The Law Office of Gary J. Frank has been a fixture in the prestigious Biltmore area of Phoenix, Arizona for over thirty years.  Gary Frank and Hanna Amar are strong Family Law litigators and mediators with a wealth of experience both in the courtroom and in settlement negotiations.  Our firm handles a wide array of cases, such as divorce, custody, relocation, paternity, child and spousal support, division of property and businesses, modification and enforcement actions, grandparent and non-parent rights, same sex divorce and custody, and all matters relating to families and children.  If you are in need of a legal consultation, please do not hesitate to Contact us today.  You can reach us by telephone at 602-383-3610, or by email at [email protected] and [email protected], or through our website at www.garyfranklaw.com.  We’d be honored to help you.

NEW AZ SUPREME COURT CASE RESTORES FAIRNESS TO FAMILY LAW

Posted on by

Thanks to the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Nicaise v. Sundaram the planets are now all aligned and balance has been restored in the world. Ok, maybe this is a little bit of an exaggeration, but not much as far as Arizona Family Law is concerned. Let me explain:

For many years, there has been a trend in the courts (Arizona and many other states) toward awarding divorced and separated parents “joint custody” of their children, and placing responsibility on them to work together in making major decisions affecting the children. Of course, making decisions together isn’t easy, so when problems would arise (on issues like choice of schools, or whether counseling is necessary, etc.) judges were available to hear the dispute and “break the tie” by making a binding decision. In some cases, where parents found it difficult to make decisions, the Court could enter an order awarding the parties joint custody, but giving one of the parents “final say” in the event of a dispute – but even though a parent had “veto power,” she/he was required to consult the other parent and seek their input prior to making the decision. In rare cases, the Court would award one party sole custody, but that tended to be reserved for cases where one of the parents was uninvolved; had a substance abuse problem; committed acts of domestic violence; had a criminal history; or demonstrated poor judgment that rendered them unfit to make decisions that were in the best interests of the children.

But all that changed in 2018 with the Arizona Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Nicaise v. Sundaram. I wrote about it in an August, 2018 blog post. The ruling turned Family Law in Arizona upside down. In that case, the Court of Appeals stated that the Court “may not substitute its judgment for that of a parent and make parenting decisions for them when they are unable to agree.” In other words, the courts no longer had the right to “break the tie” when parents could not agree on important matters such as medical, educational, or religious decisions affecting a child. The Appellate Court in Nicaise also concluded that giving a parent joint custody with “final say,” is the same as giving that parent sole legal decision-making authority.

The effect of the Court of Appeals ruling in Nicaise was profound. It pretty much assured that in every divorce or custody case where the parents were potentially at odds (which is the vast majority of them) the Court would be likely to award sole legal decision-making authority to one of them; or to split up the decision-making authority by giving one parent sole authority to make educational decisions while the other parent would have sole authority to make decisions on other matters, such as medical issues or religion.

In essence, this set up a win-lose battle where one parent would be given unfettered sole-discretion to make important decisions without seeking the other’s input, and leaving the other parent out in the cold. And it would probably result in more high-conflict cases; more contested trials; more fights to modify existing orders; and far more divorce and custody wars being waged in court.

But, thankfully, the Arizona Supreme Court changed all that in January, 2019 with its decision to overturn the Appellate Court ruling in Nicaise v. Sundaram.

The Supreme Court ruling makes much more sense. It noted that when the legislature enacted the law with regard to Joint and Sole Legal Decision-Making, it created a distinction between the two, and carved out an important exception: Whereas Arizona Revised Statutes, Section §25-401(6) gives a person with sole legal decision-making authority the right to make decisions affecting the child, Section §25-401(2) defines joint legal decision-making as both parents sharing decision-making and neither parent’s rights are superior “except with respect to specified decisions as set forth by the court or the parents in the final judgement or order.”  This exception allowed a judge to split the decision-making authority, and/or to award parents joint legal decision-making authority, while giving one parent the “final say” in the event of a disagreement.

The Supreme Court pointed out that someone with joint legal decision-making authority and “final say” is still required to communicate with the other party and seek their input in an attempt to resolve the matter before making the final decision. (This is not the case with sole legal decision-making authority.) Therefore, it held that joint legal decision-making authority with “final say” — and sole legal decision-making authority — are different as a practical matter. It also held that Section §401(2) “also preserves some legal authority for the parent who does not have final legal decision-making authority.” The Court ended its analysis by stating that “Arizona cases frequently provide for joint legal decision-making with one parent having final authority over certain matters . . . The court of appeals’ opinion unnecessarily injects uncertainty into a well-established practice and is inconsistent with the overall structure of §25-401.”

The Court of Appeals 2018 ruling in the Nicaise case threw us back into the dark ages where only one parent could be given “custody” and there would always be a winner and loser in every litigation. The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision to overturn the Court of Appeals case restores balance and fairness to Arizona Family Law. It allows for compromise. And it gives parents respect and a greater right to participate in their children’s upbringing.

 

At the Law Firm of Gary J. Frank P.C., both Gary Frank and attorney Hanna Amar are strong litigators and compassionate counselors. Gary Frank is a Family Law Attorney with over 30 years of experience as a litigator and mediator, which includes having acted in the capacity of a Judge Pro Tempore in the Maricopa County Superior Court, and serving on the Governor’s Child Abuse Prevention Task Force. Hanna Amar is a highly-skilled attorney and mediator with a passion for Family Law and children’s issues – a great communicator who cares about her clients and uses her expertise to guide them through difficult times. We handle Family Law cases in the areas of divorce, custody (now called “Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time), relocation (move-away), grandparent and non-parent rights, division of property, spousal maintenance, child support, modification and enforcement actions, and all other matters pertaining to families and children. If you are in need of a consultation, please do not hesitate to call our office at 602-383-3610; or you can contact us by email [email protected] and [email protected] You can also contact us through our website at www.garyfranklaw.com.   We look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

I WANT A DIVORCE — NOW WHAT?

Posted on by

Going through a divorce can be one of the most difficult times in a person’s life. Making the decision to dissolve your marriage (file for divorce) can be emotionally taxing, especially if there are children involved. The end of a marriage can be also be a confusing situation. Your divorce can include asset protection, child custody and support issues, spousal maintenance, domestic violence, or drug use/abuse. The attorneys at Gary J. Frank P.C. can make it easier for you and your children to go through the divorce process. We represent clients in both contested and uncontested divorce, with children or without children.

The following is some general information about marriage, and the general steps that need to be taken when filing for a divorce.

Covenant vs. Non-covenant

Arizona is a “no-fault” state, meaning that neither party needs to show blame or responsibility for the divorce. This is referred to as a “Non-Covenant” Marriage, and a marriage will be considered a non-covenant marriage unless the parties specify that they are entering into a “Covenant Marriage.” The only question that needs to be answered in a divorce of a Non-Covenant Marriage is whether the marriage is “irretrievably broken” or that there is no chance of the parties reconciling.

A Covenant Marriage is different in that the parties must have the intent to enter into this type of marriage, which should be declared on their application for a marriage license. A Covenant Marriage is also different than a Non-Covenant Marriage because in order for the parties to divorce, someone must be at “fault.” This is important because in a Covenant Marriage, a state court cannot grant your divorce without a reason. This can include adultery, felony, habitual drug or alcohol use, or if both parties agree to a divorce.

How to File for Divorce in Arizona

  • Residency Requirement

In order for a person to file for divorce in Arizona, one or both spouses must have lived in Arizona for at least 90 days. This includes spouses that are members of the Armed Forces and have been stationed in Arizona for at least 90 days.

  • Fill out your forms

In order to initiate your divorce in Arizona, the spouse filing for divorce (the petitioner) will need to file a “Petition for Dissolution of Marriage” with the Clerk of the Superior Court in the county the party resides. The Petition asks the court grant the parties’ divorce, while also entering other orders such as the separation of marital community property, the identification of sole and separate property, and if there are children involved, legal decision making and parenting time orders. This is only the start of the divorce process, and the requests in your petition are usually not considered until evidence and testimony are presented at a trial or evidentiary hearing.

  • Service of Process

Once you file your Petition for Dissolution, you will need to serve the other party (your spouse) with a copy of your documents, which include the Petition, the Summons, and the Preliminary Injunction, and other required documents. There are several methods of service, but the most common are arranging service with a private process server, or having the other party sign an Acceptance of Service, acknowledging that he/she has received the divorce paperwork. The signed Acceptance of Service must then be filed with the clerk of court.

Once the Petition is filed, you have 120 days from the date of filing to serve the other party. If the party is not served within that time frame, your case will be dismissed. Once your spouse is served, he/she will have 20 days to file their Response to your Petition (or 30 days if served out of state). If your spouse is served and fails to file a Response within the applicable time period, then you can apply for a “default judgement.”

  • 60-Day waiting period

The parties (you and your spouse) will have to wait at least 60-days before the Court will enter into any orders. This is otherwise known as the “cooling-off” period. This cooling-off period begins when your spouse is served. For example, even if you and your spouse have agreed on all issues in the divorce and submit a Decree, the Court will not sign it or enter any orders until the 60-day period has lapsed.

  • Decree of Dissolution

The order that finalizes the divorce is called a Decree of Dissolution. This will outline all of the terms of the divorce, including division of property and parenting issues, and each party will be returned to single status. The terms of a Decree of Dissolution can be ordered by the Court after a final trial; or the parties can negotiate their own agreement and submit a Consent Decree of Dissolution of Marriage to the judge for approval. If the parties submit a Consent Decree, and the judge approves and signs it, then they may be able to obtain a final divorce without ever stepping foot in a courtroom.

 

by Hanna Juncaj

The Law Firm of Gary Frank P.C. is an Arizona Family Law firm that has been a fixture in the prestigious Biltmore area of Phoenix, Arizona for over thirty years.  Our attorneys, Gary Frank and Hanna Juncaj, are strong litigators, highly-skilled mediators, and compassionate counselors. We handle divorce and spousal maintenance cases, as well as legal decision-making, parenting time, child support, relocation/move-away, Paternity, Grandparents’ rights and Non-Parents’ rights cases, modification actions, enforcement actions, and all other matters related to Family Law.  If you are in need of a consultation, attorneys Gary and Hanna would love to talk to you.  Please call us today.  You can reach our office at 602-383-3610, or you can contact us by email at through our website.  To learn more about our firm, take a look at our web site at www.garyfranklaw.com.  We’d be happy to help you.

NEW CASE LIMITS JUDGE’S ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR PARENTS

Posted on by

It came on like a silent earthquake. You didn’t see it coming. You never felt it when it hit. But now the foundation of the place where you live has shifted. The cracks in the walls are becoming visible. And nothing will ever be the same.

That is the effect of the 2018 Arizona appellate court case of NICAISE v. SUNDARAM,

Before Nicaise, the Family Court was the final arbiter of disputes over matters like education, medical, religious, or other decisions that parents make. If the parties couldn’t agree on an important parenting issue, one of them could take the matter to court and, after a trial or a hearing, the judge would make the decision for them.

But not anymore.

The Court in Nicaise ruled that a judge “may not substitute its judgment for that of a parent and make parenting decisions for them when they are unable to agree.” So now, when parents disagree, a judge can no longer decide which school a child will attend, or what doctor can treat her, or whether she will participate in therapy, etc. Those are parental decisions, and the Court no longer has the authority to intervene and “break the tie.”

For a number of years, the trend in divorce, legal separation, paternity, and other Family Law cases has been for the courts to award the parents joint legal decision-making authority (formerly called “joint custody”). But the Nicaise case is likely to slow down that trend, or even stop it in its tracks, in cases where people have trouble co-parenting.

Previously, the courts would sometimes enter a joint legal decision-making order, but give one of the parents the “Final-Say” in the event of a disagreement. It required the parents to at least discuss the issue, and each parent had input. But that has changed, too. The Court, in Nicaise, determined that “an award of joint legal decision-making that gives final authority to one parent is, in reality, an award of sole legal decision-making.” So now, if parents cannot seem to agree, then instead of awarding them joint custody with one parent having “final say,” it is likely that the judge will simply award one parent sole legal decision-making authority. This might make the other parent feel as though his or her parental rights have been stripped away. And it could set the stage for less co-parenting, and more fighting, in the future.

The effect of the Nicaise ruling is that if a mother and father are unable to make decisions together, the Court will have to appoint one parent to make all the decisions; or it might split up the decision-making authority so that, for instance, one parent is in charge of making educational decisions while the other has the authority to make medical decisions.

The Nicaise case represents yet another major shift in how Family Law cases are decided in Arizona. It may take years for the repercussions of that ruling to become clear. But this we do know: There is no longer a reason for a judge to order that the parents have joint legal decision-making authority with one parent having the final say. And when parents appear to be unable to make decisions together, it is likely that a judge will grant one parent or the other sole legal decision-making authority. This could derail the decades-old trend of Arizona courts giving divorced/separated parents joint decision-making responsibility, and expecting them to be able to co-parent.

How will the Nicaise ruling play out in the future? – It may result in pitched court battles between parents, with each of them seeking “sole custody,” and it could turn divorce and custody litigation into a high-conflict, winner-take-all contest. This makes it even more important for moms and dads to try to work together and co-parent effectively. And, where they are unable to do so, it will be worthwhile to consider peaceful options, such as mediation and settlement negotiation. Because if those efforts fail, and litigation becomes the only alternative, it is likely that one parent is going to win, and one parent is going to lose. And sometimes that is not the best outcome for the children.

 

 

At the Law Firm of Gary J. Frank P.C., both Gary Frank and attorney Hanna Juncaj are strong litigators and compassionate counselors. Gary Frank is a Family Law Attorney with over 30 years of experience as a litigator and mediator. He has also acted in the capacity of a Judge Pro Tempore in the Maricopa County Superior Court, and served on the Governor’s Child Abuse Prevention Task Force.  Hanna Juncaj is a highly-skilled attorney with a passion for Family Law and children’s issues. She has extensive courtroom experience, and is also a certified mediator. In addition, Hanna is an active member of her County Bar Association.  We handle Family Law cases in the areas of divorce, custody (now called “Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time), relocation (move-away), division of property, spousal and child support, modification and enforcement actions, grandparent and non-parent rights, and all other matters pertaining to families and children. If you are in need of a consultation, call us today at 602-383-3610; or you can contact us by email through our website at www.garyfranklaw.com.   We look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

 

COHABITATION: IS LIVING TOGETHER OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE PUTTING YOU IN ECONOMIC DANGER?

Posted on by
I have no moral objection to people living together outside of marriage. Heck, I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s. We practically invented the concept of “Cohabitation.”  As someone who has practiced Family Law for decades, I can tell you that a piece of paper does not ensure a lifelong commitment. And countless couples have a loving, lifelong bond even though they have chosen never to marry. The problem is that, after all these years, our lawmakers still haven’t gotten the message. And they fail to recognize that people who choose to share their life without a marriage license should still be able to share their property, and divide it fairly in the event of a breakup. This makes for some pretty unfair, and even economically dangerous, scenarios.
Most people think of marriage as having a moral or religious significance. But what many people don’t realize is that whether we like it or not, marriage also has a legalsignificance. And what you don’t know can hurt you. The fact is that the law provides certain protections for a married spouse that do not exist outside of marriage. And the results can be disastrous following the breakup of an unmarried couple.
Over the years, I have seen instances in which a couple breaks up after years of cohabitation, and one of them walks away with essentially all of the money and property while the other partner comes away with nothing. It’s heartbreaking. A legal marriage would have provided the protection that the vulnerable partner needed. But Arizona provides no protection for a cohabiting couple. Some states (like Texas) recognize “common law marriage.” Arizona does not. Other states (like California) provide some protection in the form of “palimony” (similar to alimony).  Arizona has rejected that theory. The problem is that couples who choose to live together outside of marriage are taking a legal risk when it comes to division of property and financial support.
Here are some of the pitfalls of being an unmarried, cohabiting couple:
COMMUNITY vs. SEPARATE PROPERTY
In Arizona, division of property following a marital breakup is governed by the old Spanish concept of “Community Property” Law. Under this legal concept, there are two kinds of property: Separate Property and Community Property. Following a legal separation or divorce, the husband and wife will each receive his and her separate property, and the community property will be shared equally. But if the parties are not married, there is no “community property.” That means nothing is shared, and the “richer” party – the one who actually purchased the house, the car, the furniture, etc. – may walk away with everything. Here’s why:
Separate Property:  Under Arizona law, separate property is anything a spouse owns before the marriage, and any property that he/she receives during the marriage by specific gift or inheritance. So, for instance, the husband’s old baseball card collection from childhood, or the family heirloom that Wife received as a gift from her grandmother – those things are separate property and will be awarded to the owner in the property division upon dissolution of marriage. If one of the spouses receives an inheritance of money from a grandparent during the marriage, the inheritance is considered separate property so long as it is kept separately or placed in an account in that spouse’s name alone. But if the money is comingled to the point where it can no longer be traced, such as being placed in a joint bank account that is used for salary deposits and payment of bills, it may lose its character as separate property and become “transmuted” (changed) to community property. Separate property also includes any increase that is tied to sale or appreciation of separate property. For example, if a spouse uses her separate funds to buy stock in a company, and the stock increases in value, the increase is considered separate property.

When a marriage is dissolved, the separate property will be identified and awarded to the spouse that it belongs to. All other property belonging to the parties is considered to be community property, and will be divided substantially equally.

However, if the parties are living together but aren’t married, then everything either party earns, buys, or acquires is considered to be the separate property of that person (unless the title is taken in joint tenancy or the acquisition is based on a partnership). There is no community property to be divided.

Community Property: Community property under Arizona law is defined as all property (other than separate property) acquired by either spouse during the marriage.  Under community property theory, each party owns the property equally. This means that whatever a spouse earns from his/her employment is community property, and anything that is purchased with monies earned by either spouse is community property. So, if a spouse cashes a paycheck and uses the money to buy a car, that car is community property and belongs to both spouses equally. If she or he opens a brokerage account using community funds and invests in stocks, bonds, or mutual funds, then that account, and all future growth, is considered to be community property and belongs to both spouses equally. Furniture purchased with community funds is community property. Money contributed to a pension, retirement account, or 401k by one spouse during a marriage is community property and belongs to both spouses 50/50. And if one spouse starts a business during the marriage, that business is also considered to be community property, even if only one spouse runs it.
Over the course of a lengthy marriage, couples can accumulate a large amount of community property. And if the marriage falls apart and the couple divorces, the community property will be divided between the parties essentially equally. This can provide financial security for the spouse who didn’t have the high paying job, or who stayed home and cared for the children while the other spouse acted as the breadwinner.
But here is the potential problem with cohabitation:  If a couple couple lives together but never marries, there will be no “community property” to divide if they later separate — and the law in Arizona does not provide any protection for the “poorer” partner. This can result in a terrible inequity. Imagine a couple who has lived together without marrying for twenty-five years. During that time, one of the partners purchased a business that became a successful and lucrative enterprise. With his earnings, he purchases a massive house in a gated community (which he puts in his own name) and furnishes it beautifully, and he buys expensive automobiles (also in his name alone). He puts money in investment accounts, and retirement accounts (all in his name). He buys life insurance policies, and paintings by famous artists. Finally, he opens a joint account which he places in both partners’ names, but he only deposits a little money each month to cover household expenses.
If the parties were married and filed for divorce under that scenario, then by law everything would be considered community property and would be divided equally. On the other hand, if the parties were not married it becomes an entirely different story. All of the property – the cash in banks, the house, the furniture, the cars, the business, the stocks and investment accounts, the life insurances policies, the valuable works of art – they’re all the separate property of only the one partner. The other partner gets nothing but half of the joint bank account, and there isn’t much money there, since only enough was deposited each month to pay for household expenses. So after all those years of living together as partners in a committed relationship, one party walks away with everything and will live the rest of his or her life in comfort. The other party gets nothing and will suffer financial deprivation.
Spousal Maintenance:
In many committed relationships – whether marital or cohabiting – one of the partners will take on the role of the breadwinner, while the other remains in the home and cares for the children. This allows the partner who is not the caregiver to focus on his/her career; to advance through the ranks of the business world, and increase his/her income and earning power over the years. This type of arrangement can work well, so long as the parents’ relationship lasts.  But what happens if, after 15 or 20 years the relationship deteriorates and parties separate? The working partner might now be earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, with the prospect of further advancement and an even higher income in the future. On the other hand, what becomes of the partner who gave up her/his career for the benefit of the family? That person might now be his/her 50’s, no longer a young up-and-comer. Because she or he jumped off the fast track to care for the kids, the prospect of a lucrative career is now gone, and she/he may be forced to take a job with an entry-level salary. How is that fair?
Arizona law provides protection for a married person under these circumstances. The married spouse who sacrificed for the family will be entitled to financial assistance from the other spouse in the form of Spousal Maintenance. The party with the greater wealth will be ordered to financially support the other party for a sufficient period of time to allow that party to complete an education or begin a career and get on her/his feet. (In rare circumstances, the court can require spousal maintenance be paid for the rest of the former spouse’s life.) In order to determine the amount that the person will receive, and how long the support will continue be paid, the judge will consider a number of factors listed in the statute. The amount of monthly spousal support will be dependent upon the lifestyle the family enjoyed during the marriage, the parties’ comparative incomes, the needs of the party seeking spousal maintenance, and a number of other factors.
But the obligation to pay spousal support only applies when the parties were married. Where parties were unmarried and living together, the richer party has no legal obligation whatsoever to help the poorer party financially after the relationship ends. This lack of legal protection can especially hurt a party who gave up her/his career to stay home and care for the children.
INHERITANCE & SOCIAL SECURITY
If a married person dies without a Will in Arizona, the surviving spouse will receive the entire estate of the deceased spouse.
On the other hand, if a person who is unmarried and cohabiting dies without a Will in Arizona, the scenario is much different. In that case, the deceased person’s property will be distributed by Arizona’s law of intestate succession – and none of it will go to the surviving partner. If the deceased person has children, then the entire estate will go to the children. If there are no children, then all of the dead person’s property will go to his/her parents; and if the parents are no longer alive, then the property will go to deceased person’s siblings. Unless the surviving partner’s name is on the house, or the car, or the bank accounts, the life insurance policy etc., then she/he will receive nothing at all.
There is a similar scenario for Social Security. If a married person dies, his/her spouse will likely receive a Social Security death benefit. But if the two parties are not married, then the surviving partner will receive nothing (although the children could receive a death benefit).
This may all seem unfair – and I agree that it is. But the bottom line is this: Under the current law there are important protections afforded to married couples that are not provided for unmarried couples who are cohabiting. Our lawmakers have turned a blind eye to the reality of relationships today and, at least in Arizona, it is unlikely that they will act to close the gap any time soon.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOURSELF
Obviously, marrying your partner is one way to protect yourself but, for many different reasons, not everyone wants to take that route in life. The good news is that there are other ways to provide protection. These include setting up joint bank accounts and having both partners deposit their paychecks; opening joint investment accounts; putting together your own IRA or retirement account and having the “richer” partner put an equal amount in yours as he/she puts in his/hers; putting your name on the house title, and the car title, in joint tenancy, so that you are half-owner; etc.
You can also protect yourself by entering into a written Domestic Partnership, or other partnership, agreement that spells out the rights of both parties and describes how property will be divided in the event that the relationship ends and the parties separate.

If you are living with a partner in a committed relationship outside of marriage, you owe it to yourself to consider whether you might be economically harmed if the relationship ends today, or even more importantly, twenty years from now.  It could mean the difference between living a comfortable lifestyle after a separation – or having to struggle financially and worry how you’re going to be able to make ends meet.

 

 

At the Law Firm of Gary J. Frank P.C., both Gary Frank and attorney Hanna Juncaj are strong litigators and compassionate counselors. Gary Frank is a Family Law Attorney with over 30 years of experience as a litigator and mediator, which includes having acted in the capacity of a Judge Pro Tempore in the Maricopa County Superior Court; and serving on the Governor’s Child Abuse Prevention Task Force. Hanna Juncaj is a highly-skilled attorney and mediator with a passion for Family Law and children’s issues. We handle Family Law cases in the areas of divorce, custody (now called “Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time), relocation (move-away), division of property, spousal and child support, modification and enforcement actions, grandparent and non-parent rights, and all other matters pertaining to families and children. If you are in need of a consultation, please do not hesitate to call our office at 602-383-3610; or you can contact us by email through our website at www.garyfranklaw.com.   We look forward to hearing from you.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AFFECTS CUSTODY UNDER ARIZONA LAW

Posted on by
Nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV).[1]This equates to more than 10 million victims per year, both women and men.  Domestic violence harms individuals of all ages in physical, emotional, and even economic ways, but what many people don’t know is that it also affects custody of children.
Victims of domestic violence are protected by Arizona’s laws, which provide that all of the following constitutes domestic violence:
·       Sexually assaulting or causing serious physical injury to a family or household member
·     Attempting to sexually assault or cause serious physical injury to a family or household member
·      Making family or household members afraid that they are about to suffer immediate physical injury
·      Engaging in a pattern of abusive behaviors that are serious enough to permit a court to issue a protective order for the victimized parent or child
Acts that qualify as domestic violence can include threats, harassment, intimidation, stalking, unlawful imprisonment, trespassing, damage to property, kidnapping, photographing and secretly watching victims without their consent, physical assault, and many other things.  In our modern society, abuse can also be inflicted through electronic means, including the telephone and Internet.  Those protected under the law include current and former spouses, people who live together or used to live together, people who have a child together, relationships in which one of the partners is pregnant with the other partner’s child, people related by blood or marriage, children, and those who are or were in a romantic or sexual relationship.
Arizona has enacted statutes creating “domestic violence presumptions” in child custody cases, essentially stating that an abuser’s actions and future potential actions would be harmful to the child.  In other words, if the court finds that a parent committed acts of domestic violence against the other parent, then it is akin to abusing the child, and the judge must presume that giving custody to the abuser is not in the child’s best interests.  However, the presumption is “rebuttable,” and the court may decide that the perpetrator has overcome the presumption by evaluating the following factors:
·      Whether the perpetrator proved that being awarded sole or joint custody is in the child’s best interests
·      Whether the perpetrator successfully completed a batterer’s prevention program
·    If applicable, whether the perpetrator successfully completed alcohol or drug abuse counseling ordered by the court
·     Whether the perpetrator successfully completed parenting classes ordered by the court
·    Whether the perpetrator has committed additional acts of domestic violence against anyone else,
In determining which parent should have custody of the child, Arizona judges must consider the best interests of the child, which necessarily involves the contemplation of domestic violence.  Specifically, two of the factors that Arizona judges consider are (1) whether there has been domestic violence or child abuse and (2) whether either parent was convicted of falsely reporting child abuse or neglect.
The bottom line is this:  In Arizona, a parent who is guilty of domestic abuse is less likely to get custody.  In fact, if there is evidence of domestic violence, parents cannot share joint legal custody.  In very serious cases where there is a pattern of child abuse, a petition can be filed asking the court to terminate a parent’s rights.  Termination means that a parent loses all rights to both the physical and legal custody of a child.
The best interests of the child—and the protection of the child—is the Arizona Court’s main priority. Although Arizona has created a presumption that it is harmful to the child, and not in his/her best interest for the perpetrator of domestic violence to have sole or joint legal decision-making authority, some cases still slip through the cracks.  Therefore, if you are a victim of domestic violence, it is important to seek legal advice to better protect yourself and your family.
Jacinda Chen & Gary Frank
      At the Law Firm of Gary J. Frank P.C., both Gary Frank and attorney Hanna Juncaj are strong litigators and compassionate counselors. Gary Frank is a Family Law Attorney with over 30 years of experience as a litigator and mediator, which includes having acted in the capacity of a Judge Pro Tempore in the Maricopa County Superior Court; and serving on the Governor’s Child Abuse Prevention Task Force. Hanna Juncaj is a highly-skilled attorney with a passion for Family Law and children’s issues. We handle Family Law cases in the areas of divorce, custody (now called “Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time), relocation (move-away), division of property, spousal and child support, modification and enforcement actions, grandparent and non-parent rights, and all other matters pertaining to families and children. If you are in need of a consultation, please do not hesitate to call our office at 602-383-3610; or you can contact us by email at [email protected], or through our website at www.garyfranklaw.com.   We look forward to hearing from you.

 

[1]“Statistics.” National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2017. <https://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics>

CO-PARENTING vs. PARALLEL PARENTING – WHICH IS BEST FOR YOU?

Posted on by
In every divorce involving legal decision-making and parenting time issues, parents must strive to keep the needs of the children as their #1 priority.  Children benefit most when they have relationships with both parents and tend to adjust better to divorce when:
·       They have healthy and happy relationships with both of their parents;
·       Parents don’t argue in the presence of their children;
·       Parents don’t place their children in the middle of disputes; and
·       Both parents are responsive to the needs of their children.
CO-PARENTING
“Co-parenting” describes a situation where the parents are not married, cohabitating or in a romantic relationship with one another.  Co-parenting often involves a parenting situation in which two separated or divorced parents communicate and work together to take care of their children.  Co-parenting can also describe a situation where, after a divorce, the child’s parents desire to maintain equal or equivalent responsibility for their children’s upbringing.  When successful, Co-parenting is a wonderful opportunity for children of divorce to still have access to both parents and retain a sense of family dynamic.  To come to a workable co-parenting arrangement, the parents must consider various factors, including:
·  What decisions need to be made? These commonly consist of decisions regarding education, extracurricular activities, medical treatment, sporting and social activities, religion, etc.
·      How will you make the decisions?  Will you meet in person to discuss decisions?  Will you communicate over the phone?  Email?  Text?
·     How will you share schedules?  How flexible do you want to be in scheduling?  When will the children see each of their parents?  What if one parent is late —  how will you deal with this?  Will the schedule remain the same as the children get older?
·     How will you handle discipline? How can you try to be on the same page when it comes to discipline? How will you communicate when a problem arises? Will each parent handle discipline on his and her own? If a child misbehaves at mom’s house, should he be disciplined by both parents or just mom?  If a child misbehaves in class, should she receive discipline from both parents or just the one she is returning home to?
·   What will happen in an emergency?  Have you provided your ex-spouse with all emergency contact information?  Will the parents notify one another before emergency medical treatment?
·      How will you handle disputes? If the parents cannot agree on a disciplinary issue, how will you deal with it? Is there a mutually-trusted family member or a friend who can help you discuss the matter? If the disagreement involves a medical decision, can you ask the doctor for guidance and advice? Or, if the dispute is an especially difficult one, will you seek the help of a professional mediator?
Because parenting involves a substantial number of decisions in all aspects of the child’s life, it is helpful to draw up a chart listing certain decisions and who should make them.  Here’s a brief example:
Who makes decisions regarding:
Mom
Dad
Together
HOUSEHOLD RULES & CHILDCARE
Allowances
Bedtime
Clothing
Grooming
Computer, software, and video game use
Television shows (which shows, what time)
Cell Phone, Computer, & Internet use
Meals
Toys
Handling behavior problems
RESIDENTIAL
Living situation
Transportation
SOCIAL LIFE
Dating
Driving
Friends
Sports & Social Activities
Sharing Cost of Activities
EDUCATION & MORAL TRAINING
Morals, values
Religion
Choice of Schools
Helping with homework
After school care
Extracurricular Activies &
Expense Sharing
HEALTH
Dentist
Doctor
Medication
Major medical issues
Psychological counseling, if applicable
Unfortunately, harmony cannot be achieved in every case despite both parents’ best efforts to cooperate.  When parents are unable to co-parent in a healthy, effective way that is in the best interests of their children — or when one of the parents refuses to cooperate — it can be a source of great conflict and stress for everyone involved. Many studies have found that most children of divorce grow up to be healthy, well-adjusted adults; however, children who are raised in corrosive, high-conflict parental situations are at risk to develop emotional problems that can last a lifetime. Sometimes, divorced or separated parents simply cannot work together, despite all their efforts. When that is the case, they should consider using a technique known as “Parallel Parenting.”
PARALLEL PARENTING
Parallel Parenting is a type of parenting arrangement that is best in situations of high conflict where parents have different parenting styles and can’t see eye-to-eye on even the most basic issues.  It is a form of co-parenting where a mother and father reduce the level of conflict through disengagement.  Specifically, they have limited direct contact with each other. And when they do communicate, it takes place in a more structured manner, such as through email.  Each parent sets rules for his/her own household (bedtimes, homework, TV or computer times, discipline, etc.), without concern that they may be different than the rules that are in place in the other parent’s household.  Some principles to keep in mind include:
·       Parents must never use their children as messengers to communicate back and forth;
·       All communication must be business-like in nature and relate to information relevant only to the children’s well-being;
·       Schedules should be shared via a calendar or in writing;
·       No changes to the parenting-time schedule should be made without written agreement.
Parallel parenting, if done the right way, can provide children of divorce or separation with the same sense of fulfillment and happiness as a healthy co-parenting relationship.  Because parallel parenting is normally employed when parents disagree with one another to the point that they cannot communicate effectively, those in parallel parenting arrangements should remember that their exes are their children’s parents and, for that reason alone, they deserve respect.  Keeping differences with one’s ex away from the children will open opportunities to move beyond divorce in the future.

 

Whether one decides to co-parent or try out parallel parenting, the main concern should always be what is in the children’sbest interests.

Gary Frank & Jacinda Chen

 

At the Law Firm of Gary J. Frank P.C., both Gary Frank and attorney Hanna Juncaj are strong litigators and compassionate counselors. Gary Frank is a Family Law Attorney with over 30 years of experience as a litigator and mediator, which includes having acted in the capacity of a Judge Pro Tempore in the Maricopa County Superior Court; and serving on the Governor’s Child Abuse Prevention Task Force. Hanna Juncaj is a highly-skilled attorney with a passion for Family Law and children’s issues. We handle Family Law cases in the areas of divorce, custody (now called “Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time), relocation (move-away), division of property, spousal and child support, modification and enforcement actions, grandparent and non-parent rights, and all other matters pertaining to families and children. If you are in need of a consultation, please do not hesitate to call our office at 602-383-3610; or you can contact us by email at [email protected], or through our website at www.garyfranklaw.com.   We look forward to hearing from you.

 

DIVORCE vs. LEGAL SEPARATION – WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

Posted on by
Many clients will ask me “What is the difference between filing for divorce and filing for legal separation?” or “Will filing for legal separation put a stop to our community assets accumulating?” The general answer I give is that filing for divorce and filing for legal separation are fairly similar. However, there are a few distinct, and important, differences that clients need to know before making the decision on which route to take.

Similarities
Whether you file for divorce or for legal separation in Arizona, the marital “community” is terminated and your assets and debts will be divided. In other words, you and your spouse will no longer accumulate community property, regardless of whether you file for divorce or legal separation. Other key similarities between the two paths are that an order for child support and child custody may be entered into, and in some cases, an order for spousal maintenance as well.
If you want to legally separate, you initiate the process by filing a “Petition for Legal Separation” with the court. If you later want to divorce, or if you decide from the beginning that divorce is more appropriate than legal separation, you file a “Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.” Other than the title of the document, the procedure in Arizona for filing a legal separation is identical to filing for divorce.

Differences
One of the following differences between filing for divorce versus filing for legal separation may be the determining factor as to why you would choose one route over the other. Here are some key differences between divorce and legal separation: (1) After you are divorced, your legal status is changed to single, as opposed to legal separation where you remain legally married; (2) You cannot re-marry if you are only legally separated; and (3) Some health insurance plans allow your coverage to continue if you are legally separated but not if you are divorced.
If one party files for legal separation, and the other party files for divorce, the court will combine and convert the legal separation case with the divorce case – basically, if one party wants a divorce, that decision overrides the other party wanting a legal separation.

Lastly, if the parties file for Legal Separation and later decide that they want to divorce, the matter can be converted to a divorce proceeding.

The decision whether to divorce or file for legal separation should be determined not only by your personal goals but also by what you want to accomplish legally.  For instance, if you’d like to stay married but want to divide your property or protect yourself from your spouse’s irresponsible spending; or if you want to separate but find it necessary to remain on your spouse’s health insurance; or if you’re not sure that you want to permanently end your relationship — then a Legal Separation may be the best route.  On the other hand, if your marriage is over and you just want to sever all ties, then a divorce is the way to go.

Hanna Amar is an attorney whose practice is focused exclusively on Family Law.  She is a graduate of Arizona State University and Summit Law School, where she was named the Vice Managing Editor of the prestigious Law Review.  Hanna is dedicated to helping families and children.  She is an attorney who deeply cares about the clients she represents. Check out our website at www.garyfranklaw.com.  If you are in need of a consultation, you can always contact us by email or call our office at 602-383-3610.

Gray Divorce – How to Explain the Boom in Boomer-Divorce?

Posted on by
You’re 50-something, maybe even 60.  You’re contemplating divorce and plagued by numerous dilemmas.  You’re stuck in a marriage with no discernible future but you’re too frightened to venture out into the scary world of dating.  Maybe you share too much history with your spouse and it’s almost impossible to think of yourself as being single.  Perhaps you’re unsure whether or not you want to go from living off the income of two to relying on just your own income.
These feelings are not unique to older couples.  In fact, people of all ages struggle with the same dilemmas.  You may be of the opinion that the already negative stigma surrounding divorce is made even worse by your older age.  But the reasons for divorce, whether or not it’s “gray divorce” (late-life divorce), vary from couple to couple.  And divorce at the age of 50 or more is no longer looked upon any differently than divorce at a younger age.
But why does gray divorce happen, and why has it become more common in recent years?  Here are some of the reasons given by experts for the boom in Boomer-divorce:
Longer life expectancy.  In the past, people died at a much younger age.  Reaching age 50 or 60 was less common.  Today, many people are healthy and vibrant beyond their 70’s and 80’s.  Since our life expectancy has increased so significantly, older couples are more frequently considering divorce because, now, age 50 or 60 is no longer too late to start a “new life.”
Change in women’s status.  The increase in women’s rights brought with it a general shift to women feeling more liberated and empowered.  Women today are less afraid to seek out what they want, rather than considering only what is best for their husbands and families.
Wear and tear.  The process that leads to divorce often happens slowly over time.  In other words, issues that started out as small may have slowly but surely eaten away at your relationship.
Age Difference.  Perhaps a larger age difference did not matter at the beginning of your relationship, but has now emerged as an unavoidable issue.  You or your spouse may also go through a “mid-life crisis,” which can break apart a previously stable relationship.  One partner may desire more adventure, while the other may be happy as a home-body.
Boredom.  Older couples are not the only ones who cite boredom as a factor in their divorces.  Even younger couples who are around each other 24/7 can suffer from boredom.  It, therefore, makes sense that older couples would be even more prone to this issue, having spent decades together performing the same routines and putting up with each other’s eccentricities.
Money habits.  Arguing over how to distribute income may eventually lead to divorce.  One spouse may prefer to save for the kids’ activities and college funds, while the other spouse may prefer to travel and spend on the couple itself.  Couples with kids – even adult kids — are undoubtedly more prone to having financially centered arguments than those without.
Sex.  With age comes hormonal changes, especially those related to sex drive.  One partner may desire the same amount of sexual activity as when the couple was younger, while the other partner’s drive may have fallen.  Another possibility is sexual incompatibility that existed at the beginning of the relationship may become more pronounced with age.

 

These are only a few of the many reasons why gray divorce happens.  Our bodies may grow older, but in our minds we remain the same person we’ve always been – and we know that we deserve happiness.  Older couples may be more reluctant to follow through with divorce because so many years of their lives have been invested in the relationship; or out of fear of an uncertain future.  But the fact is that divorce, regardless of age, will be a tough process.  The life-experience and enhanced financial stability that typically comes with older age may actually be an advantage for older couples and, ultimately, a tool to more smoothly navigate through a difficult process.

Gary Frank & Jacinda Chen

Gary Frank is a Family Law Attorney with over 30 years of experience in the areas of domestic relations, divorce, custody, division of property, support, modification and enforcement actions, Grandparents and non-parents rights, and all other matters pertaining to families and children.  Mr. Frank’s experience includes acting in the capacity of a Judge Pro Tempore in the Maricopa County Superior Court; and serving on the Governor’s Child Abuse Prevention Task Force.  If you are in need of a consultation, please do not hesitate to call our office at 602-383-3610; or you can contact us by email at [email protected], or through our website at www.garyfranklaw.com.   We look forward to hearing from you.

Ratings and Reviews