How to Survive The Holidays Without Your Children

HOW TO GET THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS WITHOUT YOUR CHILDREN:
8 Survival Tips for the Non-Custodial Parent


Happy Holidays, everyone! I posted this last year, but due to demand, I am posting it again...

It already hurts a little during the year, but being without your children during the holidays may be downright depressing.

If you have joint custody with alternating holidays, this may be your year without the children. Here is how to make it better.

1. Have Christmas a week, a month early. As with all natural disasters (earthquakes, fires, being without your children!), plan accordingly. If this is an ODD year, and you have your children for Christmas on even years, you will need to celebrate early this year!




Purchase gifts, have a tree, and explain to the children that you are not skipping the celebration just because you don't have them this year. Instead of Christmas without you, they will get TWO Christmases!



2. Get Skype and see them on Christmas! If you are on good terms with your ex (and you should be, especially during the holiday season - REMEMBER THE MEANING OF CHRISTMAS), arrange for the children to see you (and you them) via webcam.



Skype is also particularly useful for grandparents, who always have to share custody of their grandchildren for Christmas. :)

3. Volunteer your blues away! You think your life sucks? Go to the local orphage, where you will find children who don't have parents. They would love to have you. If you have gifts of song or dance - or baking - or just simply being there to hug them, GO AND BE WITH the needy. They will love you. And love is what you need. Google local churches. They'll get you the volunteer A-List.

Here, I just googled it for you. How to Find Volunteer Projects at Christmas Time. Enjoy.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4549189_find-volunteer-projects-christmas-time.html


4. Celebrate your day without children by doing adult things! If you have very young children, this tip is for you. There are some restaurants and resorts that do NOT allow toddlers and babies. Yay! These are for you. Watch a REAL movie without cartoon characters. Get a massage, and then hang out and lounge at the steam room. Enjoy a nice long dinner with your friends without rushing home. Drink a glass of champagne. Listen to music that Elmo doesn't sing.











5. Change your Custody Order. Get together with your ex, and if it's feasible (location, emotion) see if both of you can agree to share the children on this special holiday.


6. Take lots of pictures and videos during your year, and view them every year. It is amazing what a walk down memory lane can do for your mood.

7. Spoil yourself rotten. Pamper. Indulge. Overindulge. You deserve it.

8. Take a trip. A long trip. An international trip with a huge time change. You won't even know you missed them.

The holidays are only a lonely time if you choose to feel that way. If you look around, there are many people who need you in so many ways. You can benefit by turning the focus on others (ah, the true holiday spirit). So many people forget the meaning of Christmas - it is the utmost celebration of the birth of our saviour Jesus Christ, who died to save our wretched souls. Being in the true spirit of Christmas is thinking of others, and forgetting our own selfish needs and desires.

If you cannot find solace in that (and believe me, I can understand why the above is not consoling at all), look to your friends. Being surrounded by other people will magically help you feel better. Remember, it's just this year. Next year, you'll have them again.

Finally, remember, all parents (whether separated, divorced/married, widowed) all eventually deal with not having children for Christmas. Consider it a blessing that you have the opportunity to deal with such a tragedy earlier than later!

For all of you - children, no children, married, single, divorced, widowed, it's complicated - Have a Wonderful Holiday.

Love,

The Law Offices of Kelly Chang

Divorce: Three Times a Charm for Charlie Sheen

It's been a tough week for Charlie Sheen. On Tuesday, the 45-year-old actor was hospitalized after an "adverse" reaction to prescription medication. And on Monday (November 1), the "Two and a Half Men" star and wife Brooke Mueller filed for divorce citing "irreconcilable differences."

Back in May, Sheen and Mueller signed a 43-page settlement that divided all their assets and settled a child custody agreement. According to documents obtained by TMZ, the couple are seeking joint custody of their twins, Bob and Max.

In addition to physical custody, Mueller will receive $55,000 a month in child support. That monetary sum must be no less than the amount of support he is obliged to pay for his children with ex-wife Denise Richards, as the document reads, "Under no circumstances shall the child support paid by Charlie for Bob and Max be less than the child support paid by Charlie to Denise Richards for Sam and Lola."

The couple, who married in May 2008, have experienced their share of trouble, including a domestic dispute over Christmas at their home in Aspen, Colorado. Sheen had reportedly threatened Mueller with a knife and was charged with misdemeanor third-degree assault as a result of a plea deal. He later entered rehab "as a preventative measure," according to a statement issued by his publicist.

Divorce Law 101 with Ms. Kelly Chang Rickert

Divorce Law 101 with Ms. Kelly Chang Rickert from Avvo on Vimeo.

Child Custody: Legal Custody vs. Physical Custody

Did you know that, under Georgia law, when you are considering the issue of child custody during a divorce, it is important for you to know the difference between legal custody and physical custody?

Legal custody refers to who gets to decide your child's "legal" issues: e.g. which doctor your kid sees, where your child goes to school, and which church your child attends. On the other hand, physical custody generally involves with which parent will the child primarily "physically" live. In many divorces, a party may have more bargaining flexibility as to legal custody than physical custody. In other words, even though you may want to fight for physical custody, you may be willing to allow your worthless spouse, "Sluggo," to have joint legal custody, (provided you are the final decision maker). Let me explain what this means.

While every situation is different, for many couples going through a divorce, you may choose to allow your spouse, "Sluggo," to have joint legal custody, provided you get to be the final decision maker, in the event of any disagreements about medical, education, or religious issues. In other words, provided you are the final decision maker, you aren't really giving much up, are you? By agreeing to joint legal custody, you are essentially just allowing "Sluggo" to feel better because he gets to have some input and access to school or health information, but, provided you are final decision maker, you would still generally get to make all the important (final) decisions concerning legal issues affecting your child's life. That is why you may be willing to bargain and possibly allow "Sluggo" to have joint legal custody, (with you as final decision maker).

However, you may still choose to draw the line by insisting on being designated the primary physical custodian, in the settlement agreement. Again, the spouse who has primary physical custody is the one with whom the child generally lives, and the one who most likely will get child support.

Again, every situation and every divorce is different. So, it is important for you to discuss your situation, and child custody issues, with your divorce lawyer. But I hope you now see some of the important distinctions between legal custody and primary physical custody! Now, let's just hope "Sluggo" doesn't read this blog, too!

In Re Jackson v. Rowe: Grandparent v. Bio-Mom - Who Wins?

MICHAEL JACKSON'S LEGAL CUSTODY ISSUES





Before we start, here is my ever-proper lawyer disclaimer: without knowing the SPECIFIC details of the custody proceeding, my opinions are merely based on my legal experience. Thus, I am merely speculating and not giving legal advice.

The main issue I see revolving around the guardianship of Jackson's three (3) children (two whose biological mom is Rowe, and the third whose bio-mother is unknown), is grandparent rights v. biological parents rights.

If it were that simple, custody would go to Debbie Rowe. Hands down. Because Bio-Parent always wins over Grandparent (or third party).

Currently, the mainstream case governing grandparent visitation rights is the Supreme Court court case Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). In that case, the unmarried mother and father of two children broke up and father moved out and in with his parents (grampa and gramma Troxel). The children got quite close to Gramma and Grampa during this brief period, and then father committed suicide two years later.

After father died, the mother stepped in and limited Gramma and Grampa Troxel's visitation to once a month. The Troxels decided to fight back and petition the Court for more visits. At that time, the Washington state law had a statute that basically allowed any third party to have visits if the visits were in the "best interests" of the children. So the Court ordered more visitation for Troxels - much more than what the mother wanted.

Mom appealed and won. The Appeals court held that third parties have no standing (that is, no power to challenge) unless there is already a custody proceeding pending. (Basically skirting the issue of whether visitation was lawful.)

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Appeals court, but on different grounds. They said that biological parents have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of due process under the 14th amendment to make decisions for their children. Specifically, "parents have a right to limit visitation of their children with third persons" and between parents and judges, "parents should be the ones to choose whether to expose their children to certain people or ideas".

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. They held that parents have a substantive due process fundamental right under the 14th Amendment to solely make the decisions regarding the care, custody and control of their children and, absent a showing of parental unfitness, the state cannot interfere with those decisions. It was irrelevant whether the children would benefit from more time with their grandparents or that such visitation would be in their “best interests” as the state had no right to interfere in the first instance.

After this ruling, many states have enacted "Troxel" statutes. In California, specific code sections codify California’s strong policy preference for the rights of parents over non-parents:

Family Code 3040 states:
a) Custody should be granted in the following order of preference according to the best interest of the child as provided in Sections 3011 and 3020:

(1) To both parents jointly pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3080) or to either parent. In making an order granting custody to either parent, the court shall consider, among other factors, which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent, consistent with Section 3011 and 3020, and shall not prefer a parent as custodian because of that parent's sex. The court, in its discretion, may require the parents to submit to the court a plan for the implementation of the custody order.

(2) If to neither parent, to the person or persons in whose home the child has been living in a wholesome and stable environment.

(3) To any other person or persons deemed by the court to be suitable and able to provide adequate and proper care and guidance for the child.

(b) This section establishes neither a preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody, but allows the court and the family the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child.

Family Code 3041 states:

a) Before making an order granting custody to a person or persons other than a parent, over the objection of a parent, the court shall make a finding that granting custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child and that granting custody to the nonparent is required to serve the best interest of the child. Allegations that parental custody would be detrimental to the child, other than a statement of that ultimate fact, shall not appear in the pleadings. The court may, in its discretion, exclude the public from the hearing on this issue.

In California, if a custody proceeding is already pending, the non-parent, grandparent, or stepparent, must demonstrate the visitation requested is in the best interest of the minor and that the minor will not suffer detriment if the non-parent visitation request is granted. Under Family Code §3I00, the family law court has discretion to grant “reasonable visitation rights… to any other person [a non-parent] having an interest in the welfare of the child.”

If, however both parents object to visitation by the non-parent, there is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that the requested visitation is not in the child’s best interest.

If one parent passes away, California Family Code §3102 governs, and states,
(a) If either parent of an unemancipated minor child is deceased, the children, siblings, parents, and grandparents of the deceased parent may be granted reasonable visitation with the child during the child's minority upon a finding that the visitation would be in the best interest of the minor child.

(b) In granting visitation pursuant to this section to a person other than a grandparent of the child, the court shall consider the amount of personal contact between the person and the child before the application for the visitation order.

California has its own Troxel case. In Zasueta v. Zasueta (2002), 102 Cal.App.4th 1242, during the divorce, Father committed suicide. Father’s parents petitioned for visitation. Mother opposed the request.

The trial judge (a grandfather himself of seven grandchildren) found Mother unfit based on the fact that she opposed grandparent visitation. Then the trial court, without good reason, held it was in the best interests of all children to see their grandparents, stating among other decidedly inappropriate remarks, that it is the job of all grandparents to “spoil their grandchildren.”

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the trial court’s decision plainly ignored and therefore violated Troxel and violated Mother’s 14th Amendment fundamental right to raise her children, absent unfitness, as she pleases. In conclusion, the Court stated: “At the very least, Troxel teaches that trial courts must resist the temptation to personalize the proceedings and to substitute personal judgments for the decisions made by fit parents regarding visitation.”

SOOOOOO ...where does that leave Michael Jackson's children? Debbie Rowe is the undisputed bio-mom of two children. Under the statutes, her rights would trump Gramma Katherine's rights. The plot thickens, however - because she had previously terminated her parental rights, but the Court then reinstated them in 2006. How will this play out in the facts?

FINALLY, what about Blanket? Rowe is NOT the bio-mom of the third child. Thus, the statutes favoring bio-parents will not apply here. There IS, however, the inclination of courts to keep siblings together.

Ah, what a fascinating life and legacy he left us....

Recession-Proof Marriage?

True love? Or tough times? I've been asked by several people whether my practice is being affected by this rough economy. Luckily - I am fine - but my colleagues have suffered...and here is why...

What God Has Joined Together, Recession Makes Hard to Put Asunder
For Some, the Downturn Keeps Divorce on Ice; Ms. Brewster, Husband Share a House Divided

By JENNIFER LEVITZ
Rhonda Brewster and her husband have decided they don't want to be married to each other anymore. But while they're ready to move on, they still can't move out.

They don't want to sell their home, in Huntsville, Ala., in a down market. They can't afford two households until Ms. Brewster finds steady work. So for now, they are living under the same roof but on separate floors.

The "kids are OK with it." says Ms. Brewster, a 39-year-old freelance writer and stay-at-home mother. "They just know that mommy lives upstairs and daddy lives in the basement."

Unwinding the ties of matrimony is rarely simple or inexpensive, but for many couples, the sour economy is complicating the process further.

Divorce lawyers say many couples are delaying the decision to dissolve marriages and are staying in unpleasant situations for fear of being on their own at a time of economic uncertainty. Others are being forced to live together after the divorce is final for financial convenience. That can strain the emotions and result in awkward negotiations about subjects like dating.

In Nashville, Tenn., Randy and Lori Word jointly filed for divorce in February, after 10 years of marriage, and expect to get a court date this summer. Meanwhile, they continue to share a house while Ms. Word -- who had been a stay-at-home mother in recent years -- tries to find work in marketing. "I don't see jobs out there," she says.

Things are getting a little cramped in the house. Mr. Word, a 36-year-old construction-project manager, keeps his clothes in boxes in the study and sleeps in the living room. "Luckily, we bought a very nice couch two years ago," he says.

Ms. Word, who is 37, works part time as a waitress while she is searching for full-time work. Some nights she returns home from a shift to find Mr. Word in the bed complaining that his back can't take another night on the couch -- and asking her to please sleep in the living room, which she does.

Both say they are actually getting along better now that they are no longer in an emotional marital relationship.

"We're a lot kinder to each other," says Ms. Word, adding, "We're not so offended and bothered by each other." Mr. Word says, "We've actually developed or redeveloped a friendship that I think had gotten lost a little bit."

A May survey by the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts, a national organization for financial professionals who work on divorce cases, found that the recession was delaying divorces, and inspiring "creative divorce solutions" in living arrangements.

"People are saying, 'I've put up with it for the last 10 years, I can put up with it for another year,'" says Gary Nickelson, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. In a poll of 1,600 of its members, the group says, respondents estimated that divorce cases in the six months through March were off 40% from normal levels.

It's still unclear how the recession is affecting divorce rates overall, because of lags in government data. But courts in some major population centers say fewer people have been filing for divorce since the downturn began in late 2007. In New York County 9,349 couples filed for divorce in the first four months of 2009, off 14% from 10,848 in the same period in prerecessionary 2007, according to records from New York State Unified Court System.

In Los Angeles County, divorce filings in the first four months of this year dropped 3%, to 9,048, from the same period last year and are down 9% from the comparable span in 2007, according to records from the Los Angeles Superior Court.

A lull in divorce could be a silver lining in the recession, says Steve Grissom, president of Church Initiative, a Wake Forest, N.C., organization that runs DivorceCare, a national support group. Mr. Grissom says couples who postpone splits may be able to work through problems and reconcile.

Bonnie Hughes, a 51-year-old financial planner, says she developed stomach problems when the real-estate slump turned her marital split into "the divorce that never ends." She and her husband divorced in February 2007, but for financial reasons continued to live together in their house in Chattanooga, Tenn., until the following May. Ms. Hughes moved out, but the ordeal wasn't over. They put the house up for sale, with each planning to use the proceeds to finance the next stages of their lives, Ms. Hughes says, but "it just wasn't selling."

They finally sold in August 2008, after dropping the price by $100,000 to $324,000, which was less than they had paid for the place four years earlier. She used her proceeds to move to Atlanta.

In Alabama, Ms. Brewster and her husband say they are avoiding complications by sticking together even as they plan to part.

The couple decided in March to split after 16 years of marriage. Ms. Brewster has hired a divorce lawyer and says she has been advised to have as little interaction as possible with her husband. Both say reconciliation isn't in the cards.

But to afford two separate households, they either need to sell the house they bought four years ago -- which they don't want to do in a down market -- or wait until Ms. Brewster has steady income.

In the meantime, Ms. Brewster lives on two floors of the house, residing with the couple's two children, plus the family pets: a guinea pig, a squirrel, a dog, two rabbits, two gerbils, five cats and five lizards.

Her husband lives in the finished basement, formerly the family's game room. "We had to take down the pool table so he'd have a place to sleep," she says. He sleeps on an air mattress, and has his own entrance and a full bathroom, though his only cooking equipment is a microwave.
Each calls the other before entering their respective domains; they schedule use of the washer and dryer and negotiate evenings out, Ms. Brewster says.

"He still takes the garbage out and mows the lawn. Sometimes, I will call him and say, 'I know you're eating frozen dinners; I cooked extra, come up,'" Ms. Brewster says. "I try to take the high road in front of the kids. Goodness knows they've seen the bad side of marriage -- the arguing."

Both have resumed dating and have even given each other advice on how to get back into the singles world. Ms. Brewster took the photograph of her husband that he put on match.com, the online dating Web site. On some Saturday nights, she says, they hire a baby sitter so they can both go out, and they share their plans so they won't run into each other.

Their living situation has scared away some potential suitors. "It freaks a lot of them out," says Ms. Brewster. "I tell them upfront: Here's my situation. Eventually I will move on, but I'm not going to do something to mess myself up financially."

Write to Jennifer Levitz at jennifer.levitz@wsj.com

Mel Gibson

Mel Gibson's Divorce Could Be Most Expensive in Hollywood History
By Ken Lee
Originally posted Tuesday April 14, 2009 07:30 AM EDT
Robyn and Mel Gibson Photo by: Steve Granitz Archive / WireImage


Mel Gibson may soon be writing one of the biggest checks of his life – to his wife. With no indication that the estranged couple – who married 28 years ago – had a prenup, Robyn Gibson, 53, is legally entitled in their divorce to half of everything the actor-director-producer earned from their marriage in 1980 to the date of their separation: A fortune estimated at close to $1 billion. "This could easily be one of the biggest divorce settlements in Hollywood history," says Los Angeles family lawyer Lynn Soodik, who's not involved with the case. "Any attorney would advise her to take half."
Surpass Previous RecordsA $500 million settlement would dwarf the current record holders of celebrity divorce: Michael Jordan ponied up $168 million following his 2006 divorce with wife Juanita; Neil Diamond forked over $150 million after his 1994 split with Marcia Murphey; while Steven Spielberg shelled out $100 million following his 1989 divorce from Amy Irving. Among Gibson's estimated assets: More than $600 million grossed by The Passion of the Christ alone, $100-plus million in real estate investments worldwide (he bought an island in Fiji for $15 million in 2004), and $75 million for film and TV projects for which Gibson executive produced. As for film residuals, Gibson, also 53, "would be accountable to pay half for the rest of his days," Soodik says. "If he gets a residual check for Lethal Weapon or Braveheart, half of that check is hers." But don't expect the ex-couple to enter a painful, protracted battle in the courts. "This divorce will probably reach a settlement in a matter of months," Soodik says. "It likely won't be messy since there's enough money to go around." • Reporting by HITHA PRABHAKAR and EUNICE OH

Back to School for Divorcing Parents

A common fight between divorcing parents is WHERE their children will attend school.

For parents with joint legal custody, the most frequent fight usually centers around the convenience of the PARENTS. One party has moved far away; and proceeds to enroll the children in another school, taking away the security of a school they've attended for a long time.

My advice here is the same everywhere - first and foremost, think of the CHILDREN - what are their best interests? Consider their stability - have they attended a certain school district for a while? Do they have good teachers, and friends at school? Remember, divorce is a very unstable event for a child, and a good support system outside of the home (in school) is vital. How do the schools rank in terms of academics? Does it have afterschool care? What are the transportation arrangements - must the children travel long distances in the car?

Custody battles are best resolved between the parties. I will tell you this - attorneys and Judges absolutely HATE meddling with people's custody disputes. I get involved only when one party is simply being unreasonable. Generally, I urge the parties to sit down, get over their animosity towards one another, and work out a good parenting plan.

My website contains a wealth of information on parenting plans, mediation, etc.
http://www.purposedrivenlawyers.com/FamilyLawLibrary.html

Work it out.