Posts

children of divorce

Can we temporarily change our parenting plan by verbal agreement until quarantine is over?

/in , , , , , , /by

children of divorce

Question:

Can we temporarily change our parenting plan by verbal agreement until quarantine is over?

Answer:

I practice law in the state of South Carolina. Unless you live there, I cannot inform you as to the specific laws of your state, but I can give you some general observations on family law issues and how they are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the jurisdiction where I practice.

The answer is yes, and it highly is encouraged that parents be reasonable in attaining such an agreement. It is inevitable that both parties will experience some roadblock that renders their rights short of what is court ordered. Both parents should expect to make concessions for the other to abide by the spirit of the agreement as much as possible. A family court judge undoubtedly will respect the parties and their decisions considering the circumstances.

If you are the parent being asked to make a change in the parenting plan, then you should consider these requests. Keep in mind that your conduct can be scrutinized by a judge if the facts show that you were not being reasonable under the circumstances. It also is important that you make clear to the other parent that the change strictly is intended until such times as things get back to normal. You should be careful in not allowing the other party to misconstrue the change as a new agreement, but rather a temporary agreement.

If you are the parent requesting for a change in the parenting plan, then you should memorialize these communications whether the changes are consented to or not. Memorialized communications can be recorded through text message, email, or any other form of written communication wherein you can justify the other party’s intent. If the changes are not consented to by the other party, then these communications will come in handy when illustrating to a family court judge the conduct of the other parent should you need to go to court in the future. Similarly, these memorialized communications will protect the requesting parent should the other party claim some violation of the Agreement in the future. The bottom line is that written communication is key when communicating with the other parent.

Due to the fact-specific nature of this situation, I would strongly suggest you contact an attorney who handles family law matters in your jurisdiction to see how your state’s laws specifically can help you with this serious situation. This type of attorney should be helpful in providing you specific assistance for your matter. Remember, I am unable to provide you with anything more than tips, so please consult a domestic litigation attorney in your jurisdiction to obtain specific advice as to the laws in your state and how they particularly impact your potential case.

To arrange an initial consultation to discuss divorce rights for men with a Cordell & Cordell attorney, including South Carolina divorce attorney Chris Jacob, contact Cordell & Cordell.

The post Can we temporarily change our parenting plan by verbal agreement until quarantine is over? appeared first on Dads Divorce.

Read More –>

Texas Court Orders Child’s Name Change to Include His Father’s Surname

Texas Court Orders Child’s Name Change to Include His Father’s Surname

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Originally published by Robert Epstein.

By

Under Texas family law, a court may order a child’s name be changed if doing so is in the child’s best interest.  Neither parent is specifically granted the right to name the child under Texas law, but generally a child’s name will not be changed unless the party seeking the change shows a good reason for it.  In a recent case, a mother challenged a court’s order to change the child’s name to include the father’s last name.

The parties appeared to have a good co-parenting relationship.  According to the appeals court’s opinion, the child lived with the mother, but the father had always been a part of his life and assisted financially with his living expenses.  The father’s family was also significantly involved in the child’s life, helping the mother financially and with child care.

The mother had been adopted as a young child.  She grew up in Virginia and moved to Texas when she was 18.  She did not have any family other than her son in Texas.  Due to the distance, the child did not have the same amount of interaction with his mother’s family that he had with his father’s family.

 

The mother testified her surname was her adoptive family’s name.  She also testified it was important for her son to have her surname because he was the only biological relative she knew.  She also said it could help him be connected to “different pieces of himself and his history.” She did not believe having her surname instead of his father’s would have a negative effect on the child.

The father testified he thought a name change would help avoid confusion at places like doctor’s offices.  He also hoped the child would play sports and wanted the child to use the father’s name.

Both parents agreed the child was too young to know his name.  Each also said they would not change their surnames.

The father testified the mother did not give him a choice regarding the child’s name.  He also indicated he believed he did not have a choice with regard to signing the acknowledgement of paternity.  He testified he thought the child would have trouble when he got older if he did not have his father’s last name.  He said he did not know any children who did not use their father’s last name, though the children he knew had parents who were married to each other.

The father’s father testified to what he and his wife had done for the child and his mother.  He also testified that he was very close to the child.  He testified that they did things for the child and his mother because they loved them both.

The trial court found it was in the child’s best interest to change his name to include his father’s last name.  The mother appealed, arguing the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the finding.

In considering whether a name change would be in a child’s best interest, the court considers various nonexclusive factors, including whether it would avoid embarrassment, inconvenience, or confusion for the custodial parent or child, whether the present or potential changed name would be more convenient, how long the current name has been used, how the change affects the child’s bond with the parent or other family members, and whether the parent is trying to alienate the other parent by seeking the change.  Courts do not have to weight each factor equally.

The appeals court found there was little or no evidence that changing the child’s name would have a negative effect on the mother or child.  The appeals court found there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support a finding the change would be in the child’s best interest.  The child was only 14 months old and therefore did not have meaningful attachment to his mother’s name.  He had not started school or been involved in extracurricular activities under his mother’s name.  The child was on the father’s health insurance, so the court found it could be beneficial for medical appointments and billing for the child to have his father’s name.

The appeals court acknowledged the mother was the primary caretaker, but also noted the father and his family were an important part of the child’s life.  The mother’s family was less involved in the child’s daily life due to distance. The appeals court found the father’s last name would better help identify the child with a family unit.  The mother and her family were not from the area and did not have the type of ties to the local community that the father’s family had.  The appeals court found having the father’s name would strengthen the child’s relationship with the community.

Finally, the appeals court found the father was not seeking the change to alienate the mother from the child. There was evidence that the father and his family cared for the mother and expected to continue doing so.

The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s finding that changing the child’s name to include his father’s surname was in the child’s best interest.  The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Sometimes unusual disputes arise in matters relating to children, even if both parents care for each other and want to work together.  If you are facing a dispute involving child custody or other matters relating to your children, an experienced Texas family law attorney can help.  Call McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



Read More –>

Texas parents falsely accused of child abuse seek legislative change in 2021

Texas parents falsely accused of child abuse seek legislative change in 2021

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The committee is discussing the system of checks and balances between DFPS, the judicial system and medical professionals when abuse reports are submitted.

Read More –>

#MiracelsofFaith

Texas Court May Not Make Substantive Change When Clarifying a Custody Order

Texas Court May Not Make Substantive Change When Clarifying a Custody Order

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Originally published by McClure Law Group.

By

Most Texas custody cases are between a child’s parents, but in some cases other family members may be involved.  In a recent case, an uncle challenged a modification of the access and possession terms of a court order related to his brother’s child.  Although the trial court expressed an intention to clarify the original order, the appeals court found it had improperly made a substantive change.

The child’s father is deceased.  In 2016, the father’s brother filed suit to be named as the child’s primary conservator.  The uncle and the mother ultimately reached an agreement, which was incorporated by the court’s order.  The order gave primary possession to the uncle and periodic possession to the mother.  The uncle had the right to request the mother undergo drug testing once a month.  She was required to appear for drug testing at a designated location within 24 hours of the uncle sending notice.  The uncle was prohibited from sending notice Friday through Sunday at 9:00 a.m. If the mother failed to appear within 24 hours, the results would be deemed positive.  If the drug test results were positive or deemed positive, the mother’s periods of possession would be suspended until there was a further court order.

The mother moved to enforce the order a month after it was entered.  She alleged the uncle did not make the child available to her during her time.  She sought criminal and civil contempt, additional periods of possession, and attorney’s fees.  She also asked the court to clarify the original order if it found any part of it was insufficiently specific to be enforced through contempt.

 

The trial court found the terms of the order were not sufficiently specific to be enforced by contempt.  The court added language requiring the uncle provide notice of the drug test “at a reasonable time” and give the mother 24 hours notice to comply. The court found the uncle in violation of the original order by failing to give the child to the mother on two occasions.  It also ordered him to pay $1,500 in attorney’s fees to the mother’s attorney.

The uncle moved for review of the attorney’s fees.  The judge confirmed the award but also specified it would be enforceable as both a debt and as child support.  The uncle appealed, arguing the court had not merely clarified the order but had made substantive changes to the terms.

A court may clarify a previous custody order, but may not generally modify a previous order unless certain conditions are met and the modification is in the child’s best interest.  A clarification cannot make substantive changes to the order.  Although a clarification can correct an error in the original judgment, it can only correct a clerical error, not a judicial error.  The clarification, therefore, cannot correct an error resulting from judicial reasoning.

The appeals court found the original order’s “possession and access terms were specific, non-ambiguous, and could be enforced by contempt.” The order allowed the uncle to request a drug test once a month.  It provided the method of the request and limited the times when he could request it.  The appeals court found the trial court had used judicial reasoning to add the requirement that the uncle send the request within reasonable time that gives the mother 24 hours notice.  The appeals court found the original text was unambiguous so the trial court did not have the authority to clarify.

The original order provided that a level of marijuana higher than 3.66 picograms would be deemed positive, but the modification added language limiting this provision to ingested marijuana. The appeals court found this was a substantive change.  The original order was unambiguous.

The appeals court struck the language purporting to clarify the previous order.

The uncle also argued there was no evidence that the enforcement of the order was necessary for the child’s physical or emotional safety or welfare, which would be required to enforce the attorneys fee award as child support.  The trial court did not find the uncle in contempt or enter a finding that enforcement of the original order was necessary to ensure the child’s health or welfare.  There was no evidence supporting characterizing the fee award as child support so the appeals court struck that portion of the order.

This case serves as a reminder that a Texas trial court’s ability to change a custody order is limited.  The court may not clarify an order by making a substantive change to its provisions, even if those provisions seem unfair.  An experienced Texas custody attorney can help you seek or oppose a clarification or modification of a custody order.  Call McClure Law Group at 214-692-8200 to schedule a consultation.

 

 

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



Read More –>