Signing a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity is a big deal. Also called a VAP, signing one removes your chance to challenge the paternity of a child with a DNA test. It is a contract, and it can't just be cancelled like a subscription to Netflix. It is important to know this because if you find out later that your woman lied to you, and you're not the baby's father, you've got a tough fight ahead of you.
If you sign a VAP, understand that you only have two years to fight the VAP. And, the only way to overcome the VAP is to hire an attorney, and prove that the contract, the VAP, was signed under duress (a gun held to your head), coercion (she threatened to tell your wife, or your friends something embarassing, and won't do it only if you sign the paper), or fraud (she signed your name on the form, or you can prove she lied to you, without a DNA test).
The VAP has all this information on the bottom of the form. Be sure you understand what you're giving up, and the responsibility that you're taking on before putting your name on a piece of paper that will change your life forever. You have the right to have a DNA test done before signing the form. One can never be too careful.
I Want Joint Custody: Clay, Clinton & Marion County, Illinois
Lots of parents get worked up about custody labels. And that concern is completely understandable because it's your child. In fact, clients often start out saying, "I'm not agreeing to anything but sole custody." Most people believe that joint custody means that the parties have equal time with the children, and no one has to pay child support. But that simply isn't true. Custody labels are just that - labels. It is important to have the proper wording to identify and enforce your parental and visitation rights in your custody agreement.
Make no mistake: it is really difficult to understand that a court "awards" custody of YOUR child, the one you helped raise, and love, and protect with all your heart and soul, to either you, the other parent, or to you both, jointly. That concept is tough for anyone to swallow.
But, the truth is this: there are three levels of custody, and they can be mixed and matched.
Sole custody means that one parent has complete control over the children's education, medical treatment, and religion.
Joint custody means that both parents have the decision making power over the children's education, medical treatment, and religion.
Shared custody (rarely awarded) is when two parents live very near to each other, and the child lives equally at both residences. This means that each parent has a complete room, and all the amenities for the child, and that neither party receives child support.
As I said, this is RARELY awarded for two reasons: 1) the parents must be wealthy to afford the same amenities; and 2) the child will constantly be moving, and will never have one place to call home. That sounds great until you have a teenager who constantly "forgets" and leaves school books at the other parents' home, and realizes this, only at 10:00 p.m., when the other parent is likely already in bed. (And, yes, that really happens.)
Keep in mind that the courts can only award what is labeled "joint custody" or "shared custody" if the parents get along and communicate extremely well. If the two of you have filed motions, or testified that you do not get along, and cannot communicate easily, the court is prohibited from labeling your custody agreement "joint custody."
I have a number of clients who want "joint custody" but cannot talk with their ex without a fight. In that instance, there is no joint parenting agreement, but the terms of the "joint parenting" agreement are written into the Marital Settlement Agreement without using that label. In those cases, one parent is labeled the "primary custodial parent," or "residential custodial parent," while the other parent is labeled the "non-custodial parent."
In these instances, the Marital Settlement Agreement will simply state that one parent is the residential custodian or primary custodian, and identify the other parent as the non-custodial parent. This type of agreement contains all the details to address how the parties will share decisions about the child(ren)'s medical care, religious upbringing, and educational needs.
So, remember: it is just a label. So make sure that your Marital Settlement Agreement identifies and protects your legal rights as a parent. The Agreement must include all the details regarding custody and visitation specific to your case. This is very important to help reduce miscommunication (read: arguments) and confusion (read: police called because of fights over who gets the kid) while raising your child(ren) in two separate households.
Lowering Child Support in Marion County & Clinton County, IL
In today's economy, every dollar counts. This is true whether you're paying child support or receiving it. If you lose your job, or have to take a paycut, be certain that you file a Motion to Modify Child Support. This is VERY important if you're paying child support. Otherwise, if you lose your job, and stop making payments, you can be held in contempt for such a failure, and be ordered to pay your ex's attorney's fees.
Draft up a Motion to Modify Child Support, and state the reason why you need the amount lowered - lost job, took a paycut, or are paid by commissions, and the economy has destroyed your income. You need to provide documents, such as a lay-off notice, or show paychecks to show loss of income. If you've applied for unemployment, be prepared to pay out of that unemployment. Or if you're denied unemployment, be sure to provide that letter to the court, too.
But, here's the problem: if you voluntarily left your job to get out of paying child support, that won't get you off the hook. See, the law in Illinois says that you can be required to pay the amount you are ABLE to make. It takes a little effort, but if your former boss testifies that you just quit, or made comments that you want to get fired so your old lady doesn't get any of your money...... Well, let's just say that kind of speech doesn't typically impress judges.
But, definitely be better safe than sorry. If your income decreases, go to the court before the court comes to you.
Draft up a Motion to Modify Child Support, and state the reason why you need the amount lowered - lost job, took a paycut, or are paid by commissions, and the economy has destroyed your income. You need to provide documents, such as a lay-off notice, or show paychecks to show loss of income. If you've applied for unemployment, be prepared to pay out of that unemployment. Or if you're denied unemployment, be sure to provide that letter to the court, too.
But, here's the problem: if you voluntarily left your job to get out of paying child support, that won't get you off the hook. See, the law in Illinois says that you can be required to pay the amount you are ABLE to make. It takes a little effort, but if your former boss testifies that you just quit, or made comments that you want to get fired so your old lady doesn't get any of your money...... Well, let's just say that kind of speech doesn't typically impress judges.
But, definitely be better safe than sorry. If your income decreases, go to the court before the court comes to you.
It's All About Perspective - Bad Week for Clarence Thomas
I have said it before - as a divorce attorney, I can just "sense" when things aren't right between two people. Maybe it's because I've grown cynical in my job. Maybe I'm just one of those "wacky" people who just "senses" things. (Yeah, it's all right - I've been called weird plenty of times before.) But, it's all about your perspective...
First, his wife calls Anita Hill. Then, his "ex-girlfriend" decides to come from behind the curtains, and tell the world about their five-year affair, as well as his affinity for big-breasted women and pornography. Now, the media reports that his nephew has tried to commit suicide, and had to be restrained and tasered during his hospital admission.
Click here to read others' thoughts on why Ginny Thomas called Anita Hill. Note divorce/marital problems are listed as No. 2. (Yeah, weird people can be right too!)
This is why I tell clients that it's all about perspective. Always remember that when things go bad, it can always get worse. Just be thankful you're not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the middle of a family melt-down, and the media's current
Illinois Domestic Violence Cases - Admissibility of 9-1-1 calls
In a domestic violence case, whether it's an Order of Protection, a Civil No-Contact Order, a Restraining Order, or a criminal charge of domestic violence, admissibility of evidence is important. In particular, officers, dispatchers, and 9-1-1 call tapes can make up a big part of the case, and the testimony.
But, how do you get those tapes into evidence? If the person isn't there to testify about what happened, it's hearsay and it's not admissible. Furthermore, in Crawford v. Davis, 541, U.S. 36, 53-54 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court talked about the inadmissibility of evidence as hearsay when it's "testimonial" or created for the purposes of litigation.
And the argument has been made that 9-1-1 calls are testimonial because they are given by an individual who is being questioned by an agent of law enforcement, i.e., a dispatcher who answers the phone at the police department. However, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), that 9-1-1 calls are not "testimonial" when the person is frantic, is calling for help for an immediate emergency, and is not calmly answering questions put forth by an agent of law enforcement for the purposes of future litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court held that it's one thing to calmly answer questions in an interview, but it's quite another when a person is screaming into the phone for help because someone is trying to hurt them, or someone in their presence. Id.
In Illinois, the First Circuit held that a 9-1-1 call, pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis, did not constitute "testimonial hearsay" when the contact with the dispatcher was volunteered for the purpose of initiating police action or criminal prosecution. People v West, 311 Ill.App.3d 28 (1st Dist. 2005).
Also remember that such testimony can be admissible under the "excited utterance" hearsay exception, as well as the "business records" exception. It can also be admissible under the "past recollection recorded" hearsay exception. In a custody case, or an Order of Protection case, there are few things that sway a judge more than hearing a 9-1-1 call in which a frightened individual is reporting an incident of violence.
But, how do you get those tapes into evidence? If the person isn't there to testify about what happened, it's hearsay and it's not admissible. Furthermore, in Crawford v. Davis, 541, U.S. 36, 53-54 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court talked about the inadmissibility of evidence as hearsay when it's "testimonial" or created for the purposes of litigation.
And the argument has been made that 9-1-1 calls are testimonial because they are given by an individual who is being questioned by an agent of law enforcement, i.e., a dispatcher who answers the phone at the police department. However, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), that 9-1-1 calls are not "testimonial" when the person is frantic, is calling for help for an immediate emergency, and is not calmly answering questions put forth by an agent of law enforcement for the purposes of future litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court held that it's one thing to calmly answer questions in an interview, but it's quite another when a person is screaming into the phone for help because someone is trying to hurt them, or someone in their presence. Id.
In Illinois, the First Circuit held that a 9-1-1 call, pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis, did not constitute "testimonial hearsay" when the contact with the dispatcher was volunteered for the purpose of initiating police action or criminal prosecution. People v West, 311 Ill.App.3d 28 (1st Dist. 2005).
Also remember that such testimony can be admissible under the "excited utterance" hearsay exception, as well as the "business records" exception. It can also be admissible under the "past recollection recorded" hearsay exception. In a custody case, or an Order of Protection case, there are few things that sway a judge more than hearing a 9-1-1 call in which a frightened individual is reporting an incident of violence.
Anita Hill Contacted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' Wife
Ok, everyone knows I'm a divorce attorney. And, I know how to set up a situation to make one party look bad. And, I'll admit when I'm wrong. And, I'll admit I'm not clairvoyant, and I don't have a crystal ball.
But, I do know how people act when a marriage is in trouble. And I see trouble in the Thomas' household.
Click here at the Associated Press site, to see what Justice Thomas' wife did 20 years after the fact. See also here at Above The Law to see other law professionals' opinions on her actions.
But, I do know how people act when a marriage is in trouble. And I see trouble in the Thomas' household.
Click here at the Associated Press site, to see what Justice Thomas' wife did 20 years after the fact. See also here at Above The Law to see other law professionals' opinions on her actions.
Minimize Your Legal Fees: Marion County & Clay County, Illinois
Clients are always concerned about the money it costs to talk to their attorney. But, don't make the mistake of not telling your attorney when you talk to your ex-spouse or your soon-to-be ex-spouse. When your ex's attorney calls your attorney, and talks all about how the two clients are working out a settlement, your attorney is not only going to look like a fool (for being left in the dark) but also now has to do some "fast foot work" to keep from LOOKING like a fool. Your attorney will also be upset with you, and rightfully so.
Yes, it costs to talk to your attorney, but don't make the mistake of paying for an attorney, and not letting them do the job for which they were hired. If you're not going to use your attorney to their fullest ability, then don't hire one.
Two primary rules in dealing with your attorney: (1) don't lie to your attorney. That also means don't try to "hide" anything from your attorney either - omission is the same as a lie to an attorney. And (2) tell your attorney about any conversations with your ex-spouse. The conversation will NEVER sound the same coming from your ex and his/her attorney, rather than the way the conversation took place according to you. If you're not comfortable with doing this with your attorney, perhaps you should re-consider the relationship between you and your attorney.
In my experience, it always costs a client MORE money for me to chase after a client, to find out what happened, after opposing counsel calls me about how the two clients had a long talk, and worked out a settlement. Inevitably, my client didn't work out a deal, but now I have to deal with the fall-out, and what opposing counsel claims happened between the two. It always costs more to put the "cat back in the bag," then never letting the "cat out of the bag" in the first place.
Best Rule: always let your attorney know what's going on between you and your ex-spouse. We attorneys can work cheaper with information than we can with surprise.
Yes, it costs to talk to your attorney, but don't make the mistake of paying for an attorney, and not letting them do the job for which they were hired. If you're not going to use your attorney to their fullest ability, then don't hire one.
Two primary rules in dealing with your attorney: (1) don't lie to your attorney. That also means don't try to "hide" anything from your attorney either - omission is the same as a lie to an attorney. And (2) tell your attorney about any conversations with your ex-spouse. The conversation will NEVER sound the same coming from your ex and his/her attorney, rather than the way the conversation took place according to you. If you're not comfortable with doing this with your attorney, perhaps you should re-consider the relationship between you and your attorney.
In my experience, it always costs a client MORE money for me to chase after a client, to find out what happened, after opposing counsel calls me about how the two clients had a long talk, and worked out a settlement. Inevitably, my client didn't work out a deal, but now I have to deal with the fall-out, and what opposing counsel claims happened between the two. It always costs more to put the "cat back in the bag," then never letting the "cat out of the bag" in the first place.
Best Rule: always let your attorney know what's going on between you and your ex-spouse. We attorneys can work cheaper with information than we can with surprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)