Category: Family Law

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Goes Down – Copyright Goes Up – U.S. v. Windsor, Supreme Court, No. 12-307, Decided June 26, 2013

Sheppard Mullin 2012

The Supreme Court handed down a far reaching decision throwing out an attempt by Congress to deny the benefits conferred by federal law on same sex couples legally married under state law holding that the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), as so applied, constituted a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons protected by the Fifth Amendment. In so doing, and perhaps without realizing it, the Supreme Court was also writing an important copyright case.

Much of copyright law is devoted to legal protection for intellectual property under a social contract allowing authors to exclusively benefit for a limited time from the fruits of their creative endeavors in exchange for enhancing the marketplace of ideas. The presently effective Copyright Act of 1976, and its predecessors including the Copyright Act of 1909, further establish a mechanism for succession assuring that certain defined classes of individuals, the author’s “statutory heirs”, may continue to enjoy those benefits following the author’s death. These classes generally include the author’s surviving spouse and children and, in certain circumstances, the grandchildren next of kin and/or the author’s executor. Since copyrights are expressly solely a matter of federal law for the federal courts, any such federal benefits would have likely been denied by DOMA had it survived judicial scrutiny.

For example, the renewal copyright provisions allow the recapture of a deceased author’s original term copyright (copyrights secured prior to 1978) by an author’s surviving spouse and children as a class. Should there be no surviving spouse or child, the renewal right passes to the author’s executor, if there is a will, or to the author’s next-of-kin in the absence of a will. Clearly DOMA would have denied the benefits of renewal to a surviving, non-author, gay spouse even though such was legally married under state law. What would instead have happened is that an author’s children (possibly by a first marriage) would have enjoyed the entire renewal copyright to the exclusion of the legal, non-author spouse. It should, in this regard, be noted that, much to the surprise of many estate attorneys even today, the renewal and other copyright privileges flow directly from the statute to the statutory heirs without regard to the author’s plan of testamentary distribution or the state laws of intestacy.

Another example would have been the right of termination of transfers by which the author’s statutory heirs are allowed to serve Notices of Termination on prior transferees. In most cases, the author’s surviving spouse and children must jointly exercise the termination. Of course, if DOMA had survived instead of the non-author gay spouse, the children would have exclusively owned the termination rights with no legal obligation to a possibly disfavored second spouse who might be left with nothing from the estate of his or her devoted marital partner.

Neither of these scenarios will now happen…at least not from a direct application of DOMA to the provisions of the Copyright Act. Instead, the Copyright Act will continue to neutrally apply to all legally married spouses regardless of their sexual orientation.

The children, whatever their feelings may be about their father or mother’s choice of marital partner, should not feel deprived. The Supreme Court had already long ago shown favor to them. In an often forgotten decision, De Sylva v Ballentine, 351 US 570 (1956), the Supreme Court determined that even children born out of wedlock were entitled to the benefits conferred by the copyright laws on “children” as a class. However, the Supreme Court just as clearly stated that identifying who qualified as a “child” was a matter left to the states, hence, entirely consistent with the DOMA ruling. Following, De Sylva, the New York federal appellate court, the Second Circuit, applied the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court to hold that Cathy Yvonne Stone, the out of wedlock daughter of the famous country singer, Hank Williams, was entitled to share the benefits of Williams’ renewal copyrights. Once Alabama state law identified Stone as a legal child, the Copyright Act then extended renewal copyright benefits to her as a member of the federally defined class of “children”. Stone v. Williams, 970 F2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1992).

Trusts and Estates attorneys, however, are not entirely out of business. The DOMA decision leaves substantial need for their services if only to determine the impact on pre-planned and future estates. The Supreme Court, both in De Sylva and Windsor, has made it clear that state law still governs who will be considered a legal spouse or child. In fact, Windsor expressly leaves intact the state law provisions of DOMA. If that were not enough, the Supreme Court’s companion decision, Hollingsworth v Perry, No. 12-144, decided June 26, 2013, leaves in place a determination, under California state law, that same-sex partners could not be denied the benefits of marriage. In short, DOMA is one piece in the same-sex marriage mosaic, but not the final piece…not close to it. Instead, the Windsor and Hollingsworth decisions will only increase the need to carefully examine the impact of state law on the effective and predictable management of literary and artistic estates.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Earlier this morning, in the case of U.S. v. Windsor, the Supreme Court of the United States found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA deprived same-sex couples of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Note that the Windsor decision only applies to Section 3 of DOMA (which previously prohibited same-sex couples from enjoying any benefit under federal law). The decision does not apply to another key provision of DOMA that allows one state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.

In the separate Hollingsworth v. Perry case challenging California’s Proposition 8 (which prohibited same-sex marriages), the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. This ruling has the effect of reinstating the original opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California which found Proposition 8 unconstitutional under California law and prohibited the enforcement of Proposition 8 statewide. As a result, same-sex marriages will resume in California relatively shortly (perhaps in as soon as a month). As widely expected, the Court did not declare a constitutional right to marry in all states.

For more information on these cases and the immediate impact on employee benefit programs, please join our webinar on “DOMA and Proposition 8: Immediate Implications for Employee Benefit Plan Sponsors” scheduled for July 2, 2013.

Article By:

 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Proceeds to Senate Floor, Heated Debate Expected to Follow

GT Law

On June 11th, the U.S. Senate voted to move the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (S. 744), the comprehensive immigration reform bill drafted by the “Gang of Eight,” to the floor for debate, where it is expected to face dozens of amendments in the coming weeks. The final vote to begin debate on the landmark legislation was 84 in favor and 15 against. Below are some of the key issues that this bill faces on its way to a final vote in the Senate:

Border Security: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has signaled support for implementing border security triggers – including a 90% apprehension rate of illegal border crossings – before putting undocumented immigrants on the path to permanent residency. Senator Cornyn’s amendment would also introduce a biometric exit system as well as a nationwide electronic employment eligibility verification program. The measure has already stirred opposition from Democratic senators and immigration advocates, who liken it to a “poison pill” that will indefinitely delay the citizenship prospects of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the United States.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the “Gang of Eight,” has also indicated that he may not be able to support the legislation in its current form without strengthened border security measures. To this end, Senator Rubio and his colleague, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OH) may propose an amendment that would transfer the responsibility for drafting, but not enforcing, a border security plan from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to Congress. Several other drafters of the bill, including Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), expressed a willingness to include border security triggers so long as they are “both achievable and specific.”

Taking a more expansive approach, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) plans to offer an amendment that would require Congress to draft and enforce a border security plan, as well as to vote on border security every year for the first five years after the bill takes effect. Democratic senators and immigration advocates oppose this measure, citing unpredictability and partisanship as future hurdles to implementing a path to citizenship.

Taxes: Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) plans to re-introduce two amendments that would require families to provide a valid Social Security number to receive a child tax credit and deny the earned-income tax credit to immigrants with temporary legal status, respectively. Both measures previously failed in committee on a party-line vote.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is also expected to offer an amendment that would require immigrants to demonstrate that they have paid back taxes and remained current on present obligations as they progress toward citizenship. Senator Hatch may also introduce a measure that would ban immigrants who are legal permanent residents from receiving Affordable Care Act subsidies for five years.

Guns: Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) may offer two amendments restricting access to guns for undocumented immigrants. One of the provisions would eliminate the loophole that allows certain immigrants to purchase firearms, while another would require the Attorney General to alert the Secretary of Homeland Security when an undocumented immigrant or temporary visitor to the U.S. attempts to buy a firearm. Currently, both categories of individuals are legally barred from purchasing firearms.

Same-Sex Benefits: Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is weighing whether to revive an amendment that he reluctantly declined to introduce in committee due to the opposition of his Republican colleagues. The measure would permit U.S. citizens in state-recognized same-sex marriages to apply for permanent residency on behalf of a same-sex spouse, a benefit that is currently afforded to heterosexual couples only.

Article By:

 of

Supreme Court Ruling on Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Could Lead to Refunds of Federal Taxes

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Employers providing benefits for employees’ same-sex spouses may want to consider the availability of federal payroll tax refunds if the Supreme Court of the United States finds Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.  Employers currently must impute income to an employee for the fair market value of benefit coverage for a non-dependent same-sex spouse.  Such imputed income is subject to federal income and payroll taxes, as well as state income taxes in the majority of states.

The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to rule in late June on the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  A ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional will favorably reverse the federal tax treatment of employer-provided benefits for non-dependent same-sex spouses.  Such a reversal may lead to refunds of federal payroll taxes paid by employers and federal income taxes paid by employees on income imputed to employees for same-sex spouse benefit coverage.

Current Law

The Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in United States v. Windsor.  Windsor is a surviving spouse who was required to pay $350,000 in federal estate taxes after her same-sex spouse died—taxes she would not have had to pay if her same-sex marriage that was legally recognized in her home state of New York was also recognized under federal law.  Section 3 of DOMA provides that for all purposes of federal law, the word “marriage” means “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” and the word “spouse” refers “only to a person of the opposite-sex who is a husband or wife.”

Employees who enroll a non-dependent same-sex spouse or partner under an employer-sponsored benefit plan currently must pay federal income taxes on the fair market value of such coverage.  While federal law excludes amounts that an employer pays toward medical, dental or vision benefits for an employee and the employee’s opposite-sex spouse and dependents from the employee’s taxable income, employers that provide these same benefits to employees’ same-sex spouses or partners are required to impute the fair market value of the benefits as income to the employee that is subject to federal income tax, unless the same-sex spouse or partner otherwise qualifies as the employee’s “dependent” as defined for federal income tax purposes.  Employers are required to withhold federal payroll taxes from the imputed amount, including income, Social Security and Medicare taxes.  In addition, employers must pay their share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on the imputed amount, as well as Federal Unemployment Tax Act taxes.  The majority of states follow the federal income tax rules approach and also require employers to impute income on the value of such benefits for state income tax purposes.

Consider Filing a Protective Claim Now

Employers that have imputed income on the fair market value of benefits for employees’ same-sex spouses should consider filing protective FICA tax refund claims and should be poised to change their systems to allow for the future exclusion of benefits provided to same-sex spouses.  Although filing a complete refund claim can be burdensome from an administrative perspective, it is relatively easy for an employer to file a protective claim to preserve the statute of limitations on employment tax refund claims for open years and later file a supplementary claim with necessary employee consents and exact calculations. 

In general, the statute of limitations for tax refund claims is three years.  The due date for the protective claim is three years from April 15 of the calendar year following the year in which the income was imputed to the employee.  For example, for employment taxes paid on income imputed in 2010, a protective claim should be filed by April 15, 2014.  If not filed already, a refund claim cannot be filed with respect to employment taxes paid on income imputed before 2010 as the statute has run for that year.

If an employment tax refund had already been filed and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a notice of claim disallowance, the taxpayer must either bring suit to contest the disallowance within two years after the issuance of the notice or obtain an extension of the time to file such a suit with the IRS—this process can be initiated by filing IRS Form 907, Agreement to Extend the Time to Bring Suit.

Next Steps

Until the Supreme Court rules on Windsor, employers are advised to continue imputing income on the value of benefit coverage for employees’ non-dependent same-sex spouses and partners and to continue withholding and paying federal payroll taxes on the imputed amount.

View “Supreme Court Oral Arguments on DOMA, Proposition 8: Potential Employee Benefit Plan Implications” for more information on the employee benefit plan implications of the Supreme Court’s possible rulings on the constitutionality of DOMA in Windsor and California’s Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination the Focus of EEOC Enforcement Activity

Poyner SpruillSince Congress’ enactment of amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 2008, making it easier to establish disability status under that law, the EEOC has directed more of its attention to claims of pregnancy and disability discrimination and accommodation of pregnancy-related limitations. In its 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan, the Commission identified the investigation and pursuit of this type of claim as a national priority.  This enforcement initiative was recently demonstrated in a lawsuit filed by the EEOC against an employer which allegedly denied accommodations to an employee who suffered from complications arising from her pregnancy. The suit, EEOC v. Engineering Documentation Systems, Inc.,settled for $70,000 before a judgment on the merits was reached. However, the case serves as a reminder to employers that the issue of pregnancy-related disability is now being targeted by the EEOC.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), prohibits discrimination against employees or job applicants on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The EEOC takes the position that Title VII and the PDA require employers to treat pregnant employees in the same manner as other employees with temporary medical conditions. For example, according to the EEOC, if an employer provides leaves of absence or light duty to employees with short-term medical conditions which render those employees unable to work, then an employee unable to work due to her pregnancy must also be afforded the same treatment.1   But Title VII is not the only potentially applicable law in this circumstance. The ADA requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodation” to an employee with an actual (or record of) disability. This raises the question whether a pregnant employee has a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA.

Under the ADA, a disability is defined in part as a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity. Prior to the amendments to the ADA, temporary medical conditions generally were not found by the courts to constitute disabilities, on the grounds that short-term impairments were not “substantially limiting.” However, the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) has led to a more expansive interpretation of the term “disability.” Specifically, the EEOC’s regulations implementing the ADAAA state that an impairment may be substantially limiting of a major life activity, and thus a disability, even if it is of a duration of less than six months. While the EEOC still considers pregnancy itself not to constitute a disability (See EEOC’s “Questions and Answers on the Final Rule Implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008”), it recognizes that certain impairments resulting from pregnancy may be disabilities if they substantially limit a major life activity. As stated on the EEOC’s webpage regarding pregnancy discrimination, this could include short term complications of pregnancy such as gestational diabetes or preeclampsia.

With the possibility that more medical conditions and complications arising from pregnancy will now fall within the definition of disability under the ADAAA, employers must be more cognizant of when an obligation to consider and provide reasonable accommodation to employees with a pregnancy-related disability arises. Such accommodations might include leaves of absence, job reassignment, light duty, or job modifications, unless such accommodations would result in an undue hardship to the employer. It is also imperative that employers engage in the “interactive process” with such employees to identify reasonable accommodation. The failure to take such proactive measures can result in liability for an employer, particularly given that the EEOC is now focused on this area of enforcement.

Article By:

 of

6 Ways Your Marriage Problems Might Be Like The Fiscal Cliff

Rebecca L. Palmer with Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. recently had an article, 6 Ways Your Marriage Problems Might Be Like The Fiscal Cliff, featured in The National Law Review:

Lowndes_logo

It’s been hard to avoid all the talk about the economic “Fiscal Cliff” over the past few months. Going over this cliff means a combination of higher taxes for everyone, cutting vital programs, and the continued deficit funding of expensive entitlements.

Going over the cliff, the analysts say, spells economic disaster.

We often play this same “fast and loose” game with our marriages. We tax the relationship, we cut important programs, and we cheapen spontaneity, love, and generosity by acting like we’re entitled.

As a result, we go over the marriage cliff. We make a wreck of a good thing, and we can even leave the entire relationship broken and in pieces at the bottom. Here are 6 things the fiscal cliff and your marriage cliff have in common:

The entire scenario is avoidable from the get-go:

Elected representatives swear an oath to work on behalf of the people, and married couples promise to put one another first. Revisiting our vows and following through on our promises not only strengthens the relationship, but it avoids the free-fall of schism.

We empty the bank faster than we put capital in:

Both the country and our relationships tend to practice deficit spending. Rather than investing and stocking up emotional capital in terms of kindness, encouragement, love, gentleness, self-sacrifice and self-control, we keep the balance at zero or less via selfishness, unkindness, thoughtlessness, and more.

We cut vital programs:

When was the last time you took your wife on a date? “How to Reinvent Date Night” Don’t cut this, it’s a vital program! Ditto bringing her flowers! When did you last make sure she knew how much you appreciated her? How often do you say, “I love you” during the day? These are all important programs. Cut them, and the slippery slope to the edge of the cliff gets a little steeper every time.

Both parties value themselves more than the relationship:

The idea of government is to work together for the common good. The idea of marriage is to pool our resources and value the relationship ahead of our own agenda. Unfortunately, just like many politicians, we often forget the big picture. Sometimes we even knowingly steer over the cliff just to prove a point. Read more here: 10 Ways to Love Your Wife for Life.

We put our feet on the coffee table, turn on the TV, snap our fingers, and put our hand out for a drink:

Not only that, but we expect sex without offering affection, we leave our dirty laundry on the floor, we act offended if our laundry’s not ironed the next day, we forget to thank our wife for cooking our favorite meal, and we act entitled in so many ways. We forget that marriage is a covenant. A covenant requires all parties involved to nurture the relationship.

The solution lies in sacrifice more than it does in victory:

When we insist on winning, we also insist that someone else lose. When that happens, everyone tends to lose. But when we work for the other person to win, it seems like no one has to lose a thing. Self-sacrificial love is win-win.

© Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA

Final Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Military Leave Regulations Issued

The National Law Review recently published an article by John A. Vering, III, Shelley I. Ericsson, and Michael B. Kass with Armstrong Teasdale regarding FMLA Military Leave:

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

 

The Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued final regulations addressing an amendment to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that requires employers covered by the FMLA to provide certain types of military-related leave. The regulations, which will take effect on March 8, 2013, determine how the provisions  are to be interpreted and implemented. The DOL’s new regulations will require employers to update their FMLA policies, posters and forms and, among other things, change the way they administer family leave for servicemembers caregivers and employees with family members in the military. The text of the Final Rule can be found here: www.dol.gov/WHD/FMLA/2013rule/.

A brief overview of some of the changes in this Final Rule is set forth below. Please take specific note of the new FMLA poster requirement and new forms near the end of this Alert.

Qualifying Exigency Leave

The Final Rule revises regulations dealing with qualifying exigency leave to (a) include eligible employees with family members serving in the regular armed forces in a foreign country; (b) more clearly define what constitutes a qualifying exigency and adds a new qualifying exigency for parental care; and (c) increase the length of time an eligible family member may take for qualifying exigency leave for rest and recuperation from five days up to a maximum of 15 days.

Military Caregiver Leave

With respect to military caregiver leave, the new Rule: (a) specifically defines what conditions constitute a serious injury of illness for a current member of the Armed Forces or a covered veteran, and expands that definition; (b) defines who is a covered veteran; and (c) allows private physicians, outside the military healthcare system, to certify a serious injury or illness, but allows employers to request a second or third opinion if the employer questions the certification of one of these private physicians.

Calculation of Intermittent or Reduced Schedule Leave

The Final Rule also clarifies the calculation of intermittent leave for FMLA purposes to make clear that an employer cannot require that intermittent FMLA leave be taken in increments longer than the shortest period of time that the employer uses to account for use of other forms of leave provided that it is not greater than one hour and provided further that FMLA leave entitlement may not be reduced by more than the amount of leave actually taken.

New FMLA Poster and New Forms Required

The DOL is requiring a new FMLA poster and use of new FMLA forms effective March 8, 2013. A copy of the poster can be found on the DOL’s website and downloaded atwww.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/posters/fmla.htm. DOL has also created at least one new form and revised other key forms (the new form is WH-385-V, and the revised forms include WH-381, WH-384, and WH-385). The following FMLA forms can now be found on the internet atwww.dol.gov/whd/fmla/2013rule/militaryForms.htm:

 Conclusion

The FMLA generally applies to employers who have at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius of a single site of employment. If the FMLA applies to your company, in light of these new regulations, you will want to review and likely revise your written FMLA policies and ensure your compliance going forward.

© Copyright 2013 Armstrong Teasdale LLP

I’m Divorced, Now What?

Recently The National Law Review featured an article, I’m Divorced, Now What?, by Rebecca L. Palmer and Crystal Espinosa Buit of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.:

Lowndes_logo

After you have finally made it through the divorce process and attend the final judgment hearing, the question often becomes, “Now what?”. Once a divorce is finalized, there are still many things that need to be considered. The following are some, but certainly not all, examples:

1. Transferring of Assets.  Often, parties come to an agreement regarding the division of assets and memorialize this in a written settlement agreement.  This document often contemplates who will be receiving certain bank accounts and other assets, and how these transfers are to occur.  In the “calm after the storm” it can be easy to forget that these actions need to occur – i.e. accounts divided and closed, personal property exchanged, and the like. This is important as deadlines by which these actions must be taken are often imposed in the written settlement agreements.  Furthermore, when vehicles are jointly titled, but only one party is receiving the vehicle as part of the equitable distribution of the assets, it is vital to transfer title in order to ensure the non-recipient former spouse no longer remains liable as a co-owner of the vehicle.  As the list of actions concerning distribution of assets can be lengthy, it is advisable to make a detailed “To-Do List” of all items that must be completed by you and/or your former spouse.

2. Taxes. Frequently, the settlement agreements entered into by parties will contemplate issues, including, but not limited to, child support, alimony, and liquidation of certain investments, that impact one or both parties’ taxes.  If a tax attorney and/or financial advisor was not consulted prior to the execution of a settlement agreement, it may be beneficial to meet with such experts to more accurately determine the tax effects set forth therein.

3. Estate Planning. It goes without saying that, after your divorce, you should meet with an estate planning attorney as soon as possible to address any estate planning issues that may have risen as a result of the dissolution of your marriage.

While the foregoing list is not exhaustive, as each divorce proceeding has its own set of unique circumstances, it is a helpful starting place.  Be sure to consider, however, the implications and actions required by any settlement agreement entered into by you in a divorce proceeding.

© Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA

Timesharing and Transportation Portion of a Parenting Plan

The National Law Review recently published an article by Rebecca L. Palmer with Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. regarding Parenting Plans:

Lowndes_logo

ALWAYS be sure to consider who will be dropping off and picking up the minor children when entering into a Parenting Plan.  Remember that it is not necessary for one party to constantly be responsible for the transportation.  In most cases, it is shared.  While the majority of parenting plans take into consideration how the minor children will be transported, when, and by whom, we nevertheless come across agreements that are not specific.

As you determine what is in the children’s and your own best interest, be sure to contemplate the number of times your agreement causes you to come into direct contact with the other parent.   Often times it is beneficial for the parents to drop off and pick up the minor children at school, thereby avoiding the constant interaction the parents would otherwise have. We recommend this whenever possible as it is a “natural transition”.  For example, when school has ended or is beginning, they need to be driven there. This is better than for example the anxiety created in a Sunday night exchange at one of the residences. This said, you may run into issues if the children are involved in extra-curricular activities and their uniforms and equipment need to be transported back and forth to each parents residence so planning ahead is important.

If you are unable to have pick ups and drop offs take place at school, then consider what  other options may be available.  Would you prefer to pick up and drop off at one another’s residence?  Or, do you not feel comfortable with the other parent coming to your residence on a weekly basis.  If not, then maybe you request that  drop offs and pick ups take place at a halfway point, i.e. somewhere fun for the kids where they could be occupied like a McDonalds or somewhere comfortable for them. Regardless of the exchange location, be sure that you are comfortable waiting there if the other party is running late.  For instance, if you are at home and the other parent is dropping off the children to you, then this may be more convenient if that parent is running late versus waiting in a parking lot.

Think this through as your daily life could be effected by the decision you make now!  Keep in mind natural transitions and comfortable places for all involved for the exchange.

This article was co-written by Alisha Cyrus.

© Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA

Grandparent Visitation Rights in Florida; Do They Exist?

The National Law Review recently featured an article, Grandparent Visitation Rights in Florida; Do They Exist?, written by Rebecca L. Palmer and Jenny Kim Sullivan of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.:

 

As a result of Florida’s high population of elderly, and in turn, grandparents, the issue of grandparent visitation rights is often of interest to its residents.  Grandparents can have amazing influence on the children, be extremely helpful to the parents, and  be an extremely important part of the children in Florida’s lives.  That said, this doesn’t give grandparents enforceable legal rights.  The Florida Bar Journal recently published the following article which provides an excellent summary of the evolution of grandparent visitation rights and the current status of the law regarding same.

Read the Florida Bar Journal Article here.

© Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA