A columnist for the Chicago Tribune penned an interesting article this week that raises important questions about the nature of Illinois child custody laws, which resemble similar divorce regulations in states across the country.

In Illinois, child custody is usually determined by taking a fixed percentage of the income of the parent who doesn’t have physical custody of the children. This percentage is raised by a few points for each child that is involved in the divorce.

Typically, a state court will calculate the necessary amount of money that will go to the custodial parent each year, and this is either garnished from the non-custodial parent’s wages or paid in a less invasive manner.

And, while this system has remained in place for years and resembles child custody norms across the country, it is not without its flaws.

First, it is simply too inflexible for a number of different situations that might occur. For example, if the parent who is paying child support still has custody of the children on some occasions (say, during the weekends), that parent may be paying too much support overall.

If the paying parent is providing food and shelter for his or her children during the weekend, that parent may effectively be paying double for the children’s care.

Unfortunately, current child custody laws do not always allow for such a complex child care arrangement, and seem to be operating under the assumption that child custody is a zero-sum game, in which one parent is solely responsible for raising the children, and the other is solely responsible for providing funds.

In addition to this problem, the editorial board at the Chicago Tribune also observed that the current system fails to adequately address the issue of who pays when the custodial parent earns much more income than the other parent.

Under the current system, non-custodial parents with relatively small incomes may be facing an unfair burden when it comes to child support payments.

Due to these difficulties, legislators in Illinois are proposing that the state follow the lead of 38 other states and dramatically reform its child support laws.

Specifically, legislators have proposed an “income shares” system based on a simple premise: parents will share the financial burden of raising their children in a proportional manner.

So, under this system, a parent that makes more money, even if he or she has physical custody of the children, will have to bear a larger financial burden.

Advocates for this measure argue that the new system will still allow children to have the same quality of life that they did in a two-parent household, but that the system will treat former spouses more equitably and that it will recognize the shifting financial realities of the modern American marriage.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

One of the most nerve-wracking portions of a divorce is the determination of which parent receives custody of the children.

In many divorces, the spouses share custody of the children, but other divorces often see custody of the kids given to just one parent, which is always a difficult arrangement to stomach for the noncustodial parent.

In order to help parents—particularly mothers—put up a better fight for child custody in their divorce, a recent article in the Huffington Post offered some of the most common reasons why mothers lose child custody battles.

First, more often than not, the primary caretaker of the children has the advantage when seeking custody of the kids. This means that the parent who does the bulk of the work taking care of the children—including activities like feeding, driving, and reading to the kids—will likely be seen as the most suitable custodial parent.

So, the author of the article advises parents who probably won’t qualify as a primary caretaker to take a more active role in their children’s lives. Courts simply do not care to give full custody of children to a parent who has not shown a willingness to be an active caretaker.

In addition, parents who do not know important information about their children, such as the names of their teachers and their weekly schedule of their events, may appear to be a secondary caretaker, and will likely have a difficult time obtaining custody of their children.

Next, the article observes that parents who have substance abuse problems will probably face a long battle in court if they try to obtain any custody of their children.

Family courts are very reluctant to hand children over to parents who have problems with drug or alcohol addiction, so parents who struggle with substance abuse must try to get sober before winning custody of their children.

Of course, in addition to substance abuse, another major red flag for family law judges is any evidence of past abuse. If a parent has abused the children, or the other spouse, courts will not give them the opportunity to abuse again.

The digital age has also created another hurdle for parents in divorce: voice and film recordings. If a parent has ever sent an angry voice mail, or a tirade via email, it’s likely that the other spouse will use this evidence in court.

So, parents should be very wary of leaving angry or thoughtless text messages, voice messages, emails, or any other form of communication that can be preserved indefinitely. These forms of technology can come back to haunt parents during divorce proceedings.

In addition to these trends, judges also are reluctant to grant custody to parents who disparage the other spouse in front of the children. This often shows a lack of leadership, and provides a poor example for impressionable children.

So, it is important for parents to remember that their behavior in front of their attorneys and the divorce judge may play a prominent role in the determination of their fitness to be a custodial parent.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Like death and taxes, alimony laws have remained a relatively unchanging part of divorce for several decades. New social trends, however, have led many state legislatures to reconsider archaic divorce laws and create new, more reasonable rules for the modern age.

Alimony, which is also sometimes referred to as spousal support, becomes a part of many divorce settlements, and it and usually forces one ex-spouse to make payments to the other for a set period of time after the divorce.

Usually, the former spouse who has a higher income than the other spouse is the one who is responsible for making alimony payments.

Traditionally, once alimony was settled, the higher-earning ex-spouse often had to make alimony payments to the other spouse until death, regardless of changing romantic circumstances or financial needs.

In addition, alimony was usually split along rigid gender lines, as males more often had to pay spousal support to their former wives. This reality, of course, was supported by the face that, a few decades ago, women were simply unable to earn as much as men in the workplace.

As dating trends for divorced couples have changed, and as women have gained more earning power in the past few decades, lawmakers have recognized the needs for adjusting modern alimony laws.

This modern divorce movement was recently exemplified in Massachusetts, which enacted sweeping changes to its divorce laws this fall. And many other states may soon be following its lead.

According to a recent report from ABC Action News, the new Massachusetts divorce laws change a few key elements of how state courts will treat alimony.

First, under the new laws, the state effectively abolished automatic lifetime alimony. Instead of the traditional system of endless alimony, Massachusetts courts will now cut off alimony payments for recipients who are past retirement age or are in another long-term romantic partnership.

The reasoning behind this change is simple. If an alimony recipient is receiving support from another partner, or is living off a pension or other retirement benefits, he or she may no longer have a need for alimony payments.

Thus, the shift in law recognizes that older adults are often more inclined to seek new relationships or regain financial independence in ways that weren’t often available in the days of yore.

In addition to this change, Massachusetts also adjusted its alimony laws by developing a payment formula that rewards couples who have been together for long periods of time.

Under this new plan, for example, a couple who was married for 15 years could expect to have alimony transactions for just 10 years.

This new system recognizes that couples who have only been married for a few years before they divorce should not be financially intertwined for life.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Thanks to newly reformed divorce laws, divorced parents in Tennessee who want to have a romantic partner spend the night won’t have to worry about upsetting a family court judge.

Previously, according to the Washington Examiner, judges in Tennessee often inserted “paramour provision” into divorce orders in order to prevent divorced parents from entertaining romantic partners while they had custody of their children.

In some cases, judges would insert these provisions into divorce orders without the request of either divorcing party.

Several recent court decisions, however, have moved Tennessee away from this outdated practice, as judges say that overnight stays by romantic partners should be allowed unless there is convincing evidence that such actions actually harm the child.

Court observers claim that the decisions were in response to changing social norms. Certainly, many divorced parents now have overnight romantic guests, and it might be a surprise to many that these were technically banned in many divorced orders.

Now, parents will have more freedom to act as they please, even if they have custody of their children, without violating Tennessee divorce law.

The law, as might be predicted, has its supporters. Some local residents expressed their approval of the court’s decision to leave morality to parents, rather than delivering ethical rules from the bench.

Others, though, are concerned about several aspects of the new law. For example, one critic said it would be almost impossible to prove that a child was harmed by a parent’s romantic liaisons, and that many parents couldn’t afford to buy the expert testimony needed to offer such proof.

In addition, many Tennessee parents note that “paramour provisions” can be very helpful, particularly when one parent disapproves of the couple’s child being exposed to certain behaviors.

It should be noted, however, that the new law does not prevent parents from agreeing to these provisions in their own divorce orders. It simply means that judges cannot unilaterally impose romantic restrictions on divorcing couples.

This new attitude on overnight stays for divorcing couples reflects rapidly shifting trends in divorce laws across the country.

Take, for instance, attitudes towards child custody. Traditionally, women were much more likely to obtain custody of children because of social views about gender and parenting. Today, however, men and women are treated equally in the eyes of the court when determining custody.

In addition, courts treat alimony much differently than they used to. In decades past, wives were often eligible for alimony soon after marriage. Now, wives are often required to wait for a few years before they are eligible for alimony, and are sometimes not eligible at all, depending on their income levels.

The lesson here is that divorce law is flexible, and often changes to meet the demands of evolving modern families.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

The extension of the right to marry to same-sex couples has been met with considerable joy by gays, lesbians, and their supporters.

With the right to marry, same-sex couples are now able to enjoy both the emotional and practical benefits of marriage, including visitation rights, tax advantages, and health insurance benefits.

The elation over the introduction of same-sex marriage in several states, however, has been tempered by the collective realization that obtaining a same-sex divorce remains much more complicated than getting a divorce in more traditional marriages.

A recent article in the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News highlights the troubles same-sex couples have discovered when trying to obtain a divorce.

As only a minority of states currently allow gay marriage, and same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government, many gay and lesbian couples have to travel to another state to get their marriage license.

At the beginning of the marriage, this tactic makes sense for, say, a couple who lives in Maine but has to travel to Massachusetts in order to obtain a valid same-sex marriage. However, when this couple later seeks a divorce, their options are much more limited.

If, for example, the Maine couple wants to get a divorce, they cannot get divorce in Maine because it does not recognize same-sex marriages.

The couple’s only option is to return to Massachusetts for a divorce, but out-of-state couples cannot get a divorce in this state unless they have been residents for more than a year.

Some couples may be able to obtain a “divorce” from a gay-friendly judge, but this decree is not legally enforceable. And, because the divorce is not enforceable, the members of the couple cannot seek a new marriage, even in states that allow it.

Thus, couples like the hypothetical newlyweds in Maine become stuck in their marriage, without the legal right to nullify their contract.

Another potential challenge to same-sex divorce occurs in states like California, which allowed gay marriages for a brief period of time, but later reneged on the offer.

Now, in California, people who were married in the brief window of time when marriage was allowed are able to seek a divorce, but others who were married outside this window are out of luck.

Because of these unique challenges, same-sex couples who are looking for a divorce often have to get creative. Mediation, negotiation, and clever use of existing property laws are common strategies for same-sex couples who are trying to separate.

As these various strategies require a certain degree of legal knowledge, many couples seek further information from a local divorce lawyer.

This bizarre loophole in the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples is likely a temporary hurdle, but it will remain a challenge for gay and lesbian couples as long as some states, and the federal government, refuse to recognize gay marriage.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

As the realities of modern family life continue to change, states are increasingly making wholesale changes to their divorce laws, particularly the laws dealing with child custody.

These changes are occurring across the country, but a recent modernization of child custody laws in Pennsylvania helps illustrate the changes in our cultural attitudes towards parenting after divorce.

This year, according to the Centre Daily News, Pennsylvania made three major changes to its child custody laws.

The first change involves the criminal history of prospective custodial parents. Under the new law, judges in divorce court must check whether parents seeking custody of children have been convicted of certain crimes.

The law lists several specific crimes that judges are supposed to check, including common ones such as DUI arrests and possession of a controlled substance.

If a judge finds that a potential custodial parent has committed one of these specific crimes, the judge must then determine whether the parent remains fit to take care of the children.

While the presence of one of these crimes on a parent’s record does not automatically defeat his or her ability to take care of children, it does pose a potential roadblock on the path to gaining custody.

In many other states, judges also have a great deal of discretion in gauging whether a parent is fit to raise a child. As a result, divorcing parents with criminal records who are seeking custody should fully disclose their past to their divorce lawyer, in order to prepare for potential courtroom questions.

Second, the new Pennsylvania laws dictate that judges should not give custody preference to parents of a certain gender.

In the past, when all other things were equal, women tended to be awarded custody more often than men. However, most states have now embraced the modern trend that requires judges to ignore gender when issuing custody judgments.

Today, as shown by the new Pennsylvania regulations, judges are more concerned with parents’ incomes and fitness to serve as a guardian, rather than their status as a mother or father.

Finally, the new laws in the Keystone State allow couples who are still living together to obtain a custody order from a judge before they separate. Once one parent moves out of the house, the custody order would become effective.

This change recognizes that, in today’s bleak economic environment, many couples who would otherwise divorce are still living together due to financial necessity.

By obtaining a custody order before the parents separate, they will minimize the stress on themselves and their children, because there would be no uncertainty as to who would eventually have the children.

By making these adjustments to the state’s child custody laws, Pennsylvania legislators helped move the state’s treatment of divorce into the 21st century.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

In a move that has riled religious leaders, a legislator in Mexico recently proposed a bill that would make it much easier for Mexican couples to get a divorce after two years of marriage.

According to CNN, Leonel Luna, a Mexico City legislator from the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution, proposed a bill that would allow married couples to sign a contract agreeing to only two years of marriage.

If, at the end of the two years, the couple wished to stay together, they could simply renew the contract for as long as they liked.

However, if the couple desires a split, the contract would specify which spouse receives which pieces of property, and it would also determine who gets custody of the couple’s children, and what sum each spouse pays for child support.

While members of the community have railed against the perceived immorality of such an arrangement, Luna claims that the bill simply reflects the realities of modern marriages.

According to Luna, almost 50 percent of married couples in Mexico City eventually get divorced. Recent statistics show that of the 33,000 couples who were married in Mexico City in the last two years, 16,000 later filed for divorce.

In light of these eye-opening divorce figures, Luna claims that his bill is aimed at “acknowledging reality and creating a mechanism that will allow couples to end their marriage without going through the additional pain and suffering of a legal battle.”

Luna also says the bill would cut costs for divorcing couples, as the typical divorce in Mexico City usually costs a married couple around $3,500.

If the bill is approved, it would only apply to couples in Mexico City, not the country as a whole.

Of course, the bill has attracted many critics. Some observers argue that most divorces in Mexico are achieved through informal separations, not formal divorces. These informal separations, the argument goes, are much less costly than divorces.

Perhaps the strongest criticism comes from church leaders. Mexico has the second largest population of Catholics in the world, trailing only Brazil, which explains why so many Mexicans believe that marriage is a permanent vow, not a temporary contract.

In the words of Revered Jose de Jesus Aguilar, a spokesman for the Mexican Conference of Catholic Bishops, “I think that instead of creating all kinds of comfortable rules for political purposes, legislators should focus in promoting strong marriages and family values.”

Despite these reservations, Luna believes his bill has a strong chance of becoming a law. Of the 66 members in the Mexico City Assembly, 34 belong to Luna’s party, and he believes that most his party members will vote in his favor.

If the bill does become a law, other Western countries will surely track the progress of the new marriage initiative. If the idea works, temporary marriages could soon be coming to a country near you.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Divorce can cause plenty of headaches, even when experienced attorneys are involved. Debates over child custody, alimony, and child support payments can dominate divorce proceedings, leaving both parties exhausted.

One element that seems to add to the stress of divorce is the presence of a judge and the setting of a courtroom. For some, these formal features may make the divorce seem more contentious, and less amiable.

There is, however, an alternative to getting a divorce in court. Today, many couples choose instead to settle their divorce outside of court, through negotiation between themselves, rather than with divorce attorneys.

Of course, while this setting may seem much less contentious than a divorce in court, there are still some snags couples might hit along the way.

To help couples navigate their way through a divorce settlement, the Huffington Post recently published some tips for divorcing spouses who opt to settle their differences outside of a courtroom.

The first suggestion offers advice on how to respond when your spouse insists on an answer to a particular issue.

In this scenario, the spouse who is being pressed for an immediate answer to a sensitive question can neutralize the situation by setting it aside for a later conversation, and move on to a more easily answered issue.

If the couple can begin agreeing on simple issues first, they may be better equipped to handle more sensitive problems later. Once several topics of the divorce have been accepted, the couple has a stronger incentive to work through stickier issues.

The next common problem occurs when one spouse asks the other for a “ballpark” figure of the amount of money he or she expects from the divorce. Both parties are often reluctant to be the first to offer their expected sum.

It is wise to be reluctant to throw out the first figure, though, as setting a ballpark number immediately establishes a ceiling for what that spouse may get in the divorce.

So, instead of throwing out an expected settlement amount, the Huffington Post article advises people seeking a divorce to evade the question by saying they need more time to think about.

Third, the article addresses how couples can respond to ultimatums. These are common utterances in divorce negotiations, and usually involve a threat that the divorce won’t be settled unless one spouse agrees to a certain term.

Ultimatums, though, are often given in the heat of the moment, and may not always be as firm as they first seem.

In order to avoid heightening the tension, the spouse who receives the ultimatum might respond by asking for more time to come up with their own solution that would give the other spouse just as good a deal.

Or, the responding spouse might say the deal appears to be pretty fair, but then ask for a few key concessions. Both these methods may diffuse a tense situation, and allow the other spouse to back away from the ultimatum while maintaining some dignity.

While these tips may provide some help, many people prefer to seek legal information from a local divorce lawyer familiar with the state laws, and each party’s rights, before heading to the negotiating table.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

As the struggling economy continues to eat at the wallets of hard-working Americans, state legislators are looking under every nook and cranny to find increased savings for their constituents.

One fad that has recently struck several states is the limitation of alimony payments in divorces. Traditionally, alimony could be instituted as a series of lifelong payments. However, new laws challenge the permanent role alimony has long held.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Massachusetts recently became the latest state to pass a law limiting alimony payments.

Under the terms of the new law, alimony payments will now end when the recipient reaches retirement age or when the recipient starts living with a new romantic partner.

The new law also creates a strict formula for determining alimony payments in a divorce. The formula also limits the number of years alimony may be collected according to the relative length of the marriage.

Thus, in a couple who breaks up after 15 years of marriage, the spouse that receives alimony payments will only be eligible for alimony for roughly 10 years after the divorce.

Despite the law, judges still have the discretion to allow long-term alimony payments for lengthy marriages.

Traditionally, alimony was established by divorce courts as an indefinite payment for the non-bread-winning spouse. This tactic, however, has increasingly grown less popular.

Modern economic realities, including the increasing likelihood that both partners in a marriage work full-time, have led legislators to tweak archaic laws.

The modern alimony system was created at a time when few women worked, and a divorce could mean financial ruin for wives who had not worked outside the household for a number of years.

Now, however, spouses tend to be more financially independent, and the new alimony laws reflect this shifting cultural tide.

The new Massachusetts divorce law, however, is not without its critics. Some observers argue that alimony payments are especially important for low-income women, who often do household tasks such as raising children instead of joining the workforce.

When marriages end, these women are left without up-to-date job skills, and no income to support their children.

In defense of the new law, however, proponents claim that the new alimony laws do not undercut traditional child support responsibilities, which require the non-custodial parent to make payments each month for much of the children’s expenses.

This, however, does not help non-working partners who do not have children, or whose children are now adults.

While Massachusetts critics of the law may be disappointed, they may be heartened by their state’s relatively soft stance on a judge’s discretion to allow long-term alimony in some circumstances.

In contrast, Florida requires a judge to find “clear and convincing evidence” that one partner needs permanent alimony, which establishes a much higher bar than judges must prove in Massachusetts.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

While divorce can have a positive impact on a struggling couple’s personal lives, if not managed correctly, getting a divorce can be a serious drain on personal finances, particularly for small business owners.

A recent Reuters report highlights the struggles of a few recent divorcees to keep their businesses afloat during a trying personal period, particularly in the face of a prolonged economic recession.

One potential complication arising from a divorce is if the married couple co-owns a business. If a couple jointly owns a business, a divorce can create an awkward work situation, to say the least.

Sometimes, one spouse will buy the other spouse’s stake in the company, allowing the business to survive while compensating the departing partner for his or her lost shares.

On occasion, divorced couples may still be able to work together amicably, and decide to continue in previously established professional roles.

Other times, the ownership of the business can be a contentious part of the divorce process, such as the ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers in the divorce of Frank and Jami McCourt.

For couples who own a small business, speaking with a mediator may help them sort out the legal ramifications of divorcing while maintaining the health of a small business.

While this scenario can be challenging, it is more common for a divorce to have an impact on a business owned by just one of the spouses.

If the divorce is not planned carefully, the costs and time required to complete some divorces can be a drag on the short-term success of a small company.

However, recent changes in divorce laws in the vast majority of states have fostered some hope for cleaner and less traumatic divorces.

Every states now allows for “no fault” divorces, in which a divorce is granted without one party having to accuse the other spouse of wrongdoing.

By sparing parties from publicly haggling over personal details of their married life, such as adultery or emotional abuse, no fault divorces may save a lot of time and energy for divorcing couples, and allow them to keep embarrassing personal issues out of the courtroom.

Through this method, owners of small companies may save time, money, and preserve their public reputation. These benefits, in turn, may help a small business stay afloat during a time of personal turmoil.

Another method small business owners might take to preserve their livelihoods is to plan for divorce. Granted, no one wants to anticipate getting divorced, but a few precautionary measures might prevent future losses down the road.

Precautionary steps that may lead to a less financially-crippling divorce included drafting prenuptial agreements, creating a domestic asset protection trust, or signing a buy/sell agreement that outlines what will happen to your small company in the event of a divorce.

Even if these documents are never needed, they may provide peace of mind for married small business owners.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.