One interesting aspect of the blogosphere is the opportunity to read about different laws in different states. A consistently well-written blog is the Ohio Family Law Blog written by Robert L. Mues. He has a timely post about the history of Father's Day and then describes how different counties in Ohio have different rules for fathers having possession of their children on Father's Day. I'm always interested in history, so here's what he wrote about the history of Father's Day:
"The third Sunday of June has become known as Father’s Day just as the second Sunday of May has become known as Mother’s Day. On that 'special' day in June, Fathers in the United States are feted with cards, gifts (often ties and wallets), meals especially prepared for them or 'dinner out' at their favorite restaurants, as well other special treats such as the preparation of a favorite dish or dessert prepared at home.
"From my readings at various websites, the origin of Father’s Day is not entirely clear. Some say it began with a church service to honor Fathers in Fairmont, West Virginia, on July 5, 1908. Others believe that Ms. Sonora Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington, came up with the idea or plan to honor Fathers in 1909 while she listened to an earlier church service wherein Mothers were honored and praised. Ms. Dodd’s Father, a veteran of the Civil War and a 'single parent', had successfully raised six (6) children following the premature death of his Wife.
"Although the movement to honor Fathers began over one hundred (100) years ago, it took many years for this country to make this occasion an official holiday. While citizens supported the concept of Mother’s Day with pride and enthusiasm, the idea of Father’s Day was at first met with laughter and satire. While President Woodrow Wilson 'approved' the concept of an annual Father’s Day in 1916, it was not until 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge declared the day to be a national event. Thereafter, Father’s Day was celebrated but was not made a federal holiday until 1966 when President Lyndon B. Johnson issued a proclamation declaring it to be so. Later, in 1972, President Richard Nixon established Father’s Day as a permanent holiday to be celebrated on the third Sunday of June of each year."
Some readers may be a little familiar with that history, but it's not widely known. From a Collaborative Law perspective, what is really useful from the post is the description of the variations in how Father's Day is handled in different counties. Texas has a uniform state standard possession schedule which covers Father's Day, Mother's Day and most other major holidays. While the Texas standard possession schedule often works out well for both parties, it should be noted that our schedule is not followed by other states and doesn't have to be followed in Collaborative Law cases in Texas.
What Texas and other states do in possession orders, child support and even property division can be considered by the parties in a Collaborative case, but the Texas parties should always remember that Collaborative Law gives them the freedom to make their own rules to meet their own needs and circumstances. Be informed and be creative!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Preconditions to Using Collaborative Law
Let me be clear that I have a bias favoring the use of Collaborative Law in settling family law disputes. When there is a hesitation by the other side in a case, I get concerned.
On occasion, as I have talked with Collaborative lawyers about starting a new case as a Collaborative divorce, the other attorney has suggested that s/he wasn't sure the case would be a good one for Collaborative Law, but we could try it if my client would first: give up custody of the kids, move out of the house or give the spouse a sum of money. Since each of those was the biggest issue in each respective case, my clients didn't see the value in conceding that issue and then using Collaborative for whatever was left. In those cases, I couldn't talk the other attorney into dropping the precondition and the other attorney didn't seem to see anything wrong with that approach.
Custody, use of the house and getting access to money are common issues that are dealt with over and over in Collaborative Law. They can be tough issues in any kind of approach. Judges and juries often have trouble making decisions on those topics and they can be tough issues even in the Collaborative Law approach. Nevertheless, I wouldn't hesitate to use Collaborative to work out agreements on those issues. For all the reasons why we are committed to Collaborative, it is usually a superior way to resolve these legal issues.
From my perspective, the real reason why some attorneys insist on preconditions to using Collaborative Law is that they just aren't fully comfortable with the process and aren't convinced it can work with difficult issues. In other words, it's a lack of commitment to the process. Sometimes, attorneys are so integrated into positional bargaining that they can't let go of the security of grabbing a position and holding on. When we are "brought up" doing positional negotiating, interest-based negotiations may seem a little scary. Attorneys may feel out of control when they don't have clear cut positions they can claim and hold in negotiations.
So, what's a person to do?
If you go to see a Collaborative lawyer and that lawyer starts telling you that the case really isn't appropriate for Collaborative Law, I suggest that you challenge the attorney to explain why. And I suggest that you get another opinion from another Collaborative lawyer.
Unfortunately, some attorneys claim to be a trained Collaborative lawyer when they really aren't or when they don't really practice Collaborative Law, and those attorneys use the ads or web site sections to bring in potential clients whom they then tell that Collaborative Law is not appropriate for their case. Any time you are told that Collaborative Law won't work in your case, you should get a second opinion from another Collaborative lawyer.
Sometimes, after discussing the proposal to use Collaborative Law with the attorney, it's the client who wants to impose a precondition before agreeing to use Collaborative Law. In that instance, it's clear that the attorney just hasn't explained the process very well or the client perceives that the attorney isn't real comfortable with the process. If the attorney isn't sold on Collaborative Law, the client probably won't be either. Again, a second opinion would be advisable.
The bottom line is that agreeing to use Collaborative Law only if a precondition is met is unacceptable. If you want to use the process, keep searching until you find a truly committed and experienced Collaborative lawyer who will help you.
On occasion, as I have talked with Collaborative lawyers about starting a new case as a Collaborative divorce, the other attorney has suggested that s/he wasn't sure the case would be a good one for Collaborative Law, but we could try it if my client would first: give up custody of the kids, move out of the house or give the spouse a sum of money. Since each of those was the biggest issue in each respective case, my clients didn't see the value in conceding that issue and then using Collaborative for whatever was left. In those cases, I couldn't talk the other attorney into dropping the precondition and the other attorney didn't seem to see anything wrong with that approach.
Custody, use of the house and getting access to money are common issues that are dealt with over and over in Collaborative Law. They can be tough issues in any kind of approach. Judges and juries often have trouble making decisions on those topics and they can be tough issues even in the Collaborative Law approach. Nevertheless, I wouldn't hesitate to use Collaborative to work out agreements on those issues. For all the reasons why we are committed to Collaborative, it is usually a superior way to resolve these legal issues.
From my perspective, the real reason why some attorneys insist on preconditions to using Collaborative Law is that they just aren't fully comfortable with the process and aren't convinced it can work with difficult issues. In other words, it's a lack of commitment to the process. Sometimes, attorneys are so integrated into positional bargaining that they can't let go of the security of grabbing a position and holding on. When we are "brought up" doing positional negotiating, interest-based negotiations may seem a little scary. Attorneys may feel out of control when they don't have clear cut positions they can claim and hold in negotiations.
So, what's a person to do?
If you go to see a Collaborative lawyer and that lawyer starts telling you that the case really isn't appropriate for Collaborative Law, I suggest that you challenge the attorney to explain why. And I suggest that you get another opinion from another Collaborative lawyer.
Unfortunately, some attorneys claim to be a trained Collaborative lawyer when they really aren't or when they don't really practice Collaborative Law, and those attorneys use the ads or web site sections to bring in potential clients whom they then tell that Collaborative Law is not appropriate for their case. Any time you are told that Collaborative Law won't work in your case, you should get a second opinion from another Collaborative lawyer.
Sometimes, after discussing the proposal to use Collaborative Law with the attorney, it's the client who wants to impose a precondition before agreeing to use Collaborative Law. In that instance, it's clear that the attorney just hasn't explained the process very well or the client perceives that the attorney isn't real comfortable with the process. If the attorney isn't sold on Collaborative Law, the client probably won't be either. Again, a second opinion would be advisable.
The bottom line is that agreeing to use Collaborative Law only if a precondition is met is unacceptable. If you want to use the process, keep searching until you find a truly committed and experienced Collaborative lawyer who will help you.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Negotiating Effectively: Why You Shouldn't Hurry
One of the most common reasons some people sign up for a Collaborative divorce (or other family law matter), is that they expect it to be a fast process. Relatively speaking, that's an accurate expectation. Compared to how long a traditional divorce takes, a Collaborative divorce is normally much faster, although it isn't always. Most can be finished in three to four months, some sooner and some later. In contrast, a litigated divorce in Tarrant County which is resolved at trial or shortly before trial (when mediation often occurs) will usually take at least a year to finish, and it's not unusual for a divorce to take longer.
Unfortunately, many people going through a Collaborative divorce start feeling the process is slow and bogged down if it doesn't settle in two to three months or if it just requires several meetings. As a result, they start looking for shortcuts and ways to move the process along faster. When one side gets very anxious to settle the case and get it over with, they will usually experience one or more of the following problems:
1. The anxious party tends to give away too much. It is quite easy for the party who isn't ready to divorce, or who just isn't in a hurry, to start to drag their feet and slow down the process. That increases the anxiety level of the spouse in a hurry, which normally leads the hurried spouse to sweeten the pot and offer a better settlement to the other spouse. Over and over, I have seen one spouse maintain a position on settlement terms and refuse to budge, leading to the other spouse moving closer and closer to what the first spouse demanded. Sometimes, the anxiety is self-imposed and sometimes it comes from an exterior source. Whatever the reason, the person making the concessions is often making a mistake and offering more than would be necessary without the anxiety.
2. Hurrying reduces the amount of time to conduct due diligence. When on or both of the parties want to move quickly through the process, the attorneys and other professionals may not have the time to fully explore the facts of the case. Even when the parties both think they know all the issues and both think they understand the information relating to the issues, they may be wrong. It is very common for the parties to not understand various technical issues about assets and debts. For example, they often have mistaken ideas about what to do with retirement funds. The attorneys and the financial neutral need time to gather records and analyze them. Similarly, a child specialist may need some time to explore the issues about sharing time with the children. A superficial review of either property or kid issues can lead to serious problems later on.
3. Another problem is that the parties tend to lose sight of their interests and focus on positions. Often, when the parties get in a hurry, they become very willing to skip over setting and explaining their goals. Even when they have identified their goals, needs and interests, they sometimes stop thinking and talking about them when there is pressure to move quickly through the process. When that happens, they inevitably fall back into positional bargaining, relying on traditional, arbitrary guidelines or percentages, instead of analyzing how to best meet each other's needs.
4. Hurrying usually is associated with reduced listening to the other side. Listening to each other is one of the key values of Collaborative Law. Sometimes just seeing improved communication skills provides a great deal of satisfaction. When a party, who has not been listened to during a marriage, experiences discussions where the spouse begins to listen and speak more respectfully during the Collaborative Process, that party will feel much better about any agreement and it will be easier to reach an agreement. Hurrying devalues listening. The objective becomes primarily to reach an agreement, and true listening bogs down the process. The result is that the parties fall back into old communication patterns, and that usually doesn't emphasize good listening. In other words, the parties stop listening to each other and just try to negotiate the same ways they used to argue. That leads to skipping steps in the Collaborative process and sometimes overlooking options, idea and analysis of facts.
5. The other side may get upset by feeling pressure to finish early, making agreement less likely. Many people, when negotiating, will become very resistant if they feel like they are being pressured into something they don't fully understand or which they may not fully agree with. Some people just automatically start opposing something when they feel a lot of pressure to decide quickly, especially if they are a little uncomfortable or if they don't trust the other party.
As frustrating as it may be for someone going through a divorce, it is usually necessary for one party or the other to slow down some during the process so they can advance at the same pace as their spouse (or the other party). Trying to rush the other party can cause delays or failure to reach an agreement.
And by the way, in a traditional litigated divorce, if one party wants to slow down the process and drag it out for any reason that's easy to do. Collaborative Law is not worse than litigation, in terms of speed. In reality, Collaborative Law generally is a faster means to reaching an agreement than is litigation.
Unfortunately, many people going through a Collaborative divorce start feeling the process is slow and bogged down if it doesn't settle in two to three months or if it just requires several meetings. As a result, they start looking for shortcuts and ways to move the process along faster. When one side gets very anxious to settle the case and get it over with, they will usually experience one or more of the following problems:
1. The anxious party tends to give away too much. It is quite easy for the party who isn't ready to divorce, or who just isn't in a hurry, to start to drag their feet and slow down the process. That increases the anxiety level of the spouse in a hurry, which normally leads the hurried spouse to sweeten the pot and offer a better settlement to the other spouse. Over and over, I have seen one spouse maintain a position on settlement terms and refuse to budge, leading to the other spouse moving closer and closer to what the first spouse demanded. Sometimes, the anxiety is self-imposed and sometimes it comes from an exterior source. Whatever the reason, the person making the concessions is often making a mistake and offering more than would be necessary without the anxiety.
2. Hurrying reduces the amount of time to conduct due diligence. When on or both of the parties want to move quickly through the process, the attorneys and other professionals may not have the time to fully explore the facts of the case. Even when the parties both think they know all the issues and both think they understand the information relating to the issues, they may be wrong. It is very common for the parties to not understand various technical issues about assets and debts. For example, they often have mistaken ideas about what to do with retirement funds. The attorneys and the financial neutral need time to gather records and analyze them. Similarly, a child specialist may need some time to explore the issues about sharing time with the children. A superficial review of either property or kid issues can lead to serious problems later on.
3. Another problem is that the parties tend to lose sight of their interests and focus on positions. Often, when the parties get in a hurry, they become very willing to skip over setting and explaining their goals. Even when they have identified their goals, needs and interests, they sometimes stop thinking and talking about them when there is pressure to move quickly through the process. When that happens, they inevitably fall back into positional bargaining, relying on traditional, arbitrary guidelines or percentages, instead of analyzing how to best meet each other's needs.
4. Hurrying usually is associated with reduced listening to the other side. Listening to each other is one of the key values of Collaborative Law. Sometimes just seeing improved communication skills provides a great deal of satisfaction. When a party, who has not been listened to during a marriage, experiences discussions where the spouse begins to listen and speak more respectfully during the Collaborative Process, that party will feel much better about any agreement and it will be easier to reach an agreement. Hurrying devalues listening. The objective becomes primarily to reach an agreement, and true listening bogs down the process. The result is that the parties fall back into old communication patterns, and that usually doesn't emphasize good listening. In other words, the parties stop listening to each other and just try to negotiate the same ways they used to argue. That leads to skipping steps in the Collaborative process and sometimes overlooking options, idea and analysis of facts.
5. The other side may get upset by feeling pressure to finish early, making agreement less likely. Many people, when negotiating, will become very resistant if they feel like they are being pressured into something they don't fully understand or which they may not fully agree with. Some people just automatically start opposing something when they feel a lot of pressure to decide quickly, especially if they are a little uncomfortable or if they don't trust the other party.
As frustrating as it may be for someone going through a divorce, it is usually necessary for one party or the other to slow down some during the process so they can advance at the same pace as their spouse (or the other party). Trying to rush the other party can cause delays or failure to reach an agreement.
And by the way, in a traditional litigated divorce, if one party wants to slow down the process and drag it out for any reason that's easy to do. Collaborative Law is not worse than litigation, in terms of speed. In reality, Collaborative Law generally is a faster means to reaching an agreement than is litigation.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
What if the Lawyer Tries to Talk You Out of Using Collaborative Law?
Answer: Check qualifications and experience and then get a second opinion.
It's true that not every case is appropriate for Collaborative Law, and the process may be overkill if virtually everything is already agreed at the outset, but when you visit with an attorney about representing you, the attorney should almost always explain at least a little about Collaborative Law. There is a range of options available to resolve legal disputes and Collaborative Law is often the best choice.
For some situations, Collaborative is not an appropriate option. If a party is mentally ill or has untreated drug or alcohol issues or has unrealistic expectations, the process may not work out well. If treatment has been received and the treatment plan is being followed, the professionals can make a judgment call about whether Collaborative may work. There may be legitimate reasons why Collaborative Law is not recommended. Even though I firmly believe in and encourage the use of Collaborative Law in virtually every case I consider, I have told clients that it might not work in their case, based on some of the concerns mentioned. In addition, if there is already an attorney on the other side of the case and that attorney is not a Collaborative attorney, then it is virtually impossible to use the Collaborative process.
Unfortunately, however, it appears that sometimes attorneys advertise that they believe in, and practice, Collaborative Law, when they really don't like it. Generally, those attorneys have not been to a two-day basic training. They may have attended one or two short talks about Collaborative Law, but they haven't had the extensive training needed to "get it". They realize that more and more clients are educating themselves about various divorce processes and have become aware of Collaborative Law. Some attorneys have just a superficial knowledge of Collaborative Law and use that to dissuade clients from using the process.
If you go see an attorney about a divorce, for example, and you ask about the possibility of using Collaborative Law, and then the attorney immediately starts telling you why you can't or shouldn't use the process, or why it wouldn't work in your case, you should do two things. First, ask the attorney to tell you about all the Collaborative Law training he or she has completed and about the number of cases he or she has completed in the Collaborative process*. Second, go get a second opinion from another Collaborative attorney to find out if the second attorney agrees.
*Good answers:
It's true that not every case is appropriate for Collaborative Law, and the process may be overkill if virtually everything is already agreed at the outset, but when you visit with an attorney about representing you, the attorney should almost always explain at least a little about Collaborative Law. There is a range of options available to resolve legal disputes and Collaborative Law is often the best choice.
For some situations, Collaborative is not an appropriate option. If a party is mentally ill or has untreated drug or alcohol issues or has unrealistic expectations, the process may not work out well. If treatment has been received and the treatment plan is being followed, the professionals can make a judgment call about whether Collaborative may work. There may be legitimate reasons why Collaborative Law is not recommended. Even though I firmly believe in and encourage the use of Collaborative Law in virtually every case I consider, I have told clients that it might not work in their case, based on some of the concerns mentioned. In addition, if there is already an attorney on the other side of the case and that attorney is not a Collaborative attorney, then it is virtually impossible to use the Collaborative process.
Unfortunately, however, it appears that sometimes attorneys advertise that they believe in, and practice, Collaborative Law, when they really don't like it. Generally, those attorneys have not been to a two-day basic training. They may have attended one or two short talks about Collaborative Law, but they haven't had the extensive training needed to "get it". They realize that more and more clients are educating themselves about various divorce processes and have become aware of Collaborative Law. Some attorneys have just a superficial knowledge of Collaborative Law and use that to dissuade clients from using the process.
If you go see an attorney about a divorce, for example, and you ask about the possibility of using Collaborative Law, and then the attorney immediately starts telling you why you can't or shouldn't use the process, or why it wouldn't work in your case, you should do two things. First, ask the attorney to tell you about all the Collaborative Law training he or she has completed and about the number of cases he or she has completed in the Collaborative process*. Second, go get a second opinion from another Collaborative attorney to find out if the second attorney agrees.
*Good answers:
- At least a two-day basic training, followed by at least one seminar or conference a year sponsored by the Collaborative Law Institute of Texas or by a local practice group.
- At least 3 or 4 cases completed, or better yet, 20 to 30 or more. An attorney experienced in Collaborative Law can make good judgments about the suitability of cases for Collaborative Law.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
How to Find the Best Collaborative Lawyer in Tarrant County (or anywhere!)
For some of us, our competitive nature won't give up, even if we decide to participate in the Collaborative process. That nature shows itself when someone commits to doing a Collaborative divorce, and then begins to search for "the best Collaborative lawyer" in Tarrant County, or wherever they live. If that's what you're looking for, I have bad news and good news for you. The bad news is that it's hard to really tell who "the best" is. The good news is that almost all Collaborative lawyers are really good at what we do, and in addition, we can all get help by using mental health professionals and financial professionals. Let me elaborate.
First, the bad news: It's hard to tell which Collaborative attorneys will be the best. Just like in litigation, there's no overall objective ranking service to indicate who's the best. The truth is that an excellent Collaborative attorney may be a great match for you, but not work out well for your friend or neighbor or relative. The opposite is also true. An attorney who is great for someone else may not work out well for you. It really comes down to chemistry.
There are several things you can do to find a Collaborative attorney who would work well with you.
- Ask about their experience. Attorneys can tell you about the number of cases they have handled and they can tell you whether they have worked cases with issues similar to yours.
- Find out how much training the attorney has had, and whether they have recently had training. Collaborative Law is such a new process that attorneys need a lot of training and need to refresh their Collaborative training at least once a year.
- Another indicator to check on is whether the attorney has trained other attorneys in Collaborative Law or spoken to different groups about it.
- Ask the attorney to explain how the Collaborative process works. The attorney should be able to clearly explain the process and discuss how your issues could be resolved with the process.
- Make sure the attorney's communication style is comfortable for you. Everyone has their own communication needs and style. Divorce is a stressful enough time just by itself. Be sure that you feel good and feel listened to when you talk with your attorney.
- Recommendations from friends, attorneys and other professionals can be helpful as a starting point -- just be careful to consider the comments above and evaluate each attorney.
- You and your spouse do not need to hire an attorney just because that attorney is in the same practice group with the first attorney selected. All attorneys in Tarrant County represent clients from all over the county, so you can choose anyone you wish.
Now, the good news: we've got backup. In Tarrant County, there are many well trained Collaborative attorneys and almost all Collaborative divorces are worked as a team effort. We have learned over the years that the process works much better when we bring in a mental health specialist and a financial specialist at the beginning. The mental health professional meets with the parties before the first joint meeting and that helps the parties know what to expect. It also helps all the professionals learn about the issues that are important to both sides.
Also, don't worry if both the attorneys don't have the same level of experience in the Collaborative process. As long as both attorneys have at least a two-day basic training and some recent training, there should be no problem. Part of the Participation Agreement that both the parties and their attorneys sign at the outset says that neither party will take advantage of each other or hide information or fail to openly and honestly cooperate. (There's no such agreement in litigated cases.) That means that if an attorney made a mistake in the case, the other attorney would help the first attorney correct it. As long as at least one attorney is experienced, the Collaborative process should work out.
The bottom line: There is no need to find the single best Collaborative attorney, which is lucky because there's no way to determine who is the best. But there are number of things that parties can check out about prospective attorneys when deciding who to hire. In the end, chemistry may be the most important ingredient in choosing the right Collaborative attorney for you. Pay attention to your gut feeling and how well the attorney communicates with you. Trust your attorney, but also take advantage of the other professionals involved in your case. They all want you to be successful.
Friday, April 3, 2009
5 Ways Collaborative Law is Like the Space Program
We recently had another successful launch of a space shuttle, but you may not have noticed it. We are near the end of the shuttle phase of the U.S. space program, about to switch to other vehicles, and we don't tend to pay attention to take-offs and landings as much as we used to. It's probably not a good idea to take space travel for granted yet, but people have accepted it as a normal part of life. While there are still innovations to be expected in the future, we are pretty comfortable with how space travel happens now.
After the recent launch, I began thinking about similarities between Collaborative Law and the space program. That may seem like a very strange comparison, one that doesn't immediately jump to mind, but there are some legitimate common features. Here are some I noticed:
- Both use old skills and equipment for new purposes in other fields. In the space program, a lot of the equipment was converted from wartime use to peaceful purposes, such as rockets and guidance systems. In Collaborative Law, we have begun to use neutral specialists from other fields to work with both parties to help them reach appropriate agreements.
- In both fields, we converted former fighters into peaceful leaders. The original astronauts were trained fighter pilots in the military who converted into peaceful space pilots. Most Collaborative lawyers are former litigators who learned and practiced trial skills. Sometimes, attorneys have trouble converting their focus to a peaceful process, but it will happen with experience.
- Both programs depend on a lot of cooperation and a blend of many different skills. The space program is a very complex system with many interrelated contributors around the world. Collaborative Law requires cooperation between two parties, their lawyers and usually some other neutral professionals. The process is effective because everyone works together and contributes some part to creating successful negotiations. Communication skills are improved by the use of mental health specialists. Financial and parenting decisions are improved though the use of neutral experts in each field.
- The space program is a peaceful endeavor and peace is the essence of Collaborative Law. NASA is a civilian agency that oversees the U.S. space program and the focus has been on peaceful advances in science and transportation. One of the main attributes of Collaborative Law is that it is much more peaceful than the destructive processes inherent in family law litigation. Going to trial, cross examining the other parties and witnesses and focusing on events in the past are all elements of the litigation approach that places little value on kindness, civility and family relationships. Collaborative Law provides a safe, creative and effective way for both parties to achieve their most important goals without tearing each other up.
- Some day, hopefully soon, neither space travel nor Collaborative Law will be a big deal. They will both be the norm. People will be able to travel to far away planets and it will become common. Probably sooner than that happens, we expect Collaborative Law will become the primary method of resolving disputes. Now, these are both considered somewhat visionary, but that will change before too long.
Stay tuned. Collaborative Law has been launched and is coming more and more into view!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Customizing Child Support
The Traditional Approach
Most, if not all, states now rely on formulas to calculate child support in a uniform manner for the child support cases filed within their state. In Texas, for example, our primary formula is 20% of net income resources for 1 child, 25% for 2 children, 30% for 3 children, etc. Some other states base their calculations on gross income. They may also use different percentages. Texas also has adjustments (different percentages) when there are children in different households and there are child support obligations in each household. There may also be variations from state to state about what deductions are permitted before the child support is calculated and about what resources are to be considered possible funds for child support.
Traditionally, one parent pays child support to the other parent each month, regardless of how much time the child spends with each parent.
In Texas Collaborative Law cases, we often explain how child support is calculated under Texas rules, and we can also look at other states' statutes, as well. BUT, we don't want the parties to feel like they need to follow the statutory formula of Texas or any other state. On the other hand, the parents should feel free to examine and consider the child support arrangements of any state.
New Ideas
To open up the discussion further, here are three other suggestions of approaches that parties might take in Collaborative cases, especially in cases where the parents end up with close to equal time with the child, a scenario that is becoming more and more common.
1. Split the difference. The parties each calculate how much child support he and she would pay under the Texas Family Code. Whichever parent has the greater income would pay to the other parent the difference between the two amounts of child support.
2. Pay half of the expenses. Some parties get along well enough that they can each pay half of specified expenses. Sometimes the list of expenses includes items the court would not, or could not, order, such as religious expenses or college expenses. Generally, parents can agree to share any expenses that they want to.
3. Pay a proportionate share. If there is a significant difference in income between the parents, they could agree for each to pay a proportionate share of specified expenses. For example if wife made $6,000.00 per month and husband made $3,000.00 per month, wife might pay 2/3 of the expenses and husband could pay 1/3 to match their comparative incomes.
There are obviously many other possible formulations for child support. The most important point here is that the parties should not feel bound or limited by traditional or statutory schemes for calculating child support. Spending time brainstorming at a joint meeting can lead to creative, flexible and satisfying child support arrangements.
The lesson to be learned: don't limit your options!
Most, if not all, states now rely on formulas to calculate child support in a uniform manner for the child support cases filed within their state. In Texas, for example, our primary formula is 20% of net income resources for 1 child, 25% for 2 children, 30% for 3 children, etc. Some other states base their calculations on gross income. They may also use different percentages. Texas also has adjustments (different percentages) when there are children in different households and there are child support obligations in each household. There may also be variations from state to state about what deductions are permitted before the child support is calculated and about what resources are to be considered possible funds for child support.
Traditionally, one parent pays child support to the other parent each month, regardless of how much time the child spends with each parent.
In Texas Collaborative Law cases, we often explain how child support is calculated under Texas rules, and we can also look at other states' statutes, as well. BUT, we don't want the parties to feel like they need to follow the statutory formula of Texas or any other state. On the other hand, the parents should feel free to examine and consider the child support arrangements of any state.
New Ideas
To open up the discussion further, here are three other suggestions of approaches that parties might take in Collaborative cases, especially in cases where the parents end up with close to equal time with the child, a scenario that is becoming more and more common.
1. Split the difference. The parties each calculate how much child support he and she would pay under the Texas Family Code. Whichever parent has the greater income would pay to the other parent the difference between the two amounts of child support.
2. Pay half of the expenses. Some parties get along well enough that they can each pay half of specified expenses. Sometimes the list of expenses includes items the court would not, or could not, order, such as religious expenses or college expenses. Generally, parents can agree to share any expenses that they want to.
3. Pay a proportionate share. If there is a significant difference in income between the parents, they could agree for each to pay a proportionate share of specified expenses. For example if wife made $6,000.00 per month and husband made $3,000.00 per month, wife might pay 2/3 of the expenses and husband could pay 1/3 to match their comparative incomes.
There are obviously many other possible formulations for child support. The most important point here is that the parties should not feel bound or limited by traditional or statutory schemes for calculating child support. Spending time brainstorming at a joint meeting can lead to creative, flexible and satisfying child support arrangements.
The lesson to be learned: don't limit your options!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
