LJN Newsletters

The issue of legislative action (or inaction as the case may be) in matrimonial matters is always of interest. At present, there are many issues that call for such action and others that are still kicking hopelessly around in this election year. Two such issues come to mind just now, one finally resolved, the other apparently destined to "wait 'till next year.

In a little-noticed paragraph of the significant decision in Wissink v. Wissink, 301 AD2d 36 (2d Dept. 2002), the court held that evidence of certain economically abusive behavior was relevant in a custody case and should not be excluded. This is a very important holding that should be examined by judges and attorneys and applied in other cases.

While there is no evidence of a groundswell of support for the idea that the alimony system should be reformed by using formulaic guidelines, there appears to be an escalating dialogue on this subject that matrimonial law practitioners, jurists and legislators in the State of New York and elsewhere cannot ignore.

This article explores the question of whether diagnostic labels have a legitimate place in the custody evaluation context and related evidentiary considerations of reliability, validity, relevance, and prejudice.

BAPCPA made significant changes in the treatment of alimony, child support and other obligations arising out of the dissolution of the marital relationship. This article refers to these obligations collectively as "family law obligations." Although many articles appeared in 2005 regarding the changes made by BAPCPA, it is worth revisiting these changes as they apply to the family law practitioner because the current economic downturn will lead to many more consumer bankruptcy filings in the remainder of 2008 and in 2009.

The federal government may not recognize same-sex couples, but it can pay benefits to their children. That is the result of a U.S. Department of Justice opinion released June 9.

At the May 2008 AAML (American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers) Matrimonial Arbitration Training Institute, presenters from North Carolina, Michigan and Texas, with scores of years of arbitration experience, gave advice about the responsibility of arbitrators and the smooth presentation of an arbitration case. That training is being considered through the lens of an important Pennsylvania matrimonial arbitration case: Deborah Kennedy v. Michael Kennedy.

Who's doing what; who's going where.