Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As discussed in Part One last month, an AFC advocates for the child client in much the same way that any other attorney advocates for an adult client. This author is not a fan. He concludes his discussion of the drawbacks of New York's AFC system herein.
Last month, the author noted that in New York State, prior to 2005, children who were the subjects of custody matters were provided with a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL); the GAL reported to the court, offering his or her thoughts on the best interests of the child, and sometimes explaining the child‘s preferences in the matter. Reforms brought about a change, with GALs being replaced by Attorneys for the Child (AFC). An AFC advocates for the child client in much the same way that any other attorney advocates for an adult client. And although this may not sound like a radical idea at first glance, this author is not a fan. He continues his discussion of the drawbacks of New York‘s AFC system here.
*May exclude premium content
Federal Tax Errors That Attorneys Make
By Matthew A. Feigin
This article is intended to help practitioners by warning of mistakes the author has seen matrimonial attorneys make in applying federal tax law.
Bisbing: The Relocation Question Wasn’t Necessarily the Intriguing One
By Laurence J. Cutler and Alyssa M. Clemente
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
According to the authors, using the holding of recent New Jersey Supreme Court case Bisbing v. Bisbing as a model, the clear and current trend throughout the United States that when a custodial parent is seeking to relocate outside of the state with a child, the best interest of the child standard should apply.
Drafting Divorce Settlement Agreements
By David Bliven
This article addresses some deficiencies in reviewing separation or settlement agreements done in divorce cases, and recommends various clauses that practitioners may implement in their own practices.
Analysis of a case in which the Eighth Circuit reversed the confirmation by the Board of Immigration Appeals of a deportation order because the Immigration Judge’s finding of a fraudulent marriage was not based on proper evidence.