A financial advisor who deals exclusively with women says that too many women make decisions based upon what friends and family tell them without using an experienced divorce specialist with financial recommendations.

One of the recommendations is to not take the first settlement proposal that comes from the other party.  Sometimes the desire to end the divorce as quickly as possible interferes with rational decision making.  Rather it is more important to take time in the decision making process because there are no do-overs and you have to live with your decision for a very long time.

While the first offer may look good, it is important to consider the financial and tax impact.  Using a professional financial advisor can be very beneficial

The financial advisor laid out for Forbes different phases of planning for financially surviving a divorce:

• Planning: gather all your records and develop financial plans for the future.
• Researching: prepare a very detailed and comprehensive list of all assets, debts, income and expenses and obtain an understanding of tax consequences.
• Strategizing: understand the immediate and long-term decisions of each divorce settlement proposal
• Review settlement proposals and compare alternative outcomes

In reviewing options, one of the first things to do is to assemble a first-rate legal and financial divorce team to represent and support you.

Resource: Forbes:  Welcome to Divorce Dollars and Sense”  by Jeffrey A. Landers April 7, 2011

The appellate court reviewed RCW 26.19.080 which provides for reimbursement if the overpayment amounts to at least 20% of the obligor’s annual daycare expense.  Since the mother was not incurring any daycare expense for this period, the father was justified in bringing this action.

A further issue arose in the Krogseth case relating to whether the father was sitting on his rights for an extended period of time.  The appellate court was asked to consider the argument that if the father had sought a modification or adjustment of his child support years ago, the court would have been presented with the issue of daycare and the increased amount of basic support.  In other words, the mother claimed that the total amount of child would have increased and the father would not have been entitled to $32,000+ of overpaid day care.  The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court to look at this issue.

What do we get from this case?  Don’t sit on your rights.  The equitable defenses of laches and equitable estoppel may bar a right to reimbursement.  You can have a right to reimbursement  but if you don’t timely act, you may lose that right.

So what are some the basics to be aware of, when it comes to your child and an imminent divorce?

* Do not keep it a secret or wait until the last minute.
* Tell your child together with your spouse.
* Keep things simple and straight-forward.
* Tell them the divorce is not their fault.
* Admit that this will be sad and upsetting for everyone.
* Reassure your child that you both still love them and will always be their parents.
* Do not discuss each other’s faults or problems with the child.

Parents should be alert to signs of distress in their child or children. Young children may react to divorce by becoming more aggressive and uncooperative or by withdrawing. Older children may feel deep sadness and loss. Their schoolwork may suffer and behavior problems are common. As teenagers and adults, children of divorce can have trouble with their own relationships and experience problems with self-esteem.

Inevitably, divorce for children and teens is a process; ongoing and unfolding. The more consistency that can be kept in-tact and the more love and open communication that is expressed, the better. An unhappy household of two parents fighting can have its share of damage on a child, too. So while a divorce is difficult, marriage and family counseling can help a family see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Washington State Grand Parents Rights

Washington State is currently the only state without an operational statute for grandparent visitation. The Washington statute is still on the books, but it was found unconstitutional by the Washington Supreme Court in 2005. Efforts to pass statutes governing grandparent visitation failed in 2006.

It was the Washington State’s visitation law that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as “breathtakingly broad” in the 2000 landmark case of Troxel v. Granville, casting doubt on the visitation laws of almost every state. In Washington State, the law was amended, but found unconstitutional by the Washington Supreme Court in 2005 in the case “In re Parentage of C.A.M.A.” The court stated that the statute “unconstitutionally infringes on a fit parent’s right to control visitation.”

In another 2005 case, “In re Parentage of L.B.” the Washington Supreme Court created the category of “de facto” parents. To show that one is a de facto parent requires the following:

• The natural or legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship.
• The petitioner and the child lived together in the same household.
• The petitioner assumed obligations of parenthood without expectation of financial compensation.
• The petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship, parental in nature.

The category of “de facto parents” has been of little use to grandparents seeking visitation rights, even though many grandparents may meet the criteria. Several factors have combined to reduce the impact of the ruling:

• Because the case of “In re Parentage of L.B.” involved a lesbian couple, some judges are reluctant to apply the principle of “de facto parents” to grandparents seeking visitation.
• The courts clearly want a legislative solution, as indicated by the Washington Supreme Court’s statement: “As such, based on our holdings in Smith and C.A.M.A., until the legislature amends the relevant statutes, there exists no statutory right to third  party visitation in Washington.”
• Furthermore, a de facto parent is not entitled to parental privileges as a matter of right but only when the granting of such privileges is determined to be in the best interests of the child, which often puts the burden of proof on the grandparents.

A suing for de facto status was a stepfather. The court rejected his petition, basically saying that the child in question already had two parents, a ruling which will certainly hurt many Washington State grandparents suing for visitation rights.

As long as this situation in Washington remains unresolved, grandparents seeking visitation rights are in a position that some characterize as extremely difficult, while others say the difficulties are practically insurmountable.

See Revised Code of Washington 26.09.240.

Not every live-in relationship qualifies as a meretricious relationship. To determine if such a relationship exists and therefore if division of the property should proceed as if the parties were married, these important considerations must be examined:

• Has there been continuous cohabitation?
• What has been the duration of the relationship?
• What was the purpose of the relationship?
• To what extent were resources pooled and for what purposes?
• What was the intent of the parties?

The answers to these questions are not always clear. Making clear determinations can be difficult. Pierce Law Offices has extensive experience in matters involving the application of community property laws to live-in relationships, including the landmark case of Zion Construction v. Gilmore.

Pierce Law Offices can explain these rights and the effect of community property laws on your situation. If needed, we will aggressively work to protect your rights and interests.

A domestic partnership agreement can define the rights and responsibilities of the parties regarding the ownership of personal property, the ownership of real property, living expenses, and a great deal more. It can eliminate or minimize the likelihood of litigation should the relationship break up. It can protect the inheritance rights of children born of previous marriages, just as a prenuptial agreement can. A domestic partnership agreement can strengthen a relationship by removing uncertainty over the possible division of property should the relationship dissolve. It can apply to both heterosexual and same sex relationships.

Pierce Law Offices in Seattle can draft a domestic partnership agreement or review agreements proposed by your partner. If necessary, we can undertake litigation to assert your rights, whether a written agreement exists or not.

• Child support
• Modification of child support requirements
• Enforcement of child support orders
• Back child support judgments

At our firm, we believe that persons receiving child support should receive all the child support required by law. We also believe that a person responsible for paying child support should not pay more than the law requires. Pierce Law Offices can take action to obtain an increase or a reduction in child support payments, as mandated by law.

having passed his CPA examination, attorney Rodney G. Pierce understands cash flow. He knows how to investigate and analyze situations involving self-employed persons or in situations where the sources of income are not clear. At Pierce Law Offices, we use the law, our knowledge, and our experience to protect your rights and interests in all aspects of child support.

For a free phone consultation with Pierce Law Offices, call 206-587-3757, or contact us online.