Skylark Blog

2024 U.S. Presidential Party Platforms - What are the policy positions that could affect families?

2024-10-02T17:40:00.003-04:00

While the laws that affect family formation, marriage and divorce are often made at the state level, there are also many policies and laws at the federal level that affect families and children. Just some examples from recent years that have impacted families in my mediation practice include changes to the federal tax laws (such as the elimination of the alimony tax deduction) and U.S. Supreme Court rulings on same sex marriage and reproductive health rights. In just over a month, the United States presidential election will have a significant impact on these federal policies going forward, and could choose the next appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

In 2016 and 2020 we shared what each presidential platform said about families and policy regarding family formation and dissolution, and below we'll provide you an update on the 2024 presidential platforms.

As Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." There are significant differences between the presidential candidates, and their platforms and while elected officials don't usually complete what their platform aspires to accomplish, it is still the best information available on what they intend to do. Since this blog focuses primarily on the impact of the law on families and family conflict, we will concentrate on only those portion of the presidential platforms but we have linked the full platforms for you below:

How does each 2024 U.S. Presidential Platform address families in America?

The 2024 Republic Party Platform is 28 pages long with 17 pages of text. It mentions the words "family" or "families" 18 times, the words "parents" or "parental" 6 times, "child" or "children" 8 times, and the word "marriage" once. The Republican party platform never uses the words "gay", "lesbian", "LGBT", or "transgender", but does reference "gender" 4 times.

Below are some excerpts from the Republic party platform's policies relevant to families:

The Republican Party Platform mentions the importance of supporting American families in multiple sections and identifies the following policies they intend to implement to support American families:

Excerpt from Chapter 1 - Defeat Inflation, and Quickly Bring Down All Prices

#4. Stop Illegal Immigration

"Republicans will secure the Border, deport Illegal Aliens, and reverse the Democrats’ Open Borders Policies that have driven up the cost of Housing, Education, and Healthcare for American families."

Excerpt from Chapter 2: Seal the Border, and Stop the Migrant Invasion

#2. Enforce Immigration Laws

"Republicans will strengthen ICE, increase penalties for illegal entry and overstaying Visas, and reinstate “Remain in Mexico” and other Policies that helped reduce Illegal Immigration to historic lows in President Trump’s first term. We will also invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known or suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the United States, ending the scourge of Illegal Alien gang violence once and for all. We will bring back the Travel Ban, and use Title 42 to end the child trafficking crisis by returning all trafficked children to their families in their Home Countries immediately."

Excerpt from Chapter 6 - Protect Seniors

4. Protect Care at Home for the Elderly

"Republicans will shift resources back to at-home Senior Care, overturn disincentives that lead to Care Worker shortages, and support unpaid Family Caregivers through Tax Credits and reduced red tape."

Excerpt from Chapter 7 - Cultivate Great K-12 Schools Leading to Great Jobs and Great Lives for Young People

#22. Universal School Choice

"Republicans believe families should be empowered to choose the best Education for their children. We support Universal School Choice in every State in America. We will expand 529 Education Savings Accounts and support Homeschooling Families equally."

The Republican Party Platform only mentions marriage and family formation in the following contexts:

Excerpt from Chapter 8 - Bring Common Sense to Government and Renew the Pillars of American Civilization

#1. Empower American Families

"Republicans will promote a Culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage, the blessings of childhood, the foundational role of families, and supports working parents. We will end policies that punish families."

Excerpt from Chapter 9 - Government, Of, By, and For the People

#4. Republicans Will Protect and Defend a Vote of the People, from within the States, on the Issue of Life

"We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments)."

Finally, the Republican Party Platform mentions gender in the following contexts:

Excerpt from Chapter 7 - Cultivate Great K-12 Schools Leading to Great Jobs and Great Lives for Young People

#6. Knowledge and Skills, Not CRT and Gender Indoctrination

"Republicans will ensure children are taught fundamentals like Reading, History, Science, and Math, not Leftwing propaganda. We will defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children using Federal Taxpayer Dollars."

Excerpt from Chapter 9 - Government, Of, By, and For the People

# 5. Republicans Will End Left-wing Gender Insanity

"We will keep men out of women’s sports, ban Taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition, reverse Biden’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations, and restore protections for women and girls."

Read the full 2024 Republic Party Platform here

The 2024 Democratic Party Platform is 92 pages long with 89 pages of text. It mentions the words "family" or "families" 153 times (including the last word of the entire Platform), the words "parents" or "parental" 17 times, "child" or "children" 95 times, and the word "marriage" 3 times. The Democratic party platform uses the words "gay", "lesbian", or "LGBTQI+" 41 times, and references "gender" or "transgender" 19 times.

Below are some excerpts from the Democratic party platform's policies relevant to families:

The Democratic Party Platform mentions the importance of supporting families in multiple places focusing on the financial impact of inflation, taxes, education costs, medical costs, and student debt relief. These are some of the specific policies the platform identifies the Democratic party intends to implement to support American families:

Excerpt from Chapter Two: Rewarding Work, Not Wealth

CUTTING TAXES FOR WORKING FAMILIES

"Democrats will protect everyone earning less than $400,000 a year from any tax increase; and we will fight to protect and expand other tax benefits for working people and families with children."

"During the pandemic, Democrats expanded the Child Tax Credit, saving nearly 40 million families with 65 million children up to $3,600 per child per year, and cutting child poverty nearly in half to its lowest rate on record. We expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit as well, saving over 17 million low-paid workers an average $700 a year. And, we expanded the health insurance premium tax credit, saving millions of families who buy coverage on an Affordable Care Act exchange about $800 a year."

Excerpts from Chapter Three: Lowering Costs

CHILD CARE, HOME CARE, & PAID LEAVE

"That plan will create America’s first, full, national paid family and medical leave program, guaranteeing every American worker up to 12 weeks of paid time off to care for a new child or loved one to recover from an illness, in cases of domestic violence, or military deployment. It will help families care for one another, and it will help businesses retain valuable talent and small businesses to compete. Millions more parents will be able to work, and it will add hundreds of billions to our economy. Democrats have pushed for this for decades. It’s past time that America caught up with the rest of the world."

EDUCATION

"We know that education starts well before kids go to kindergarten. Studies show that children who attend preschool are nearly 50 percent more likely to finish high school and go on to earn a two- or four-year degree, no matter their background. That’s why Democrats will provide free, universal preschool for four-year olds, saving the families of 5 million children $13,000 a year."

"His Administration already approved the cancellation of $167 billion in loans for nearly 5 million borrowers, including nearly a million public servants like teachers, nurses, and police; and it has outlined plans to deliver relief to 30 million borrowers in all. Meanwhile, its new SAVE plan is the most affordable student-loan repayment plan in history, helping 8 million Americans – including more than 4.5 million who now have a $0 monthly payment. These savings will transform lives, freeing people to buy a house, to start a family, or to launch a business with new hope."

The Democratic Party Platform mentions marriage in the context of marriage equality and references family formation issues such as adoption and reproductive freedom, and addresses gender and trans-gender discrimination in this section:

Excerpt from Chapter Six: Strengthening Democracy, Protecting Freedoms, & Advancing Equity

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM

"President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Democrats are fighting back to restore reproductive freedom for every woman in every state. President Biden signed three executive orders and a presidential memorandum to stand up for reproductive rights. The Administration is protecting access to abortion, including by creating a new path for pharmacies to dispense FDA-approved medication abortion and defending access in court. It is expanding reproductive health care for service members, veterans, and their family members. The Administration is defending access to emergency medical care, including clarifying that federal law on emergency care preempts state abortion bans, educating patients on their rights, making it easier for patients who have been denied emergency care to file a complaint, and ensuring hospitals meet their legal obligations to offer care. It is challenging threats from Republicans to prosecute people who help women travel to a different state for abortion care, and helping states expand access under Medicaid for women who travel from states with bans. We are safeguarding patients’ and providers’ privacy, including by strengthening HIPAA protections, cracking down on the illegal sharing of personal information, strengthening consumer data protections, and issuing guidance to protect student privacy in this area. And we are ensuring access to accurate information and legal resources, including by launching ReproductiveRights.gov and convening more than 200 lawyers and advocates to support abortion-related legal defense services."

"Nine in 10 women have used contraception, and Democrats are also working to expand access to birth control. Under President Biden’s leadership, the FDA approved the first over-the-counter daily oral contraceptive, making birth control easier than ever to access. President Biden has also built on the Affordable Care Act to make a broader range of contraceptives available to women at no cost through their health insurance. The 49 Administration has boosted access to free and low-cost services through the Title X family planning program, and expanded access to birth control for service members and through the VA."

LGBTQI+

"President Biden is committed to leading the most pro-equality Administration in history. Democrats passed and President Biden signed the historic Respect for Marriage Act, enshrining marriage equality in federal law."

"When a person can be married in the morning and thrown out of a restaurant for being gay in the afternoon, something is still wrong. That’s why Democrats will pass the Equality Act to codify protections for LGBTQI+ Americans and their families. We will prohibit employment discrimination in the federal government, including contractors, and make federally-funded seniors programs LGBTQI+ inclusive. And we have and will continue to make great strides in protecting LGBTQI+ children and prospective parents in the adoption and foster care systems."

"Democrats will continue to fight for LGBTQI+ youth by building on President Biden’s historic actions to ban so-called “conversion therapy”; protecting LGBTQI+ children from bullying and discrimination; guaranteeing that transgender students are treated fairly and with respect at school; and ending the homeless crisis among LGBTQI+ youth. "

"LGBTQI+ Americans have long faced threats to their safety just for being who they are. President Biden launched the LGBTQI+ Community Safety Partnership to provide community safety trainings, support health care providers who serve the LGBTQI+ community, and support LGBTQI+ communities to report hate crimes, and build cross-community partnerships to address hate-fueled violence. The Justice Department is taking an all-of-department approach to protecting LGBTQI+ rights. Democrats will end violence against transgender Americans, especially Black and brown transgender women, and prioritize the investigation of hate crimes against trans and non-binary people."

The Democratic Party Platform also focuses on the impact of children and families from mass shootings and the opioid epidemic:

Excerpt from Chapter Five: Protecting Communities & Tackling the Scourge of Gun Violence

GUN SAFETY

"The gun violence epidemic is a scourge ripping apart our communities; it is the leading cause of death for children and teens. Mass shootings at schools, grocery stores, houses of worship, dancehalls, and nightclubs, as well as daily gun violence at home and on streets, devastate American families."

"Democrats will establish universal background checks, a step supported by the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners. We will once again ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We will require safe storage for guns. Democrats will end the gun industry’s immunity from liability, so gunmakers can no longer escape accountability. We will pass a national red flag law to prevent tragedies by keeping weapons out of dangerous hands. We will increase funding to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for enforcement and prosecution, and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for firearm background checks. And, because the gun violence epidemic is a public health crisis, we will fund gun violence research across the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as community violence interventions."

Excerpt from Chapter Eight: Advancing the President’s Unity Agenda

BEATING THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC

"For too long, the scourge of opioids has torn through our communities, ripping apart families and shattering lives. Our nation’s opioid epidemic impacts Americans in every corner of the country, from small towns to large cities to Tribal lands. Far too many Americans have lost loved ones to addiction and overdose.

The Biden-Harris Administration is strengthening prevention, investing in treatment, and expanding recovery support services..."

Lastly, the Democratic Party Platform ends with a foreign policy plan and policies related to the U.S. Military. The last line of the entire Platform follows:

Excerpt from Chapter Nine: Strengthening American Leadership Worldwide

STRONGEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD

"And he will continue to always put our veterans and military families first by securing additional pay raises for service members, accessible and affordable childcare for our military families, good-paying job opportunities for military spouses, effective suicide and sexual assault prevention programs, and benefits for our veterans and their families."

Read the full 2024 Democratic Party Platform here

The 2024 Green Party Platform is approximately 200 pages long when printed from their website. It mentions the words "family" or "families" 26 times, the words "parents" or "parental" 14 times, "child" or "children" 59 times, and the word "marriage" 5 times. The Green party platform uses the words "gay", "lesbian", or "lgbtqia" 10 times, and references "gender" or "transgender" 30 times.

Below are some of the excerpts from the Green party platform's discussions relevant to families:

The Green Party Platform has a section specifically titled "Families and Children" which references other sections and summarizes the way that the Green party proposes to support families:

Excerpt from I. Democracy - B. Community

1. Families and Children

a. We call for social policies to focus on protecting families. The young— our citizens of tomorrow— are increasingly at risk. Programs must ensure that children, who are among the most vulnerable members of society, receive basic nutritional, educational, and medical necessities. The Green Party supports and seeks to expand Head Start and Pre- and neo-natal programs. A Children's Agenda should be put in place to focus attention and concerted action on the future that is our children. [See section A.8. Youth Rights in chapter II]

b. A universal, federally funded childcare program for pre-school and young school children should be developed.

c. Family assistance such as the earned income tax credit, available to working poor families in which the parent supports and lives with the children, should be maintained and increased to offset regressive payroll taxes and growing inequalities in American society. [See section E. True Cost Pricing and

Tax Fairness in chapter IV]

d. A living family wage is vital to the social health of communities [See section D. Livable Income in chapter IV]

e. The actuarial protection of social security is essential to the well-being of our seniors, and maintenance of the system's integrity is an essential part of a healthy community. We oppose privatization of social security, call for the program to remain under the aegis of the Federal Government, and seek to expand its effectiveness. [See section M. National Debt in chapter IV]

f. We support the leading-edge work of non-profit public interest groups and those individuals breaking out of "careerism" to pursue non-traditional careers in public service.

The Green Party Platform also focuses on women's rights and how that issue affects families both in the United States and Internationally:

Excerpt from II. Social Justice - A. Civil Rights and Equal Rights

1. Women's Rights

Social Equality

"a. We support the equal application of the Constitution of the United States of America to all citizens, and therefore call for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)..."
"b. We call for equal representation of women in Congress, which has not yet been achieved."

"c. The Green Party calls for U.S. passage of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, which was adopted in 1979 by the U.N. General Assembly and now ratified by nearly all countries. The U.S. is one of the very few countries that have not ratified it."

Reproductive Rights

"Women’s rights must be protected and expanded to guarantee each woman’s right as a full participant in society, free from sexual harassment, job discrimination or interference in the intensely personal choice about whether to have a child."

"Women’s right to control their bodies is non-negotiable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available. The “morning-after” pill must be affordable and easily accessible without a prescription, together with a government-sponsored public relations campaign to educate women about this form of contraception. Clinics must be accessible and must offer advice on contraception and the means for contraception; consultation about abortion and the performance of abortions; and abortion regardless of age or marital status."

The Green Party Platform addresses gender and trans-gender discrimination in this section:

Excerpt from II. Social Justice - A. Civil Rights and Equal Rights

6. "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity"

"1. The Green Party affirms the rights of all individuals to freely choose intimate partners, regardless of their sex, gender, or gender identity."

"2. The Green Party recognizes the full civil rights of sexual and gender minorities. The existing civil rights act prohibits discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability. We will work to add sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to the existing civil rights act."

The Green Party Platform also has a section on potential reforms related to adoption:

Excerpt from II. Social Justice - A. Civil Rights and Equal Rights

12. "Adoptee Rights"

"Due to current laws millions of adults that were adopted as children are now being denied access to vital records regarding their births. This is a basic human right that the Green Party should be committed to help in abolishing the secrets and lies that surround many adoptions around the world by creating necessary transparency between adoptees, their mothers and adoptive parents."

Read the full 2020 Green Party Platform here.

The current Libertarian Party Platform (adopted in 2022) is 10 pages long with 8 pages of text. It does not mention the words "family" or "families." It mentions the words "parents" or "parental" 6 times, "child" or "children" 6 times, and the word "marriage" twice. The Libertarian party platform does not use the words "gay", "lesbian", or "LGBT", and references "gender" twice.

Below are some of the excerpts from the Libertarian party platform's discussions relevant to families:

Excerpt from 1.4 Personal Relationships

"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply."

Excerpt from 1.5 "Parental Rights"

"Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected."

Read the full 2016 Libertarian Platform here.

If you want additional assistance finding information about the presidential elections as well as state and local elections, check out Vote like a Beast.com, which is a collection of many resources and links for finding voting information.

Finally, a note from the author: In 2020, I was open about my endorsement of Joe Biden for President and condemnation of the threat Donald Trump's policies presented to democratic election integrity and to human rights for all individuals and families in the United States of America. In 2024, I believe this is still true and that the Republican platform chooses specifically to endorse only one type of family rather than treat all families with equal dignity and respect. For that and other reasons, I support Kamala Harris for President in the 2024 election.

With that being said I have strived to present the information objectively above, quoting directly from the sources with links to the full platforms. I have done this specifically so you can decide for yourselves (and we encourage all eligible voters to vote in the upcoming election).

Can you Deviate from the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines?

2024-10-02T11:39:00.002-04:00

When completing the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, many people are surprised by the resulting amount. The court treats the worksheet amount as presumptive, which means that the amount in the worksheet is likely to be ordered by the court unless there is a good reason to deviate. A common question in mediation between parents (both married and unmarried) is:

If we agree to a different child support amount than the worksheet (or no child support at all), can we opt out or agree to a different child support than the guidelines suggests?

The short answer is: sometimes.

In order to receive a Judgment from the court (whether in a divorce or an action between unmarried parents), the court requires the filing of the Child Support Guidelines worksheet. However, there is a list of deviation factors in the Guidelines that the court can consider for ordering a number different than the worksheet.

When people are proposing a deviation that they have agreed to, the court has to decide if it's fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the child or children. The court's level of push-back depends on how big of a deviation it is, which Judge you get, and how good your reasons are for deviating. A small deviation by agreement will almost always be approved without much question. Some Judges will question a larger deviation more than others and so in preparing the paperwork without knowing which Judge you might get we typically make sure to include some reasons for the deviation.

The current language in the 2023 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines on deviation states:

Section IV: Deviation

A. The Court, or the parties by agreement approved by the Court, may deviate from these guidelines and overcome the presumptive application of these guidelines, provided the Court enters specific written findings stating:

the amount of the order that would result from application of the guidelines;
that the guidelines amount would be unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances;
the specific facts of the case which justify departure from the guidelines; and
that such departure is consistent with the best interests of the child.

B. Circumstances which may support deviating, above or below the presumptive guidelines amount, including setting a child support order at $0, are as follows:

the parties agree and the Court determines the agreement to be fair and reasonable and approves their agreement;
a child has ongoing special needs or aptitudes with financial consequences;
a child has ongoing extraordinary mental, physical, or developmental needs with financial consequences;
a parent has ongoing extraordinary mental, physical, or developmental needs with financial consequences;
a parent has extraordinary expenses for health care coverage;
a parent has extraordinary travel or other expenses related to parenting time;
a parent has extraordinary child care costs for the children covered by this order;
a parent provides substantially less than one-third of the parenting time for a child or children;
the payor is incarcerated and has insufficient financial resources to pay support;
application of the guidelines, particularly in low income cases, leaves a parent without the ability to self support;
application of the guidelines would result in a gross disparity in the standard of living between the two households such that one household is left with an unreasonably low percentage of the combined available income;
application of the guidelines may adversely impact reunification of a parent and child where the child has been temporarily removed from the household in accordance with G.L. c. 119; and
absent deviation, application of the guidelines would lead to an order that is unjust, inappropriate or not in the best interests of the child, considering the Principles of these guidelines.

C. Whenever application of the guidelines requires a payor to pay a recipient more than 40% of the payor’s available income in Line 3a of the guidelines worksheet for a current child support order, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of a substantial hardship, justifying a deviation from the guidelines.

If you are requesting that the court approve an agreement for a deviation, the court has a Findings & Deviation form that has to be filed with the court proposing that the Judge approve the deviation contained in an Agreement.

If you want to access free versions of the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet and Findings & Deviation forms, the court has provided pdf or online versions here:

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Worksheet

Findings & Deviation Form

Gray Jay Endeavors LLC has created more editable versions of these forms in Excel and Word respectively available for purchase and download here:

Excel Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Worksheet

Word Findings & Deviation Form

Both of these are also available for practitioners to use in multiple cases with a forms subscription at Gray Jay Endeavors, LLC.

Gray Jay Endeavors, LLC provides Separation Agreement Templates and Massachusetts divorce forms as a resource for professionals and divorcing couples. If you are a professional who wants to learn more about our forms subscriptions visit GrayJayEndeavors.com.

Click here if you would like to schedule a video demonstration of our forms.

The Most Common Complaints about Family Court and How Collaborative Law Solves Them

2024-08-28T13:36:00.003-04:00

It's common knowledge that family court is a place you want to avoid if you can. While the court is a resource that can help people in need of a resolution to various family conflicts, no one hopes to end up there, and there is readily available data on what the most common complaints are for those that do.

The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct publishes an annual report on the complaints they receive. The 2022 Annual Report (released in 2023) gives us some insight into what causes people to be dissatisfied with the court system. Of the complaints that were docketed, 1/3 of them were against the Family and Probate Court. The most common complaints were that the judge showed an inappropriate demeanor (included in 2/3 of the complaints) or that the litigant was denied a full opportunity to be heard (in almost half of the complaints). In addition, almost 30% of complaints alleged bias (including gender, race, or bias against self-represented litigants).

This may seem like just sour grapes, with many of the complainants likely having been on the losing end of their court case. In a family court case, though, many participants must still interact with the dissatisfied party. Divorcing and unmarried parents potentially have a lifelong relationship with the other parent, and if they feel slighted by the process that decided parenting time or child support, then that conflict will continue outside of the court.

That is why we often tell clients and potential clients that court is there if needed, but it should be considered a last resort when you are experiencing family conflict because there are other proven out-of-court methods for resolving many conflicts without the need for court (or minimal court involvement). Mediation and Collaborative Law are both processes that focus on reducing conflict for families and trying to create long-term solutions with buy-in from all involved. In this article, I want to specifically focus on how we can address the most complaints people have about court using the core principles of Collaborative Law. The core principles of Collaborative Law are:

A Non-Adversarial Process
Uses Interest-Based Negotiation
Focuses on Identifying Goals and Seeks Solutions that are Mutually Advantageous
Active Client Participation in Joint Problem Solving
Hiring Neutral Experts & Working as a Team
Transparency of Information & Sharing all Relevant Information
Structured Decision-Making Process
Disqualification Clause: Focused Representation as Settlement Counsel Only

The Most Common Complaint: Inappropriate Demeanor of the Judge

Solution: Choose a process that respects your inherent dignity by retaining/returning to you the power of deciding.

If someone accuses the judge of having an inappropriate demeanor, they're really saying that they didn't feel that the judge respected the seriousness of these issues or the inherent dignity of the person in front of them. It's understandable that one would want to feel fully respected by someone who is deciding some of the most important questions in their life (how often you can see your children, how much money you will have, etc.). While many judges strive to show respect and dignity to the people in front of them, the court cannot give each case the attention that they deserve because of a lack of funding, lack of staffing, and a lack of time. The process of having someone else decide important life decisions for you is inherently disempowering. Especially when that person is a stranger.

Even a judge who cares deeply about the people in front of them is being asked to substitute their own judgment for that of the parties. Collaborative Law resolves this dichotomy by empowering the clients to make decisions for themselves through a structured non-adversarial process designed to make sure they are fully informed about those decisions and have a chance to consider the best options available to them. The collaborative coach helps the participants have a respectful discussion and even difficult conversations can be had in a safe and dignified way. The collaborative lawyers help prepare their clients to advocate in a cooperate rather than adversarial manner. Through this guidance and preparation, the participants in a collaborative negotiation control the tone and demeanor of their experience.

The 2nd Most Common Complaint: Denial of a Full Opportunity to be Heard

Solution: Choose a process that doesn't limit the topics, information, or time.

The most important decisions in someone's life should be made in the amount of time they decide it takes, not the amount of time a court has to give them. The Collaborative Law process takes as much or as little time to make decisions as is needed by everyone involved. The clients won't be rushed by a court schedule, or have to wait for the next available court date, and all the decisions are made by them after being fully informed of their options. This can be more time consuming than a court process, but can be more efficient long term if it prevents future trips to court for appeals or modifications when a party is dissatisfied with the outcome or the process of obtaining that outcome.

In addition to time limitations, the court must enforce rules of evidence. Information is only admissible if it fits within those rules and the hearing constraints of the legal process. It's no wonder people don't feel fully heard, because the system is specifically designed to limit what can be heard. The Collaborative Law process doesn't limit the discussion to just the legal problem, or limit itself to just the legally admissible evidence, but instead starts with a commitment to the transparency of information and sharing of all relevant information.

The Collaborative Law process can address the overlapping issues with communication, making legal decisions, making financial decisions, and making parenting decisions. Collaborative Law encourages the use of experts in each area. Is your lawyer also a therapist, child development expert, financial expert? Usually we're not and the Collaborative Law process addresses this by encouraging the use of a team of professionals necessary to give each case the proper attention and expertise needed.

These three principles combined (controlling the timeline, the flow of information, and the professionals involved) make it considerably more likely that a participant will feel fully heard through the Collaborative Law process.

The 3rd Most Common Complaint: Bias

Solution: Choose a process that is designed to respond to the diversity of individuals and their issues.

The court make-up is evolving, but the judges and staff still do not reflect the diversity of the population they serve. This is also true of the professional pool of people that provide dispute resolution services. Diversity amongst our professions is an issue that continues to need more work. However, the power imbalance in the court discourages parties from raising concerns about bias during their case. In contrast, the Collaborative Law process encourages it.

The professionals are hired by you, so if you think they're biased you can move on to other professionals or raise the issue and collaborative coaches have been trained to address these types of issues with the collaborative team. Of course this doesn't always guarantee an individual professional will agree they have a bias, but the team approach helps these types of issues get addressed and the impact of any bias is minimized because ultimately the parties are still deciding any outcome.

In addition, one particular type of bias that often concerns clients is the inherent disconnect between the financial motivations of the professionals and the clients; in simpler terms the more a lawyer fights or drags out the fight, the more money they could make. The Collaborative Law process directly addresses this issue in two ways. First, the disqualification clause of the Collaborative Law Process Agreement prohibits collaborative lawyers from participating in litigation, which means that they are focusing their representation only on settlement. Second, the use of neutral experts as often as possible reduces the work of the lawyers. While there is often some additional time necessary to coordinate between the team, having each team member focus on their expertise is ultimately more efficient for the clients and reduces overall cost.

To learn more about Collaborative Law visit Skylarklaw.com.

Financial Statement Drafting Lessons from recent Massachusetts Appellate Decisions

2024-07-16T23:48:00.002-04:00

We recently posted a lengthy review of the the Massachusetts SJC decision in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh (2002) and a similar overview of the subsequent SJC decision Openshaw v. Openshaw (2024). Both of these cases had significant rulings that should be reviewed in child support and alimony cases in Massachusetts. Here, though, we want to focus on just one area these decisions have affected: how best to complete the court form Financial Statement in divorce cases.

When completing the income section of the Financial Statement, people often struggle with how to deal with variable income and how to accurately address deductions from income.

The Financial Statement includes spaces for many times of income but it assumes the number is static. For bonus, commissions, or second job income (which was an issue in Cavanagh), the income is often variable over time. This is where we encourage our clients to use endnotes to explain any variability or expected changes in income. The Financial Statement is a disclosure document, but as a one-size-fits-all form if you want it to tell the whole picture sometimes you have to include an explanation. If you're using the court form you can simply attach an additional sheet with endnotes. If you're using the Gray Jay version of the form then you will find an endnote page is included for this purpose.

The Cavanagh decision also focused on the inclusion of interest, dividends and capital gains income. This is also income that can be significantly variable year to year. While the SJC ignored the complexity of their ruling on this issue, their failure to provide a standard for calculating this "income" leaves space for the trial court to interpret when this income should be included. Again, endnotes explaining any expected variations could make the difference in whether the income is included in a support calculation or not.

One of the most unexpected portions of the Cavanagh decision related to income that is not reported on most people's paystubs, the contributions that an employer makes to retirement and HSAs. While an employee's contribution is usually listed on a paystub, the employer match is often only disclosed in employment documents or the retirement deposit statements. Similarly, the current court form Financial Statement does not include a line for this type of income. This means that practically in cases without counsel, most people are not going to ask for or know about this additional income, creating a significant potential disparity between those who are represented and those who are not.

The court should update the financial statement to include the disclosure of these contributions, otherwise the economic impact of this ruling will be very obviously inconsistent and discriminatory. If you're using the Gray Jay version of the Financial Statement form then you will find the Additional Income page includes a pre-labelled space for "Employer Contributions to Retirement (See Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 490 Mass. 398 - 2022)".

Finally, it's worth noting that upon remand the Cavanagh trial court rationale for the resulting support order heavily relied on the "need" demonstrated by the available income and expenses on the parties' financial statements. Just like the income and deductions page, the weekly expenses section of the Financial Statement is outdated. It is missing many items common in today's family budgets, like internet, streaming services, or cell phones. The Gray Jay version of the Financial Statement form includes additional schedules for common areas where additional information is often necessary (for example in the Additional Weekly Expenses schedule there is a list of common additional expenses that aren't in the basis weekly expenses list). Just because something isn't in the basic list doesn't mean you shouldn't include it.

Here is a sample list of expenses that many of our clients have, but which is not in the regular list in the court's version of the form:

Cell Phone
Internet
Trash Removal & Recycling
Streaming Services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime etc.)
Dining Out
Disability Insurance
College Savings Contributions
School Tuition, Books, & Fees
School Transportation
Extracurricular Activity Expenses
Babysitters
Before / After School Programs
Camps
Haircuts
Gifts
Pet Expenses (Pet care, food, vet, medicine)
Landscaping
Snow Removal
Cleaning Services
Regular Contribution to Savings

This last bullet relates specifically to the holding in the Openshaw decision. In that case, the SJC held that savings can be part of a alimony recipient's need when that was a regular part of the couple's lifestyle during the marriage and there is an ability to meet that need after divorce. To demonstrate that need, a potential recipient should include a potential expense item for "regular contribution to savings", even though that's not on the base form Financial Statement.

Visit our last post, if you want a more comprehensive overview of best practices and instructions for complete the Massachusetts Family Court form Financial Statement.

Click here if you would like to schedule a video demonstration of our forms.

Massachusetts Family Court Financial Statement - Instructions & Best Practices

2024-07-16T23:12:00.002-04:00

During a divorce, or other case in the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court that involves your finances, such as a child support case, you will likely be required to file a court form Financial Statement. In Massachusetts there are two versions of this form: a "short form" if your income is under $75,000 and a "long form" if your income is $75,000 or more. Many people find these forms confusing and we've compiled a list of helpful information for filling them out.

First, to access the forms, the court has provided pdf or online versions here:

Massachusetts Rule 401 Short Form Financial Statement (pdf)

Massachusetts Rule 401 Long Form Financial Statement (pdf)

There are also some basic instructions provided by the court explaining the sections of the forms and providing access to a Schedule A (for self-employed people) and Schedule B (for rental income):

Massachusetts Rule 401 Short Form Financial Statement Basic Instructions

Massachusetts Rule 401 Long Form Financial Statement Basic Instructions

The court does not provide excel or other versions of the forms other than the ones linked above, but some private groups have created their own versions. It's important to use forms that match the court forms, so if you are using a 3rd party form make sure it prints and looks like the court form. One example of a form that matches the court form and provided additional schedules to make it easier to file a complete financial statement is Gray Jay Endeavors LLC's financial statement forms in Excel spreadsheet format:

Massachusetts Rule 401 Short Form Financial Statement (Excel)

Massachusetts Rule 401 Long Form Financial Statement (Excel)

Both of these are available for practitioners to use in multiple cases with a forms subscription at Gray Jay Endeavors, LLC.

Once you've decided which format you are using you will want to follow these instructions for filling out the Massachusetts Financial Statement forms:

Don't use full Social Security or Account #s: When completing a Financial Statement, redact all but the last four digits of your Social Security number and account numbers to ensure privacy, but provide enough information for identification.

Fill out the form completely: The Financial Statement is one of the most important papers that you will file with the Court. You are required to file a Financial Statement each time you appear in Court when there is an issue relating to finances, and you must sign your Financial Statement under the pains and penalties of perjury that the information contained in the Financial Statement is complete, true, and accurate.

Fill in every line. If you have nothing to put on a line, write in the word “NONE” or $0. If you need more space for the information in sections you may attach additional sheets of paper. The Gray Jay version of the Financial Statement form includes additional schedules for common areas where additional information is often necessary (for example in the Additional Weekly Expenses schedule there is a list of common additional expenses that aren't in the basis weekly expenses list). Just because something isn't in the basic list doesn't mean you shouldn't include it.

Here is a sample list of expenses that many of our clients have, but which is not in the regular list in the court's version of the form:

Cell Phone
Internet
Trash Removal & Recycling
Streaming Services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime etc.)
Dining Out
Disability Insurance
College Savings Contributions
School Tuition, Books, & Fees
School Transportation
Extracurricular Activity Expenses
Babysitters
Before / After School Programs
Camps
Haircuts
Gifts
Pet Expenses (Pet care, food, vet, medicine)
Landscaping
Snow Removal
Cleaning Services
Regular Contribution to Savings

Err on the side of more disclosure and when something doesn't seem to fit don't be afraid to include an additional schedule or a footnote or endnote with an explanation.

Income and Expenses are WEEKLY: When completing the income and expenses section, one of the most common mistakes is to include a monthly amount for a bill. For example, clients will often write their monthly mortgage or rent amount because that is how often it is paid. However, the form calls for weekly expenses and using a monthly amount will significantly overinflate your total expenses.

Divide monthly amounts by 4.3 to get weekly amounts (or to be completely accurate multiple by 12 and divided by 52). If using the Excel version of the form you can do this right on the form. Do NOT list expenses that you have listed as deductions from your pay in the weekly expenses as well. Do include the weekly payments for any liabilities listed in Section 11 so that this is added to your total. The excel version of the form does this automatically.

If someone else in your household pays some of the expenses, you should only write down the amount that you actually pay or include a footnote to explain jointly shared expenses.

Estimating or dating values: When you put a value on a property or an account, it can be helpful in future discussions to know where that amount came from. If you are estimating the fair market value versus having an appraisal those numbers might appear different to an attorney or judge reviewing your statement. You can use endnotes to clarify the source of information. Similarly for account values, some values only come out monthly or quarterly and others are available daily. It can be helpful to identify in an endnote the date that values were looked up, especially in large accounts that can fluctuate over time.

Be Accurate and Complete and mark Drafts clearly: Remember, you are signing your Financial Statement under the pains and penalties of perjury that its contents are complete, true, and accurate. If there are any inaccuracies or untruths, you may be asked about it in Court, which could hurt your credibility. If you are using this statement in a negotiation, it can hurt the negotiation if someone feels that you are not being completely forthcoming. Sometimes negotiations move forward before you have all the information you need to provide a complete statement. If that's the case mark clearly that you are providing a draft and include a note indicating which information you are still gathering, so there isn't any confusion.

In mediation we often work with drafts so we can keep a conversation moving forward and discuss what additional information both people need to move forward.

Click here if you would like to schedule a video demonstration of our forms.

Co-Parenting Coordinator Agreements - What They Can Do and How to Draft Them

2024-06-27T14:09:00.003-04:00

Photo by Marcelo Silva on Unsplash

Conflict between parents negatively affects children but for some parents it's hard to avoid conflict when separating or divorcing. Loss, grief, and anger all make it difficult to co-parent and some parents need help overcoming those barriers. One of the professionals that can help parents reduce conflict by assisting them in making the necessary co-parenting decisions is a Co-Parenting Coordinator. The duties of a Co-Parenting Coordinator can vary but often include assisting parents with decision making around:

changes or clarifications of the existing parenting plan;
exchanges of the child or children including date, time, place, means of and responsibilities for transportation;
education or daycare including school choice, tutoring, summer school, before and after school care, participation in special education testing and programs, or other educational decisions;
enrichment and extracurricular activities including camps and jobs;
the child or children's travel and passport arrangements;
clothing, equipment, and personal possessions of the child or children;
means of communication by a parent with the child or children when they are not in that parent's care;
role of and contact with significant others and extended families;
psychotherapy or other mental health care including substance abuse or mental health assessment or counseling for the child or children;
psychological testing or other assessments of the children; and
religious observances and education.

In addition, sometimes Co-Parenting Coordinators are granted quasi-judicial powers to make binding decisions when parents disagree, subject to review by the court.

In Massachusetts, if parties have agreed to the appointment of a Co-Parenting Coordinator, they should review Probate and Family Court Standing Order 1-17. For an agreement to use a Co-Parenting Coordinator be enforceable by the court in Massachusetts it must be signed in writing by the parties and the Co-Parenting Coordinator, and in compliance with the Standing Order. We suggest filing such an agreement as a separate addendum and have created a template for parenting coordinator appointment available here, which follows the Standing Order requirements.

Because the Agreement to use the Co-Parenting Coordinator is also signed by the Co-Parenting Coordinator as well it shouldn't be included in the same document as the rest of a parenting or divorce agreement. Following is sample language that can be used in a parenting agreement to reference the separate addendum:

PARENTING COORDINATOR ADDENDUM: _________ and _________ agree to the appointment of a Parenting Coordinator as defined in Probate and Family Court Standing Order 1-17 and they intend to file with this Agreement an Addendum outlining the terms of the Parenting Coordinator’s appointment, the terms of which are incorporated herein.

Click here if you would like to schedule a video demonstration of our forms.

Updating your Divorce Agreement Template - More Lessons from Cavanagh v. Cavanagh

2024-06-26T12:41:00.003-04:00

We recently posted a lengthy review of the the Massachusetts SJC decision in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh (2002) which included some recommendations for drafting divorce agreements, also typically called Separation Agreements. The Cavanagh case is best known for it's clarification of how the courts should evaluate support calculations when a case may have both alimony and child support. However, the case also contained numerous rulings that should make practitioners review their Separation Agreement templates and change some of the ways in which they may have previously drafted certain sections.

In this post we'll share actual language from the Gray Jay Endeavors, LLC form Separation Agreement template which addresses each of the issues raised by the Cavanagh decision. If you are a professional interested in purchasing the full Separation Agreement template, check out Gray Jay's forms subscription which includes editable Massachusetts court forms and financial statements as well.

Recommendations for Drafting Separation Agreements:

Always indicate in your drafted Agreements that the agreement was drafted by both sides and there should be no presumption in the drafting against either party (to avoid the presumption against your client).

Sample Language:

AMBIGUITIES: Because this Agreement has been drafted with input from both parties, any ambiguities that may arise will not be construed against either party as the “drafter” of this Agreement.

Delete emancipation definitions that differ at all from the statutory definition, or try to further qualify the definition. Judges are and should be rejecting these additional provisions given the Cavanagh ruling.

Sample Language:

DEFINITION OF EMANCIPATION: Emancipation is defined by the application of the pertinent provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 28, which provides that the “court may make appropriate orders of maintenance, support and education of any child who has attained age eighteen but who has not attained age twenty-one and who is domiciled in the home of a parent, and is principally dependent upon said parent for maintenance. The court may make appropriate orders of maintenance, support and education for any child who has attained age twenty-one but who has not attained age twenty-three, if such child is domiciled in the home of a parent, and is principally dependent upon said parent for maintenance due to the enrollment of such child in an educational program, excluding educational costs beyond an undergraduate degree.”

Note that any deviations from child support are always reviewable by the court in a modification, even if in consideration for other provisions.

Sample Language:

For cases where the parties followed the child support guidelines:

MODIFICATION OF AMOUNT: _________ and _________ acknowledge that child support may be modified if there is an inconsistency between the amount of the existing order and the amount that would result from the application of the child support guidelines. If either parent requests a modification of support, and they reach agreement, such modifications and agreements will be reduced to a writing in advance of implementation and will be signed by both parents and submitted to the court with a Joint Petition for Modification, at shared cost. If the parents are unable to agree, they will comply with the Dispute Resolution provisions in this Agreement. The parents acknowledge that parents may bargain to provide support to their children in more circumstances than provided for by statute, but they cannot erode a child's statutory right to support by agreement and the court retains jurisdiction until emancipation of the children to modify support if there is an inconsistency with the child support guidelines.

For cases where the parties deviated from the child support guidelines:

MODIFICATION OF AMOUNT: _________ and _________ acknowledge that child support is already inconsistent with the guidelines due to the deviation rationale provided above. The parents agree that child support may be modified when there is a material and substantial change in circumstances, or if the facts that gave rise to the deviation no longer exist. If either parent requests a modification of support, and they reach agreement, such modifications and agreements will be reduced to a writing in advance of implementation and will be signed by both parents and submitted to the court with a Joint Petition for Modification, at shared cost. If the parents are unable to agree, they will comply with the Dispute Resolution provisions in this Agreement. The parents acknowledge that parents may bargain to provide support to their children in more circumstances than provided for by statute, but they cannot erode a child's statutory right to support by agreement and the court retains jurisdiction until emancipation of the children to modify support if there is an inconsistency with the child support guidelines.

When drafting alimony orders that are modifiable indicate clearly what the current order is, even if it's $0, and avoid using the phrase "reserve the issue" when referring to future alimony being modifiable to avoid the court ruling that it wasn't resolved.

Sample language:

NO PRESENT SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Taking into consideration the provisions in this Agreement related to [List Factors considered], neither party will pay present spousal support to the other.

MODIFICATION OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Until [Enter agreed upon end date, if any], the death of either party, or the remarriage of the potential recipient spouse, alimony will be considered merged into the Judgment and modifiable upon a showing of a material change in circumstances pursuant to the application of M.G.L. c. 208 §49e. If either party requests a modification of support, and they reach agreement, such modifications and agreements will be reduced to a writing in advance of implementation and will be signed by both parties and submitted to the court with a Joint Petition for Modification, at shared cost. If _________ and _________ are unable to agree, they will comply with the Dispute Resolution provisions in this Agreement.

Review your agreements for any ambiguities created by "boilerplate language". Consider whether dispute resolution provisions override any requirements that changes be "agreed upon" and define it clearly when a client has intended veto power (or veto power of the purse). If you are not careful with these drafting inconsistencies, you risk that "agreed upon" will be read as "agreed upon through the dispute resolution provisions outlined herein and agreement not to be unreasonably withheld."

Instead of using the phrase "agreed upon" consider which option the clients actually intend:

Sample language:

Option 1 (agreement not necessary unless asking for contribution or using the other parent's time): The parents will discuss enrollment in activities in advance, and if one parent doesn’t agree to the enrollment in said activities prior to the enrollment, then the parent who wishes to enroll the child may pay for the activity in full and enroll the child provided it does not interfere with the other parent’s parenting time and there are no safety objections.

Option 2 (agreement to be reached though the same dispute resolution process outlined for any disagreements - this is how the court read the words "agreed upon" in Cavanagh): The parents will discuss enrollment in activities in advance, and if one parent doesn’t agree to the enrollment in said activities prior to the enrollment, then the parent’s will comply with the Dispute Resolution provisions in this Agreement.

Option 3 (a clear veto power if no agreement - this is how the father in Cavanagh intended the words "agreed upon" to be enforced): The parents will discuss enrollment in activities in advance, and if one parent doesn’t agree to the enrollment in said activities prior to the enrollment, then the child will not be enrolled in that activity.

[Potential additional language when the objections are to cost:] For any expense listed in the paragraph above with a cost of more than $[Enter agreed upon cap of expenses], the parents will memorialize their agreement in writing (email or text is sufficient) prior to making a purchase or enrolling a child in an activity. If the parents are unable to agree and an activity would interfere with the other parent’s parenting time or the cost exceeds $[Enter agreed upon cap of expenses], they will comply with the Dispute Resolution provisions in this Agreement.

We hope these examples are helpful to you. As a reminder, when drafting an agreement in any case the unique circumstances of the case should control and any sample language should only be considered a starting point for experienced practitioners rather than language that is set in stone.

Click here if you would like to schedule a video demonstration of our forms.

The Case of Teddy Bear: A Legal Tug of War Over a Pomeranian

2024-06-07T14:32:00.008-04:00

The Case of Teddy Bear: A Legal Tug of War Over a Pomeranian

by Nathaniel Butzke

Photo by Fred Moon on Unsplash

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently made a notable decision in an intriguing legal battle involving former romantic partners and a Pomeranian named Teddy Bear. The case, Lyman v. Lanser, takes us through the complexities of shared possession of a jointly owned pet. The heart of the dispute was whether the parties’ agreement to share Teddy Bear equally could be legally enforced, an agreement similar to custody arrangements that we typically see concerning children.

Lyman and Lanser's story began with a mutual decision to purchase Teddy Bear in 2018. They followed a pattern of shared pet ownership and agreement to share custody should they separate. When the relationship ended in 2021, they managed to share Teddy Bear amicably. The conflict escalated when Lanser ceased communication and denied Lyman access to Teddy Bear, prompting legal action.

The Superior Court initially granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Lyman, mandating alternating two-week periods of possession for each party. However, a single justice vacated this decision, raising questions about the legal status of pets and the enforceability of personal property agreements. Specifically, the usage of the term “shared custody” raised alarm bells, and the appeals court emphasized a warning to future counsel about the charge behind those words as they are commonly used only when referring to child custody arrangements, thereby suggesting that a best practice for pet sharing arrangements would be to avoid the term “custody” altogether.

The Appeals Court, led by Judge Sacks, reversed the single justice’s order, emphasizing that domestic animals, while legally considered personal property, hold a unique status that can warrant specific performance of an agreement. This decision underscores the recognition of pets as more than just inanimate objects, acknowledging their sentimental value and the irreplaceable companionship they offer.

The Appeals Court weighed several legal considerations, including the adequacy of damages as a remedy and the practical challenges of enforcing shared pet possession agreements. While acknowledging the potential for such disputes to strain judicial resources (a reason often given by Probate and Family Court judges to exclude pet-sharing arrangements in divorce agreements), the court found that, in this case, the preliminary enforcement of the parties' pre-existing agreement was justified.

This decision does not transform pets into children in the eyes of the law but affirms that agreements concerning their shared possession can be subject to specific performance. The case of Teddy Bear is a fascinating example of how the legal system navigates the evolving recognition of pets' special place in our lives and relationships. Even though the Appeals Court explicitly stated: “Nor should anything in our decision be construed as altering the status of pets in divorce proceedings,” it’s hard to reconcile this exclusion with the right of divorcing parties to create enforceable contracts for other property rights. If non-married couples can create enforceable pet-sharing contracts, does Lyman v. Lanser open the door for married and divorcing couples to do the same? We’ll have to wait and see how Probate & Family Court judges interpret this decision but in the mean-time consider this practice tip if you're trying to include pet provisions in a divorce agreement.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT DRAFTING TIP from Justin Kelsey of Gray Jay Endeavors, LLC:

For pet related provisions consider including language that mirrors the court's language in Lyman v. Lanser, using the terms "joint property" and "shared possession" and avoiding the terms "custody" or "parenting plan". There are some Probate & Family Court judges who won't approve pet sharing sections of and agreement and require them to be removed, but using enforceable language at least makes it more likely a Judge will consider it. Here is some sample language from the Separation Agreement template available to subscribers of Gray Jay Endeavors Forms:

PLAN FOR OWNERSHIP OF _______________: In consideration of the distribution of other benefits to each party under the terms of this Agreement, ___________ and ___________ agree as follows:

a. Taking into account the value to both ___________ and ___________ of their pet’s affection and company, they both agree that ___________ will be their shared and joint property and that they intend to create an enforceable agreement for shared possession as follows:

i. ___________ and ___________ will schedule time with ___________ upon such a schedule and under such circumstances as they agree upon or as further ordered by the court, taking into consideration the needs of the pet and the work schedules of ___________ and ___________, and with a default controlling schedule as follows:

b. EXPENSES: ___________ and ___________ will [Describe the Split (e.g. share equally 50/50, split __% by ________ and ___% by ________, etc.)] the following regular expenses of the pet(s) until [Describe agreed upon endpoint (e.g. agreed upon date, their death, etc.)]:

[CONSIDER WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED HERE, THIS IS A SAMPLE LIST:]

i. veterinary costs,

ii. food, and

iii. ___________

___________ and ___________ will discuss any expenses over $[Enter expenses threshold] in advance, and if ___________ or ___________ doesn’t agree to the expense, then [Describe the Split (e.g. share equally 50/50, split __% by ________ and ___% by ________, etc.)].

If a party is required to contribute to an expense under this section, ___________ and ___________ will cooperate to pay expenses directly when possible. If a party paid the original expense in full, they will bill [Describe frequency] for the other party for that party’s contribution in writing (e-mail or text is sufficient), and the other party will pay the expense within [Describe frequency] days of receipt of a copy of the bill/receipt.

[Consider if there are any outstanding liabilities that need to be addressed separately.]

Click here if you would like to schedule a video demonstration of our forms.

April Showers Brought May Flowers: How the Openshaws Prepared for Rainy Days Ahead

2024-06-05T19:25:00.003-04:00

April Showers Brought May Flowers: How the Openshaws Prepared for Rainy Days Ahead

by Nathaniel Butzke

Just in time for the rainy season, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court shed new light on what it means to "live" a certain lifestyle as a married couple and how those habits should be reflected in post-divorce alimony. The case, Openshaw v. Openshaw (2024), revolved around a couple who, during their marriage, didn't just focus on living well but also on saving wisely. When their marriage came to an end, the question arose: should their habit of saving be considered part of their marital lifestyle for the purposes of determining the appropriate amount of alimony?

The court's answer was a resounding YES. In essence, the court argued that saving isn't just a financial strategy; it's a way of life. For the Openshaws, who enjoyed a generous annual income far exceeding their living expenses, setting money aside wasn't merely about preparing for a rainy day. It was a consistent part of their lifestyle.

The Openshaw decision clarifies a previously debated issue under the Alimony Reform Act. The Young v. Young decision hinted at this possibility by limiting the automatic inclusion of future increases in the payor’s income and highlighting the importance of the marital lifestyle at the time of the divorce as the appropriate benchmark for setting the amount of future alimony. However, the Young decision didn’t go as far as defining savings as part of the marital lifestyle, and the pre-Act case of Cooper v. Cooper specifically overturned an “alimony award that exceeds current need, so as to permit accumulation of assets or savings for the future.” It was a debatable question whether the “marital lifestyle” language in the Act overrode the Cooper limitation, until now.

The implications of this are significant. When determining the need for support, courts can look beyond current spending habits to consider the entire scope of how a couple lives. This includes saving for the future. This means that in divorces where both parties have the financial means, both can be expected to maintain not just the living standards they enjoyed while married but also the saving habits that were part of their marital lifestyle.

Cavanagh v. Cavanagh - The Case, the Conundrum, & the Consequences

2024-06-02T23:04:00.001-04:00

Cavanagh v. Cavanagh - The Case, the Conundrum, & the Consequences

Introduction by Nathaniel Butzke

More than a year after its release, the Massachusetts SJC decision in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh (2002) remains a topic of discussion at every Massachusetts family law and mediation conference. The decision had many ripple effects, still being felt on the beachhead of every divorce case involving child support or alimony. Following is an in depth review of the case and some of those effects.

Introduction:

In divorce proceedings, determining alimony awards is a complex process that requires careful consideration of various factors. Judges tasked with making these decisions must weigh the financial circumstances of both parties, ensuring that the supported spouse can maintain a lifestyle similar to that before the divorce, and children have access to similar households in either parents' care. However, interpreting the law governing alimony can present practical challenges, especially concerning the interaction between alimony and child support.

The Cavanagh decision questioned the common interpretation of M.G. L. c. 208, § 53 (c) (2) found in the Alimony Reform Act. While a plain language reading might suggest that alimony should be prohibited if child support is awarded, and all the income is used in the child support calculation, this conflicts with other provisions of the act that could be interpreted to allow for concurrent awards of alimony and child support. This ambiguity underscores the need for judges to carefully tailor their decisions based on the specific circumstances of each case.

Child support and alimony serve distinct purposes in family law. Child support is intended for the maintenance and benefit of children, while alimony supports an economically dependent former spouse. Tying the availability of alimony to the provision of child support may blur these distinctions and conflict with the intent of each type of support.

To try and address this, the court in Cavanagh declared that in determining the order of calculating alimony and child support, judges must consider the equities of each approach and fashion an order that is most equitable for the family. This may involve calculating alimony first and then child support, or vice versa, and comparing both approaches' base award and tax consequences. Furthermore, judges must articulate their reasoning if they decide not to include any alimony award, considering the statutory factors and public policy. Failure to do so could be seen as an abuse of their discretion.

The ripples from this decision have been felt throughout the family law legal community and we're still trying to understand the best practices going forward. The shorthand of calculating child support first, and alimony only if excess income was available, is no longer acceptable, but is the replacement too complicated for anyone to prepare without hiring experts? While some of the authors of the Alimony Reform Act lament the court's twisting of their drafting intent, the consequences are real and we must face them as practitioners doing our best to advocate for, educate, and counsel clients trying to find a viable financial future for their family.

The Case - Understanding the Facts and Rulings in Cavanagh

The parties in Cavanagh were divorced in 2016 from a 21 year marriage and this SJC decision stems from a Complaint for Modification filed in 2020. They had three sons, and at the time of the Modification case, the oldest was set to graduate in May of 2021, the middle son was attending the United States Military Academy at West Point and the youngest son was still a minor in a private prep school.

The mother was primarily a homemaker and the father was the wage earner with two jobs working in an orthopedic surgical practice and at a medical center, a second job, which was intended to help pay for private education for the children. The court indicated that the parties lived a comfortable middle class life style. The mother returned to work in 2016 at a catholic school earning $719.24 per week while the father earned $4,388 per week.

The Divorce Judgment which incorporated the parties Agreement included provisions for:

$20k per year for middle and youngest son towards prep school
$800 per week in child support for 3 children (upward deviation for sports costs)
2nd job not used in child support calculation, but considered for private school costs

After the divorce judgment, the mother was found in contempt for changing youngest son’s school, and the father was not found in contempt but refused to participate in conversations about schooling.

The Modification Judgment after a trial included:

Father not required to pay towards youngest son’s private school
Two older sons emancipated
Child support of $650 per week (retroactive to June 4, 2021)
No alimony
Each to pay their own legal fees and costs

There were numerous issues raised and addressed on appeal:

Ruling # 1: Concurrent child support and alimony - a 3-step process

After considering child support, the trial judge awarded no alimony to the mother because the judge had "considered all of [the father's] gross income in setting the child support order." The Cavanagh decision summarizes the history of alimony over many pages highlighting that "the recipient spouse's need for support is generally the amount needed to allow that spouse to maintain the lifestyle he or she enjoyed prior to termination of the marriage”, not just subsistence level. The court then gets to the construction of § 53(c)(2):

We agree that a plain language interpretation of §53 (c) (2) whereby alimony is nearly absolutely prohibited where child support has already been awarded is untenable given that such an interpretation of § 53 (c) (2) would conflict with other provisions of the act... Additionally, we note that it makes little sense to tie the availability of alimony to the provision of child support where child support and alimony serve distinct purposes...

In determining what is an appropriate support, the court then requires a 3-step process:

Step 1: Calculate alimony first using 53(a). Then calculate child support using post-alimony incomes.

Step 2: Calculate child support first. Then calculate alimony, to the extent possible. In most cases, this will preclude alimony (child support uses up all the income).

Step 3: Compare base award and tax consequences of step 1 and 2 and determine which is “most equitable". If no alimony is awarded, the trial Judge must “articulate why such an order is warranted in light of the statutory factors set forth in §53 (a).”

Ruling #2: Prep School - You can't get of an obligation by avoiding the discussion

The judgment of divorce, incorporating the parties' separation agreement, provided that the father shall "contribute up to $20,000 per year toward an agreed upon prepatory [sic] school for [the youngest son]." The term "agreed upon" was considered by the SJC to be “ambiguous” when read in conjunction with the dispute resolution provisions. In other words, if the father can avoid the cost by simply refusing to agree and not engage in a conversation then this turns into a unilateral right to veto and in the SJC's opinion makes the obligation to pay "meaningless."

The only way it has meaning is if it is interpreted as follows: "The father is obligated to contribute up to $20,000 annually for the cost of the youngest son's attendance at a preparatory school, presuming that both parties can and do agree on a choice of preparatory school, where both parties have an obligation to make a good faith effort to come to a mutual agreement. In the event that the parties cannot agree despite such good faith efforts, the issue should be presented to the court for resolution.”

While that wasn't how the paragraph was written, the SJC determined that is how they would interpret it, and it may have influenced the court that the father's attorney is the one who drafted the agreement.

Ruling #3: Middle son attending West Point is emancipated & emancipation is up to the Court

The parties agreement included language that a child was emancipated if they entered into military service of the United States, but the mother argued that West Point was attending college, not entering into military service. The court rejected this argument, and then they went a step further. While attendance at West Point is entering into military service (which seems obvious and all that needed to be said), the SJC pointed out that a child in this situation could still be principally dependent on a parent and therefore unemancipated. The court went on to point out that agreement language can't decide when emancipation occurs, only the court can do that.

However, in this case, the son was found to be principally dependent on the U.S. military and not the parents, and therefore emancipated.

Ruling #4: Computing Father's Income - What's in & out

One of the potential complications when calculating child support and alimony is in figuring out what counts as income for each parent. In calculating the father's income, the mother in Cavanagh argued that interest, dividends, and capital gains on investments, and in-kind income as instructor on trips should all be included, however the trial judge excluded them. The SJC agreed that the in-kind income was not a "regular source of income" and could be excluded in the discretion of the trial judge, but concluded that interest and dividends are included (and also capital gains not from real or personal property sales).

Over the the Father's protest, the SJC also included income from his second job and employer contributions to retirement accounts and HSAs. While the parties had agreed in their Judgment to exclude the second job income, the modification reopens that issue because you can't bargain away child support by agreement.

The court acknowledged that "whether employer contributions to a retirement account [and the HSA] count as income for the purposes of calculating child support appears to be a question of first impression in the Commonwealth" and that some states include this and others do not. The court notes that some employees may have the ability to manipulate their employment earnings directly or through negotiation and therefore, these should be included for the child support calculation (and therefore presumably for the alimony calculation as well).

Other Rulings: Merger, Procedure, Spousal Disqualification, etc.

While the scope of this article is limited to the above described rulings, a full reading of the case includes issues of retroactive relief, the scope of pre-trial orders, and whether spousal disqualification of evidence can be used in these types of cases (given some due process questions). If these are ever an issue in your case, you may want to revisit Cavanagh further.

The Conundrum - Ambiguities created by Cavanagh

One of the unwritten rules of law is that every new legal theory, statute, case decision, etc. will inevitably have unintended consequences. Whether you blame the ingenuity (or devious nature) of lawyers or the fact that life is just too complicated, unique and diverse to adhere to universal laws, there are always unintended consequences of a far-reaching decision like Cavanagh. Below we'll explore just some of the conundrums raised by this case's rulings:

Who is doing this 3-step process and how?

The Cavanagh decision requires the court to make factual findings that back up a child support and alimony order or lack thereof, but the calculation is not as straightforward as outlined.

First, when completing Step 1 to calculate alimony first, there is no alimony formula. The statute includes an alimony cap (need or 30-35% of the difference in income). That's not a "calculation" but rather it's an in-depth detailed fact specific investigation into the finances, income, budgets, and marital lifestyle spending of both parties. Simply "calculating alimony" is not the same as calculating child support. There is no proscribed worksheet, and even worse, the 30-35% cap was written prior to the tax law change which now makes alimony non-taxable income to the recipient (and not deductible by the payor).

Assuming you can reach agreement, though, on what an alimony order should be if there was no child support, there is still the issue of calculating child support using post-alimony incomes. In Step 1, what is being used as the income for each party when alimony is not taxable to the recipient? Are you supposed to ignore the tax consequences or should the alimony amount be "grossed-up" for the recipient as other non-taxable income might be in the child support calculation.

Finally, the trial court doesn't do tax analysis on their own. This is because Judge's are not required to be or expected to be tax experts. If the parties don't provide the Judge with a tax evaluation of the different support options, how does the court complete Step 3? How does the court determine what is "most equitable" with only partial information from these steps? These practical questions are not answered by the Cavanagh decision and leave a lot of room for interpretation of how to apply and complete the three step evaluation.

Plain language doesn't matter

The SJC seemed to acknowledge that a plain language reading of the alimony statute would exclude the Step 1 alimony first look. Similarly, a plain reading of the prep school language would lead to the conclusion that since father didn't agree to the prep school he doesn't have to pay for it.

So why is plain language not read plainly? The SJC reminds us that in both statutory and contract interpretation the whole document must be given meaning and inconsistencies have to be reconciled to give as much meaning to each section as possible. When this leads to the court having to essentially re-write "plain language" to what the drafters "must have" intended, it takes all meaning away from the term "plain language."

In actuality, the court is noting an ambiguity and doing their best to reconcile it, despite the fact that this new interpretation may fly in the face of the drafters intent. The lesson drafters should learn is that if you leave any ambiguity the court gets to decide your intent, and even what may appear to be "plain language" needs to be consistent with other parts of the agreement.

What is principally dependent?

While we're on the subject of ambiguous language, the child support statute defines a child as emancipated between age 18 and 21 only if they are no longer "principally dependent" on a parent or in college. In Cavanagh the term "principally dependent" mattered, and the parties had agreed that enlisting in the military counted as no longer "principally dependent". While the court agreed that the child was no longer principally dependent in this case, the court did not agree that the parties were allowed to agree to that meaning in a contract. The court reserves the right to protect children's support rights (even for children who have reached the age of legal majority), and therefore only the court can determine when a child is "principally dependent."

Except that isn't really true all the time, but only when the people choose to take their case to the court, like the Cavanaghs. If they had agreed to abide by the language in their agreement and consider the second son emancipated, then the court would have never rejected their child support agreement and said you can't do that. It's only because they disagreed that the court now determines the definition of "principally dependent." So if we know as a practical matter that parties can agree to this at the time, why are they not allowed to agree to these terms up front. When the legislature has failed to adequately determine a term like "principally dependent" why should parties not be able to define consistency and expectancy for themselves by adding definition to that term, definitions which were then approved as "fair and reasonable" by a prior Judge when approving their agreement and issuing the Judgment of Divorce. The SJC doesn't address this inconsistency and the consequence is greater ambiguity for every family that now follows this decision.

When does Second Job Income count?

Another area where the SJC reiterated that the parents could not waive the rights of the children to support was in excluding second job income from the calculation of child support. Again, this is an area of ambiguity or discretion in the guidelines:

The Court may consider none, some, or all overtime income or income from a secondary job. In determining whether to disregard none, some or all income from overtime or a secondary job, due consideration must be given to the history of the income, the expectation that the income will continue to be available, the economic needs of the parties and the children, the impact of the overtime or secondary job on the parenting plan, and whether the overtime work is a requirement of the job.

If after a child support order is entered, a payor or recipient begins to work overtime or obtains a secondary job, neither of which was worked prior to the entry of the order, there shall be a presumption that the overtime or secondary job income should not be considered in a future child support order.

The parties have defined for the court by agreement, what history should be considered, and the SJC essentially rejects any ability for them to do this if they disagree in the future. Once again, this is denying them the right to negotiate predictability and reliance on an agreement. In the original agreement second job income was excluded to be used for education. The SJC says it should be included AND he should pay the agreed upon amount of $20,000 to prep school. If the income is included in the child support calculation, shouldn't the amount of school contribution be revisited at least and the overall support calculation (including school costs) be "equitable"?

Interest, Dividends and Capital Gains are Income, but how much are they?

While interests and dividends are small for most cases and therefore inconsequential, if this is a significant source of income for clients how is it determined? Do they come back every year? Consider an example: if the payor inherits $10 million in inheritance and invests it simply and straightforward then the interest income every year may be relatively consistent. But who invests that much money simply? A diversified portfolio would include some short term investment payoffs, but also many long term investments which might not bear short-term income. This court approach encourages weighing long term or real property investments over short-term gains. While its simple to say "include interest, dividends and capital gains" the court creates specific guidelines and steps for other issues, and ignores the complexity of this ruling, providing no standard for calculating this "income".

Retirement and HSA Contributions are Income, but how much are they?

These contributions do not appear on the regular paystubs for most employees, and the current court form Financial Statement does not include a line for this type of income. This means that practically in cases without counsel, most people are not going to ask for or know about this additional income, creating a significant potential disparity between those who are represented and those who are not. The court should update the financial statement to include the disclosure of these contributions, otherwise the economic impact of this ruling will be very obviously inconsistent and discriminatory.

Footnote 9 - a headscratcher

While there are numerous practical questions raised by the Cavanagh decision, some of which we've already described above, one footnote in the Cavanagh decision is hard to reconcile with common practice. A modification of alimony typically requires a showing that first there has been a material change in circumstance and second that the change warrants a change in alimony. In Footnote 9 of Cavanagh, the SJC indicates that in this modification the mother doesn't need to address the first step because the issue of future alimony was "expressly reserve[d]" in the language of the parties' Separation Agreement.

It is very typical to write that past and present alimony is waived and future alimony is open, merged, modifiable or reserved. These are all different ways of saying alimony now is $0 but modifiable in the future. The reading of Footnote 9 turns this on its head and says that alimony "now" wasn't dealt with because future alimony was reserved. This is confusing at best. We have to acknowledge that "present" alimony obviously means a current order of alimony that is ongoing until a modification. To interpret this differently is to imply that the intent of both parties was that a modification of "future" alimony could be filed the day after the divorce and be heard. The court needs to reconcile the ideas of plain language and common sense intent in their reading of the requirements and Footnote 9 seems like the worst kind of "dicta", that we can only hope never surfaces again.

The Consequences - Finding Ways to Create Less Ambiguity in an Ambiguous World

A case like Cavanagh leads to so many seminars and discussions amongst the bar, mediators, CDFAs and other divorce professionals because everyone wants to know how best to provide their current and future clients with predictability in outcomes. As we've described above, this case makes that job harder in many ways, but there are still some ways that we can try to assist our clients in reducing that impact and maintaining as much predictability as possible:

Recommendations for Advocating and Advising

Determining what is income and how to calculate potential support orders using the 3-step process requires an understanding of tax consequences in addition to the more basic financial calculations. Good advocacy is always knowing when to bring in an expert and more often than not the Cavanagh evaluation will require an expert evaluation. Practitioners should review sample Cavanagh calculations and if they don't understand them well enough to explain them thoroughly to a client or the court, then bring in an expert to do so.

Recommendations for Drafting

Drafters should be concerned whenever they see a decision that finds plain language to be ambiguous. But there are some lessons to be learned from Cavanagh to keep these risks to a minimum:

Always indicate in your drafted Agreements that the agreement was drafted by both sides and there should be no presumption in the drafting against either party (to avoid the presumption against your client).
Delete emancipation definitions that differ at all from the statutory definition, or try to further qualify the definition. Judges are and should be rejecting these additional provisions given the Cavanagh ruling.
Note that any deviations from child support are always reviewable by the court in a modification, even if in consideration for other provisions.
When drafting alimony orders that are modifiable indicate clearly what the current order is, even if it's $0.
Review your agreements for any ambiguities created by "boilerplate language". Consider whether dispute resolution provisions override any requirements that changes be "agreed upon" and define it clearly when a client has intended veto power (or veto power of the purse). If you are not careful with these drafting inconsistencies, you risk that "agreed upon" will be read as "agreed upon through the dispute resolution provisions outlined herein and agreement not to be unreasonably withheld."

Recommendations for Living

As a final note, we can't ignore the fact that this case has already been remanded and a new Judgment issued by the trial court. In that Judgment, the court ordered $635 per week (less than the original Modification Judgment) partly because during that time, the mother's income had gone up. The trial court performed the 3 step process required by the SJC and determined that the equitable award was child support only and no alimony. It's unknown at the time of writing this whether we will see another appeal decision for this Judgment.

Despite the lengthy decision of the SJC and the remanding of the case, the support order did not go up for mother. Despite "winning" at the SJC, the result was mostly unchanged, other than the cost of the ongoing litigation presumably depleting the resources of both parties.

While we read a case like Cavanagh for all the consequences it may have for the many families to come after them, it's important to also note the real people that these cases get named after. They're real families, whose lives move on while the courts evaluate their circumstances as if they're frozen in time. Not only does life go on for parties in these disputes (children grow up, jobs change, people move and remarry etc.), the law changes and evolves around them at the same time. While this case was pending in the appeals court the first time, new child support guidelines were issued. Other cases relevant to alimony (like Openshaw) are decided while this family continues to deal with their own disputes.

The point is that the law, like our lives, is not a static thing. Despite the goals we might have as practitioners to provide our clients with as much predictability as possible, we can't rely on the court to be predictable and we need to be honest and clear with clients about the fact that the law goes on living just like they do. They should take that unpredictability into account when they do their own risk-benefit analysis, when they consider whether to litigate or mediate, to continue to negotiate or to settle, and when to examine their life as it was or just get on living as it is.

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines News - Minor Update in July 2023

2023-09-22T11:27:00.003-04:00

On July 20, 2023, the Massachusetts Trial Court announced a change to the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines, that became effective on July 31, 2023. Typically the guidelines are only revisited every four years (with the next update due in 2025), but in some instances interim updates are necessary.

In this case, the change was necessary to bring the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines in conformity with federal standards. Specifically, the child support guidelines have been updated to “[p]rovide that incarceration may not be treated as voluntary unemployment in establishing or modifying child support orders.” 45 C.F.R. § 302.56 (c) (3). These amendments appear in the Preamble and in Section 1. E. 1, which now reads:

E. Attribution of Income 1. Income may be attributed where a finding has been made that either parent is capable of working and is unemployed or underemployed. Incarceration may not be treated as voluntary unemployment in establishing or modifying child support orders.

This is the only change from the 2021 guidelines. The updated 2023 guidelines are available here.

Obviously this change will only have an effect on cases where a party is incarcerated and won't affect other cases. In addition, this change did not affect the Worksheet (which is still the 2021 worksheet)

If you prefer to use an Excel version of the Worksheet, that version (along with an Excel version of the Massachusetts Rule 401 Financial Statements) is available for download with a subscription to Gray Jay Endeavors, LLC Massachusetts forms.

Click here to read more information about the 2021 Child Support Guidelines Revisions. We'll see you again in 2025!

An Abundantly Awesome Announcement about Jennifer Hawthorne

2023-03-12T11:32:00.002-04:00

Alliteration aside, we have a lot of exciting news to share about Jennifer Hawthorne's role at Skylark Law & Mediation, PC and her contributions to the field of dispute resolution.

Since August 2016, Jen has been working with Skylark as a mediator and collaborative divorce professional. Her role grew from an of counsel position to full time associate, and in 2022 Jen became a partner at Skylark. Jen's skills as a mediator and her ability to lighten even the toughest conversations have elevated the work at Skylark. Her laugh and the laughter of her clients still carries throughout the office when she has in person meetings.

For the last year Jen has been overseeing Skylark's student interns from New England law, providing opportunities for future attorneys to truly understand what it means to be a well-rounded dispute resolution professional. She intends to continue this mentorship and find ways in the future to expand on the opportunities available for potential and new mediators with Skylark.

Jen's contributions to Skylark are only one part of the story, though. As with anything she does, Jen has committed herself jumping in with both feet in to the field of dispute resolution. Jen is on the board of directors of the Massachusetts Council on Family Mediation (MCFM), the Academy of Professional Family Mediators (APFM), and the Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council (MCLC). Her work at those organization has led her to rise to being the Vice President of both APFM and MCLC at the same time, and she continues to devote herself to the success of those organizations and their members.

In Jen's own words (in an interview for APFM), she often thinks of herself as a mediator first, and an attorney second:

I believe it is fundamental that folks remain in control of their family to the largest extent possible, and that becoming good co-parents means learning how to break the negative patterns of communication that can often exist at the end of a marriage. I focus my practice on helping my clients see the possibility of a very livable path for themselves and their children after divorce, and empower them to make decisions consistent with that path.

You can hear more about Jen's approach to mediation and collaborative law directly from a podcast she and Patrice Brymner (the past president of MCLC) host together called Mending Fences.

On that podcast they have discussed some of the basics of mediation and collaborative law, like what to know before you get started. They've also explored deeper dives into more complicated issues, often bringing in distinguished guests to discuss topics like dignity in co-parenting and conflict, internal family systems and ADHD and conflict.

You can support Jen and Patrice in this work by subscribing to their podcast on whatever platform you use (they're all linked here), and stay tuned to hear more about what Jen will be doing next. Whether it's planning the MCLC educational Roundtable, volunteering at her daughter's next play, or helping a client get through a tough week; whatever it is, we know for sure she will give it her all and it will be amazing!

Test Negative & Stay Positive! Checking in on the Influence a Global Pandemic has on Divorce Mediation and the Mediators Themselves

2022-01-25T23:30:00.001-05:00

Photo by Maxime on Unsplash

Almost two years has passed since we wrote our first blog post about the havoc COVID-19 was causing in parenting plans (Co-Parenting in a Crisis: COVID-19 and Beyond). Little did we know how long this crisis would persist and all the things that it would change. We continue to contemplate how long we'll wear masks in public and whether we'll ever shake hands regularly again, and yet life goes on. People get married and divorced, and they still need help figuring out how to navigate family conflict.

As we continue to help people with these major life decisions, we've noticed some of the potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic. Below is a list of what we've seen change about our practice, and we're interested to see the comments and if your experience has been similar or different:

Video Killed the In-Person Star

I spent my childhood (and 20s and 30s) wondering when we would regularly use video screens to communicate like they did in every science fiction show. While we had the capability to Skype and Facetime long before the COVID-19 pandemic, it really hadn't become commonplace until a large enough portion of the population was forced to figure it out to continue working and socializing safely.

Even the Probate & Family Court in Massachusetts began holding hearings by video, something we were always told couldn't be done. While there remain challenges, especially with the large population the court still serves, some of us are wondering why would we ever go back to in-person for certain transactions. For example, in Massachusetts there is the option for filing a Joint Petition for Divorce, which is intended to streamline the process for couples who have reached a full agreement. While the statute still requires a hearing to approve the divorce, there is no reason these hearings have to be in person and scheduling these hearings virtually saves parties money and time, especially if they are paying counsel to attend. Even if many other hearings go back to in person, the court should strongly consider encouraging parties to reach agreement by rewarding them with this simpler, cheaper option for finalizing their divorce.

There is a lot lost by moving a mediation online (reading body language, forming personal connections, eye contact, etc.), which is why the majority of the mediation community resisted online work for so long. Despite these issues, there is also much gained by moving mediations online: it's less travel for the parties and counsel, it allows people to attend from a space that feels comfortable and safe to them, it allows the mediator to stay safe (medically), and in some ways it can be more comfortable for parties, especially if they are in a high conflict dispute. In addition, people can choose the best mediator for them without being concerned about the geographic location of the mediator. For all of these reasons, it is clear that video mediation is here to stay, and we expect it to be at least half of our practice going forward. That also means we need to keep improving on the technology and the experience video mediation offers to clients. Just like offices have to consider how they may need to remodel to fit this new world, mediators have to revamp their practices to accommodate a virtual practice.

The Lonely Office

Designing an office for mostly in-person meetings is very different than designing an office where everyone needs to be able to meet virtually (and privately), potentially at the same time. While offices had been moving away from rows of private offices to open spaces with private meeting rooms adjacent, we may be headed back. Each individual may not need as much space if they're not meeting people in person in their separate offices, but they will need private quiet space to conduct confidential video meetings.

Of course, that's only for the people that return to the office. Many people had to create home office spaces to accommodate their own personal needs, especially if they had children remote schooling. This has created a divide between those who like working at home (and can do it efficiently) and those who can't. Most offices in the future will likely be a mix of people in person and people working from home. Again this opens up great geographic possibilities, but also raises lots of questions about how to create a work culture when people are not regularly present in person, and how to balance the need for physical office space with the cost of maintenance.

Personally, I am not as good at focusing when I'm in my home environment and I need the separation of office and home. Except for the necessity of remote schooling for a period of time, I have returned to the office and have found it to be quite lonely. Even when people are here we're masked and it's not the same as the feel when a workplace is bustling with activity. It's so different working in an office now that a comedy like The Office may not even make sense to future generations except as a historical period piece which we'll have to explain to our grandchildren.

While this is the type of change that workplaces undergo periodically do to market changes, industry changes, and, now, global pandemics, it's hard to really understand the full impact these work changes have had on individuals because at the same time we are all participating in a shared traumatic event. We may be depressed that work is less social, but that's certainly not the only factor.

Shared Trauma is Still Trauma

Helping people resolve conflict is a tough business on some days, and when everyone is stressed out by the effects of a global pandemic, there are days when it feels impossible. As mediators we face all the same challenges that the rest of the world is facing: the possibility (or reality) of losing loved ones to this disease or its complications; the possibility (or reality) of getting sick ourselves; caring for children navigating home schooling, masking in school and restrictions on socializing; work stoppages, and supply chain shortages; restrictions on our own socialization, travel and leisure activities; and not knowing when or if this is all going to end. Actually, the fact that we may be experiencing some of the same traumas as our clients can be an asset in the mediation process.

It might help us make connections with our clients, help us with our need to empathize, and provide us and the clients with each other a shared experience to build on. Despite these potential upsides, trauma is still trauma, and this pandemic has reminded many of us of the need for self-care, both professionally for ourselves, and as something we recommend to our clients. We can only take so much conflict and if we're not dealing with these extra stressors in our lives in an effective way we won't be effective mediators. Similarly we need to remind our clients that the extra stress put on them by the world right now is going to make their family conflict harder, and that it is still not their fault.

The skills and lessons we learn as mediators are that much more important now to helping clients deal with conflict, and there is even more we have learned and can learn from this crisis.

Planning for the Unplannable

When finalizing a mediated agreement there should be a reasonable amount of reality testing. It's the mediators job to not take the easy answer, but rather to question solutions and as ask "what if" questions to make sure the solutions are complete. "What if you can't refinance and buy her out of the house?" "What if his contract doesn't get renewed?" The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us numerous additional potential conflicts to anticipate and hopefully help our clients plan for and avoid: "What if you disagree on medical treatments for your children?" "What if a child becomes ill and is required to quarantine?" "What if extended family is not in agreement to the safety standards you both agree to for your family?" "What if there is an additional tax credit tied to who lists the child as their dependent?" While no-one can anticipate every eventuality, we can learn from these experiences and help our clients make more robust and long-lasting agreements.

At the same time as we use this experience to grow we're left with the same uneasy feeling that plans are never guaranteed and that loss is always a possibility of living life. At it's core the pandemic hasn't changed any of that, just reminded us how much we should appreciate what we have today and never stop looking for the ways in which we can bring light to the darkness. At my birthday party this past November, I discovered one such bright spot when I realized how much more fun it is to loudly clap out my birthday cake candles instead of blowing them out, a new tradition I plan to keep in years to come, hopefully someday forgetting where and when it started and just enjoying that moment of celebration.

Probate and Family Court Standing Order 1-2022: Virtual Proceedings Highly Recommended amid escalating COVID-19 spread

2022-01-24T13:58:00.003-05:00

Photo by Sigmund on Unsplash

The Massachusetts Probate and Family Court has released Standing Order 1-2022, temporarily overriding Standing Order 1-2021, regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The Order, effective 01/05/2022, requires that all cases be held remotely if the case can be changed from in-person to virtual without having to reschedule. The form to request an in-person hearing be changed to remote can be found here: https://www.mass.gov/doc/assented-to-motion-for-all-parties-to-appear-remotely-cjd-424/download

Note: If all parties and attorneys do not agree to appear remotely, a Motion (CJD 400) form may need to be filed.

According to the order, rescheduling of cases is discouraged and should only happen as a last resort. While the change to virtual proceedings is highly recommended, scheduled in-person hearings shall continue where staffing levels are adequate.

In alignment with the shift to virtual proceedings, filing is now encouraged to be done through US mail or electronic means where available. Drop boxes may be available in some locations. Email filings will be accepted under specific circumstances also detailed in the Order.

This obviously remains an ever changing landscape during this ongoing pandemic.

New Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines (2021): Big Changes, Little Changes, Typos & some Unexpected Results

2021-08-24T10:24:00.010-04:00

UPDATE: The court has released a web calculating version of the 2021 MA Child Support Guidelines Worksheet. It resolves some of the typos referred to below, but the unexpected calculations still apply.

Every four years, per federal mandate, the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court revisits the Child Support Guidelines through the work of a Task Force appointed by the Chief Justice. The 2021 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines were recently posted. They take effect on October 4, 2021.

If you are interested in a training on all of these changes to the new Child Support Guidelines:

DMTA Presents the 2021 MA Child Support Guidelines Update – Attend this event to learn the key updates you need to know for your mediation clients. Presented by Justin Kelsey of Divorce Mediation Training Associates and Skylark Law & Mediation, PC.

For a full comparison of all the tracked changes between the 2018 and 2021 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines you can download a pdf showing the changes here.

The 2021 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Worksheet

While the court has not yet provided a worksheet that auto-calculates, there is a draft worksheet available to complete by hand. Skylark Law & Mediation, PC provides both a web-based and iPhone App version of the 2018 guidelines. The 2021 versions are not available yet, but they are currently in development (we will update this post with links when they become available).

An auto-calculating version created in Microsoft Excel is already available for download with a subscription to Gray Jay Endeavors, LLC Massachusetts forms subscription.

The changes that were made by the Task Force for 2021 will be significant for some families, especially higher income earners and families with multiple children. Below is a list of the changes, some typos on the form, and some quirks of the 2021 guidelines' calculations:

The Most Significant Changes

Minimum and Maximum Income Level Changes - The 2018 guidelines included a minimum $25 per week child support order for lower income cases, and the guidelines were only presumptively applicable up to $250,000 of combined available gross income in higher income cases. The 2021 guidelines changed both of these bookends.

The new minimum orders are between $12 and $20 per week for gross incomes ranging from less than $210 per week up to $249 per week. Above $249 per week the regular guidelines calculation applies. This is highlighted by the shaded section in the 2021 Child Support Guidelines Chart.

The new maximum combined gross income for the guidelines worksheet calculation is $400,000 (or $7,692 per week). This means that many families that didn't have guidance on their income above $250,000 will now have a calculation that fits in the worksheet. While this gives these families additional guidance, many child support recipients in this category may be disappointed because the amount of income that is included when approaching the $400,000 amount is only 10% and that may be lower than the percentage of income parties negotiated on their own without this guidance in the past.

Additionally, unlike the previous 2018 iteration, the 2021 guidelines provide guidance for income over $400,000 that "any percentage applied to the payor’s income above the maximum level, as listed in Line 8b of the guidelines worksheet, should be below the percentage applied to the maximum level in Table A (10%)." In other words, the 10% (or a higher percentage) won't be extended indefinitely on higher incomes but may be further reduced.

Here are the two Table As for comparison:

While the boundaries of each percentage rate changed slightly, the biggest changes can be seen above the old maximum ($4,808 per week).

40% as a Potential Maximum Percentage for Child Support - The 2021 guidelines have a new deviation factor and the worksheet has been re-designed to highlight it:

Whenever application of the guidelines requires a payor to pay a recipient more than 40% of the payor’s available income in Line 3a of the guidelines worksheet for a current child support order, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of a substantial hardship, justifying a deviation from the guidelines.

It remains to be seen how this rebuttable presumption and what the amount of appropriate deviation will be in cases where the child support worksheet results in an order that exceeds this percentage. The Task Force in the commentary noted that a "threshold of 40% falls between economic estimates of child costs for one child and two children reported by the Betson-Rothbarth, USDA, and MIT Living Wage studies. The Task Force’s recommendation recognized the need for additional protection in certain limited cases where the child support order would exceed this percentage."

It's unclear why the Task Force created this rebuttable presumption for all orders when the economic estimates are for one to two children. This deviation presumption may result in lower support orders for families with multiple children in certain circumstances despite the increased rates discussed next.

Multiplier for Families with More than One Child - Table B of the Child Support Guidelines was updated with new rates for multiple children which will likely result in increased support calculations for many families with more than one child. Here are the two Table Bs side-by-side:

When one child is over 18 the discount rate remains 25% but when some children are over 18 and some are under 18, the discount rates changed slightly reflecting these changes in Table B. This has less of an impact overall then the rate changes in Table B above.

Child Care Costs Adjustment - The 2018 guidelines reduced the available income of both parties by the child care costs paid, and had an additional section (combining these costs with health insurance costs as further described below) that then further adjusted the child support order in an attempt to have the parties share the burden of this cost proportionally. In 2018, the proportional cost was capped at 15% of the child support order. The 2021 guidelines changed this approach with the intent of having parents share the first $355 per week per child proportionally to their available income.

To accomplish this proportional split, the first reduction against available income was removed (as essentially double-counting this expense), and the cap was made on the amount per week per child rather than as a percentage of the support order. These changes are all reflected on the updated worksheet and do represent a more clear way of trying to apportion these expenses. Given this goal, I still wonder why this expense is not simply separated from the worksheet altogether, but at least this adjustment cleans up some of the issues with the 2018 approach. The one remaining objection I have to this cap is that it fails to recognize that child care costs vary greatly by location in Massachusetts and this cap might make sense in some areas, but not in other parts of the Commonwealth.

Health Care Costs Adjustment - The 2018 guidelines treated health insurance costs the same as child care costs (as described above). The 2021 guidelines changed this approach to simply include a credit for health insurance costs against available income. There is no proportional sharing built into the 2021 guidelines. The guidelines were also updated by amending the language for when the court orders a parent to provide health coverage and what is considered "reasonable in cost" and when it might create an "undue hardship" for a parent to pay health insurance.

One of the factors for the court determining whether to order a parent to maintain coverage for a child, is whether the health care coverage exceeds "5 per cent of the gross income of the party." Unfortunately premiums paid by many families do exceed 5 per cent of the parent's gross income. It's unclear what the guidelines intend the court to do in these cases. If the court doesn't order health insurance coverage, but the parties don't qualify for MassHealth, then the children are going to need coverage from somewhere and this section doesn't really address the fact that parties may (and often will) still choose to pay health insurance that exceeds this percentage of their gross income. In so doing, one parent is providing a benefit that the other parent is no longer significantly sharing under these guidelines.

Notable Changes

"Parties" instead of "Litigants" - The Task Force recommended eliminating the word “litigant” from the Preamble and instead inserting “parties." While this is a minor change it is a welcome reminder that many parents relying on these guidelines do not see themselves as adversaries, but rather co-parents with the ability to work together and make agreements in the best interest of their children, even about money!

Updates relating to Social Security (SSR, SSDI & SSI) Benefits - Some changes were made in the Source of Income section to further clarify that Supplemental Security Income (a means-tested financial benefit) is not included as income in calculating child support. In contrast, Social Security Retirement and Social Security Disability Income are included. In addition, while the 2018 guidelines contained reference to the Rosenberg v. Merida case (which required also taking into account a dependency benefit received by a parent), the 2021 guidelines further clarify how to account for this and include worksheet directions for this type of income.

Additional Income included in Calculation - The Task Force added two types of income, previously not listed, that can be included in income for calculating child support:

"income derived from stock options and similar incentives, excluding any income from the coverture portion allocated at the time of the divorce of the parties subject to this child support order" and
"alimony consistent with Calvin C. v. Amelia A., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 714 (2021)".

Both of these additions are due to appeals court rulings. The first addition, stock options not allocated during the marriage, is an issue that was addressed in Ludwig v. Lamee-Ludwig.

The second addition includes specific reference to the case (Calvin C. v. Amelia A.) where alimony was being paid by the Husband but child support was being paid by the Wife, and how to handle the alimony in that instance. The Appeals court approved the lower court's exclusion of the alimony from the child support calculation, in the Calvin C. v. Amelia A., case, and noted that it's ruling was specifically limited to cases where there are "two payors whose combined income is less than $250,000, who have reciprocal support obligations to one another, and a materially reduced postmarital lifestyle."

In making this supposedly limited ruling for parties with crossing support orders, the court noted

that where one spouse is the sole payor of both alimony and child support, and alimony is calculated first, it is usually necessary to “us[e] the parties’ adjusted, postalimony incomes when calculating child support to avoid running afoul of G. L. c. 208, § 53 (c) (2) . . . .” Calvin C. v. Amelia A., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 714, 721 (2021).

-excerpt from the commentary to the 2021 Guidelines.

The Appeals court in Calvin C. v. Amelia A. specifically noted that "[t]his language is intended to provide judges with necessary flexibility to address the needs of the parties in a particular case without running afoul of the act", and including this specific reference in the 2021 Guidelines is obviously reiterating that point.

Overtime and Secondary Income Clarification - The 2018 Guidelines included a requirement that "due consideration must first be given to the history of the income" (emphasis added) when deciding whether to disregard some or all of overtime or a second job. The word "first" was removed in the 2021 guidelines, making this factor equal in weigh to the other factors: "the expectation that the income will continue to be available, the economic needs of the parties and the children, the impact of the overtime or secondary job on the parenting plan, and whether the overtime work is a requirement of the job."

Relationship to Alimony Clarification - The 2018 Guidelines included a section indicating that alimony under the Alimony Reform Act could be "calculated first, and in other circumstances child support may be calculated first." This opened the door to argue that alimony was possible even when there was a presumptive child support that fit into the guidelines (under $250,000 of combined household income in 2018), by running alimony on that same income instead of child support. The 2021 Guidelines added clarification that this choice can be made "[a]t any combined income level" and that a factor to consider in making this choice is "the total amount of support that would be available to each household."

Uninsured Medical and Dental/Vision Expenses Contribution - The words "out-of-pocket and" were added to the guidelines when referring to uninsured expenses to clarify that the expenses being split could include expenses either because someone is uninsured or because they are insured but there are still out-of-pocket expenses not covered by insurance, e.g. co-pays and deductibles.

Amendments to the Circumstances for Finding Deviation - A few small language changes were made to the deviation factors presumably meant to clarify certain situations:

1. The phrase "minimum support order amount" was replaced with the phrase "setting a child support at $0" in order to emphasize "that in certain circumstances setting a child support order at $0 may be appropriate."

2. The word "time" was added to the end of the deviation factor: "a parent has extraordinary travel or other expenses' related to parenting time" to clarify this factor.

3. The factor "a parent is absorbing a child care cost that is disproportionate in relation to his or her income;" was changed to "a parent has extraordinary child care costs for the children covered by this order;" to clarify the emphasis is on the cost not the relation to income.

Typos & Unexpected Results

As with any formula intended to make every situation fit into one size box, there are bound to be unexpected results in some cases, especially the more complicated the formula gets. The Guidelines Worksheet expanding to 4 pages is a reflection of the rising complication of the calculations and has resulted in a few notable results that might raise some eyebrows;

Typo on Line 8b - On the initial draft court worksheet (released with the Guidelines and likely to be updated) line 8b lists the formula for this line as "8a x 3b". Line 8a is the combined additional income above $7,692. Line 3b is the combined available income (a dollar amount). Line 3c is the share of combined additional income (a percentage). In context multiplying the income over $7,692 by the combined available income doesn't make sense. The formula for line 8b should read "8a x 3c".

Ambiguity on Line 6e - The initial draft court worksheet (released with the Guidelines) line 6e lists the formula for this line when 6d is < 10% as "6c or ((6d + 10%) x 3a) for each parent, whichever is less, but not less than an amount from the shaded area of the Guidelines Chart". This formula doesn't indicate which 3a to use. Only one option makes sense though:

The purpose of this calculation is to lower the support amount when the recipient's income is sufficiently large compared to the initial support calculation (i.e. 6c ÷ 3a < 10%). This formula only makes sense if the 3a referenced in the formula is the "other parent's 3a" in the same way that line 7b references the "Payor 3a". If it's the same parent's 3a then the comparison formula, ((6d + 10%) x 3a), would never be less than 6c, so this line would be superfluous.

Thus line 6e, in order to avoid any ambiguity, should be amended to "If 6d is < 10%, enter 6c or ((6d + 10%) x the other parent's 3a) for each parent, whichever is less, but not less than an amount from the shaded area of the Guidelines Chart"

Unexpected Result related to Disparate Incomes - When a support recipient has significant income, or when parents have significantly disparate incomes and share or split parenting time, small changes in their income can result in big changes in the support order. This is due to the Section 6 and Section 7 calculations that check to see when a payor's support amount is less than 10% of the recipient's income. Because these figures are rounded to the nearest dollar, and the nearest whole percentile, small changes can have a significant effect.

Consider the following example: Parents of 2 children under 18; the parent with the children 2/3 of the time has an income of $3,568 per week and the other parent has the children 1/3 of the time and earns $1,500 per week. The child support amount is $339 per week. However, if the first parent's income goes up just $1 to $3,569 per week then the child support drops to $285 per week (a $54 per week difference). This seems non-sensical but is correct, due to the calculation on line 7a and 7b. This also can be a very different result depending on whether you choose to round the percentage on 7a to a whole number or allow for decimals.

Practice Tip: Keep a close eye on the potential for small changes having a large impact whenever line 6c or 7a is close to 10%.

Unexpected Result related to relatively Small Incomes - When a payor has available income of about $250 per week, or when either parent has this amount of income with shared or split parenting time, small changes in their income can result in big changes in the support order. This is due to the 2021 Child Support Guidelines Chart calculations that check to see when a payor's available income is less than $250. There is a jump in the resulting order when the income moves from $249 to $250 causing some odd results

Consider the following example: Parents of 2 children under 18; the parent with the children 2/3 of the time has an income of $0 per week and the other parent has the children 1/3 of the time and earns $249 per week. The child support amount is $20 per week. However, if the payor's income goes up just $1 to $250 per week then the child support jumps to $77 per week (a $57 per week difference). This seems non-sensical but is correct, due to the calculation on line 3e and 5c.

Practice Tip: Keep a close eye on the potential for small changes having a large impact whenever line 3a or 3d is close to $250.

If you have comments about any of these changes, noticed any other typos or unexpected results, or you want to note any other changes we missed, please comment below or reach out to us directly.

Imagine there's no Court, It isn't Hard to do

2021-05-14T10:19:00.001-04:00

In the last year there have been times due to the COVID-19 pandemic when the court was closed or significantly delayed. Even now, more than a year after the lockdowns started, we are experiencing long delays in obtaining court dates.

@thatmediator
Imagine there’s no weapons, how would we find peace? ##mediation ##mediatorsoftiktok
♬ Imagine (Originally Performed by John Lennon) - Piano Karaoke Version - Sing2Piano

Fortunately, we have an answer for what to do if there is no court. You're not simply on your own, and in fact there are lots of ways to resolve conflict outside of court. Learn more about your options from these previous posts:

Divorce Options - an Update for 2020

Replace your cancelled Court Hearing with a Mediation

A Template for Avoiding Court

You're Thinking about Conflict All Wrong: Is there a better way to think about conflict;

a model which can free us from our fear of conflict?

How does a Divorce end? 😡, ☹️, or 🙂

The Most Important Thing when Dividing Retirement in Divorce (& 4 Traps if You're not Informed)

2021-04-29T16:57:00.002-04:00

In many divorce cases retirement accounts are the biggest, or at least one of the biggest, assets. Because of that, it is imperative to understand the options for transferring and dividing retirement assets in a way that maximizes the benefits and minimizes taxes.

Informed Consent is the Most Important Thing when Dividing Retirement in Divorce

You don't want to make significant financial decisions about your future without understanding the financial consequences. Retirement accounts are complicated, vary greatly in their requirements & plan details, and can result in significant tax liability. If you don't feel fully informed when agreeing to how a retirement account or multiple accounts are being divided, then you are taking a financial risk that most likely cannot be undone once your divorce is final. To avoid making uninformed or bad decisions, consult with retirement division and financial experts for information and advice before making these decisions (see below for the author's flat fee options for obtaining this type of advice).

Here are just four ways that lack of information can be costly in a dividing retirement accounts in a divorce:

1. Defined Contribution Plans are different than Defined Benefit Plans - If you treat a pension statement the same as a 401(k) statement you might be leaving a lot of money on the table in your divorce. Pensions typically pay out for an employee's lifetime and can typically also be extended for the lifetime of a spouse or former spouse. This means that the value is not simple to calculate and is often underestimated.

2. Market Changes can be Significant - Retirement account values change due to the investment changes in addition to contributions or withdrawals. A divorce agreement or judgment will identify the division date (after which contributions and withdrawals are not shared), but often market changes are ignored. This can be a real problem if it takes months (or even years) for the transfer of funds to be completed. If you don't identify that market changes are included you risk losing out on any investment gains during the time between the division date and the actual transfer date.

3. Choosing Offset v. Diversification can have Unintended Consequences - Similar to the issues that arise due to market changes between the division date and transfer date, different accounts are going to be invested differently and will change differently between the division date and transfer date. If you agree to offset multiple accounts and only divide from one account you may be saving on QDRO preparation fees but you are risking that the one account used for the offset is more or less favorable of an investment than the others.

4. Failing to Address Survivor Benefits can be Costly - Some retirement accounts cannot be divided until retirement age and for those accounts if you don't also provide for survivor benefits for the former spouse, then the former spouse could end up receiving nothing. Government and private pensions differ significantly on the types of survivor benefits available and on the limitations for those benefits. If you don't address the survivor benefits in your agreement then you could have agreed to divide a pension and end up with nothing if your ex-spouse dies.

How to Get Informed: Retirement Division in Divorce (usually via QDRO or DRO) is complicated and can often result in ongoing conflict after the divorce process was supposed to be over. To avoid this part of your divorce dragging on, Skylark Law & Mediation, PC offers the following service:

Retirement Division Mediation Session (1 hour session for $500) - Justin Kelsey prepares QDROs and DROs for Gray Jay Endeavors, LLC and is an experienced mediator. Putting these skills together, Justin can join your case (whether you are in a mediation, negotiation, or litigation) for a one-time retirement division information and mediation session helping you get the retirement division right the first time! Schedule here

Should I Tell my Spouse in a Divorce that I'm Working with a Lawyer?

2021-03-26T09:19:00.000-04:00

Photo by Sam Moqadam on Unsplash

Divorce is complicated and one of the challenges is the push and pull between transparency and protecting oneself. Individuals in a divorce often want to hide information that they are worried will concern their soon-to-be ex-spouse or in some way potentially disadvantage them in court or in a settlement process. The choice of whether to be transparent about any choice, including the choice to hire a lawyer, has to be weighed against the pros and cons of that decision.

As a mediator, I favor erring on the side of transparency. If you hide something relevant during a negotiation where both spouses are supposed to be able to make informed decisions then you risk the negotiation failing and all future negotiations being conducted without any trust. In other words, if you want your spouse to be transparent, you have to demonstrate that willingness as well. This seems more obvious when you're considering keeping relevant information secret, like the infamous "hidden bank account." Obviously you shouldn't commit fraud and hide information you're required to disclose. But what about process decisions, like hiring a lawyer to advise you? Does it make sense to disclose that as well?

Should you disclose if you're working with a lawyer?

I understand that some people don't trust lawyers, and if they're negotiating with their spouse, they're worried that hiring a lawyer will make it harder, or even worse, force their case into a contentious court battle. When one person needs a lawyer to help them decide what they think is fair, they might be nervous that the other person will be angry or scared if they share that they are working with a lawyer.

However, that is being afraid of one type of lawyer: the litigious advocate. There are lawyers who approach cases with a more settlement oriented mindset. When I mediate, I recommend that people hire mediation-friendly lawyers, to make sure that they have advice but in a way that reinforces that the ultimate decisions are still up to the client. If you hire a lawyer like this, and you both commit to that type of approach, then you can avoid this fear that a lawyer will automatically make things harder. My hope when a client hires me is that if there spouse looks at my website, they'll be reassured that I'm going to help bring peace to their family, not ramp up the fight.

On the other hand, if the reason someone doesn't want their spouse to get a lawyer is because they don't want them to be informed, then their fear is justified but also disempowering. If you're empowering yourself in a mediation, then I would encourage you not to hide that. It's not going to be a secret when you start to advocate more effectively for yourself anyway.

I recognize that there are some situations in which people need to protect themselves, for example when one spouse is controlling or abusive, but if you are in one of those situations you are more likely to end up in a contested court action and have to disclose your attorney anyway.

Ultimately, I believe that hiding information is more likely to backfire and hurt a relationship then being upfront initially about something, even if that thing is likely to upset the other party. It's so much worse if they find out later, and trust may never be recoverable. In addition, if you're in a process with a neutral, like a mediator, you can use their assistance to break the news effectively and let the mediator help enforce the benefits of working with mediation-friendly attorneys in the mediation process.

Are divorce lawyers doing harm?

2021-01-26T17:18:00.008-05:00

While the Hippocratic Oath is no longer required for doctors, we often hear the principle attributed to that ancient Greek oath for healers to "first, do no harm." The translation is actually closer to "I will do no harm or injustice to them," but the sentiment is clear. When trying to help someone, your first obligation is to not make things worse.

Today, I attended the third in a series of public forums held by the Child Support Guidelines Task Force giving people the opportunity to comment on what should change in the 2018 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines. What struck me about the testimony is that very few people commented on the guidelines themselves. Rather they focused on the perceived impact of the guidelines and of the courts on family conflict. Almost universally, the commenters suggested that changes were needed because the experience in court impoverished families, increased conflict, and hurt children.

Whether calling for a lower formula or a higher formula, for those commenting on biases in the system or income inequality, or even when sharing the dangers of family and intimate partner violence; every commenter seemed to agree on one thing: the family court system should be helping more.

Now, admittedly this is not a random selection of court customers. These are people who felt strongly enough to spend their afternoon in a public hearing (even online this is not a convenient or fun afternoon). There is some self-selection of people who are looking to see change in the system, because in some way the system failed them or someone they knew. Even acknowledging this bias in the selection, though, I couldn't help wondering: Is the court, the bar, and the Task Force doing enough to reduce conflict? Can the child support guidelines accomplish their goal without doing harm?

I'm not sure of the answers to these questions, and much of what was discussed in the public form today went well beyond the power of the Task Force to address when making changes to a formula, or adding definition to a court guidance. The Task Force is bound to the statute and federal requirements, and the court is limited in their creativity of solutions by statute, case law and the constitution. And choosing to change one thing in the formula will inevitably increase the burden on one side. There will always be someone unhappy with the result.

Unless.... we start asking lawyers,

who are often the gatekeepers of the court process

to "first, do no harm."

The problem with the court system and the rules, is not with one choice or another in making the rules. The problem is that there is always a good and just exception to any rule. No matter how good the court makes the rules, no matter how good the Task Force drafts the guidelines, they will always be one-size fits all solutions pasted over an infinite diversity in actual families. The court will always be a hammer, regardless of how many problems start out as nails.

@thatmediator
The 3 Fs are not your only option to resolve conflict.
♬ original sound - Justin Kelsey - Mediator ☮️

Recognizing that lawyers, as problem-solvers, have many tools besides going to court, is the key to better problem solving, to finding solutions unique and respectful to more families. Legal training should include interest-based negotiation training, mediation training, and collaborative law training. Until that time when law schools catch up, you (the reader) can support this necessity by referring to and working with lawyers who have chosen to take trainings in these additional disciplines, to avail themselves of more tools to help their clients.

It's time to expect more from lawyers then simply "fighting" on their client's behalf. An evaluation of a client's case should include the whole picture. Clients should be given the chance to understand that going to court, even if they win, will often increase the level of conflict they have. Even clients who have been abused or otherwise had their power taken from them, deserve to know all the options and choices of how to proceed. Educating them about problem solving is empowering. Being a champion for someone doesn't teach them anything about how to defend or stand up for themselves in the future.

If we're going to participate in the most intimate of people's family conflicts then we have an obligation to use all the tools at our disposal to help reduce conflict, especially before taking any action that would increase it. I can't help wondering how many of the stories I heard today would be different if that approach was taken first. Would they be praising their attorneys or mediators instead of complaining about them? That should at the very least be our goal going forward. Regardless of what changes the Task Force recommends, there will be opportunities for fights going forward, and each one is a chance to increase the conflict or decrease it. What will you do?

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines News - Part 2

2021-01-10T16:02:00.002-05:00

Since we first posted about the upcoming update to the 2020-2021 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Task force there have been a few additional updates:

On December 15, 2020, the Massachusetts Council on Family Mediation submitted comments from members on potential child support guidelines updates.

While the comment period for submitting written comments closed on December 15, 2020, there are upcoming public forums and we're sharing the full notice with you below:

NOTICE OF PUBLIC FORUMS

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES TASK FORCE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

Overview:

Federal law and regulations require that each state review its Child Support Guidelines at least every four years. To comply with the federally required review, the Honorable Paula M. Carey, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Trial Court, has appointed a Task Force to review the Child Support Guidelines that became effective on September 15, 2017, as amended June 15, 2018.

Chief Justice Carey appointed the Honorable John D. Casey, Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court, and the Honorable Katherine Field, First Justice of the Bristol County Probate and Family Court, as the Co-Chairs of the Task Force. The Task Force includes representatives from the Probate and Family Court, the Department of Revenue, the domestic relations bar, and legal services organizations. More information about this child support review can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/2020-2021-child-support-guidelines-review.

Members:

The members of the Task Force are:

Hon. John D. Casey, Co-chair

Hon. Katherine Field, Co-chair

Kara Carey, Esq.

David Friedman, Esq.

Fern Frolin, Esq.

Lisa Greenberg, Esq.

Christopher Hercun

Peter Kajko, Esq.

Hon. Robert W. Langlois (ret.)

Dolores O'Neill, Esq.

Anna Richardson, Esq.

Jamie Sabino, Esq.

Kimberlie Sweet, Esq.

Patrick Yoyo, Esq.

Amanda Vanderhorst, Esq.

Kelly Zawistowski, Esq.

Public Forums and Written Comments:

The public is invited to provide comments on the Child Support Guidelines for the Task Force's consideration. Public forums will be held on January 21, 2021, from 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. (EST); January 22, 2021, from 11 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. (EST); and January 26, 2021, from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. (EST).

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the forums will be held by Zoom. The forums will be open to the public to view. The forums are an opportunity to make a brief statement to members of the Task Force. Oral testimony is limited to 3 minutes per person, and should not refer to specifics about a speaker's court case. The Task Force also encourages people to email written testimony or comments to childsupport@jud.state.ma.us by January 26, 2020. Please do not submit any written testimony or comments to Task Force members individually.

The public forums will be recorded by the host. Anything said will be captured and made part of the recording. No other recording is allowed.

How to Participate:

If you would like to speak at a forum, please send an email in advance to

childsupport@jud.state.ma.us to register. The email must include your full name, your affiliation (if any), your phone number and email address, and the date you would like to speak. Please also include in the subject line of your email the date you would like to speak. You may register by email up to 15 minutes before each forum begins.

The information for accessing the Zoom meeting is:

Join ZoomGov Meeting

https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1600053895?pwd=TFl3cUV4YVJjQTlDdXVHeDFPSWh4dz09

Meeting ID: 160 005 3895

Passcode: 352589

One tap mobile

+16692545252,,1600053895#,,,,,,0#,,352589# US (San Jose)

+16468287666,,1600053895#,,,,,,0#,,352589# US (New York)

Dial by your location

+1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)

+1 646 828 7666 US (New York)

Meeting ID: 160 005 3895

Passcode: 352589

Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/abPVxTBIsr

Join by SIP

1600053895@sip.zoomgov.com

Join by H.323

161.199.138.10 (US West)

161.199.136.10 (US East)

Meeting ID: 160 005 3895

Passcode: 352589

---

To sign up to receive Probate and Family Court email updates, please go to:

https://www.mass.gov/forms/probate-and-family-court-notification-email-signup-page

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines News

2020-12-12T23:07:00.005-05:00

Every four years, per federal requirements, the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines must be reviewed. To that end, the Trial Court Chief Justice Paula M. Carey has announced the formation of the 2020-2021 Massachusetts Trial Court Child Support Guidelines Task Force. The Task Force is seeking public comment regarding the current Child Support Guidelines. Written comments may be submitted to the Task Force at: childsupport@jud.state.ma.us by December 15, 2020.

While we're awaiting the new guidelines, the court has finally updated their existing interactive worksheet to be more accessible. The worksheet has been available as an interactive PDF since the last guidelines update in 2018. However, the pdf doesn't work in all readers, and on mobile devices it may not be accessible. The Court has now released a web-version of the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet which can be used in any browser or mobile device. The pdf option is still available as well.

Justice App - a Resource worth Downloading

2020-12-02T17:09:00.002-05:00

Skylark's online Massachsuetts Child Support Calculator was recently added as a resource on JusticeApp - a free downloadable resource from co-founders Damian Turco and Melina Munoz Turco. This is the future of how clients will find reliable information, professionals and resources and we're pleased to be included.

A Message from the Co-Founders:

JusticeApp is a free mobile app designed to help people with legal problems manage their cases through the court system. The app doesn’t aim to create solutions for every legal problem. Rather, it aggregates credible resources already created and maintain by government, legal aid organization, and, in some select instances, private attorneys, in a simple and clean interface. No more endless internet searches at two in the morning, wondering if the information you find is accurate and reliable.

Without leaving the app, JusticeApp guides you to resources on the law, courthouses, and the court’s official online docket. You can draft court forms and order an court audio recording or transcript of your hearing. It also has a marketplace to search for representation based on price, distance, and rate, including legal aid, free court programs, and private attorneys. And, if you check out the Spotlight feature or subscribe to their youtube channel, you’ll find the Co-Founders, Damian Turco and Melina Munoz Turco, interviewing legal champions to raise awareness about their causes and organizations. JusticeApp is free and in both the Apple and Google Play app stores, so download it and check it out.

Website: https://justiceapp.com/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/justiceapp/id1513643433

Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.app.myappoq

Collaborative in a time of COVID

2020-11-17T13:15:00.005-05:00

by Beth Aarons

When a former family law colleague of mine told me about Collaborative Law Process sometime around 2008, conceptually it sounded much like a series of traditional four-way meetings, but with a therapist present. As a fledgling dispute resolution process, I saw no harm in adding this skill set to my professional tool kit to bolster the transition of my practice out of litigation and into dispute resolution.

It was not until several years after I had taken the Introduction to Collaborative Law training that I experienced the actual magic of Collaborative Law Process. The family had been slowly imploding for years and now everything was coming to a head.* Mom and Dad still occupied the same house but had stopped speaking to each other years earlier after Dad had an infidelity. They had decided to divorce but not tell the kids until there was a plan to separate into two households. Mom had lost her job and Dad’s salary was not enough to cover two sets of living expenses, so everything was in a deteriorating holding pattern fraught with stress and tension. The middle school aged child started failing classes and was nighttime bed-wetting. The younger teenage child developed symptoms consistent with obsessive compulsive disorder. It was when the older teenage child made a failed suicide attempt that Mom reacted by filing for divorce.

Shocked at being served with the divorce action and daunted by the prospect of protracted litigation, Dad reached out to an attorney and eventually invited Mom to put the litigation on hold and try Collaborative Law Process. For this family, even proceeding to the first full team meeting was a huge accomplishment. With so many years of emotional rift to be unpacked, and children clearly in need of effective and proactive co-parenting support, Collaborative Law Process provided the structural format this family required in order to have the very difficult but necessary conversations to lead them out of their toxic holding pattern. It was a framework that let Dad apologize for his indiscretion, and let Mom process her feelings of parental failure over the children’s escalating issues. The professional team helped choreograph the timing and manner of challenging conversations like these so the couple could get “unstuck” and attend to the important financial and parenting decisions they needed to make in their divorce.

While not all dispute resolution processes fit every client situation, with so many litigants still experiencing significant court delays due to the pandemic, it could be beneficial to see if there might be a dispute resolution process appropriate for the parties to try. Many divorce clients are literally stuck at home in the same type of stressful pressure cooker Mom and Dad’s family experienced. Litigation could still be resumed if the dispute resolution process is unsuccessful, but it would afford at least a chance at more timely settlement and a way for families to move beyond pandemic paralysis.

In addition, the Collaborative Law Process, like mediation, conciliation and arbitration, translates well to online virtual platforms because they are flexible in nature.

Need more information? Most dispute resolution practitioners are happy to provide information about the differences between processes to help determine if a process would be appropriate for clients. Or consider taking a dispute resolution process training to get a deep dive into the ins and outs of its inner workings. More knowledge can only help professionals to better assist clients navigating their process choices during COVID or any time.

*details modified to protect confidentiality

If you're interest in learning more about Collaborative Law attend a Practice Group meeting or an upcoming training at MCLC.

2020 U.S. Presidential Platforms - What do they say about Families?

2020-09-30T00:36:00.007-04:00

In 2016 we shared what each presidential platform stated about families and given the upcoming election we want to update our post with the latest information. There are significant differences between the presidential candidates, and their platforms explain some of the vehemence with which many defend or attack the 2020 candidates. Since this blog focuses primarily on the impact of the law on families and family conflict, we will concentrate on only one portion of the presidential platforms:

How does each 2020 U.S. Presidential Platform address families in America?

While in 2016 we indicated that we did not endorse any candidate officially, and we provided the platforms in no particular order, in this election the author (Justin Kelsey) cannot, in good conscience make the same statement. The republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, has failed to represent equality, freedom, and human rights for all individuals and families in America and he has expressed opinions about power and elections that threaten the democratic process itself. I, therefore, support Joe Biden for President in the 2020 election.

With that being said we are providing this information directly from the sources with links to the full platforms, specifically so you can decide for yourselves (and we encourage all eligible voters to vote in the election):

The 2020 Democratic Party Platform mentions the words "family" or "families" 121 times, the words "child" or "children" 99 times, the words "gay", "lesbian", and "LGBT" 37 times, and the word "transgender" 15 times. The Democratic party platform uses the word "marriage" once.

Below are some of the excerpts from the Democratic party platform's discussions relevant to families:

Excerpt from "Enacting Robust Work-Family Policies":

Democrats will implement paid sick days and a high-quality, comprehensive, and inclusive paid family and medical leave system that protects workers from the unfair choice between attending to urgent health or caretaking needs and earning a paycheck. We will fight to ensure workers are guaranteed at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for all workers and family units, to enable new parents to recover from childbirth and bond with their newborns, foster or adopted children, and allow all workers to take extended time off to care for themselves or ailing loved ones.

Excerpt from "Democracy and Human Rights"

Democrats will advance the ability of all persons to live with dignity, security, and respect, regardless of who they are or who they love. We will restore the United States’ position of leadership on LGBTQ+ issues by passing the GLOBE Act and appointing senior leaders directly responsible for driving and coordinating LGBTQ+ issues at the State Department, USAID, and the National Security Council. We will ensure that our immigration policies account for the needs of LGBTQ+ refugees and asylum seekers, and that we use the full slate of human rights promotion and accountability tools to defend the universal rights of LGBTQ+ people. We will amplify the voices of LGBTQ+ persons around the world and counter violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons wherever it appears.

Excerpt from "Protecting American and Recovering from the COVID-19 Pandemic"

In states and cities across the country, too many parents are being forced to choose between keeping their jobs and keeping their children safe. Democrats believe that making child care affordable and widely available is essential to recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. We will provide funding to stabilize the sector and ensure child care and educational settings are able to meet the highest possible public health and worker safety standards to protect the health of care workers, children, parents, and the broader community.

Excerpt from "Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice"

Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides vital preventive and reproductive health care for millions of people, especially low-income people, and people of color, and LGBTQ+ people, including in underserved areas.

Excerpt from "Protecting Women’s Rights"

Democrats will fight to guarantee equal rights for women, including by ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment and at long last enshrining gender equality in the U.S. Constitution. We will take aggressive action to end pay inequality, including by increasing penalties against companies that discriminate against women and passing the Paycheck Fairness Act. Democrats are committed to ending sexual assault, domestic abuse, and other violence against women, including the epidemics of violence against Native American women and transgender women of color.

Excerpt from "Protecting LGBTQ+ Rights"

Democrats applaud this year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that made clear that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity violates the law, but we know we still have work to do to ensure LGBTQ+ people are treated equally under the law and in our society. We will fight to enact the Equality Act and at last outlaw discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in housing, public accommodations, access to credit, education, jury service, and federal programs. We will work to ensure LGBTQ+ people are not discriminated against when seeking to adopt or foster children, protect LGBTQ+ children from bullying and assault, and guarantee transgender students’ access to facilities based on their gender identity. Democrats will ensure federally funded programs for older adults are inclusive for LGBTQ+ seniors.

Read the full 2020 Democratic Platform here.

The 2020 Republican Party Platform was not updated from the 2016 platform. The platform mentions the words "family" or "families" 71 times, the words "child" or "children" 50 times, the word "marriage" 19 times. The Republican party platform never uses the words "gay", "lesbian", "LGBT", or "transgender" despite referencing "traditional marriage" repeatedly.

Below are some of the excerpts from the Republic party platform's discussions relevant to families:

Excerpt in "Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary":

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values.... We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.

Excerpt in "The Fifth Amendment: Protecting Human Life"

The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can 'be deprived of life, liberty or property' deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that 'all' are 'endowed by their Creator' with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth... We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Excerpt from "Marriage, Family, and Society"

Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman... Children raised in a two-parent household tend to be physically and emotionally healthier, more likely to do well in school, less likely to use drugs and alcohol, engage in crime or become pregnant outside of marriage. We oppose policies and laws that create a financial incentive for or encourage cohabitation. Moreover, marriage remains the greatest antidote to child poverty...

The data and the facts lead to an inescapable conclusion: Every child deserves a married mom and dad... Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states. We oppose government discrimination against businesses or entities which decline to sell items or services to individuals for activities that go against their religious views about such activities.

Excerpt from "Choice in Education"

We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with sexual
risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. That approach — the only one always effective against premarital pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease — empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referral or counseling for abortion and contraception and believe that federal funds should not be used in mandatory or universal mental health, psychiatric, or socio-emotional screening programs.

Read the full 2020 Republican Platform here.

The 2020 Green Party Platform mentions the words "child" or "children" 58 times, the words "family", or "families" 52 times, the word "marriage" 3 time, the words "gay", "lesbian", or "LGBT" 9 times, and the word "transgender" 2 times.

Below are some of the excerpts from the Green party platform's discussions relevant to families:

Excerpt from "Families and Children"

A universal, federally funded childcare program for pre-school and young schoolchildren should be developed.

Excerpt from "Foreign Policy: Women's Rights"

The Green Party makes a strong and urgent call for U.S. passage of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly and ratified by 173 countries. It is also known as the Women's Convention, the Women's Bill of Rights, and an International Bill of Rights for Women. The United States is one of a very few countries and the only industrialized nation that has not ratified it.

Excerpt from "Civil Rights and Equal Rights: Women's Rights"

Democracy cannot work without equality for women, which provides equal participation and representation. It took an extraordinary and ongoing fight over 72 years for women to win the right to vote. However, the Equal Rights Amendment, first introduced in 1923, has still not been ratified by 2012, representing a continuous struggle of 87 years with no victory in sight. We believe that equality should be a given, and that all Greens must work toward that end.

Excerpt from "Reproductive Rights"

Women's right to control their bodies is non-negotiable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available. The "morning-after" pill must be affordable and easily accessible without a prescription, together with a government-sponsored public relations campaign to educate women about this form of contraception. Clinics must be accessible and must offer advice on contraception and the means for contraception; consultation about abortion and the performance of abortions, and; abortion regardless of age or marital status.

Excerpt from "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity"

1. The Green Party affirms the rights of all individuals to freely choose intimate partners, regardless of their sex, gender, or gender identity.
2. The Green Party recognizes the full civil rights of sexual and gender minorities. The existing civil rights act prohibits discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability. We will work to add sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to the existing civil rights act.

Read the full 2020 Green Party Platform here.

The 2020 Libertarian Party Platform mentions the words "child" or "children" 6 times, and the word "marriage" twice. The Libertarian party platform never uses the words "family", "families", "gay", "lesbian", "LGBT", or "transgender".

Below are some of the excerpts from the Libertarian party platform's discussions relevant to families:

Excerpt from "Personal Relationships"

Excerpt from "Abortion"

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Excerpt from "Parental Rights"

Read the full 2016 Libertarian Platform here.

If you want additional assistance finding information about the presidential elections as well as state and local elections, check out Vote like a Beast.com

Easier than Ever to be Collaboratively Trained!

2020-09-10T09:54:00.002-04:00

UPDATE: The first online training was so well received, MCLC is planning a second. The next training will be held March 3-5 from 10AM - 4PM. Register here.

The Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council's Introduction to Collaborative Law Training won't be stopped by COVID-19.

The training is September 23-25 from 8AM - 2PM via Zoom.

Flyer:

Collaborative Law is a dispute resolution process similar to mediation but with many differences. It is an opportunity to expand your out-of-court negotiation practice, to increase your negotiation skill-set, and to provide additional service options to your clients. If you've heard about Collaborative Law but you're still not sure, learn more about Collaborative Law by watching this 4-part video series, or reach out to me directly to schedule a meeting to discuss.

Register and Learn more here!

More Info on the Training:

Save time, money, and your commute in this virtual IACP approved basic training in collaborative law.

Learn the fundamentals of the Collaborative Law model and how to apply it to both Family & Business Law cases.
Develop results-oriented techniques to help clients reach successful resolutions to disputes.
Identify and implement strategies to navigate challenging cases and to achieve success with high-conflict clients.
Train with experienced professionals who are passionate about the team approach.
Learn best practices for both in-person and virtual collaborative work
Fulfill the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP) standards for a Collaborative Law Intro Training.

Newly added: Interactive sessions and best practices on how to work virtually with clients.

Register and Learn more here!