I came across this article from the Boston Globe about an unusual bill that has been proposed by the state legislature.

-Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer Rob Hagy.  For more information, call to schedule an appointment at (434)293-4562.

St. Patrick’s Day can be great fun, but when you are either about to be involved in a custody and visitation case or are currently involved in a custody and visitation case, a misstep on St. Patrick's Day could do a great deal of harm to your interests and to the interests of your children. Over imbiding on St. Patrick's Day can lead to assault and battery, trespassing, property destruction, drug possession, or DUI charges which could affect the amount of time you may be allowed to spend with your children.  Even if you don't get charged with a crime, photos of excessive drinking or lewd and lacivious behavior on St. Patrick's Day that make it to social media platforms can also come back and haunt you during a custody and visitation case.  Always hesitate to go out if you have visitation of your child during this time.  Some judges may frown on the fact that you chose to go out partying instead of spending that time with your child.  

If you can avoid the above referenced pitfalls, St. Patrick's Day can afford you some opportunities to shine in a custody and visitation case as well.  Engage in some St. Patrick's Day craft activities with your children or cook some St. Patrick's Day themed baked goods with your children.  Take pictures of you doing these activities and then you can use these photographs to show what you spend your time doing with your children.  Even if you can't do anything directly with the children, perhaps you can arrange to provide something for their school St. Patrick's Day activities.  A brief google search turns up a multitude of great actitivites you can do with your children on St. Patrick's Day.

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Custody and Visitation Lawyer.  For help with your custody and visitation case, please contace me at (434)293,4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com.

It started snowing just a few hours ago here in Charlottesville, Virginia, and there is more on the way. We're expecting a heavy snowfall.  We've been inundated in the last few days with warnings about the weather. We've been lucky.  This will be the first big snow storm of the year and maybe the biggest in a few years.  There wasn't a concensus on exactly when the snow would start.  There isn't a concensus on how much we are going to get.  But there has been enough information out there to let everyone know that they had better get ready. Even if we don't know exactly how much we are going to get, it is going to be enough to cause problems here in Charlottesville.  It's going to be tough to drive safely for the next few days.  Schools and government offices are probably going to be closed as well.  Grocery stores and hardware stores will be jammed.  Parents will have to make alternative arrangements for their kids if there isn't any school.  I've even heard that some of us might lose power.

Some of us are more prepared for the storm than others.  I saw a former client of mine in the hardware store today and she, like me, was picking up some sleds for her children, but she was also picking up some oil lamps as well....just in case.  She said her husband was a "prepper" and asked her to pick up the lanterns.  While I was in line, two or three people came in looking for kerosine heaters and the hardware store was out.  Three or four people came in looking for snow melt and the hardware store was out. Despite all of the weather reports we've gotten I bet there are even more unlucky folks out there who will be a little or even a lot unprepared for this year's big storm.  On my way home, I noticed that the traffic was starting to back up.  I saw a few folks speeding right along in trucks or SUVs at close to the regular speed limit and I saw others taking their time navigating through the streets.    

Snow storms are a lot like divorces.  Those of us about to be snowed in are a lot like soon to be divorcees.  Some of us are more prepared for divorces than others.  Some people want divorces and out right ask for them.  Some people want divorces and out right leave.  These people are the "preppers".  They have already grieved about losing the relationship.  There is no going back.  They likely have done their own reseach and they have met with a lawyer.  They may have already had a separation agreement prepared to hand over when they utter the words "I want a divorce".  

No matter what divorce warning signs are present some other people will be a little and even a lot unprepared for the divorce.  They shouldn't be.  There are plenty of divorce warnings out there for these people to see.  Couples are getting divorced all the time.  Close family friends are getting divorced.  Books and being written about divorce.  Movies and documentaries are being made about divorce.  Even in their own relationships the warning signs are present.  Some of these folks are already sleeping in different beds, arguing more than anything else, cheating on their spouses, being cheated on, drinking too much, et cetera, et cetera.  And they may continue doing all of these things until it is too late.  They won't go to a therapist to deal with their personal issues.  They won't go to a counselor with their spouse to help smooth over the rough patches in their marriage.  They won't say no to the other man or the other woman.  They won't go see a divorce lawyer just in case.  And then things will really start getting rough for them when it starts "snowing": when their spouse says they want a divorce, when they are served with divorce papers, or when they are kicked out of the house because their spouse had to get a protective order.  After these things start happening, these people are going to be in for some tough legal sledding.  Some of these people will do the smart thing and consult with a lawyer, but some will try to make it on their own.  Those folks will likely fail.  Some folks will consult with a lawyer, but if they have chosen poorly or if they have chosen wisely and fail to heed their lawyers advice, they will be acting just like those speeding SUVs: basically careening around on icy roads with the windshield fogged over, with no chains on the tires, and with too much confidence that their four wheel drive is going to allow them to get by.  I bet more than a few of those folks are going to end up in a ditch or up against a guard rail and I hope they don't get hurt.

There isn't any reason to be so unprepared for snow storms or divorce.  Lay up supplies before the snow season even starts.  Snow melt will keep.  Check your snow shovel to make sure it isn't about to break. Buy a safety kit and put it in your car just in case. Buy a generator maybe if you can.  Pick up a few laterns for when the lights go out.  In the case of divorce, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Pay attention to the warnings signs.  Communicate with your spouse.  Get the problems out in the open.  Don't be afraid to get professional help.  Contact the therapist or counselor early.  Get help for substance abuse problems.  At the earliest sign of trouble, talk to a lawyer.  Find out where you stand.  Find out where you can go from here.  Find out just how "deep" matters can get.  Don't wait until just before the storm starts to get what you need to make it safely through your divorce.  Your spouse might be way ahead of you and he or she might be ready for the long winter of divorce litigation.

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer.  For more information or assistance, please contact me at rob@robhagylaw.com or call my office to schedule an appointment af (434)293-4562.  

In the case of In re Marriage of Popa and Garcia, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Sixth Division, ruled that a custodial parent's violation of the terms of a custody and visitation order does not excuse the non-custodial parent from paying child support.  But, active and extreme interference with the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children by the custodial parent may establish a substantial change in circumstance that warrants modification of the noncustodial parent's child support obligation. 

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Custody and Visitation and Child Support Lawyer.  For help with your questions about child support or custody and visitation, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com.  

In the case of Tartaglino v. Tartaglino, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court did not err in denying mother’s request to terminate her children’s therapy.  Father and mother divorced on December 22, 2011. They have two children. During the parties’ separation, father requested that the children receive therapy because of problems between him and the oldest child. The final decree of divorce awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with mother having primary physical custody. Paragraph 11 of the final decree stated: The children shall continue in therapy with Dr. Van Syckle until Mother and Father agree that therapy is no longer reasonable or necessary, Mother and Father agree to select a new therapist for either child, or Dr. Van Syckle elects to discontinue therapy with either child. The parties shall pay for Dr. Van Syckle’s services, or the services of another therapist, per income share as used to calculate child support. Dr. Van Syckle provided therapy for the children. On July 3, 2012, mother asked Dr. Van Syckle to conclude the children’s therapy. Dr. Van Syckle declined and informed mother that therapy would continue on an as-needed basis. On July 19, 2012, Dr. Van Syckle met with father and the children. He informed them that there was no need to return, except on an as-needed basis. Dr. Van Syckle also met with mother and father and informed them that therapy would be provided on an as-needed basis.  On October 4, 2012, mother filed a motion to modify the final decree and asked the trial court to enter an order terminating the requirement that the children remain in therapy with Dr. Van Syckle because the therapy was no longer reasonable or necessary. On February 22, 2013, the parties appeared before the trial court on mother’s motion to terminate the children’s therapy. Dr. Van Syckle testified that the children’s relationship with their father had improved and that therapy had been “very successful.” Dr. Van Syckle confirmed that he had not terminated the children’s therapy, although he had not seen them for several months. He explained that he thought it was in the best interests of the oldest child for him to remain involved on an as-needed basis. Mother testified about the children and their “warm and loving relationship” with their father. After hearing the testimony and argument, the trial court noted that Dr. Van Syckle thought the therapy should continue and father did not agree to terminate therapy.

Mother argues that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to modify the therapy provisions in the final decree of divorce. She contends that the therapist had not seen the children for months and therapy was no longer necessary. The trial court heard evidence about the children’s progress in therapy. Mother testified that she thought therapy should terminate, whereas Dr. Van Syckle testified that the children should not discontinue therapy. Dr. Van Syckle specifically stated that it was in the oldest child’s best interests to continue therapy on an as-needed basis. The final decree stated that therapy with Dr. Van Syckle would continue for the children until mother and father agreed that it should be terminated, mother and father obtained a new therapist, or Dr. Van Syckle terminated therapy with either child. The trial court noted that the parents did not agree on whether the therapy should be terminated and “Dr. Van Syckle thinks that for the future, the short-term future or whatever, that this therapy needs to continue.” Accordingly, the trial court explained that “the order speaks for itself” and denied mother’s motion.

Here, the trial court held that the language in the final decree prevented termination of the children’s therapy unless the parties agree or Dr. Van Syckle agrees. None of the conditions for termination had been met. The trial court did not err in denying her motion. 

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce and Custody and Visitation Lawyer.  For help with issues like this or with other custody and visitation issues, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com.

Read this article on my Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer blog to see how futile a Texas father's efforts were and what the results were in his case.  He could have avoided this request by just making a little more effort and taking a few more steps, but he was far too trusting of his wife's attorney how failed to complete the work that needed to be done.

In the case of Hughes v. Hughes, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court erred and reversed the trial court's equitable distribution award and remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider the equitable distribution of the parties’ property and debt.  Wife was granted a divorce from husband in 2010. When the parties separated, they had significant joint debts, in the form of mortgages and a home equity line of credit (HELOC), encumbering the marital residence. Much of the debt was used to finance a business run by both parties during the marriage. Husband continues to operate this business. Shortly after the divorce proceedings began, and before the trial court addressed equitable distribution, husband filed for bankruptcy. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the court stayed the equitable distribution hearing during the bankruptcy proceedings. In bankruptcy, husband discharged his obligations to the creditors who held the mortgage and home equity line, leaving wife solely responsible for the entire obligation to their third-party creditors. After a hearing on equitable distribution, the trial court granted wife the marital residence and granted husband possession and control of the business. In granting wife the marital residence, the trial court noted that it “has no value in excess of the liens currently against it,” i.e., the marital residence had a negative equity. The trial court stated that the negative equity was in the amount of $100,000 to $150,000. However, when the trial court specifically turned to the issue of debt, it apportioned only two credit card debts. The trial court properly classified the marital residence as marital property and properly valued the marital residence. However, the trial court failed to properly account for or apportion the mortgage loan or the HELOC. Further, it failed to take into account the negative equity in the marital residence in arriving at its equitable distribution award. “[T]o the extent that a valid indebtedness which is secured creates an encumbrance on the legal title, that indebtedness must be considered by the trial court in determining the value of the marital property for purposes of determining the amount of the monetary award.” Trivett v. Trivett, 7 Va. App. 148, 151, 371 S.E.2d 560, 562 (1988). At the time of the equitable distribution award, the marital residence was encumbered by the mortgage and HELOC. The trial court failed to consider these encumbrances in determining the value of the marital property and the apportionment of marital debt. Therefore, the trial court misapplied the statutory mandate contained in Code § 20-107.3 and, in doing so, abused its discretion.


--Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce and Equitable Distribution Lawyer.  For help with your property or debt distribution issues, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com.

In the case of Bokassa v. Bokassa, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court did not err when it ordered father to pay mother $1,000.00 in child support.  Mother and father never married, have two children, and share physical custody of the children. Mother filed a request for child support. The juvenile and domestic relations district court entered an order requiring father to pay mother child support, and father appealed to the circuit court. On November 19, 2012, the circuit court held a hearing on the matter. According to the written statement of facts, mother testified she was not employed and received $1,000 per month in child support from father. According to the written statement of facts, the circuit court determined father’s gross income, gave father credit for support payments for a child from another relationship, and gave father credit for the health insurance he pays for the children.According to the final order, the circuit court considered all the factors in Code § 20-108.2(D) and deviated from the shared custody guidelines due to mother’s “poverty level.” The circuit court ordered father to pay “only” $1,000 per month because that was the amount mother requested.  Based upon a review of the circumstances in this case, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deviating from the shared custody guidelines in determining the amount of child support and in ordering father to pay mother $1,000 per month in child support.

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Child Support Lawyer. For help with your child support questions, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com for assistance.

I spent yesterday attending the Virginia Trial Lawyer Association's 2013 Family Law Seminar titled "Everything You Wanted to Know About Child and Spousal Support".  I learned a lot that I'm eager to share with my clients!

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer.  For help with your child and spousal support needs, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com.

In the  case of Patterson v. Patterson, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that a wife was entitled to $2,150.00 per month in spousal support.  The parties had been married for twenty-six years and that three children were born of the marriage.  Further, the husband was in good physical condition.  The wife's physical condition was deteriorating.  She had been diagnosed with lymphoma, lupus, and diabetes.  During the marriage, both parties worked, although husband was the "primary breadwinner" and wife was the "primary caretaker of the children."  Both parties contributed one hundred percent of their activities and energies, both monetary and non-monetary, to the marriage and the well being of their family throughout the majority of their marriage.  Wife's physical condition limits her employment skills in the future.  Wife showed a need for spousal support and husband has shown an ability to provide it.  The trial court properly deemed some of husband's monthly expenses as excessive.  The court disregarded the husband's recreation and charitable donations.  The court disregarded the money he pays his adult daughter and
the excessive expenses he listed for automobile costs.  The court also properly reduced the excessive monthly debt payments the husband claims he makes.

Husband also asserts that the trial court should have considered wife’s earning capacity; however, husband presented no evidence as to what wife may have been
able to earn. To the contrary, the evidence was that wife was on permanent
disability and unable to work.



-Rob Hagy
of Rob Hagy Law, Charlottesville Divorce and Spousal Support
Lawyer.  For answers to your questions about
spousal support, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com.