Practice Blawg » Family Law

Joint Physical Custody Bill on Governor’s Desk

Nancy Hupp — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:17:19 +0000

Last week we posted about a a bill, HR 322, that would raise Minnesota’s baseline custody presumption from 25% to 35%. Since our post, the Senate passed HF322. The MSBA Family Law Section opposes this legislation. The House had previously passed a version of the bill that set the presumption at 45.1% and only allowed the presumption to be overcome by proving, to a clear and convincing standard, the type of mistreatment that would trigger child protection proceedings. In the end, the House author asked her colleagues to concur with the Senate version; the House did so and the bill’s fate is now controlled by Gov. Dayton, who has not indicated whether he will sign it or veto it.

The Family Law Section Chair has written a letter asking Governor Dayton to veto the proposed legislation. To contact the Governor and express your views, please use this link.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

New Developments in Family Law

Andrea Hable — Mon, 07 May 2012 21:29:37 +0000

Lots happening to impact the practice of family law…

New Rules

Amended family law rules went into effect on May 1. You can read the amendments here.

Of note, the changes update terminology, streamline proceedings, and create three new forms. The changes came out of Divorce Camp 2009, with goals of making the rules reflect current practice in the District Courts and of making the rules more user-friendly for pro se litigants.

New Forms

The new rules require three new forms for all actions pending on the effective date of May 1 and to those filed thereafter.

Parenting/Financial Disclosure Statement
Certificate of Settlement Efforts
Initial Case Management Statement

These new forms are available at the Minnesota Judicial Branch website.

H.F. 322: Presumption of Joint Custody

This controversial bill is currently in the Senate. From the MSBA’s Capitol Connection email and blog:

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY BILL ADVANCES IN SENATE

HF322, a bill that would alter Minnesota’s parenting time baseline presumption, was heard for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was re-referred after being altered in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The Judiciary Committee voted to send the bill, which is opposed by the Family Law Section, to the Senate Finance Committee without a recommendation. The version of the bill that passed the House last month would raise the current presumption of 25% physical custody to 45.1%, and would only allow the presumption to be overcome by proving, to a clear and convincing standard, the type of mistreatment that would trigger child protection proceedings. The presumption would therefore override the longstanding “best interests of the child” factors in most contested cases. The Senate Judiciary Committee eliminated most of the House language and set the presumption at 35%.

The Senate Finance Committee passed the bill today and sent it to the Senate floor. If the bill becomes law, a wave of custody modification requests is expected to strain the court system, but no plan has been offered to cover the increased costs, which, because of delayed effective dates, may not occur until the state’s next fiscal biennium.

Future updates will be posted here.

South Dakota recently rejected a similar bill. Consider contacting your local elected official to express any concerns about this bill.

practicelaw Family Law Forms and Advisory Group

I’m working on expanding the family law forms library on practicelaw. Of note:

A few months ago we added a Complaint to Establish Paternity (FAM-300), thanks to Central Minnesota Legal Services. Last week we updated it to reflect the new Rule 314 (Parentage Proceedings).
We are planning to add forms regarding custody outside of a dissolution, adoption (step and international), and third-party custody, plus a few other miscellaneous forms.
The J&D is regularly reviewed and updated. If you have a suggested change, please let me know. The form is here (FAM-680)

We need help with our new forms! We are in need of forms for international adoption and a financial affidavit for child support – if you have one that you would be willing to share, we will edit and format and give you credit on practicelaw.

We would also like to assemble a group of family law practitioners who we (I) can consult from time to time to ask questions as I update our forms. If you are interested in answering questions or reviewing language occasionally, please let me know. You can contact me by email.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Adjustments Made to Monster Judgment and Decree

Gregory Luce — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:17:40 +0000

We periodically review the “Monster” Stipulated Judgment and Decree on practicelaw. And while we initially set out to review it quarterly, that is now turning into periodic reviews that roughly approximate three times each year. We just completed our last review and made only minor changes, mostly related to updating statutory citations throughout the document. The most recent version is now available on practicelaw here (it’s form number FAM-680).(...)
Read the rest of Adjustments Made to Monster Judgment and Decree (165 words)

© Gregory Luce for Practice Blawg, 2011. | Permalink | No comments yet | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Forms, Judgment and Decree

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Monster Judgment and Decree, Now Updated

Gregory Luce — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:33:05 +0000

If you are a Minnesota family law attorney, you’ve probably seen the “monster” stipulated judgment and decree that more than thirty family law attorneys created two years ago. Since that time, practicelaw has taken on the task of reviewing it and revising it when necessary, with a goal of reviewing it four times a year.

We recently completed our latest review and the revised judgment and decree is now published here on practicelaw (look for form FAM-680). What did we do this time around? Mainly cleaned up some outdated legalese, added some income provisions, and made changes that we did not consider substantive. You can review the changes on a PDF here, but the general changes include the following:

We removed, wherever possible, references to outdated legalese, such as “said” or “therein” or “hereto.” We were careful to make sure those removals did not affect the overall meaning of any clause or paragraph.
Consistent with Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 308.04, we added the following specific language just above the signature lines: “The parties agree that the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law incorporate the complete and full Marital Termination Agreement.”
We added provisions for various other employment of the parties, including self-employment, social security income, unemployment insurance, irregular income, spousal maintenance, and investment income. These provisions are already in our mndocs system but do not currently appear in the Microsoft Word version of the Monster J&D.
We made minor language changes to be more concise, such as changing “Minor Tax Exemption” simply to “Dependency Exemption.”
We modified language that relates to an OFP. Previously, by default, both parties would be “subject to” the OFP. That remains an option, but we also added optional language for the more common case where only one party is subject to the OFP.

As we told our group of reviewers, we are considering other more substantive requests for changes but are not now ready to include or add those changes. Rather, we’ll seek more input in the next few months to determine if more substantive changes are required.

To see other proposed changes or to add your own suggestions or ideas, check out an Ideascale application that tracks and processes the suggestions. That is available here.

© Gregory Luce for Practice Blawg, 2010. | Permalink | No comments yet | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Judgment and Decree, Monster

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Updated Monster Judgment and Decree

Andrea Hable — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:28:08 +0000

In September 2008, our inaugural post highlighted the complexity of drafting a form version of a Stipulated Judgment and Decree for a family law matter. practicelaw posted a Microsoft Word version a month later and released an automated version in mndocs shortly after that. But it was not our work. It was the result at that time of a phenomenal collaboration of more than 20 family law attorneys who first gathered around a conference table at Gray Plant Mooty, comparing their own versions of judgments and decrees, contributing clauses, discussing issues, and ultimately putting together what Dana McKenzie, who spearheaded the effort, appropriately labeled the Monster Judgment and Decree.

More than 100 posts later, we’ve had at least two new looks for the blog, launched a new practicelaw, and now—drum roll please—have significantly updated the Monster Judgment and Decree, which we posted to practicelaw today (check out four sample pages of the form below).

After nearly two years, we decided the initial Monster J&D needed a facelift. I call it a facelift because the vast majority of the changes are cosmetic, not substantive. The big changes involve new formatting and making the document more uniform, which means a new typeface, spacing changes, consistent practice notes and form variables, and a host of other small changes that in the end make up a pretty sharp-looking document.

Hopefully all changes that make it easier to use and read, and save you time editing so you can focus on the substance of the J&D.

While there are some substantive changes, I suspect they are the most important changes for most of you. To save you from comparing all 77 pages, here’s a list of the updates:

Optional signature line for counties with referees.
New provisions for:
- parties who are members of the armed services;
- adult children with special needs;
- property interests in a cabin or bare land;
- responsibility for cost of storing embryos or other genetic material;
- responsibility for obligors to notify the public authority about termination of employment when there is income withholding.
Corrections to language in the life insurance property award to Respondent.
Clarified:
- how long child support is owed;
- how long parties must carry health insurance for children;
- the court’s jurisdiction over maintenance in the event of bankruptcy;
- the order of priority of expenses paid from the sale of real estate.
Removed paragraphs about non-paternity of a non-joint child. In our next revision we may add back a paragraph reserving this issue.

And of course many little changes, like minor corrections to numbering, grammar, and capitalization. You know, the fun stuff.

We plan to revisit the J&D quarterly. If you have any suggestions for the next update, let us know.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh