Recent Blog Posts in 2010

There never seems to be a shortage of scandals in the sports world.  Whether it involves guns, drugs, or women, trouble always seems to find athletes.  Mets pitcher, Johan Santana, recently found himself in hot water when a woman accused him of sexually assaulting her in October 2009.  Santana denied any wrongdoing and was never charged.  He did admit the two had a consensual physical relationship.  Last week, the woman filed papers alleging imprisonment and rape.  She is seeking upwards of $15,000 in damages. 

Santana has been married for years and he and his wife have known each other since they were nine years old.  The two also have three children together.  While it is not shocking to hear another story about an athlete gone astray, it certainly does not feel that way to the parties personally effected by the infidelity.  The athlete lifestyle undeniably exposes sports figures to temptations.  Some have managed to overcome them, while others cannot seem to help but give in.  In the end, the ones who truly suffer are the athlete's wives and children.  If more men were honest with themselves and did not enter into committed relationships or start families before they were ready to give up the single life I think everyone involved would be better off.

 A New York appellate court recently handed down a controversial decision when it ruled that a same-sex partner could be held liable for child support.  The case of H.M. v. E.T. involved a same-sex couple that chose to conceive a child through artificial insemination.  After the child's birth, E.T. wanted out of the relationship. H.M. sued alleging she had relied on E.T.'s promise that she would be around to help raise the child. The court agreed and ordered E.T. to pay support.

Some argue that this ruling unfairly punished E.T. for leaving the unfulfilling relationship especially because she had no involvement in the child's life.  The court viewed things differently.  Because the couple made the decision to have a child together, the court reasoned that both parents should be responsible for the care and upbringing of the child.  Similar rulings are handed down rather frequently in family court.  Often times, fathers are required to pay support even if their relationship with the mother ends early on in the child's life. 

On the other hand, this ruling could be viewed as a positive step for same-sex couples.  The distinctions between the treatment of heterosexual and same-sex couples are gradually dissolving, which supports the argument for same-sex marriage.  If the law treats heterosexual and same-sex couples the same with regard to child support, then it certainly should with regard to marriage. 

Going through a divorce is one of the most difficult experiences one can face.  It is often emotionally draining, time consuming, and costly.  Divorce becomes even more challenging when children are involved and issues over custody arise.

There are several factors a court must weigh before deciding custody.  Some of these include determining whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case, who the primary care taker is, and who currently has physical custody of the child.  The court must also consider the wishes of the child (if the child is old enough) as well as the impact a separation or change in custody will have on siblings.  Courts will also evaluate each parent's history and background, home stability, and the financial standing of each parent.  Contrary to popular belief, mothers no longer have a preferred right to custody. 

Custody can be divided in a variety of ways.  In New York, parents can be granted sole custody, joint legal custody, or shared custody.  Sole custody gives one parent the authority to make legal decisions for the children.  The non-custodial parent is then granted visitation.  Joint custody affords both parents legal custody and the authority to make major decisions such as medical treatment, schooling, and religious education.  When joint custody is granted, one parent typically becomes the primary residential caretaker.  Shared custody allows both parents to split legal custody and enjoy specific periods of responsibility.  This gives both parents the right to make major decisions on an equal basis for their children.  Ultimately, the court will base its final decision on what is in the best interest of the child. 

Although it may be difficult, it is imperative that parents do their best to remain mature and amicable while custody is being decided.  Doing so will not only lead to a more favorable outcome; more importantly, it will make this difficult time in a child's life a bit more manageable. 

Money is a common source of conflict in many relationships and is often the cause of divorce.  One would think that difficult economic times would increase quarrels over finances and ultimately lead to heightened divorce rates.  In fact, the opposite is true.  An article written by the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia indicated that from 2007 to 2008, divorce rates dropped from17.5 per 1,000 married women to 16.9 per 1,000 married women.

So why the slow-down?  It seems that when money gets tights, people try to hold on to what they have and look to their spouses for support.  When there is less money to spend couples tend to cut back on vacations, going to the movies, shopping, and eating out.  With fewer distractions they are able to spend more quality time at home and reconnect with one another.   

Another explanation for the lowered divorce rates is that couples simply do not want to take on another expense by initiating a divorce when money is tight.  Some predict that once the economy recovers divorce rates will spike as more couples have the means to enter into litigation that is often time consuming and costly. 

Although the short term effects of the recession seem to have stabilized many marriages, the future may not be so bright.  An article written by a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Iowa noted that 75% of the job loss has impacted men.  In many cases, men have been forced to rely on their spouse's income, which leads to relationship strains.  This is especially true for the poor and working class who have been hit particularly hard by the economic crisis.  Unfortunately, this means the stability and quality of married life among lower-income couples is being threatened as men's economic contributions to their families becomes less significant. 

Despite some positive effects of the current recession, the economic downturn has also placed added pressures on many marriages.  The situation is scary because no one really knows what the long term impact will be.  It seems that couples will just have to do the best that they can while they wait for circumstances to improve.    

The wedding business is a multi-billion dollar industry with the average wedding costing tens of thousands of dollars.  What couples don't consider when they take the plunge is that they may wind up spending as much, if not more, on their divorce.  Annual divorce costs in the U.S. exceed $30 billion dollars with the average divorce costing around $20,000.  This figure may be much higher or lower depending on the state you are in and whether the matter is contested or mediated.  Contested divorces tend to cost more especially when child support and custody must be decided, assets must be divided, and alimony must be determined.

If you hire an attorney to handle your divorce, which is always a good idea when dealing with difficult legal matters, there will be additional costs.  Attorneys may either charge a flat fee or an hourly rate.  Most attorneys request a retainer that is then deducted from the total cost. 

There may be other costs in addition to legal fees such as filing fees, copies, mileage, faxing, service of papers, postage, etc.  If the matter is contested and goes to trial there will also be added fees for temporary orders, discovery, witnesses, investigators, and experts.  These costs can add several thousand more dollars to the total cost of a divorce depending on the circumstances of the particular dispute. 

 Bottom line, divorce ain't cheap.  It can be both financially and emotionally draining.  Your best bet is to preserve your marriage.  If the time comes when divorce is the only option, strive for an amicable separation.  This is the ideal scenario and it is rare.  If you find yourself facing a messy divorce be strong, be patient, and find an attorney you trust who will earnestly fight on your behalf. 

Marriage and divorce in the United States have undergone several changes over the past 50 years.  The country has shifted from a period when women were expected to marry and bare children, men were to be the bread winners, and divorce was taboo.  Times have certainly changed since then and we now find ourselves in a unique moment in history where society's views on marriage and relationships have dramatically shifted. 

An article discussing these changes suggested that marriage is no longer about long-term commitment and sacrifice for the sake of family; rather, it is more about self fulfillment where the primary focus is on one's personal feelings of happiness and satisfaction.  This shift from a traditional view of marriage to what the article refers to as the "soul-mate model" ultimately leads to more divorces because people want to escape situations they do not find 100% fulfilling. 

Historian Robert L. Griswold points out  that the 1960's marked a particularly high point in the number of divorces due in part to the sexual revolution, a resurgence of feminism, more wives entering the workplace, the implementation of no-fault divorce, and an overall higher expectation of marriage.  Statistics indicate that from 1960 to 1980 the divorce rate surged from 9.2% to 22.6%.  By 1996 the number of divorced persons in the U.S. had reached 18.3 million as compared to 4.3 million back in 1970. 

The divorce rate remains high today, but it is on a slight decline due to society's changing views on relationships and marriage.  This shift has primarily resulted in couples waiting longer before they tie the knot due in part to their jaded views on the traditional definition of marriage.  This change was addressed in a report compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, which tracked the trends in relationships, marriage, and divorce from 1970 to 2000.  The impact of people waiting longer to marry is evident in several aspects of society.  There are now a significant number of non-married co-habitating couples.  In 2000, there were approximately 3.8 million households with such an arrangement.  There were also more single parent homes, approximately 12 million to be exact. 

This trend of postponing marriage to the later years has also led to some unforeseen benefits.  Statistics indicate that those who wait to marry have higher education levels than those who marry in their early 20's.  This is particularly true for women.  In 2000, 28% of unmarried women had a higher education level than their partners as compared to 21% of married women.  Those who wait to exchange vows also tend to earn more than couples who marry young.  It will be interesting to see how these figures compare to the 2010 census data.  I would venture to guess that the number of unmarried co-habitations and single parent homes will only increase.

I have experienced first-hand how differently this generation views relationships and marriage.  Most if not all of my girlfriends are more focused on their careers and self-discovery than they are on finding a husband.  It's not that they are entirely opposed to the idea of marriage; it's that they are no longer fooled by the illusion that a spouse, kids, and a house with a white picket fence is the ticket to happiness.  I think this shift in views will enable us all to have more healthy and meaningful relationships that are built on strong foundations because we will actually know who we are before we enter into life-long commitments.    

As society continues to evolve and the way we relate to one another changes I think it will be important for the traditional definitions of marriage to expand in order to accommodate these developments.  If not, marriage itself may eventually become obsolete.

OK - here's the scenario:

1-You meet a wonderful person and fall in love;
2-You get up the nerve to propose;
3-They say "YES!";
4-You put a $100,000.00 7-carat ring on their finger;
5-You get married;
6-You find out they were already married when they married you;
7-You cry foul and demand tha the ring be returned to you;
8-They say "NO!";
9-You file a lawsuit and the trial court orders that you are to receive the ring back;
10-Your "spouse" appeals and the Appellate Court says the ring does not have to be returned;
11-The ring, currently held by a third party, remains in contention.

To read the Appellate Division's decision CLICK HERE.

And you thought you had it rough!!!

Contact The Kepanis Law Firm today to help avoid this situation in your life.

Five days over one month.  That was my shooting schedule for my reality television episode due to air in the fall on Bravo.  The final day of shooting involved conversing with another member of my episode's 'cast' and also the main provocateur of the show - who was to review my appearance.  Somewhat like a performance review we have all received at one job or another - my review covered the positive and negatives of my performance on the episode.  The day of filming was short and sweet so there is not much more to discuss.  However, I am now anxiously awaiting word of the air date so I can let everyone know when to watch (although they will re-run it over and over so there will be many chances to see it).  As soon as I do, I will post it for everyone.  Thank you for joining me on this strange journey through reality television.

If you are a member of the press/media, please contact HJMT Public Relations.

As the state of New York awaits Governor Patterson's vote on the no-fault divorce bill, some questions have been raised about the impact this legislation will have on individuals undergoing a divorce.  Some argue that no-fault divorce laws may have an adverse impact on women.  There is fear that women, who still tend to earn less than their husbands, will suffer financially.  Because no-fault divorce laws allow a spouse to file for divorce for any reason, or no reason at all, the party seeking to dissolve the marriage tends to have the upper hand and more bargaining power.  If that person is also the primary bread winner, it could put the other spouse in a vulnerable position. 

While these are legitimate concerns that should not be taken lightly, it is important to understand what is motivating much of this criticism.  Those opposed to no-fault divorce laws seem to have antiquated views of marriage and the roles of women.  Some complain that no-fault divorce laws oversimplify the divorce process and prevent couples from working through their issues.  A recent article discussing the problems with marriage today offered several policies communities can implement to help preserve more unions.  Some of these include six months of premarital counseling, marriage enrichment events, and a year-long waiting period before a divorce can be granted.  While these are all positive suggestions, they overlook the reality that some relationships should not be preserved.   

No-fault divorce laws provide individuals a way out of dysfunctional marriages without having to engage in lengthy legal disputes that are emotionally and economically draining.  States have been adopting no-fault divorce laws since the early 70's and it is unlikely these laws will change any time soon.  While some are interested in preserving the institution of marriage at all costs, New York is on the verge of adopting a law that should prove to reduce the stress involved in what is already a difficult process. 

There are unavoidable consequences associated with any change.  However, adopting no-fault divorce law in New York is a change that is well worth the risks.

The influx of social networks has connected the world in ways that were previously unimaginable.  In recent years we have been inundated with sites like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and Skype.  They have enabled us to stay in touch with friends and family, reach out to those we have lost contact with, and even connect with complete strangers.  While social networks provide undeniable benefits, there is a downside to being so exposed.  Some users get a bit too carried away and choose to share aspects of their personal lives that can land them in hot water. 

As tempting as it is to post photos of a crazy night out with the girls or your best friend's bachelor party, doing so may have unforeseeable consequences.  Aside from the potential embarrassment of incriminating photos or information getting into the hands of an employer, evidence gathered on social networks could come into play in a divorce or custody battle.  This can be especially dangerous in fault-based states such as New York where it is necessary to prove a fellow spouse engaged in some wrongdoing.  Even in no-fault states, unbecoming photos or information could be used to determine spousal support, child support, or parenting time. 

A recent article featured in the Orlando Sentinel discussed the increased role social networking sites play in the courtroom.  Over the past five years, divorce attorneys throughout the nation reported an 81% increase in the use of evidence gathered from popular social networking sites.  I am not advocating deleting all accounts and disconnecting from the world; however, you should be aware of the potential risks involved in making your private life public.  Bottom line, be careful what you post…it may just come back to haunt you!

Day number 4 filming for BRAVO.  Today it was really extravagant - limousine, an exclusive Wall Street spa, then finally French cuisine to make your tastebuds tingle.  Although having an entire film crew in the limo was a bit interesting - considering I usually like to enjoy a limo ride - and this was hard to do with bright lights less than 6 inches from my face and a camera barely one foot away (of course, with the microphones, NO AIR CONDITIONING - and we all know how nice and cool the weather has been for us here in NY these past few days HAHA).

What would normally have been a 10 minute drive to Wall Street took over one hour as one of the production vans was having issues with their brakes and we had to wait until some minor repairs were made (ahhhh the glamourous life of television).  Upon arriving down on Broad Street, I witnessed something I had never seen before.  In the middle of the street, due to the proximity to the NYSE, were a series of metal and concrete blockades.  Upon approach, the limo was cautioned to stop so a bomb-sniffing dog could check us all out.  Once the homeland security agent gave the thumbs up, a button was pushed and the entire blockade began rotating - the street itself had a circular cut-out - and that entire portion of the street rotated.  A rotating street - are you kidding me?  WOW!

However, the wait was all worth it upon arriving at the SETAI club.  The spa felt like an oasis in the middle of a desert.  How in the world, in the middle of all the hustle and bustle of Wall Street, does there exist such a place.  The thermal whirlpool was beyond relaxing - then when the expert massage therapist worked on my back - I think I ended up snoring I was so relaxed.  The entire staff at the SETAI, especially the Vice President Steven O'Neal - were professional, courteous, and most all all, warm.

Back into the limo and away we went to a New York institution, and James Gandolfini's favorite restaurant, CAPSUOTO FRERES.  The cuisine was tremendous, the ambience perfect.  Across the room from our table was a woman celebrating her 103rd birthday with her family.  They invited us over to the table and were so excited to meet us as they were fans of the show we were filming.  I felt like a celebrity!

Dessert then came, creme brulee and a hazelnut souffle (their signature dessert).  No counting calories that night!

All in all - it was an exhausting yet amazing day of filming - just one more day left to go then off to editing and then finally airing on Bravo - stay tuned for the show schedule.

In today's world, prenups are a must!  Marriage is of course about love and devotion to one another, BUT it is also a legal contract.  In any contract there are provisions that provide certain protections in the event one party does not perform.  A marriage contract should be no different.  No one purchases a car or house without insurance, so why would you acquire a spouse without protecting yourself in the event that things do not work out as planned?  It's common sense people!  Everyone enters into marriage with good intentions and faith that both spouses will live happily ever after.  Unfortunately, the numbers tell a different story as approximately 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

Prenuptial agreements are a practical safeguard to the disheartening divorce figures.  While prenups are typically recommended for individuals entering marriage with a significant amount of assets, young couples of equal standing could benefit from them as well.  A recent Wall Street Journal article discussed some important information about prenuptial agreements and indicated that they may include provisions regarding infidelity, intimacy, and child rearing techniques.  These are issues that all couples face, but seldom discuss.  Choosing to draft a prenup with your significant other is not only a good way to protect yourself, but also a way to open the lines of communication about several important topics.  Of course, if you decide to enter into a prenuptial agreement you should do so with the advice and counsel of an attorney. 

Some say prenuptial agreements take the romance out of what is supposed to be the most romantic time in one's life.  I don't know about you, but I would much prefer a tad less romance over the headache and stress of a messy divorce.  So protect yourself and your spouse and prenup it up!

After nearly 7 years of marriage the ladies are calling it quits.  Grammy award winning singer-songwriter Melissa Ethridge officially split from her longtime partner Tammy Lynn Michaels last week.  The couple entered their domestic partnership in California in 2003 because same-sex marriage was, and still is, banned in the state.  As domestic partners, Ethridge and Micheals were not recognized as spouses under state or federal law.

Domestic partnerships provide certain legal protections to people who live together but who are not allowed to marry.  These protections include, but are not limited to, property ownership and division, visitation rights, and support obligations.  Fortunately for Ethridge and Michaels their domestic partnership afforded them the same community property and spousal support rights as any other married couple. 

In New York, domestic partnerships have been available since 1997.  To register for a domestic partnership, both parties must be over the age of 18, unmarried, and not in another domestic partnership.  They also must have lived together for an extended period of time and have a close personal relationship.  Under New York law, domestic partners have the right to hospital visits, the right to serve as the sole beneficiary of a deceased partner's assets, the right to obtain healthcare under a partner, and so on. 

While domestic partnerships have their benefits, they still do not provide the same rights as marriage.  In my opinion, it is unacceptable that marriage is not available to everyone in this day and age.  As progressive as we are as a nation, this is one area where we have not yet evolved.  Same-sex marriage remains a hotly contested issue throughout the U.S. and New York is no exception.  The city does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and a recent poll indicated that New Yorkers were in favor of legislating the institution.  The same-sex marriage debate raises Constitutional, economic, and moral issues all of which must eventually be addressed.  Until that time same-sex couples must settle for domestic partnerships, which provide unequal rights.  Limited rights do not seem to promote equality for all, but until the country resolves this issue I guess we have to work with what we've got. 

It looks like the high-net worth  Tiger Woods has finally been wrangled and is now being forced to pay up.  However, his pockets are not going to be pinched as much as he may have expected.  Initial reports indicated Elin Nordegren was to receive upwards of $700 million in the divorce settlement.  That figure was a bit exaggerated.   Nordegren will in fact walk away with $100 million.  Some may find this figure too low, others too high, and some may think this is an appropriate compromise.

Large divorce settlements always seem to spark heated debate.  The astronomical number given to Juanita Jordan, the ex-wife of Michael Jordan, immediately comes to mind.  Jordan was awarded $168 million when her 17 year marriage to the NBA star ended.  This was one of the highest divorce settlements ever granted.  Some argued that Jordan did not deserve such a staggering amount because she was not the decorated athlete earning the millions.  Others thought that she should have been awarded even more for standing by her husband's side for nearly two decades and later enduring his infidelities.  The same arguments are now being made about Tiger and Elin's split. 

While I am opposed to divorce being a get-rich-quick scheme, I also think that large divorce settlements are appropriate in some cases.  The amount should not necessarily be half of the other spouse's net worth, but a sufficient sum that accounts for the years one spent dedicated to the relationship and leaves both parties comfortable and free to move on with their lives.  Remember, settlements are not solely determined by the assets of the primary bread winner.  Courts may also take into account the other spouse's intangible contributions to the marriage that enabled the primary breadwinner to make a living.  This might include raising the children, keeping the household in order, and being a source of support for one's spouse. 

Whatever your opinion is on Nordegren's large monetary award, it is important to keep in mind what is at the heart of all this juicy gossip.  A relationship that at one time was positive and loving has dissolved, all parties involved have been humiliated, and most importantly, the lives of two innocent children have been changed forever.  Millions or not, divorce is never pleasant nor is it something to be taken lightly.

If you would like to speak with an attorney about your divorce matter, please CONTACT us today. 

The no-fault law would bring much needed changes to the state of New York.  We will be sure to update you as the law progresses.  In the meantime, the Kepanis Law Firm would like to hear your opinions.  Please CONTACT us today!

Back again with another update re: my filming of a television episode for BRAVO.  So this was day number three and grueling is not the word.  Who knew that the air conditioning had to be shut off while filming so as not to interfere with the microphones?  I certainly did not...and believe me, get about 100 people in a room without air conditioning, add the hot lights, and you've got yourself a homemade sauna.

The taping of this portion of the show involved me mixing and mingling - so, when it airs you can all let me know if I am a professional flirt or schmoozer.  Meeting everyone was an amazing experience and I know that when the episode airs it is going to be a hit!  I think it is definitely going to showcase a wilder side of me that attorneys, Judges, and clients rarely get to see - but, that is a good thing as perhaps I will then attract even more celebrity clients to the firm.

Of course, there were many crazy moments that I cannot reveal yet - BUT, stay tuned to this blog!!!

And, in my new celebrity lingo, "Let's do lunch soon bubbala!"

OK - I'm back again with an update on my upcoming reality show stardom <wink>.  I had my second day of filming yesterday on the set of the BRAVO show I am doing.  Once again, it was a lot of waiting around for lighting and cameras and sound to be set up.  I was discussing the shoot for the day with the two producers assigned to my episode.  They were reminding me to stay focused and confident (something I am for my clients every day) when the cameras were rolling.  Once I was given the 'thumbs up' to enter the main set, I smiled, opened the door, and walked proudly in to greet the main players on the series.  After the introductions were made, I sat down with the head honcho of the show and conversed, mainly about my personal life and goals.  It was certainly an eye opening experience as, up until that moment, I had only ever seen this person on my television screen.

IT is hard to not be somewhat star-struck when meeting someone from television, but, I remained composed and, according to everyone, did remarkably well for a non-professional television person.  I then did my own interview on-camera as a follow-up to the events of the day.  There is plenty more to come of this, and I wish I could share more but, for now, this is all I'm allowed.

So, stay tuned, because once the episode airs, I can tell you so much more!

Michael Douglas's first wife looking for a piece of the action from Wall Street II .

Michael Douglas is about to reprise his role as Gordon Gecko - the 80's "greed is good" wall street investment shark in the sequel Wall Street:  Money Never Sleeps.  However, his first wife may be taking that message to heart.  Recently, Diandra Douglas filed papers seeking fifty-percent of his earnings for the new Wall Street sequel.  Apparently, in their original settlement agreement, the ex-Mrs. Douglas is entitled 50 percent of any earnings Michael receives from any movies he did -- including residuals, merchandizing and ancillary rights -- during their 23-year marriage.  Diandra Douglas is attempting to stretch the meaning of "movies he did" to include the new Wall Street movie as a "spinoff".

Michael Douglas's attorneys have filed a Motion to Dismiss and the case is currently in the New York Supreme Court before the Honorable Justice Matthew F. Cooper.

More details to follow as this case moves forward.

For further information or to inquire about your post-Judgment of Divorce matter, CONTACT The Kepanis Law Firm today.

Being a lifetime Giants fan who happens to also head a law firm dedicated to the practice of divorce and family law in the Great State of New York, it was with interest that I began reading as much as I could about former New York Giants running back Tiki Barber's divorce matter currently before Justice Deborah Ann Kaplan in the Supreme Court of New York County.

Barber, after retiring from the NFL, began a stint at both the Today Show and Football Night in America as a correspondent/reporter.  However, based on a 'morality clause' that most television and sports personalities have in their respective contracts, Tiki was recently let go by the powers-that-be at NBC.  Why was he let go - well, the allegations set forth by his wife 'Ginny' are that, Tiki had an affair with an intern at NBC...while his wife Ginny was 8 months pregnant.

As the divorce case continues rolling onward, Tiki now claims he is 'too broke to settle'.

In most celebrity cases, the reality is usually a lot less dazzling than the press would have you believe.  However, this may be an exception to the rule.  Herein we have a case of an adulterous affair...a pregnant wife...a young intern...and an ex-star football player turned television personality.  Perhaps truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction?  However, that being said, unless we all become privy to the Court filings and conferences between the Judge, attorneys, and parties, it is all speculation.  But, in the world of celebrity divorce, speculation is the raison d'etre.

For further information or to inquire about your divorce matter, CONTACT The Kepanis Law Firm today.

For all of you divorced parents out there who try to use their children as pawns in your revenge against your ex, watch out, jail time could be in your future. In a recent decision by the Honorable Robert A. Ross of the Supreme Court for Nassau County, a mother was recently sentenced to six (6) weekends in jail for alienating the parties children from their father. 

The case, Lauren R. v. Ted R., dealt with the following facts:

1.    The mother continually attempted to 'replace' the childrens' father with her new     
husband;
2.    The mother continually interfered with the father's visitation with the children by either deliberately withholding the visitation or scheduling other activities for them so the father could not effectuate his visitation;
3.    The mother falsely reported sexual misconduct by the father against the children; and
4.    The mother threatened the children with tirades and punishment if they were to        
embrace the relationship they wanted with their father.

While most families go through an emotional upheaval during a divorce, things generally settle down once a settlement is reached or a Judgment is handed down after a trial.  It is in cases as the one described above where a heavy hand is used to punish the wrong-doing spouse.  No matter what, your children are your children and should not be used as pawns in your divorce or custody/visitation hearing.  Try your best to make a life for your children so that you are there in their lives to see them achieve all of life's milestones - after all, would you really want to miss out on birthdays, graduations, ceremonies?  After all, the alternative could be jail!

In this blog installment I thought I would give some insight into an episode of a television show I am currently filming for BRAVO.  The filming began last week, making me relish my life as an attorney rather than a television star.  Basically, it is a lot of waiting around for the lights and cameras to be set up.  So, getting to the "ACTION!" in LIGHTS, CAMERA...ACTION! takes more work than you'd imagine.  It has certainly been an eye-opening experience into the behind-the-scenes life of movie and television stars.

While I cannot mention the name of the television show until it airs sometime in early 2011, I can say that it will be on the BRAVO network and hopefully show the world that not all attorneys are stuffy aristocrats sitting around smoking cigars wearing white leather shoes.  I am one attorney who is a real person, caring about real clients in life-changing situations.  Although, if I become an overnight sensation, you can say "I remember when I hired him to fight for my rights in my divorce"...and, you know what...I will still be the guy fighting for your rights, only next time there might be a camera on me.

New York, normally a forward-thinking liberal state, is still the most conservative when it comes to whether or not a married couple may be granted a divorce.  Currently, in order to obtain a divorce in New York state, one spouse must allege one of the enumerated grounds set forth by the state legislature.  These grounds are as follows:

1)         Cruel and inhuman treatment of one spouse by the other.  However, under current case law, the length of the marriage colors the actual meaning of "cruel and inhuman".  While leaving the toilet seat up might amount to cruel and inhuman treatment in a six-month marriage, verbal put-downs and non-stop tirades might not amount to cruel and inhuman treatment in a twenty-year marriage.

2)         Abandonment for more than one year of one spouse by the other.  However, within this particular ground comes "constructive abandonment" - that is, the refusal of one spouse to engage in sexual relations for more than one year, without justification.  This particular ground has morphed into a de facto "No Fault" ground in New York as most spouses who wish to be granted a divorce in New York will agree to "constructive abandonment" as their grounds.  The Courts, judges, attorneys, and clients all know this is basically Court-sanctioned perjury but, in an effort to bypass a costly "grounds trial", look the other way.

3)         One spouses confinement in prison for more than three years after the parties were married.

4)         Adultery.  Basically, this must be proven through either actual or circumstantial evidence.  Not even the cheating spouse's admission of adultery will suffice.  This is an arcane provision and rarely used as a grounds for divorce unless one spouse wants to humiliate the other with evidence of the adultery.

5)         Living separate and apart for more than one year pursuant to a Judgment of Separation.

6)         Living separate and apart for more than one year pursuant to a Separation Agreement.