by

When it comes to issues of parenting rights, child custody, visitation time, and child support, there are many sensitive and complicated angles to consider. 

One that Hammond family law attorneys sometimes see crop up is when one parent becomes involved with a new paramour, be it a boyfriend or girlfriend or a new legal spouse. It may be uncomfortable for the ex-spouse; beyond that, it could mean changes in the previously agreed-to parenting plan. That’s why it may be wise to avoid inviting new love interests to spend extensive time with one’s children until the developing relationship becomes more serious.

There have been a significant number of cases in which a parent will apply to limit the amount of exposure children have to their ex-spouse’s new boyfriend or girlfriend. In some cases, this desire arises out of legitimate concern, either a fear that the child will form too close an attachment too quickly, or a worry about the child’s safety due to the paramour’s history. In other instances, it’s simply done out of spite or jealousy.  Continue reading

by

When it comes to matters of child custody, the wishes of the child – particularly that of a child over the age of 14 – are some of the main statutory factors the court will consider when modifications are requested.

This is not to say that Indiana child custody modifications are solely based upon a child’s wishes. In fact, courts have traditionally been hesitant to do so. However, they are an “important consideration,” per a recent decision of Andrick v. Andrick by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Here, a father sought modification of a child custody agreement involving his teenage son, who was living with his ex-wife, her new fiance, and her fiance’s two children. Although the lower court denied the modification, the court of appeals remanded the case. While Father had requested reversal of the trial court’s ruling, the appellate court was “not prepared to go that far.” It noted there was evidence in the case that could arguably support a result in favor of the mother, but there were erroneous findings by the lower court on crucial issues. There were also repeated citation by the trial court of incorrect legal standards, and thus the appeals court lacked confidence in the accuracy of the lower court’s judgment. Continue reading

by

Last year, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision opened the doors for same-sex partners across the country to obtain a marriage license – and to have those marriages recognized in any state across the country. Since that ruling, many same-sex couples have married in Indiana. 

But there are still some gray areas in our nation’s civil court systems with regard to these relationship. Take for example the recent case of Luttrell v. Cucco, weighed in on by the Virginia Supreme Court.

At its core, this case was a dispute over spousal support. As is common in many temporary spousal support agreements, a provision indicated that the support agreements were subject to termination in the event of “cohabitation,” as defined in Va. Code 20-109. The law states that maintenance and support of an ex-spouse may be discontinued upon cohabitation, remarriage, or death. Specifically, the law states that an ex-spouse who has been “habitually cohabitating with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for one year or more” is subject to termination of spousal support benefits.  Continue reading

by

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the family trial court erred in its application of a financial formula on a husband’s retirement accounts. For this reason, in Ahls v. Ahls, the appellate court ruled wife should receive $115,000 more than she was granted in the original divorce settlement. 

This is a good example of why it’s important to carefully review retirement accounts when determining a divorce settlement.

According to court records, husband and wife married in 1993 and had one child together. After 20 years of marriage, wife filed a petition for divorce. Continue reading

by

A man in Iowa at first thought it was a joke when a letter arrived from the state ordering him to pay child support for a 1-year-old born to a woman he hadn’t seen in 17 years. 

But it was no laughing matter.

The case came about because, as The Daily Mail reported, the man was still legally married to that woman, his long-estranged wife. The pair had never formally divorced. In Iowa – just like in Indiana – a woman’s husband is the presumed father if:

  • He and his wife were married when the child was born;
  • The child is born no later than 300 days after the marriage ends.

Continue reading

by

For millennials, out-of-wedlock birth is often the norm. A number of studies have revealed that 64 percent of mothers give birth at least once without exchanging vows. Among women under 30, more than half have had births outside of marriage. And nearly half of all mothers have children without ever saying, “I do.” 

This is not to say that fathers aren’t a part of the children’s lives, but the parents are not in a marital relationship. Even if this has no bearing on the relationship parent has with child, it may have implications for the child’s financial stability.

IC 31-14 sets forth laws regarding establishment of paternity, including methods, persons permitted to file, venue and other provisions. IC 31-14-5-3 spells out some of limitations on paternity actions.

Essentially, both parents, if unmarried have three days after the child is born to establish paternity at the hospital via paternity affidavit. If mother is married, husband is presumed to be the father. A man will also be presumed the father if mother has been divorced or widowed less than 10 months. Otherwise, mother or father will have to go through additional administrative steps – and possibly the courts. Continue reading

by

Enforcement of child support orders are essential to ensuring the needs of Indiana’s youth are met. Parents seeking to enforce or modify these orders should seek legal counsel.

In some cases, when parents do not pay, the court can order interest on the arrears, to account for the time single parents had to struggle to make ends meet without support.

On the other hand, sometimes economic circumstances of the non-custodial parent change and they are no longer able to continue paying support at the same level. Even so, they cannot simply stop paying. They must petition the court for a modification of child support payments, or else risk being charged interest and other fines and penalties. Continue reading

by

A survivor benefit plan of a military pension should be included in the “marital pot” when considering what should be calculated as an “asset” in an Indiana divorce.

That was the ruling handed down by the Indiana Court of Appeals in the recent case of In Re: the Marriage of Carr v. Carr.

This was a couple who had been married for 16 years and had two children together when the husband sought a divorce. For 14 years before the pair were married, husband had worked in the military, and his service continued while the pair were together. Prior to their marriage, the husband had begun building up his pension. During the marriage, that pension grew. He’d also earned a pension prior to the marriage from a private company. Continue reading

by

If you are a business owner contemplating divorce, you have additional considerations that wouldn’t come into play for many facing a separation. 

It’s not an uncommon scenario, as many entrepreneurs toil long hours building the company, and the marriage can suffer. It’s typical of younger couples to marry with no prenuptial agreement. What starts as a $50,000 venture can expand to a $10 million enterprise by the time the marriage dissolves – and by that time, the spouse has a stake in the business growth.

Of course, every scenario is different, but preservation of the business is a top priority for many owners.  Continue reading

by

Termination of a parent-child relationship in Indiana is done through judicial proceeding that will forever end the legal, social and financial relationship and responsibilities between a parent and child. It means that all power, privilege, immunity, duty and obligation to that child by the parent is totally gone.

Parents can choose to voluntarily terminate their parent-child relationship, but only when the action is initiated by the Department of Child Services or an adoption agency. Cases if involuntary termination are initiated by DCS.  Continue reading

Contact Information
8320 Kennedy Ave
Highland, IN 46322
Phone: 219-836-2200
Fax: 219-836-9388

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Padove Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design