When a marriage breaks up, the parties involved are often so consumed by the emotional fallout that they do not realize their health could be at risk. They are usually overwhelmed by all the questions that need to be addressed, such as child custody, as well as the reams of paperwork involved in approaching a divorce settlement. If the marriage did produce children, everyone recognizes that their needs must come first as the divorce proceeds, and that one of the best things that can be done for the children’s welfare is if the couple divorces as amicably as possible. The former spouses should also realize amicable proceedings not only benefit children; they can also have a hugely beneficial effect on the parties to the divorce.

One of the best ways to achieve this is by seeking dissolution as opposed to filing for divorce. Not all states offer dissolution, but there is a nationwide movement toward making the process of divorce a more collaborative, less antagonistic experience.

What is dissolution? Many don’t know, or aren’t aware of this option, perhaps in part because in a number of states, like Oregon and California, the term “dissolution of marriage” is just another way of saying divorce. In those states divorce equals dissolution of marriage.

But in the states, that offer dissolution as the most amicable way to end a marriage, a divorcing couple must agree on all the issues resulting from their separation before they file a petition with the court.  Along with the petition, a separation agreement is drawn up.  This document lists and describes all aspects of their marriage ending, such as division of property, child custody, spousal support, etc. Once the petition and separation agreement are filed, within a few months a hearing is held. Both spouses must appear at the hearing to confirm before a judge that they agree to all parts of the separation agreement, and if so, the judge dissolves their marriage.

It is important to remember that the parties must agree on everything beforehand—every detail must be sorted out and agreed to in writing. But if the couple can communicate well enough to discuss these issues and come to that agreement, dissolution provides a much easier, and less costly, alternative to filing with the court for a divorce.

If you live in a state that offers it, consider dissolution. Find a lawyer who has experience with this branch of family law. Talk to more than one divorce attorney with this experience—some offer a free initial consultation—to find the best match for you, your situation and your budget. An amicable approach will be good for everyone involved, as well as for your health.

About the Author:

Mark Godbey of Mark Godbey & Associates a full service general practice law firm specializing in bankruptcy law, debt consolidation, divorce law and other kinds of family law, auto accidents, personal injury claims, probate and estate planning, criminal defense law, traffic cases, and small business representation.  Mr. Godbey has been focusing his practice in the area of Personal Injury Law for over 22 years.  Mark Godbey is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, a group of attorneys recognized for having achieved verdicts or settlements for an amount of at least One Million Dollars.

Divorce is difficult on every part of a family.  While the parents are choosing to end their marriage, children are often confused about the situation and often need extra attention and guidance through this time.  There are a number of things to keep in mind.  Divorce and child custody disputes are very emotional.  Let your kids know they are not responsible for your decision to split up and that they are still loved by both parents.  Never ask children to take sides in custody battles.  Divorce means financial pressures will be felt by both sides—try to keep children out of bitter disputes or angry feelings toward your former spouse.

For these reasons, you should consider hiring a child custody lawyer.

The child custody lawyer should be a different person than the attorney handling your divorce proceedings.  Family law is always changing and differs among states; therefore, hiring a dedicated child custody attorney will benefit your case.  Your attorney will not only be your legal representation in court, he or she will explain your situation to the judge, help you understand the process, and walk you through your responsibilities.

Once the divorce and child custody proceedings are complete, consider retaining your attorney for child support needs.  If you are the custodial parent, there are a number of steps you need to complete before you will be given child support payments.  Parents may need to legally establish paternity, complete mountains of paperwork, obtain a court order, or work with a child support enforcement agency.  A child support attorney will be able to walk you through this process much like he or she did when you were trying to gain custody.  Attorneys understand how to track down parents who refuse to pay child support, even if that parent moves to another state.

The non-custodial parent should also consider hiring a child support lawyer.  The attorney can represent the parent’s interest when establishing paternity, help determine the amount of child support the parent is able to pay, and find the easiest way to make child support payments.

When searching for a child support or child custody attorney, begin by asking family and friends for recommendations.  They likely know someone who needed a dedicated child support attorney, or may have used one themselves.  After asking a few people, you will probably hear the same name mentioned.  Once you are finished asking close family and friends for advice, do your research online.

This person will be your partner in the battle for custody of your child, or will represent you when deciding how much money you can afford to give in child support.  You need someone you can trust and whom you know will represent your best interests.

About the Author:

Mark Godby of Mark Godbey & Associates a full service general practice law firm specializing in bankruptcy, debt consolidation, divorce and other kinds of family law, auto accidents, personal injury claims, probate and estate planning, criminal defense and traffic cases, and small business representation.

This case is on appeal from the Hocking County Court of Common Pleas where Mr. Heisler’s motion to modify a divorce decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities was dismissed.

A year after Mr. Heisler filed his motion, the parties reached an agreement, which was reduced to a handwritten entry signed by both parties. Mr. Heisler was ordered to present a formal agreed entry. Before Ms. Heisler received her copies, their son became subject to delinquency and truancy charges in Fairfield County Juvenile Court. Ms. Heisler then argued that, due to the action in Fairfield County Juvenile Court, that Hocking County had lost Jurisdiction to decide the motion to modify. The Hocking County Court of Common Pleas dismissed Mr. Heisler’s motion.

In his appeal, Mr. Heisler claims that the Hocking County Court of Common Pleas retained jurisdiction over the allocation of parental rights despite a pending delinquency matter in the Fairfield County Juvenile Court. The court held that the courts had concurrent jurisdiction and “where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the general rule is that the court where proceedings are first properly initiated acquired the right to adjudicate the matter to the exclusion of all other courts.” See State ex rel. Phillips v. Polcar (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 279, 364 N.E.2d 33.

From the Opinion:

A DR Court that enters an order allocating parental rights and responsibilities retains jurisdiction of ther those issues. R.C. 3109.06 provides, in part: “In any case in which a court of common pleas, or other court having jurisdiction, has issued an order that allocates parental rights and responsibilities for the care of minor children and designates their place of residence and legal custodian of minor children, has made an order…the jurisdiction of the courts shall not abate upon the death of the person awarded custody but shall continue for all purposes during the minority of the children. The court, upon its own motion or the motion of either parent or of any interested person acting on behalf of the children may proceed to make further disposition of the case in the best interests of the children and subject to sections 3109.42 to 3109.48 of the Revised Code.

But, somewhat contradictorily, a juvenile court obtains “exclusive original jurisdiction” concerning the custody of a child against whom delinquency is alleged. R.C. 2151.23(A). R.C. 2151.23(A)(1) and (2) provide that “[t]he juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction under the Revised Code as follows: (1) [c]oncerning any child who on or about the date specified in the complaint, indictment, or information is alleged *** to be a juvenile traffic offender or a delinquent, unruly, abused, neglected, or
dependent child *** to determine the custody of any child not a ward of another court of
this state[.]”

In In re Poling, 64 Ohio St.3d 211, 1992-Ohio-144, 594 N.E.2d 589, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that, despite the “not a ward of another court” language, a juvenile court may issue orders concerning the custody of a child who is the subject of a previous custody order contained in a separate domestic relations court’s divorce decree. Id. at syllabus. In effect, when a domestic relations court enters a decree addressing the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities concerning a child, the
child does not become a “ward” of the domestic relations court for purposes of R.C. 2151.23. Id. at 214. The Court further held that where a domestic relations court has entered a decree regarding the custody of the child, and the child later comes under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the courts share “concurrent jurisdiction” over the custody of the child. Id. at 215.

Where courts share concurrent jurisdiction, the general rule is that the court where proceedings are first properly initiated acquires the right to adjudicate the matter to the exclusion of all other courts. See State ex rel. Phillips v. Polcar (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 279, 364 N.E.2d 33, at syllabus; Miller v. Court of Common Pleas (1944), 143 Ohio St. 68, 70, 54 N.E.2d 130. Under this rule, the domestic relations court, which first established jurisdiction through the divorce decree, would retain exclusive jurisdiction to entertain custody issues involving a child the subject of an earlier divorce decree in that court. But in Poling the Court held that the legislative scheme set forth in R.C. 2151.23 (requiring juvenile courts to determine custody matters in accordance with R.C. 3109.04) indicated that juvenile courts may nonetheless make “particularized determinations regarding the care and custody of children subject to its jurisdiction, while respecting the continuing jurisdiction of the domestic relations or common pleas court that makes a custody decision in a divorce case.” Poling at 216.

The Trial Court did not address the more troubling issue of what happens when a juvenile court and a domestic relations court, possessing concurrent jurisdiction over the issues of custody and allocation of parental rights, both assert jurisdiction and then enter different, potentially conflicting orders. But we need not address that quandary. We are only faced with the question of whether Hocking County retained jurisdiction over the support matters addressed in the Memorandum Entry. And based on Poling, we hold that it did. Fairfield County Juvenile Court shares concurrent jurisdiction over the issue of custody by virtue of the delinquency charges. But this action did not divest Hocking County of the ability to modify its existing divorce decree.

Read more about it in this article: “Jury says attorney committed malpractice.”

A dedicated attorney who is in it for the client and not the bottom line is your ticket to a successful adoption.  Please call the experienced adoption attorneys at Mark Godbey & Associates for a free initial consultation.

Mark E. Godbey, Attorney at Law
Mark E. Godbey & Associates
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241 – 6650 phone
(513) 241 – 6649 fax

This article was written by attorney Mark E. Godbey. For more information, please visit our web site at www.GodbeyLaw.com or call our office at 513-241-6650.

These new changes could have significant effects on you and your children, as well as the amount of total child support that you are entitled to receive, or are required to pay. If you have questions regarding this change in the law, please call our offices for a FREE initial consultation.

For more information on these changes, brought to you directly by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, please click here: http://jfs.ohio.gov/Ocs/CashMedical.stm.

Blake P. Somers, Attorney at Law
Mark E. Godbey & Associates
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241 – 6650 phone
(513) 241 – 6649 fax

This article was written by attorney Blake P. Somers. For more information, please visit our web site at www.GodbeyLaw.com or call our office at 513-241-6650.

The issue before both Courts was whether grandparents should be allowed to intervene in a petition to involuntarily terminate their children’s parental rights over their grandchildren. In both cases motions had been filed to sever parental rights and the concerned grandparents cited Civil Rule 24 (Intervention) as the rule allowing them to become a party. In both cases, the trial
court denied intervention.

Ohio Civ. R. 24(A) and Kentucky CR 24.01 are identical and allow an interested party to intervene as a matter of right when a person has an interest relating to the subject matter of anaction and is so situated that disposition of the action may impair or impede such person’s ability to protect that interest. The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that grandparents can intervene
while the Ohio Court of Appeals denied the grandparents requested relief. The difference in the decision is an insight as to how the states will treat the rights of grandparents.

In Kentucky, grandparents “rights” have been recognized both by statute and case law. Pursuant to KRS 405.021, grandparent visitation statutorily survives termination of parental rights if established before such termination and is not contrary to the best interests of the child. In Ohio, the standard is much higher. In order for grandparents to intervene, they must have exercised
significant control over, or assumed parental duties for the benefit of their grandchildren.

Read the full opinions: Click here for Ohio Opinion, Click here for Kentucky Opinion

Mark E. Godbey & Associates
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241 – 6650 phone
(513) 241 – 6649 fax