I spend many words writing about soon-to-be ex-spouses working together for a common good: the peaceful dissolution of their marriage. On these pages I've often advocated moving beyond the emotional entanglements that routinely accompany a marital break up but so very much obstruct a mature approach to custody arrangements, potential support and property division. But I don't think I've spent much time dwelling on the most reprehensible spouses, the horrid, worst case scenario, the monster who shares your bed but rises each morning from the pits of hell. In other words, the wicked spouse.
I don't mean the angry spouse, the "hell hath no fury" spouse who seeks retribution for a past mis-deed. I'm talking about the evil spouse who wants to see you perish for the sheer delight of your demise. If you don't know this spouse, consider yourself among the extremely fortunate. You can somewhat imagine them, but only somewhat, for imagination is no substitute to living in the same house, supping over the same table and sharing the same bed with someone who daily, even hourly determinedly seeks your downfall. And the more horrific your downfall, the better.
This spouse has a strategy that is more depraved than you can reasonably contemplate, for reason doesn't enter into it. To understand this spouse's battle plan, you have to enter into the most cynical, black hearted space you can find within humankind's collective unconscious. This is the spouse who will summon the police with concocted stories of abuse. This is the spouse who will lay a trap for the unwary. This is the spouse who will lie in wait sometimes for years to build the abattoir in which you shall be sacrificed. This is the spouse who, like an onion, has layers upon layers, each more vile, fetid and diabolical than the last.
But, for those of you who have no knowledge of such a spouse, you need some meat on these bones.
Consider the spouse who decided one day to divorce her husband, only she didn't tell him. She didn't tell him for over a year. She used that year to collect her evidence of his purported transgressions. Behaviors she condoned, accepted, fostered, and even participate in, she secretly captured for posterity in those thousand words' worth 8x10's. And when she sprung the trap, she had her price. She would offer to sell him his soul for far more than 30 pieces of silver.
Consider the spouse who systematically deprived her spouse of his business, his home, even his children, Job style, just to watch him suffer like an ant under the magnifying glass in the brilliant sun of her conniving scheme. As each element of his security, his identity was stripped from him, she pleasured in his cries every much as if limbs were torn asunder. She would have watched him slowly die if she could figure out how to do it. In may ways, she did.
Consider the spouse who fathomed and then executed a plan to have her spouse carted off to jail, to be convicted and not seen again for decades, well long enough for her to secure the empire they had created. And his crime and the evidence to support it fabricated, every bit of it.
The judges are wary of any counsel's claim that the spouse is wicked, that the plot is hollow, that the method is the worst sort of chicanery because that charge is so abused. I've written about the aggressive lawyer. To her ever droning assertion, each opposing party is a scalawag, either a dead-beat dad or a malicious mom. We once had a well known counsel who had two, pat phrases to apply to opposing parties: whore and whore monger. The slanderous approach is now an empty rhetorical device which the judge's largely ignore. So when a spouse is indeed wicked it is a difficult fact to prove to a jaded judge.
But prove it you must. Prove it to someone. In the first case cited, It wasn't until I took to the Settlement Conference table top and delivered a rousing rendition of "Molasses to Rum to Slaves," that the matter resolved. My client was freed without the purchase price demanded by the wicked spouse. She decided that I was too crazy to allow in Court.
The second case ended with a trial which detailed copious evidence of her mis-deeds. You would have thought the matter had been tried in the World Court for the effort it took, the investigation required, the meticulous organization and crafting of the presentation of the trial. Years later and tens of thousands of dollars poorer, justice prevailed. The wicked spouse was sent out on a rail.
The last case cited ended in a surprising reversal of fortunes because, ultimately, criminals are not that smart. Indeed a crime had been committed, but my client hadn't done it. The wicked spouse left enough "fingerprints" on the evidence intended to damn her husband, that the prosecuting authorities began to see the flaws in the greater plan, turned the tables and indicted the master-mind wife.
Given the elaborate means to which these wicked spouses go, I often wonder why they don't cut to the chase and end the relationship Lynn Turner style. But of course, she got caught too.
So divorce is not a bed of roses. Sometimes it is a bed of nails. And if you are married to the wicked spouse, sometimes you have to fight for your freedom. Sometimes you even have to fight for your survival. Just know that justice will out, in the end, if you can make it that far.
Cheery post, huh.
Michael Manely
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Addiction, your spouse's real partner.
Marriages fail for a myriad of different reasons. Some fail because of addiction. Addiction can be to gambling, to shopping, to pornography. I have worked on divorces in 50 plus year marriages which are coming apart because of a recently surfaced sex addiction. But the most common addiction is drugs or alcohol. Tonight I'll talk about alcohol.
People are often isolated. They come to me with their own stories, their own experience. They know what they live through but they don't have the advantage of hearing thousands of stories. They can't see their story in the context of our larger culture. Almost always the client and I will consider the question of whether the spouse is just drinking or is addicted. "Does the drinking interfere with your relationship?" I'll ask. If the answer is yes, then there is a problem whether it is from addiction or from mores against alcohol. "Can your spouse put it aside at any time, not touch it for days or weeks?" If the answer is no, there is a problem. That may be simplistic but I think it boils down to that issue. If you can't leave the alcohol alone for a significant period of time, there's a problem, an addiction in some form. "If your spouse drinks sporadically when they drink, do they often get inebriated, affected?" A purely social drinker only drinks on social occassions and rarely drinks to excess. If your spouse often gets trashed when they drink, a binge drinker, there's a problem.
People who come to see me with this issue have often been living with a raging alcoholic for years but haven't really wanted to face it. Like Battered Women's Syndrome, there is an inherent denial in it. This is why groups like Al-Anon exist, to help you get out of that co-dependency. And alcoholics, like all people everywhere, are on a continuum. I have worked with folks who have been institutionalized for alcohol abuse and I have worked with folks who can't finish out the day without a couple of stiff drinks, though they don't slur their speech and they don't miss work because of it. Both, I think, are alcoholics. I don't know if the APA would support this, but in my practice it's a pretty safe charge.
Some people are violent when they drink. Some just fall asleep in their recliner by 7:00 p.m. All are removed, more distant than they would be without the drink. All are less engaged, less committed to their partners, because they are committed to their addiction.
Their addiction is not rational. This is the nature of addiction. It takes over rational thought. Rational thought is not a rational proposition in the face of addiction. Addiction is something else entirely. It can't be argued away. The addiction is the spouse's partner, not the person they are married to. And being the third wheel is very lonely. There is no intellectual adjustment that can be made. If your spouse won't get help, you will either live with it forever, in all of its forms, or you escape.
Addiction is not a fault in a moral sense. It is an illness. But at the same time, it is not a sinking ship with which you must perish. You can save yourself; that's fair. If you have kids, you must save them. Maybe leaving your addicted spouse will be the wakeup call they need, but that is irrelevant. You don't leave your spouse to get their attention, you leave your spouse to save yourself, to save your children.
I'm not being melodramatic here. It is a question of saving yourself and of saving your children. The life your children will live, growing up in the home of an alcoholic, is a brutish life in the best of circumstances. It's a short life in the worst. The abuse, even if it is purely psychological, is something no one should ever have to endure, certainly not the children. You don't want your children to grow up to be like your addicted spouse. But you make that outcome all the more certain by staying.
Addiction is a ground for divorce in Georgia, though most people still just claim "Irretrievably Broken" in their Complaint. You are permitted to end the marriage when your spouse is married to the bottle.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Firm-Overview.asp
People are often isolated. They come to me with their own stories, their own experience. They know what they live through but they don't have the advantage of hearing thousands of stories. They can't see their story in the context of our larger culture. Almost always the client and I will consider the question of whether the spouse is just drinking or is addicted. "Does the drinking interfere with your relationship?" I'll ask. If the answer is yes, then there is a problem whether it is from addiction or from mores against alcohol. "Can your spouse put it aside at any time, not touch it for days or weeks?" If the answer is no, there is a problem. That may be simplistic but I think it boils down to that issue. If you can't leave the alcohol alone for a significant period of time, there's a problem, an addiction in some form. "If your spouse drinks sporadically when they drink, do they often get inebriated, affected?" A purely social drinker only drinks on social occassions and rarely drinks to excess. If your spouse often gets trashed when they drink, a binge drinker, there's a problem.
People who come to see me with this issue have often been living with a raging alcoholic for years but haven't really wanted to face it. Like Battered Women's Syndrome, there is an inherent denial in it. This is why groups like Al-Anon exist, to help you get out of that co-dependency. And alcoholics, like all people everywhere, are on a continuum. I have worked with folks who have been institutionalized for alcohol abuse and I have worked with folks who can't finish out the day without a couple of stiff drinks, though they don't slur their speech and they don't miss work because of it. Both, I think, are alcoholics. I don't know if the APA would support this, but in my practice it's a pretty safe charge.
Some people are violent when they drink. Some just fall asleep in their recliner by 7:00 p.m. All are removed, more distant than they would be without the drink. All are less engaged, less committed to their partners, because they are committed to their addiction.
Their addiction is not rational. This is the nature of addiction. It takes over rational thought. Rational thought is not a rational proposition in the face of addiction. Addiction is something else entirely. It can't be argued away. The addiction is the spouse's partner, not the person they are married to. And being the third wheel is very lonely. There is no intellectual adjustment that can be made. If your spouse won't get help, you will either live with it forever, in all of its forms, or you escape.
Addiction is not a fault in a moral sense. It is an illness. But at the same time, it is not a sinking ship with which you must perish. You can save yourself; that's fair. If you have kids, you must save them. Maybe leaving your addicted spouse will be the wakeup call they need, but that is irrelevant. You don't leave your spouse to get their attention, you leave your spouse to save yourself, to save your children.
I'm not being melodramatic here. It is a question of saving yourself and of saving your children. The life your children will live, growing up in the home of an alcoholic, is a brutish life in the best of circumstances. It's a short life in the worst. The abuse, even if it is purely psychological, is something no one should ever have to endure, certainly not the children. You don't want your children to grow up to be like your addicted spouse. But you make that outcome all the more certain by staying.
Addiction is a ground for divorce in Georgia, though most people still just claim "Irretrievably Broken" in their Complaint. You are permitted to end the marriage when your spouse is married to the bottle.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Firm-Overview.asp
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
A Very Happy Thanksgiving
Though Thanksgiving is now last week's news, I want to share events of that week with you as it relates to one 12 year old boy.
On the Friday before Thanksgiving, late in the afternoon, 4:31 to be precise, I was just starting to watch the premier of Harry Potter with my three boys when my cell phone buzzed. I usually will ignore such stimuli when engaged in family activities, but the movie hadn't yet grabbed me and I was out of the office early. So I pulled the phone from my pocket and checked.
An Opposing Counsel in a very contested divorce matter had emailed me an attachment. I opened the email then the attachment which was his letter. His letter informed me that his client, the opposing party in a divorce action, was high tailing it back to her homeland in Nigeria the next day, Saturday, with my client's and the opposing party's 12 year old son.
I immediately called The Firm. We sent a letter to Opposing Counsel; we called Opposing Counsel; I sent an email to Opposing Counsel, all to object in the strongest terms possible to the removal of this boy from the State of Georgia, not to mention the United States of America.
When you file a divorce, the Court grants an automatic Standing Order. The Standing Order sets some ground rules that all the Superior Court judges think are a good idea in every divorce. The first section of the Order says that children of the parties are not to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Court. This means you can't take kids out of the State of Georgia, absent approval from the opposite party or the Court itself.
And here the opposing party was taking off to Nigeria, which is quite outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
Further, Nigeria is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. This means that if the opposing party decided not to return, she could never be forced to return the child, even though he was born here, raised here and had never set foot in Nigeria.
The silence from Opposing Counsel was deafening. We had ample reason to worry that the opposing party was, in fact, running. My most excellent team sprung into action.
Associate Jeremy Abernathy drafted a quick Motion for an Emergency Hearing; Paralegal Robyn Midanaky checked every corner of the Courthouse for a judge at that late hour. Sadly, none could be found. All our judges had left for the day and would not return to the Courthouse until after the child had been successfuly spirited out of the country and into hostile territory, from the Hague's perspective. Opposing Counsel had timed his strike perfectly.
Next, paralegal Nora Stocks came on board. She, too had been spending a late afternoon/early evening with her family but left all of that aside and spent the next 18 hours working closely with the United States' State Department, Customs, Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Atlanta Police Department coordinating everyone's activity and obtaining and providing them with the necessary documents to stop the opposing party from fleeing the country with the boy the next day.
After dozens of calls and hours upon hours on the telephone, at 11:00 on Saturday night, United States and local officials intercepted the opposing party at the gate and explained to her in no uncertain terms that she was not stepping onto that airplane with that boy. The boy was saved.
The opposing party decided to fly on to Nigeria that night. She left the boy behind in the care of her 22 year old daughter from a prior relationship, who had also been booked on that Nigeria bound flight.
By Monday we had filed our Motion. By Tuesday at 8:30 a.m., the Judge assigned to the divorce case heard the weekend's history and Ordered Opposing Counsel to turn over the boy to my client.
That Thursday, in the middle of the afternoon, my client bowed his head with his son to pray, thankful that his boy was with him, feasting at the table in this most American holiday.
I want to express my sincere and deep thanks to my most excellent staff, and particularly Nora. Their hard work and dedication to our purpose saved this boy and provided our client with a very happy Thanksgiving.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/International-Family-Law.asp
On the Friday before Thanksgiving, late in the afternoon, 4:31 to be precise, I was just starting to watch the premier of Harry Potter with my three boys when my cell phone buzzed. I usually will ignore such stimuli when engaged in family activities, but the movie hadn't yet grabbed me and I was out of the office early. So I pulled the phone from my pocket and checked.
An Opposing Counsel in a very contested divorce matter had emailed me an attachment. I opened the email then the attachment which was his letter. His letter informed me that his client, the opposing party in a divorce action, was high tailing it back to her homeland in Nigeria the next day, Saturday, with my client's and the opposing party's 12 year old son.
I immediately called The Firm. We sent a letter to Opposing Counsel; we called Opposing Counsel; I sent an email to Opposing Counsel, all to object in the strongest terms possible to the removal of this boy from the State of Georgia, not to mention the United States of America.
When you file a divorce, the Court grants an automatic Standing Order. The Standing Order sets some ground rules that all the Superior Court judges think are a good idea in every divorce. The first section of the Order says that children of the parties are not to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Court. This means you can't take kids out of the State of Georgia, absent approval from the opposite party or the Court itself.
And here the opposing party was taking off to Nigeria, which is quite outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
Further, Nigeria is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. This means that if the opposing party decided not to return, she could never be forced to return the child, even though he was born here, raised here and had never set foot in Nigeria.
The silence from Opposing Counsel was deafening. We had ample reason to worry that the opposing party was, in fact, running. My most excellent team sprung into action.
Associate Jeremy Abernathy drafted a quick Motion for an Emergency Hearing; Paralegal Robyn Midanaky checked every corner of the Courthouse for a judge at that late hour. Sadly, none could be found. All our judges had left for the day and would not return to the Courthouse until after the child had been successfuly spirited out of the country and into hostile territory, from the Hague's perspective. Opposing Counsel had timed his strike perfectly.
Next, paralegal Nora Stocks came on board. She, too had been spending a late afternoon/early evening with her family but left all of that aside and spent the next 18 hours working closely with the United States' State Department, Customs, Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Atlanta Police Department coordinating everyone's activity and obtaining and providing them with the necessary documents to stop the opposing party from fleeing the country with the boy the next day.
After dozens of calls and hours upon hours on the telephone, at 11:00 on Saturday night, United States and local officials intercepted the opposing party at the gate and explained to her in no uncertain terms that she was not stepping onto that airplane with that boy. The boy was saved.
The opposing party decided to fly on to Nigeria that night. She left the boy behind in the care of her 22 year old daughter from a prior relationship, who had also been booked on that Nigeria bound flight.
By Monday we had filed our Motion. By Tuesday at 8:30 a.m., the Judge assigned to the divorce case heard the weekend's history and Ordered Opposing Counsel to turn over the boy to my client.
That Thursday, in the middle of the afternoon, my client bowed his head with his son to pray, thankful that his boy was with him, feasting at the table in this most American holiday.
I want to express my sincere and deep thanks to my most excellent staff, and particularly Nora. Their hard work and dedication to our purpose saved this boy and provided our client with a very happy Thanksgiving.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/International-Family-Law.asp
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Physics in human form explained.
"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." As best I recall, that is a principle in physics. I don't think it holds true in human relations.
It seems that an action often spurs an even larger reaction. Tit for tat frequently becomes tit squared. Retaliation is seldom in equal measure, no matter how much the Old Testament may call for an eye for an eye or the actor may proclaim adherance to a slightly more recent theology.
Consider the game of the one-upping spouses: I'll flirt and you'll kiss. I'll grope and you'll have sex. I'll disappear for the weekend and you'll get acquainted with the American Legion. And where does that lead?These are not idle threats, they're actions already taken. There's no game of chicken here. And oddest of all, these are people very much engrossed in continuing the relationship, however sick it has become and maybe, because of how sick it has become.
Occasionally I'll consult with these people. Their unresolved and unrepentant mutually assured destruction in full form, they rarely have any interest in actually ending the bloody battles, rather they seek amunition to one up their partner in a new element of the game. "I saw a lawyer today and I can take you for everything you've got." "Oh yeah, well I saw a lawyer today and I gave him pictures of you with that platoon." And so it goes; and so it goes.
Sometimes the one upmanship game has lead to the floor of the courtroom, each party more vitriolic than the other. And the conclusion of that phase of the game is the couple's divorce in an ugly, unremeditated form. Then, still wholly embroiled in the battle that is their lives, the wars continue, post divorce.
Often the battles are then conducted in text messages, back and forth, each more hateful than the last. Or they can take the form of literal sabotage such as defacing or destroying property. Frequently the couple periodically resumes relations as if granting their physical intimacy to their former spouse is the worst cruelty they could render. Perhaps it is.
This is long past time for an analyst's couch, but I suspect an analyst would be about as much at a loss as the legal profession. "Just what do you want me to do? Fix you? I don't think so."
While I express conduct here in the extreme, many people are on this continuum, just in somewhat milder form. The battles continue. The battles escalate, even if the measure is the length of silent hostility in the cold environment called home. The test of whether the relationship falls into this pattern is whether one is fantasizing or even acting in some variation of "I'm going to get him (or her)." The thirst for retribution is generally a bad sign in a marriage.
It seems to me that two alternatives are far more wholistic and therefore healthier for human life, contributing to human happiness: wishing the best always for your spouse with you in the picture and wishing the best always for your spouse with you no longer in the picture.
Time is a beautiful process. Sometimes a spouse is in the "I'm going to get him" mode, but works through that and evolves to the sentiment of "I wish you well in all your endeavors, without me." That is a much better place to be.
Of course, there are attorneys for the couple engrossed in retribution. They call themselves "aggressive" lawyers. They'll be happy to take your money, all of it, and hand you a few more nuclear bombs in the process.
If that's where you are at, good luck with that.
For me, I'll still look for the laws of physics as they apply to human form, particularly human relationships. For example: a couple in motion tend to remain in motion and a couple at rest tend to remain at rest. But perhaps that is all just rationalization looking for an orderly universe. Perhaps it is far more correct to view human relations from the Chaos theory.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/
It seems that an action often spurs an even larger reaction. Tit for tat frequently becomes tit squared. Retaliation is seldom in equal measure, no matter how much the Old Testament may call for an eye for an eye or the actor may proclaim adherance to a slightly more recent theology.
Consider the game of the one-upping spouses: I'll flirt and you'll kiss. I'll grope and you'll have sex. I'll disappear for the weekend and you'll get acquainted with the American Legion. And where does that lead?These are not idle threats, they're actions already taken. There's no game of chicken here. And oddest of all, these are people very much engrossed in continuing the relationship, however sick it has become and maybe, because of how sick it has become.
Occasionally I'll consult with these people. Their unresolved and unrepentant mutually assured destruction in full form, they rarely have any interest in actually ending the bloody battles, rather they seek amunition to one up their partner in a new element of the game. "I saw a lawyer today and I can take you for everything you've got." "Oh yeah, well I saw a lawyer today and I gave him pictures of you with that platoon." And so it goes; and so it goes.
Sometimes the one upmanship game has lead to the floor of the courtroom, each party more vitriolic than the other. And the conclusion of that phase of the game is the couple's divorce in an ugly, unremeditated form. Then, still wholly embroiled in the battle that is their lives, the wars continue, post divorce.
Often the battles are then conducted in text messages, back and forth, each more hateful than the last. Or they can take the form of literal sabotage such as defacing or destroying property. Frequently the couple periodically resumes relations as if granting their physical intimacy to their former spouse is the worst cruelty they could render. Perhaps it is.
This is long past time for an analyst's couch, but I suspect an analyst would be about as much at a loss as the legal profession. "Just what do you want me to do? Fix you? I don't think so."
While I express conduct here in the extreme, many people are on this continuum, just in somewhat milder form. The battles continue. The battles escalate, even if the measure is the length of silent hostility in the cold environment called home. The test of whether the relationship falls into this pattern is whether one is fantasizing or even acting in some variation of "I'm going to get him (or her)." The thirst for retribution is generally a bad sign in a marriage.
It seems to me that two alternatives are far more wholistic and therefore healthier for human life, contributing to human happiness: wishing the best always for your spouse with you in the picture and wishing the best always for your spouse with you no longer in the picture.
Time is a beautiful process. Sometimes a spouse is in the "I'm going to get him" mode, but works through that and evolves to the sentiment of "I wish you well in all your endeavors, without me." That is a much better place to be.
Of course, there are attorneys for the couple engrossed in retribution. They call themselves "aggressive" lawyers. They'll be happy to take your money, all of it, and hand you a few more nuclear bombs in the process.
If that's where you are at, good luck with that.
For me, I'll still look for the laws of physics as they apply to human form, particularly human relationships. For example: a couple in motion tend to remain in motion and a couple at rest tend to remain at rest. But perhaps that is all just rationalization looking for an orderly universe. Perhaps it is far more correct to view human relations from the Chaos theory.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Where have I been?
It has been almost two weeks since I last visited these pages, now often a part of my nighttime ritual. You may well ask, where have you been?
I have been doing that rarest of rare things in family law, a jury trial. Our trial was conducted In Fulton County Superior Court (http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Fulton-County-Judges.asp) over three days: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday last week. The jury came back with its verdict at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night.
It was a divorce case. Twenty-six year marriage. Three grown kids. My client is a medical doctor. Very nice guy. The opposing party is an attorney. She hasn't practiced since the second year of their marriage. The significant issue was alimony.
Opposing Counsel wanted to play it up for the jury. His case was full of drama complete with heroes and villains (my client was cast as the villain). Opposing Counsel's problem is that he had no facts to back up his theme. And his client, as I told the jury is a very nice lady, didn't have the best of stories nor the best of presentation. So, Opposing Counsel had no facts and his client had no presentation.
The Opposing side wanted the jury to award them 3.2 million. The jury awarded them less than one-sixth of that. We were prepared to offer them more than what the jury eventually awarded had Opposing Counsel's demand not been so extreme.
What is the moral to the story? If Opposing Counsel had ever taken the task of settlement seriously rather than be consumed by slaying the dragons of his imagination, he could have helped his client far more. Opposing Counsel wanted so desperately to play the hero. At the end of our tale, that was not the role he wound up playing.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Divorce.asp
I have been doing that rarest of rare things in family law, a jury trial. Our trial was conducted In Fulton County Superior Court (http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Fulton-County-Judges.asp) over three days: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday last week. The jury came back with its verdict at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night.
It was a divorce case. Twenty-six year marriage. Three grown kids. My client is a medical doctor. Very nice guy. The opposing party is an attorney. She hasn't practiced since the second year of their marriage. The significant issue was alimony.
Opposing Counsel wanted to play it up for the jury. His case was full of drama complete with heroes and villains (my client was cast as the villain). Opposing Counsel's problem is that he had no facts to back up his theme. And his client, as I told the jury is a very nice lady, didn't have the best of stories nor the best of presentation. So, Opposing Counsel had no facts and his client had no presentation.
The Opposing side wanted the jury to award them 3.2 million. The jury awarded them less than one-sixth of that. We were prepared to offer them more than what the jury eventually awarded had Opposing Counsel's demand not been so extreme.
What is the moral to the story? If Opposing Counsel had ever taken the task of settlement seriously rather than be consumed by slaying the dragons of his imagination, he could have helped his client far more. Opposing Counsel wanted so desperately to play the hero. At the end of our tale, that was not the role he wound up playing.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Divorce.asp
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
If it's the last thing you do...
I was recently speaking with a psychologist. In my line of work, I do that often. He and I were debating othe merits of divorce.
He was adamantly opposed to divorce. "Divorce should be the last option," he told me.
After more discussion/debate, he admitted that he, himself, was divorced and remarried. "I got it right the second time," he said. But he didn't take his divorce lightly. He worked through everything he could think of before he fiinally threw in the towel. "I wanted to tell my little girl I had tried everything."
He had tried everything? But he was divorced? If he had tried everything surely he would have tried suffering for the rest of his existence.
Saying that divorce should be the last option is very much like finding something in the last place you looked. Of course it's the last place you looked. Why would you go on looking elsewhere once you found it? And of course, divorce is the last option since it's the last option you choose. It was the last option the psychologist chose. You don't tend to choose other options to work out your marriage after your divorce.
But the point is, everyone has their own strategy for looking for things. And everyone has their own internal, perhaps undiscovered list of options to try before they choose divorce. For the psychologist to argue that divorce is bad, that it shouldn't happen and that he only divorced as his "last option," is only sanctimonious "holier than thou". Only the fellow who suffers for the rest of his existence can make this proclamation with righteousness. Everyone else needs to eat some humble pie and stop the hypocrisy.
Some folks leave at the first sign of trouble. Maybe they aren't that committed or maybe they aren't that into suffering. Some folks stick it out a while longer. Maybe they have more faith, maybe they have more hope or maybe they have more tolerance. Some folks hang in there even longer. Maybe they never say die or maybe they have a streak of martyrdom. Maybe they are a little into masochism, too. But everyone chooses their own level of endurance. It must be so.
And marriage involves a fair degree of endurance. The test, it seems to me is, is the harmony better than the hassle? If it is, you make that music together. If it isn't, it's time to sing solo for awhile, maybe even start another duet. (Some folks are really out there and get a whole chorus going.)
And my personal experience is that the awareness that you can make daily choices makes your daily choice to remain committed that much more fresh and new or renewed. And if that isn't your choice, perhaps it's time to try to "get it right the second time," just like the psychologist. Or the third. Or the fourth...
The point is, you don't quit. You don't lay down and die. You live, fully, another day.
May you live fully each day. May your music be beautiful.
Michael Manely
He was adamantly opposed to divorce. "Divorce should be the last option," he told me.
After more discussion/debate, he admitted that he, himself, was divorced and remarried. "I got it right the second time," he said. But he didn't take his divorce lightly. He worked through everything he could think of before he fiinally threw in the towel. "I wanted to tell my little girl I had tried everything."
He had tried everything? But he was divorced? If he had tried everything surely he would have tried suffering for the rest of his existence.
Saying that divorce should be the last option is very much like finding something in the last place you looked. Of course it's the last place you looked. Why would you go on looking elsewhere once you found it? And of course, divorce is the last option since it's the last option you choose. It was the last option the psychologist chose. You don't tend to choose other options to work out your marriage after your divorce.
But the point is, everyone has their own strategy for looking for things. And everyone has their own internal, perhaps undiscovered list of options to try before they choose divorce. For the psychologist to argue that divorce is bad, that it shouldn't happen and that he only divorced as his "last option," is only sanctimonious "holier than thou". Only the fellow who suffers for the rest of his existence can make this proclamation with righteousness. Everyone else needs to eat some humble pie and stop the hypocrisy.
Some folks leave at the first sign of trouble. Maybe they aren't that committed or maybe they aren't that into suffering. Some folks stick it out a while longer. Maybe they have more faith, maybe they have more hope or maybe they have more tolerance. Some folks hang in there even longer. Maybe they never say die or maybe they have a streak of martyrdom. Maybe they are a little into masochism, too. But everyone chooses their own level of endurance. It must be so.
And marriage involves a fair degree of endurance. The test, it seems to me is, is the harmony better than the hassle? If it is, you make that music together. If it isn't, it's time to sing solo for awhile, maybe even start another duet. (Some folks are really out there and get a whole chorus going.)
And my personal experience is that the awareness that you can make daily choices makes your daily choice to remain committed that much more fresh and new or renewed. And if that isn't your choice, perhaps it's time to try to "get it right the second time," just like the psychologist. Or the third. Or the fourth...
The point is, you don't quit. You don't lay down and die. You live, fully, another day.
May you live fully each day. May your music be beautiful.
Michael Manely
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Elephant at home.
It's late into the argument. You've been going at it for hours now and nothing seems to get resolved. It's the same argument you've had, time and time again. Sometimes you wonder if you argue just to have some connection, something to say, something to say instead of what you'd rather do at any given moment and that picture isn't too pretty. But, it's what you and your spouse have left together.
So what do you argue about? What is the substance of that dispute? Is it money? Is it a lack of passion? Is it too much passion spent in a different direction?
We have 13 grounds for divorce in Georgia. The grounds range from adultery to habitual intoxication to cruel treatment to you married your sister, to name just four. And, of course, the no fault ground, Irretrievably Broken, known absolutely everywhere else as Irreconcilable Differences.
Once upon a time you had to prove a ground to be entitled to a divorce. If you couldn't prove Joe committed adultery you had to stay married to him. So long as Joe knew how to hide it, you stayed wed. When both parties wanted the divorce, Joe had to confess adultery, even if it didn't happen to be true. Some archaic states still have this exclusively fault requirement on the books, causing their citizens to engage in legal hoodwinking to obtain freedom from their spouse with the State's blessing. I'm very pleased that Georgia is no longer so paternalistic.
But back to the story. What do you argue about?
After 21 years of litigating divorces and counseling parties in their most intimate moments as they sever their marital relationships, I've come to the opinion that what people argue about as they make their way to divorce is little more than window dressing. As one of our Judges once announced as the wife pleaded from the stand, "But Judge, he committed adultery," to which the Judge quipped, "I figured there was some reason you were getting a divorce."
The adultery doesn't cause the divorce. The drinking doesn't cause the divorce. The cruelty doesn't cause the divorce. The fact that she's your sister doesn't cause the divorce. You are getting a divorce because you want one, because you've come to the belief that you need one, because if you don't obtain one you firmly suspect you will soon go stark, raving mad. You are getting a divorce because you are over it.
The rest is just window dressing, rationalizations, all perfectly logical and right, but ultimately needless. Ultimately it is simple. You want out. You get out.
Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple in practice, in the build up? No drama. As simple as the Paul Simon song. Just slip out the back, Jack.
But in real life we seem to have to argue. We seem to have to become bitter and angry. We seem to use these emotions as a catalyst, a form of dynamite to blast us out of our relationships and into the bright light of the freedom we then desire.
From a legal standpoint we don't need it. From an emotional standpoint (in the legal context) it gets in the way, it holds us back, it pushes us to make bad, destructive decisions.
We argue about much, but we argue about nothing. What we ignore is the elephant in the room, that elephant at home. That is, until it comes charging out and tramples everyone in its path. I think it is better to talk about the elephant before it goes on its rampage.
So, if you are ready to move on, own it. Don't argue about his infidelity. Don't argue about how drunk she is again. Don't argue about how your mother was right, your wife made for a bad daughter, too, just bring out the elephant, introduce it, and move on.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Divorce.asp
So what do you argue about? What is the substance of that dispute? Is it money? Is it a lack of passion? Is it too much passion spent in a different direction?
We have 13 grounds for divorce in Georgia. The grounds range from adultery to habitual intoxication to cruel treatment to you married your sister, to name just four. And, of course, the no fault ground, Irretrievably Broken, known absolutely everywhere else as Irreconcilable Differences.
Once upon a time you had to prove a ground to be entitled to a divorce. If you couldn't prove Joe committed adultery you had to stay married to him. So long as Joe knew how to hide it, you stayed wed. When both parties wanted the divorce, Joe had to confess adultery, even if it didn't happen to be true. Some archaic states still have this exclusively fault requirement on the books, causing their citizens to engage in legal hoodwinking to obtain freedom from their spouse with the State's blessing. I'm very pleased that Georgia is no longer so paternalistic.
But back to the story. What do you argue about?
After 21 years of litigating divorces and counseling parties in their most intimate moments as they sever their marital relationships, I've come to the opinion that what people argue about as they make their way to divorce is little more than window dressing. As one of our Judges once announced as the wife pleaded from the stand, "But Judge, he committed adultery," to which the Judge quipped, "I figured there was some reason you were getting a divorce."
The adultery doesn't cause the divorce. The drinking doesn't cause the divorce. The cruelty doesn't cause the divorce. The fact that she's your sister doesn't cause the divorce. You are getting a divorce because you want one, because you've come to the belief that you need one, because if you don't obtain one you firmly suspect you will soon go stark, raving mad. You are getting a divorce because you are over it.
The rest is just window dressing, rationalizations, all perfectly logical and right, but ultimately needless. Ultimately it is simple. You want out. You get out.
Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple in practice, in the build up? No drama. As simple as the Paul Simon song. Just slip out the back, Jack.
But in real life we seem to have to argue. We seem to have to become bitter and angry. We seem to use these emotions as a catalyst, a form of dynamite to blast us out of our relationships and into the bright light of the freedom we then desire.
From a legal standpoint we don't need it. From an emotional standpoint (in the legal context) it gets in the way, it holds us back, it pushes us to make bad, destructive decisions.
We argue about much, but we argue about nothing. What we ignore is the elephant in the room, that elephant at home. That is, until it comes charging out and tramples everyone in its path. I think it is better to talk about the elephant before it goes on its rampage.
So, if you are ready to move on, own it. Don't argue about his infidelity. Don't argue about how drunk she is again. Don't argue about how your mother was right, your wife made for a bad daughter, too, just bring out the elephant, introduce it, and move on.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Divorce.asp
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Oh No You Didn't.
Here is what we don't do.
Tonight, a taste of the trully sublime, trully silly and trully awful.
Attorney commercials. Fortunately in other states.
And finally:
Now, these guys are reputable.:
I hope you enjoyed the show.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/In-the-News.asp
Tonight, a taste of the trully sublime, trully silly and trully awful.
Attorney commercials. Fortunately in other states.
And finally:
Now, these guys are reputable.:
I hope you enjoyed the show.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/In-the-News.asp
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Is it a calling?
I have an unusual job. I help people get divorced. I work in family crisis day in and day out. I am buried, nay smothered in daily drama.
Why would anyone sign on for this misery?
Some in my profession appear to posit that their's is a calling, that they are led to this line of work in the same way that preachers are. And like preachers, they claim passion and deeply held, fervent beliefs. They hold convictions and operate from dogma about how things must be. Their client's lives become testaments to the attorney's convictions. And the family drama plays out in moralistic terms, good versus evil and righteousness must prevail. There is the victor and there must be the vanquished.
I definitely like what I do. I don't want to do anything else, work wise. I'm drawn to the Courtroom, not because it is my life's mission but because I'm good at it. And I'm good at it because I like a good, serious legal contest. I'm good at it because I care to be. And I like what I do because I find meaning in helping real people obtain real solutions for real problems. What's not to like about that? Family law fits me.
I would hope that everyone should be able to make a living, doing what they enjoy. It makes life richer.
But I don't hold dogmatic positions. I don't pass judgment. I don't exact my principles on my client's lives. I do bring all my talents to bear on their issues. I make solutions.
I'm not a preacher. I'm not a saint. I'm not a voluteer. I'm a mercenary. I am well paid to be successful for my clients. I am paid to advocate for their interests and paid to tell them the truth.
So if you want someone to be a bishop over your life, to tilt at the windmills of their own past in your present, I'm not for you. If you want to fix a problem, come see me.
So, is family law my calling? No. It's my business.
Why would anyone sign on for this misery?
Some in my profession appear to posit that their's is a calling, that they are led to this line of work in the same way that preachers are. And like preachers, they claim passion and deeply held, fervent beliefs. They hold convictions and operate from dogma about how things must be. Their client's lives become testaments to the attorney's convictions. And the family drama plays out in moralistic terms, good versus evil and righteousness must prevail. There is the victor and there must be the vanquished.
I definitely like what I do. I don't want to do anything else, work wise. I'm drawn to the Courtroom, not because it is my life's mission but because I'm good at it. And I'm good at it because I like a good, serious legal contest. I'm good at it because I care to be. And I like what I do because I find meaning in helping real people obtain real solutions for real problems. What's not to like about that? Family law fits me.
I would hope that everyone should be able to make a living, doing what they enjoy. It makes life richer.
But I don't hold dogmatic positions. I don't pass judgment. I don't exact my principles on my client's lives. I do bring all my talents to bear on their issues. I make solutions.
I'm not a preacher. I'm not a saint. I'm not a voluteer. I'm a mercenary. I am well paid to be successful for my clients. I am paid to advocate for their interests and paid to tell them the truth.
So if you want someone to be a bishop over your life, to tilt at the windmills of their own past in your present, I'm not for you. If you want to fix a problem, come see me.
So, is family law my calling? No. It's my business.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
It's finally over.
So, how does it feel to finally be divorced?
Imagine, you've suffered through years of increasing distance in your relationship, growing enmity, resulting in downright hostility, and you eventually muster the energy, the inititative to retain an attorney, to finally seek your freedom.
I just finished a tortuous divorce trial that extended over a month. Now, I didn't try this case every day for a month, but it started a month ago and, with a bit here and a bit there, the trial concluded today. Even more importantly, this divorce was filed by a former counsel quite some time ago and had not lingered but had been actively litigated from day one.
The opposing party in this divorce practiced Machiavellian parenting. She was (is) out there. She feels the children are her property and, if she could, she would keep them under lock and key, away from her husband who had the tamarity to leave her. The opposing party's mission in life was to make my client's life as miserable as possible. In that way, her attitude in the divorce was not terribly dissimilar to her attitude in the marriage.
She used the divorce to torture my client every step of the way, and did all that she could to keep the divorce from being final. She couldn't let him go. She wouldn't let him go. She was going to keep him forever.
So we bruisingly battled through each and every possible issue that the opposing party could concoct. No matter how easily the issue could have been settled, she wouldn't hear of it. Everything needed to be tried.
Throughout the ordeal I had the distinct impression that this woman was hunting my client. I can only imagine how trapped like a caged animal he felt. My firm was the only thing standing between this possessed woman and my client's annihilation. If she had her way, my client would have been crushed under her heal in eternity.
So, despite his worst fears that it might not ever happen, today my client got his divorce.
Now he is liberated.
His long nightmare is finally over. The woman who had her clutches, nails, whatever, dug into him for so many years, no longer has that hold on him.
Tonight he is popping the champagne, just beginning to sense his independence. His full blown knowledge of freedom will take a long time to set in. But for tonight, the first taste is so, so sweet.
Happy Divorce Day, buddy.
Michael Manely
Imagine, you've suffered through years of increasing distance in your relationship, growing enmity, resulting in downright hostility, and you eventually muster the energy, the inititative to retain an attorney, to finally seek your freedom.
I just finished a tortuous divorce trial that extended over a month. Now, I didn't try this case every day for a month, but it started a month ago and, with a bit here and a bit there, the trial concluded today. Even more importantly, this divorce was filed by a former counsel quite some time ago and had not lingered but had been actively litigated from day one.
The opposing party in this divorce practiced Machiavellian parenting. She was (is) out there. She feels the children are her property and, if she could, she would keep them under lock and key, away from her husband who had the tamarity to leave her. The opposing party's mission in life was to make my client's life as miserable as possible. In that way, her attitude in the divorce was not terribly dissimilar to her attitude in the marriage.
She used the divorce to torture my client every step of the way, and did all that she could to keep the divorce from being final. She couldn't let him go. She wouldn't let him go. She was going to keep him forever.
So we bruisingly battled through each and every possible issue that the opposing party could concoct. No matter how easily the issue could have been settled, she wouldn't hear of it. Everything needed to be tried.
Throughout the ordeal I had the distinct impression that this woman was hunting my client. I can only imagine how trapped like a caged animal he felt. My firm was the only thing standing between this possessed woman and my client's annihilation. If she had her way, my client would have been crushed under her heal in eternity.
So, despite his worst fears that it might not ever happen, today my client got his divorce.
Now he is liberated.
His long nightmare is finally over. The woman who had her clutches, nails, whatever, dug into him for so many years, no longer has that hold on him.
Tonight he is popping the champagne, just beginning to sense his independence. His full blown knowledge of freedom will take a long time to set in. But for tonight, the first taste is so, so sweet.
Happy Divorce Day, buddy.
Michael Manely
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Long Term Consequences
I've recently worked on a matter that highlights a critical difference in different firm's philosophies.
The matter was a modification action. A modification is a post divorce action where one ex spouse claims that there has been a "material change in circumstances," so much so that whatever was ordered in the divorce, should now be changed. A modification action is most often either a modification of child custody or a modification of child support.
This case was a modification of child support. The opposing party contended that the parties' incomes had materially changed so that he should now pay less child support.
As I worked through the basis of the opposing party's argument and evidence his case seemed piddly. He had nothing much to argue about with very little reason to bring an action and very little likelihood of success.
As I worked with the client, learned the history of the parties and got down to the core issues, I figured out the motivation of the suit, and it wasn't financial.
In her divorce, my client had hired a rather infamous attorney who practice what I call scorched earth litigation. No one survived his wrath in the courtroom. His litigation style felt like the Harry Potter characters describe the dementors. My client hired this fellow because she thought her soon to be ex was difficult and stubborn and needed an aggressive attorney to bring her divorce to a successful conclusion. What she wanted was a firm hand. What she got, apparently, was armegedon.
As my client expressed, you never knew what this attorney would say in the courtoom, but she quickly learned it wasn't going to be good. She found herself cringing for her in laws and husband's friends as they endured this counsel's harsh, cruel onslaught.
As she reports, her husband, now her ex, received a much worse result if he'd just been reasonable. I submit, so did she. For ever since the divorce, the ex has been constantly cantankerous, mean, vengeful, spiteful, and sometimes even wicked in his treatment of his ex wife, my client.
As I came to realize, the opposing party still felt brutalized by the divorce, by the scorched earth counsel. The opposing party was vengeful allright. He wanted my client's metaphoric blood and his thirst for vengeance seemed to grow stronger with each passing year.
This ex, this opposing party, was still battling through the beating he'd received in the courtroom. This man had become a bit of a monster, where as before the divorce he was just stupidly difficult.
Scorched earth can be a succesful strategy for attorneys. We look tough; we act tough; we beat up the opposition and then we walk away. At the end of the case whether its divorce, modifcation or contempt, we just walk away. But it's our clients who live with the aftermath. They can't walk away. They can't escape the harm we've caused. Good strategy for the attorney, bad strategy for the client.
Aggressive representation sounds serious; it sounds firm; it sounds like it commands respect. But I've found that far more often than not, aggressive representation yields negative consequences for the client for years to come. Parents, already torn assunder by the nature of divorce itself, become bitter enemies, ever more distrustful, never fully enjoying the moments with their children without looking over their shoulder with cynical eyes. With the additional pain inflicted by scorched earth, or aggressive representation, the pain endures and grows. The healing takes much, much longer, if it can ever occur at all.
Aggressive representation is unnecessary and counter productive. If your position is true, if your cause is just, the truth will out. Nastyness only clouds your merits.
In the matter I'm writing about, as his ex's new counsel, I worked toward getting the opposing party past that divorce trial and into the 21st Century. While he was successful at harassing his ex a little longer just by filing his modification action, he wasn't successful at lowering his child support. But, just as importantly, I helped moved this couple along a little bit further toward re-forming their relationship as good parents to their children.
Objectively and subjectively that's the right a result. Those are long term consequences that parents can live with. Those are long term consequences I can espouse.
Michael Manely
The matter was a modification action. A modification is a post divorce action where one ex spouse claims that there has been a "material change in circumstances," so much so that whatever was ordered in the divorce, should now be changed. A modification action is most often either a modification of child custody or a modification of child support.
This case was a modification of child support. The opposing party contended that the parties' incomes had materially changed so that he should now pay less child support.
As I worked through the basis of the opposing party's argument and evidence his case seemed piddly. He had nothing much to argue about with very little reason to bring an action and very little likelihood of success.
As I worked with the client, learned the history of the parties and got down to the core issues, I figured out the motivation of the suit, and it wasn't financial.
In her divorce, my client had hired a rather infamous attorney who practice what I call scorched earth litigation. No one survived his wrath in the courtroom. His litigation style felt like the Harry Potter characters describe the dementors. My client hired this fellow because she thought her soon to be ex was difficult and stubborn and needed an aggressive attorney to bring her divorce to a successful conclusion. What she wanted was a firm hand. What she got, apparently, was armegedon.
As my client expressed, you never knew what this attorney would say in the courtoom, but she quickly learned it wasn't going to be good. She found herself cringing for her in laws and husband's friends as they endured this counsel's harsh, cruel onslaught.
As she reports, her husband, now her ex, received a much worse result if he'd just been reasonable. I submit, so did she. For ever since the divorce, the ex has been constantly cantankerous, mean, vengeful, spiteful, and sometimes even wicked in his treatment of his ex wife, my client.
As I came to realize, the opposing party still felt brutalized by the divorce, by the scorched earth counsel. The opposing party was vengeful allright. He wanted my client's metaphoric blood and his thirst for vengeance seemed to grow stronger with each passing year.
This ex, this opposing party, was still battling through the beating he'd received in the courtroom. This man had become a bit of a monster, where as before the divorce he was just stupidly difficult.
Scorched earth can be a succesful strategy for attorneys. We look tough; we act tough; we beat up the opposition and then we walk away. At the end of the case whether its divorce, modifcation or contempt, we just walk away. But it's our clients who live with the aftermath. They can't walk away. They can't escape the harm we've caused. Good strategy for the attorney, bad strategy for the client.
Aggressive representation sounds serious; it sounds firm; it sounds like it commands respect. But I've found that far more often than not, aggressive representation yields negative consequences for the client for years to come. Parents, already torn assunder by the nature of divorce itself, become bitter enemies, ever more distrustful, never fully enjoying the moments with their children without looking over their shoulder with cynical eyes. With the additional pain inflicted by scorched earth, or aggressive representation, the pain endures and grows. The healing takes much, much longer, if it can ever occur at all.
Aggressive representation is unnecessary and counter productive. If your position is true, if your cause is just, the truth will out. Nastyness only clouds your merits.
In the matter I'm writing about, as his ex's new counsel, I worked toward getting the opposing party past that divorce trial and into the 21st Century. While he was successful at harassing his ex a little longer just by filing his modification action, he wasn't successful at lowering his child support. But, just as importantly, I helped moved this couple along a little bit further toward re-forming their relationship as good parents to their children.
Objectively and subjectively that's the right a result. Those are long term consequences that parents can live with. Those are long term consequences I can espouse.
Michael Manely
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
"Spacebook"
Tonight's installment comes courtesy of our own Elizabeth Marum.
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Attorneys.asp
___________________________________________
I am amazed at the wonder that is online social networking. Between the constant updates and reminders of friends near and far, new and old, it makes you feel connected and “caught up” with everyone. Until one day a nostalgic run through an old online photo album reminds you that you really aren’t “caught up” with your best friend from college but have been comforted into feeling in touch by regular “status” updates. In fact, you haven’t talked to her in two years!
Whether you are a Myspace, Facebook, Hi5, Twitter or whatever networker, there are inherent dangers to the use of these networks that aren’t advertised in the marketing materials. I think you know what I mean.
These dangers are becoming particularly apparent in the divorce cases we work in our offices. The obsession with digging into our partners, spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends and family member’s “secret” dealings are no longer limited to just searching phones, texts and emails, but our desire to find more now has a bounty of information and wasted time in the online social networks. The casual “friending” atmosphere has lead us to a world where we easily “friend” unknowns, barely knowns, friends of friends of friends of friends, or worse... the dreaded exes.
Ex-wifes, ex-husbands, ex-girlfriends, ex-girlfriends, ex-lovers or even, the ex-best friend (of whom your spouse has always had his/her suspicions!).
Why we think that we can somehow “friend” the exes who tore at our souls and left empty shells recovering for weeks, months or years is a phenomenon of the online world. While it is sometimes the case that exes become friends and actually speak or see each other in their new (real) worlds, it is even more frequent and much easier for us to “friend” our exes in the safe online arena where we don’t have to see them in real life. I argue that this comes with risk. Risk of getting “caught”.
By caught, I don’t just mean our current love interest, but “caught” by our own potential to obsess, frequently follow updates and even, yes, cyber stalk their pages for evidence of their lives outside the internet. Even in the most innocent of circumstances, if someone you love sees that you are “now friends with” your ex, there is bound to be fall out. Chances are, without the Spacebook medium we wouldn’t even know what we were missing, probably wouldn’t think about it and wouldn’t care that we didn’t think about it much at all.
We’ve all heard the warnings about the dangers of the internet social world and the downfall of good old telephone, or (shocker!) in-person, communication. We should probably all delete our online social networking sites or cutdown our “friends” list to people that you actually know and communicate with off the internet. There are plenty of “how to’s” on deleting your Facebook, Myspace, etc. out there.
But you probably won’t.
So if you are keeping your social networking account, here are a few pointers:
• If going through a divorce, separation or otherwise, don’t verbally attach, debase, or slander your spouse.
• Do keep your personal information personal. Surely, all 587 of your friends don’t NEED to know how much of a harpy your soon-to-be-ex-wife is.
• Don’t advertise that you are not at home or out of town (not just thieves are looking for you, but your estranged spouse may want revenge).
• Realize that everyone knows who and when you friend someone or when you comment, so you may want to be open and honest with your new wife about your recent “friending” of your ex-wife (with whom you do not speak).
• Do not admit that you participated in an otherwise unmentionable activity with your husband’s best friend in an angry wall post.
Because there is probably someone stalking your page and they WILL capture that screen, save and print the evidence before handing it to their divorce attorney.
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Attorneys.asp
___________________________________________
I am amazed at the wonder that is online social networking. Between the constant updates and reminders of friends near and far, new and old, it makes you feel connected and “caught up” with everyone. Until one day a nostalgic run through an old online photo album reminds you that you really aren’t “caught up” with your best friend from college but have been comforted into feeling in touch by regular “status” updates. In fact, you haven’t talked to her in two years!
Whether you are a Myspace, Facebook, Hi5, Twitter or whatever networker, there are inherent dangers to the use of these networks that aren’t advertised in the marketing materials. I think you know what I mean.
These dangers are becoming particularly apparent in the divorce cases we work in our offices. The obsession with digging into our partners, spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends and family member’s “secret” dealings are no longer limited to just searching phones, texts and emails, but our desire to find more now has a bounty of information and wasted time in the online social networks. The casual “friending” atmosphere has lead us to a world where we easily “friend” unknowns, barely knowns, friends of friends of friends of friends, or worse... the dreaded exes.
Ex-wifes, ex-husbands, ex-girlfriends, ex-girlfriends, ex-lovers or even, the ex-best friend (of whom your spouse has always had his/her suspicions!).
Why we think that we can somehow “friend” the exes who tore at our souls and left empty shells recovering for weeks, months or years is a phenomenon of the online world. While it is sometimes the case that exes become friends and actually speak or see each other in their new (real) worlds, it is even more frequent and much easier for us to “friend” our exes in the safe online arena where we don’t have to see them in real life. I argue that this comes with risk. Risk of getting “caught”.
By caught, I don’t just mean our current love interest, but “caught” by our own potential to obsess, frequently follow updates and even, yes, cyber stalk their pages for evidence of their lives outside the internet. Even in the most innocent of circumstances, if someone you love sees that you are “now friends with” your ex, there is bound to be fall out. Chances are, without the Spacebook medium we wouldn’t even know what we were missing, probably wouldn’t think about it and wouldn’t care that we didn’t think about it much at all.
We’ve all heard the warnings about the dangers of the internet social world and the downfall of good old telephone, or (shocker!) in-person, communication. We should probably all delete our online social networking sites or cutdown our “friends” list to people that you actually know and communicate with off the internet. There are plenty of “how to’s” on deleting your Facebook, Myspace, etc. out there.
But you probably won’t.
So if you are keeping your social networking account, here are a few pointers:
• If going through a divorce, separation or otherwise, don’t verbally attach, debase, or slander your spouse.
• Do keep your personal information personal. Surely, all 587 of your friends don’t NEED to know how much of a harpy your soon-to-be-ex-wife is.
• Don’t advertise that you are not at home or out of town (not just thieves are looking for you, but your estranged spouse may want revenge).
• Realize that everyone knows who and when you friend someone or when you comment, so you may want to be open and honest with your new wife about your recent “friending” of your ex-wife (with whom you do not speak).
• Do not admit that you participated in an otherwise unmentionable activity with your husband’s best friend in an angry wall post.
Because there is probably someone stalking your page and they WILL capture that screen, save and print the evidence before handing it to their divorce attorney.
Elizabeth Marum
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
In the cross hairs.
It's one of the things that I love about this practice.
Recently, at a big, drawn out trial, I had battled my opposing counsel to the point where the judge told counsel that she did not have a case, that she had tried the case so poorly that she had presented nothing for the judge to rule on.
This is a significant difference between types of family law counsel. Some are pretty good at family law substantive issues but can't try their way out of box. Others of us realize that if you're going to be in court three to five times a week, you better be damned good at it.
So here was opposing counsel without a case, no way of winning, totally lost, destroyed, on the ropes with her client's life flashing before her eyes.
And that's when the magic happened. Up until that point opposing counsel and the opposing party had absolutely refused any meaningful discussion of settlement. But, now that they were in the cross hairs, my client proposed a perfectly fair settlement. With the judge's excellent help, the opposition finally realized they were in no position to refuse it.
And there, half way into the trial, the case settled, even when the opposing party would have been like a lamb to the slaughter.
I was proud of my client. He realized that being parents, being family, even post divorce, trumps victory.
We had them in the cross hairs, but he didn't pull the trigger. He lowered and holstered his arms.
Michael Manely
Recently, at a big, drawn out trial, I had battled my opposing counsel to the point where the judge told counsel that she did not have a case, that she had tried the case so poorly that she had presented nothing for the judge to rule on.
This is a significant difference between types of family law counsel. Some are pretty good at family law substantive issues but can't try their way out of box. Others of us realize that if you're going to be in court three to five times a week, you better be damned good at it.
So here was opposing counsel without a case, no way of winning, totally lost, destroyed, on the ropes with her client's life flashing before her eyes.
And that's when the magic happened. Up until that point opposing counsel and the opposing party had absolutely refused any meaningful discussion of settlement. But, now that they were in the cross hairs, my client proposed a perfectly fair settlement. With the judge's excellent help, the opposition finally realized they were in no position to refuse it.
And there, half way into the trial, the case settled, even when the opposing party would have been like a lamb to the slaughter.
I was proud of my client. He realized that being parents, being family, even post divorce, trumps victory.
We had them in the cross hairs, but he didn't pull the trigger. He lowered and holstered his arms.
Michael Manely
Monday, July 12, 2010
Child Appropriate Killing
The other night, I was asking my 21 year old about whether he would recommend "Iron Man" for family viewing. Our family includes our seven year old. "Sure," he replied, "I mean, its got some violence but only child appropriate killing."
That phrase immediately struck me. What does that mean? It means what it says, "Child Appropriate Killing."
We didn't rent that movie.
A few days later, our seven year old was watching a movie we purchased for him some months before. He'd seen it several times. I stopped to watch a few minutes as I passed through the den. It was "Spy Next Door" with Jackie Chan. In the scenes I saw, some bad guy had Chan and some children tied up. He was pointing a gun at Chan's head threatening to kill them all. Chan got loose and beat up the bad guys. Just a few scenes later, another bad guy had a gun pointed a Chan's head telling him that the bad guy will do Chan a favor; the bad guy will kill Chan first so that Chan doesn't have to watch the bad guy killing the kids.
This is supposed to be a kids' movie. It was marketed as a kids' movie. And our kids are supposed to process bad guys killing them? Is that child appropriate killing?
Some folks will certainly argue that I'm getting all worked up over some harmless violence. (Now there's an oxymoron if every I heard one.) That a little dramatic killing or threats of killing doesn't harm anyone.
There's enough bad stuff in real life that I have no idea why we want to fantasize about more bad stuff. Is this thanatos at work? Is this our collective death wish? Certainly, all our exposure to fantasy violence over the years has not made the crime rate get any better. Maybe we ought to explore our seemingly constant flirtation with the dark side and give it a long rest, starting with the children.
I'm not asserting "the innocence of child hood." I'm not saying that the children have to be protected from bad things. As parents, we do our level best to protect our children from bad things happening to them. But I am not an advocate of sugar coating the world for the kiddies. The Gulf Oil Spill? Bad. War? Bad. Murder? Bad. Not nonexistent, but existent and bad. And kids have a need and a right to know about that.
I'm not even an advocate of sparing the children of the news of divorce and the particulars as it relates to them. Many children grow up under far worse conditions. And the divorce should actually make life better, no more fighting, or just about as brutal, deathly silence in the home.
I'm a straight out advocate for sharing reality.
But this fantasy we have, this license we allow to expose ourselves and our children to to mock violence borders on the pornographic. Our culture is saturated in fantasy violence and plenty to go around for the children, safely rated in the PG variety. For me, I cannot fathom anything that would constitute child appropriate killing.
Now, enough of tonight's rant. Me and the family have to get back to watching "Avatar."
Michael Manely
That phrase immediately struck me. What does that mean? It means what it says, "Child Appropriate Killing."
We didn't rent that movie.
A few days later, our seven year old was watching a movie we purchased for him some months before. He'd seen it several times. I stopped to watch a few minutes as I passed through the den. It was "Spy Next Door" with Jackie Chan. In the scenes I saw, some bad guy had Chan and some children tied up. He was pointing a gun at Chan's head threatening to kill them all. Chan got loose and beat up the bad guys. Just a few scenes later, another bad guy had a gun pointed a Chan's head telling him that the bad guy will do Chan a favor; the bad guy will kill Chan first so that Chan doesn't have to watch the bad guy killing the kids.
This is supposed to be a kids' movie. It was marketed as a kids' movie. And our kids are supposed to process bad guys killing them? Is that child appropriate killing?
Some folks will certainly argue that I'm getting all worked up over some harmless violence. (Now there's an oxymoron if every I heard one.) That a little dramatic killing or threats of killing doesn't harm anyone.
There's enough bad stuff in real life that I have no idea why we want to fantasize about more bad stuff. Is this thanatos at work? Is this our collective death wish? Certainly, all our exposure to fantasy violence over the years has not made the crime rate get any better. Maybe we ought to explore our seemingly constant flirtation with the dark side and give it a long rest, starting with the children.
I'm not asserting "the innocence of child hood." I'm not saying that the children have to be protected from bad things. As parents, we do our level best to protect our children from bad things happening to them. But I am not an advocate of sugar coating the world for the kiddies. The Gulf Oil Spill? Bad. War? Bad. Murder? Bad. Not nonexistent, but existent and bad. And kids have a need and a right to know about that.
I'm not even an advocate of sparing the children of the news of divorce and the particulars as it relates to them. Many children grow up under far worse conditions. And the divorce should actually make life better, no more fighting, or just about as brutal, deathly silence in the home.
I'm a straight out advocate for sharing reality.
But this fantasy we have, this license we allow to expose ourselves and our children to to mock violence borders on the pornographic. Our culture is saturated in fantasy violence and plenty to go around for the children, safely rated in the PG variety. For me, I cannot fathom anything that would constitute child appropriate killing.
Now, enough of tonight's rant. Me and the family have to get back to watching "Avatar."
Michael Manely
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Kids
I am painfully aware that I have taken an unacceptably long hiatus from this blog. As you can tell, in part from the last post, the events of the month and our trial schedule has kept me occupied and away from this nightly duty.
_____________
I once handled a matter that involved a teenage girl who was the bane of her parents' existence.
Of course, many of my cases involve kids. Usually the questions are who gets the kids, who spends time with the kids, who makes important decisions about the kids? Often enough the children are involved on some level. The kids almost always know about custody questions and, particularly if they are of age, often want to have a say. The gal I'm writing about tonight wanted to run the whole show. She caused great trouble in her parents' divorce and she was quite aware of it.
Somehow, somewhere, the parents had put her in charge. Everything had to be cleared by her. What she didn't like, didn't happen. "How would this be for you, dear?" "Mommy, I don't like it!" "Okay, then, we won't do it." You can imagine.
So here her parents were divorcing, I presume with her blessing, but she insisted on running that show, too. And, in little girl fashion, her interference was not marginal, not subtle, but had to be center stage, occupying all energies and manifesting huge crises.
It was a nightmare.
As time wore on, one parent began to get it, began to try to reign the child in. The other parent continued to carry out the child's bidding. Do you want to guess which parent that child wanted to live with? When a teenager is given a choice between rules and absolute freedom to do what she wants, it is the rare teenager who knows that rules are in her best interest.
But the law gives that teenager a choice. And judge's are somewhat loathe to deny a teenager's wishes, particularly as they get older.
So the parent who enforces boundaries loses and of course the child loses. And the parent who is laissez-faire prevails.
And yes, sometimes the legal outcome makes no sense.
I think maybe the judges think the child is so far along and too far gone, that telling the child "no" on that particular judgment day, has very little lasting value. Insofar as the judge, a stranger, can step in and change family dynamics with a solitary judgment is concerned, it would be an exercise in pure hubris for that the judge to believe he would really make a difference.
And so the child is lost, at least temporarily, until the day she is tested, weighed, measured and hopefully on that fateful day, not found wanting.
We never really know. Only time will tell.
I can only hope that time will be kind.
Michael Manely
_____________
I once handled a matter that involved a teenage girl who was the bane of her parents' existence.
Of course, many of my cases involve kids. Usually the questions are who gets the kids, who spends time with the kids, who makes important decisions about the kids? Often enough the children are involved on some level. The kids almost always know about custody questions and, particularly if they are of age, often want to have a say. The gal I'm writing about tonight wanted to run the whole show. She caused great trouble in her parents' divorce and she was quite aware of it.
Somehow, somewhere, the parents had put her in charge. Everything had to be cleared by her. What she didn't like, didn't happen. "How would this be for you, dear?" "Mommy, I don't like it!" "Okay, then, we won't do it." You can imagine.
So here her parents were divorcing, I presume with her blessing, but she insisted on running that show, too. And, in little girl fashion, her interference was not marginal, not subtle, but had to be center stage, occupying all energies and manifesting huge crises.
It was a nightmare.
As time wore on, one parent began to get it, began to try to reign the child in. The other parent continued to carry out the child's bidding. Do you want to guess which parent that child wanted to live with? When a teenager is given a choice between rules and absolute freedom to do what she wants, it is the rare teenager who knows that rules are in her best interest.
But the law gives that teenager a choice. And judge's are somewhat loathe to deny a teenager's wishes, particularly as they get older.
So the parent who enforces boundaries loses and of course the child loses. And the parent who is laissez-faire prevails.
And yes, sometimes the legal outcome makes no sense.
I think maybe the judges think the child is so far along and too far gone, that telling the child "no" on that particular judgment day, has very little lasting value. Insofar as the judge, a stranger, can step in and change family dynamics with a solitary judgment is concerned, it would be an exercise in pure hubris for that the judge to believe he would really make a difference.
And so the child is lost, at least temporarily, until the day she is tested, weighed, measured and hopefully on that fateful day, not found wanting.
We never really know. Only time will tell.
I can only hope that time will be kind.
Michael Manely
Monday, May 17, 2010
Welcome home, girls.
As you may have noticed, we handle many international cases and many of those cases are custody cases invoking the Hague Convention.
The Hague Convention I'm referring to pertains to international jurisdiction over children in custody disputes. It most often is used when a spouse flees with the children to another country. Nation states that are signatories to the Hague have treaty obligations to each other to accept pre-determined standards to confer jurisdiction.
My firm has a wonderful track record on Hague cases. We have excellent working relationships with other attorneys across the globe and probably more international family law experience than any other Atlanta firm.
The case I'm writing about tonight just had a major development today.
We represent the father, who is American born but his parents are originally from Greece. The mother is from Cyprus. The parties take an annual vacation to Cyprus to visit the mother's parents and siblings. In the summer of 2008, the parties had their second daughter. Their oldest daughter was then four. In September, as in year's past, the parties flew to Cyprus.
When it came time to return, the mother said that neither she nor the girls were coming home. The mother stated that it had nothing to do with the father, she just hated Georgia in general and Cherokee County in particular. The father tried to run with the girls a few days later, but was physically stopped by the mother's brothers at the airport.
When the father returned home, he hired us. We filed a divorce and Hague action in Cherokee County before the Honorable Jackson Harris. The mother went to ground in Cyprus and hid out for months. We pursued the Hague action internationally, getting the State Department on board and then getting the action moving in Cyprus. The mother was finally found and served in Cyprus about a year after she had fled.
Cyprus held its trial over the course of a month in March and April of this year. Our office was fortunate enough to be a part of the Cyprus trial team each day as the strategy was developed and the questions were prepared.
On May 4, Cyprus gave us her ruling. The mother must return with the children to Woodstock, Georgia, by Friday, May 7.
On May 7, the children arrived at Hartsfield and the father met the plane. The mother was still acting as though she could control the courts so she quickly hurried the children off. We soon got beyond that barrier and, after an afternoon long visitation yesterday, the father got to take the girls home today.
Fortunately for me, the father was kind enough to stop by my office so that the staff and I could see the girls and weep for joy at their safe return. Seeing those girls beem at their daddy was one of the most satisfying moments I have had in my career. And I'm here to tell you I've had many satisfying moments in my career.
There are still some battles to be fought in this matter, all safely here at home. But for now, all is right with the world.
Welcome home, girls.
Michael Manely
The Hague Convention I'm referring to pertains to international jurisdiction over children in custody disputes. It most often is used when a spouse flees with the children to another country. Nation states that are signatories to the Hague have treaty obligations to each other to accept pre-determined standards to confer jurisdiction.
My firm has a wonderful track record on Hague cases. We have excellent working relationships with other attorneys across the globe and probably more international family law experience than any other Atlanta firm.
The case I'm writing about tonight just had a major development today.
We represent the father, who is American born but his parents are originally from Greece. The mother is from Cyprus. The parties take an annual vacation to Cyprus to visit the mother's parents and siblings. In the summer of 2008, the parties had their second daughter. Their oldest daughter was then four. In September, as in year's past, the parties flew to Cyprus.
When it came time to return, the mother said that neither she nor the girls were coming home. The mother stated that it had nothing to do with the father, she just hated Georgia in general and Cherokee County in particular. The father tried to run with the girls a few days later, but was physically stopped by the mother's brothers at the airport.
When the father returned home, he hired us. We filed a divorce and Hague action in Cherokee County before the Honorable Jackson Harris. The mother went to ground in Cyprus and hid out for months. We pursued the Hague action internationally, getting the State Department on board and then getting the action moving in Cyprus. The mother was finally found and served in Cyprus about a year after she had fled.
Cyprus held its trial over the course of a month in March and April of this year. Our office was fortunate enough to be a part of the Cyprus trial team each day as the strategy was developed and the questions were prepared.
On May 4, Cyprus gave us her ruling. The mother must return with the children to Woodstock, Georgia, by Friday, May 7.
On May 7, the children arrived at Hartsfield and the father met the plane. The mother was still acting as though she could control the courts so she quickly hurried the children off. We soon got beyond that barrier and, after an afternoon long visitation yesterday, the father got to take the girls home today.
Fortunately for me, the father was kind enough to stop by my office so that the staff and I could see the girls and weep for joy at their safe return. Seeing those girls beem at their daddy was one of the most satisfying moments I have had in my career. And I'm here to tell you I've had many satisfying moments in my career.
There are still some battles to be fought in this matter, all safely here at home. But for now, all is right with the world.
Welcome home, girls.
Michael Manely
Thursday, April 15, 2010
She took my husband.
As if he were a trout.
A North Carolina jury awarded an ex wife $9 million for alienation of affection against her ex husband's mistress. Now that's something. And I suppose it could take the sting out of betrayal. Maybe?
Here's the catch, the mistress didn't show for trial. That means that the ex wife was all alone, telling her side only. The mistress claimed she didn't know about the jury trial. All of that will be sorted out in Motions and Appeals.
And of course the mistress doesn't have $9 million and probably won't have it any time soon. The ex wife said she's using the lawsuit to send a message about extramarital affairs. "You don't go after married men and break up families, " the ex-wife said.
Georgia, like North Carolina, recognizes a tort of alienation of affection.
Even though the law is on the books, it is seldom pursued. I'm surprised at the North Carolina jury, even in the mistress' absence. Juries in Georgia tend to lend a cynical eye to most matters matrimonial. Georgia juries tend to take a rather realistic view that the husband is not a trout that can be snatched, unknowingly and unwillingly from the swift waters of marital bliss. A mistress doesn't break up a family. A wandering spouse does.
"She didn't take what was yours and it probably wasn't worth much anyway," seems to be the jury's attitude.
This is not to say that under the right circumstances and with the right jury and with a complete absence of opposition, a Georgia jury couldn't return a similar verdict. I just wouldn't hold my breath.
The financial damage done to the ex-wife is sought in the divorce itself, though not from a tort standpoint where you get damages from pain and suffering. (If divorcing spouses could get pain and suffering endured in a marriage it would be a very different world.) The model is more contractual or business related. You get a portion, usually a good portion, of what the marriage is worth, the holdings of the partnership. Under the right circumstances, you can get alimony to make up for the lost income to the household. (See other blog entries for more explanation on this.)
Every so often I am asked the alienation of affection question. It can't help but come up in an adulterous setting. But I focus back on the marriage, its dissolution, its assets, and the client looking for happiness that probably had been long gone from the relationship anyway. I discourage tilting at windmills.
Still, I must confess, if $9 million is out there somewhere from some paramour, I'm open to it.
Michael Manely
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/woman-sued-affair-9m-verdict-thrown/story?id=10209682
A North Carolina jury awarded an ex wife $9 million for alienation of affection against her ex husband's mistress. Now that's something. And I suppose it could take the sting out of betrayal. Maybe?
Here's the catch, the mistress didn't show for trial. That means that the ex wife was all alone, telling her side only. The mistress claimed she didn't know about the jury trial. All of that will be sorted out in Motions and Appeals.
And of course the mistress doesn't have $9 million and probably won't have it any time soon. The ex wife said she's using the lawsuit to send a message about extramarital affairs. "You don't go after married men and break up families, " the ex-wife said.
Georgia, like North Carolina, recognizes a tort of alienation of affection.
Even though the law is on the books, it is seldom pursued. I'm surprised at the North Carolina jury, even in the mistress' absence. Juries in Georgia tend to lend a cynical eye to most matters matrimonial. Georgia juries tend to take a rather realistic view that the husband is not a trout that can be snatched, unknowingly and unwillingly from the swift waters of marital bliss. A mistress doesn't break up a family. A wandering spouse does.
"She didn't take what was yours and it probably wasn't worth much anyway," seems to be the jury's attitude.
This is not to say that under the right circumstances and with the right jury and with a complete absence of opposition, a Georgia jury couldn't return a similar verdict. I just wouldn't hold my breath.
The financial damage done to the ex-wife is sought in the divorce itself, though not from a tort standpoint where you get damages from pain and suffering. (If divorcing spouses could get pain and suffering endured in a marriage it would be a very different world.) The model is more contractual or business related. You get a portion, usually a good portion, of what the marriage is worth, the holdings of the partnership. Under the right circumstances, you can get alimony to make up for the lost income to the household. (See other blog entries for more explanation on this.)
Every so often I am asked the alienation of affection question. It can't help but come up in an adulterous setting. But I focus back on the marriage, its dissolution, its assets, and the client looking for happiness that probably had been long gone from the relationship anyway. I discourage tilting at windmills.
Still, I must confess, if $9 million is out there somewhere from some paramour, I'm open to it.
Michael Manely
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/woman-sued-affair-9m-verdict-thrown/story?id=10209682
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Out with the Old, In with the New
Tonight's Blog Post is by Associate, Jeremy Abernathy. Click Here to learn more about Jeremy.
Our firm is located in the heart of the Marietta Square. Our office has great views. I see the hustle and bustle of city life. I see Glover Park and witness the flowers blooming in Spring.
I also hear the racket from the Marietta City construction taking place. The noise is loud, pounding, and continuous. Recently, however, the usual banging that I hear had a different ring to it. The noise was high- pitched and screeching- comparable to a cat slowing etching their claws into a chalkboard.
I got up and peered out the window. I noticed long sharp rails being yanked from about four feet below the surface (my measuring point was a 6 foot tall man whose head was about two feet above the pavement).
I called my fellow associate, Elizabeth Marum, to take a look. She, immediately suspected that the objects were trolley rails. (Elizabeth has vast miscellaneous knowledge!)
Mr. Manely, nearby as we were briefing and updating him on cases and hearings, confirmed Elizabeth’s suspicion and even provided the history of the trolley rails. (In the early 1900's the Atlanta trolley system extended to Marietta and the trolley turned around by circling the park.)
This journey back in time reminded me of horror stories I have heard about the history of Marietta regarding racial and religious intolerance. I must say that it is gratifying to see Marietta in it’s current state. I see all races and nationalities entering in different restaurants, movie theaters, and other establishments. I see diversity embraced. I see change welcomed.
It’s now one week later and I notice that the large hole from which the trolley lines were being pulled has been patched up. Cars pass over the hard, re-surfaced planes covering the holes.
Family law is like Marietta construction and Marietta history in this respect. The old wounds between opposing parties are deep and bruising (sometimes literally). The parties have contentious histories. The sundry horror stories outnumber the words in a Harry Potter or New Moon novel. Thus, construction (or reconstruction) is necessary.
As counsel for our clients, we must “do construction” in our clients’ lives. After the excavation of past wounds (the post-filing, pre-trial discovery process), we must lay the road for productive, fruitful travel (a successful settlement agreement or judicial decision).
At The Manely Firm P.C. we take pride in getting our clients off to the best start possible on their new life journeys. We care about the strategic, intelligent “re-paving” we do for our clients’ futures. We welcome re-constructing the “messy family law issues.”
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Gwinnett Mediation Process – What is it? How do we get there?
learn more about Stephanie.
You may have heard the phrase “Alternative Dispute Resolution” or “ADR”. This simply refers to a variety of methods used to resolve legal cases without a Judge hearing and deciding the case.
As the Gwinnett Superior Court ADR’s website aptly explains, “There are three primary processes [of alternative dispute resolution] available. Mediation, the most requested method of ADR in Gwinnett County, is a process in which a neutral third party facilitates settlement discussions between parties in conflict. Case evaluation is a process in which an experienced attorney gives advice on the strengths and weaknesses of each party's position and may make an assessment as to how a judge or jury might react in the case. Arbitration is more similar to a trial. The arbitrator issues a decision on the case following an abbreviated hearing under informal rules of evidence.”
In family law, we use mediation almost exclusively as an alternative way of resolving cases. In some Metro-Atlanta counties, you are required to attend mediation before the court will allow you to schedule a hearing. In other counties, it is an optional process. In still other counties, such as Gwinnett, the Judge decides whether domestic cases assigned to him/her must go to mediation prior to a hearing.
Once you know your case will go to mediation, the next step is to select a mediator. Every Metro-Atlanta county has a list of approved domestic mediators. These mediators are often, but not always, attorneys with at least 5 years practice in domestic cases. They are all trained extensively in conflict resolution. Don’t be fooled, though, as with most professionals, not all mediators are created equal!
In selecting a mediator, rely on your attorney’s advice. She or he knows you, your case, the opposing attorney, possibly the opposing party and the mediator. When choosing a mediator, it is important to keep in mind the personalities and proclivities of each person who will be involved.
For example, if you are a father seeking primary custody of your children, you probably would not want to use a mediator who advocates mothers obtaining primary custody. Another example would be if you are a shy person, it may be difficult to work with a mediator who has a very strong personality. Again, though, it depends on the individuals involved.
If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, the Judge will assign one.
When you arrive for mediation, check in with the friendly folks in the ADR office and let them know you’re there. They will wait for both attorneys, both parties and the mediator to arrive and then lead everyone to a private room for the mediation.
Later this week, I’ll post another blog explaining what exactly goes on behind the closed doors of mediation.
For more information on Gwinnett County’s ADR processes, visit their website at Gwinnet County ADR
Here are a few other helpful ADR websites:
Cobb County ADR
Fulton County ADR
DeKalb County ADR
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Revenge is a dish which is best served cold.
Last night I wrote about plotting spouses having a special place in hell reserved. Tonight I write about how plotting can be your best strategy.
As with all of life, whether it is ethical or moral to plot is a judgment call. In tonight's scenario, you get the notion that your spouse is seeing someone else. Maybe they're hyper sensitive about you being in proximity to their cell phone. Maybe they have unaccounted for hours. But you have a hunch. What do you do?
First you need to decide if you care to confirm your suspicions. Does it matter if they are definitely committing adultery? Do you really want out anyway? Even if you are leaving, are you the kind of person who needs to know just for your sense of balance? If so, then you should confirm.
Don't expect your spouse to come clean when you ask them. They don't. They usually don't confess when you confront them. They will often have an excuse, no matter how paltry, even if you have an 8x12 glossy of them deep in the throes. They won't confirm. You need another strategy.
You need to catch them.
Private Investigators are the time honored method of catching cheating spouses. I swear by them. If you can tailor their work to specific times when your spouse is most likely to be stepping out, private investigators can be reasonably affordable. But that isn't your only recourse.
Back to my point: you've decided you want or need to confirm. Perhaps your need stems from your legal situation. Perhaps your spouse will likely seek alimony from the divorce and you feel that your spouse shouldn't feed off of you while dining at someone else's table.
Adultery is a bar to receiving alimony.
If your spouse is cheating, they cannot prosper. You don't have to pay alimony to an unfaithful spouse.
This is the occasion to plot, to plan, to marshal your evidence before you announce your intentions. This strategy is fair game. Why? Because your spouse has plotted against you to engage in her relationship with her paramour and expects an unjust reward based upon her deceipt.
You can right that wrong. It's ethical, moral and legal.
The title to tonight's installment may be a bit strong. It's a James Bond reference. But it speaks volumes for having patience to accomplish your objectives. It speaks to the fortitude you have to have while you are collecting the evidence you need to ensure that justice prevails. Your revenge, the cessation of your gravy train, is best and most certainly delivered, long after your blood has ceased to boil, but has chilled in your veins.
Okay, that's a bit strong, too. But this is a serious business. And it is no less serious than the situation you face, if this is your situation. Serious times call for serious measures. I won't excuse it. I don't have to justify it. I just have to prove it. But then, that's what I do.
Michael Manely
As with all of life, whether it is ethical or moral to plot is a judgment call. In tonight's scenario, you get the notion that your spouse is seeing someone else. Maybe they're hyper sensitive about you being in proximity to their cell phone. Maybe they have unaccounted for hours. But you have a hunch. What do you do?
First you need to decide if you care to confirm your suspicions. Does it matter if they are definitely committing adultery? Do you really want out anyway? Even if you are leaving, are you the kind of person who needs to know just for your sense of balance? If so, then you should confirm.
Don't expect your spouse to come clean when you ask them. They don't. They usually don't confess when you confront them. They will often have an excuse, no matter how paltry, even if you have an 8x12 glossy of them deep in the throes. They won't confirm. You need another strategy.
You need to catch them.
Private Investigators are the time honored method of catching cheating spouses. I swear by them. If you can tailor their work to specific times when your spouse is most likely to be stepping out, private investigators can be reasonably affordable. But that isn't your only recourse.
Back to my point: you've decided you want or need to confirm. Perhaps your need stems from your legal situation. Perhaps your spouse will likely seek alimony from the divorce and you feel that your spouse shouldn't feed off of you while dining at someone else's table.
Adultery is a bar to receiving alimony.
If your spouse is cheating, they cannot prosper. You don't have to pay alimony to an unfaithful spouse.
This is the occasion to plot, to plan, to marshal your evidence before you announce your intentions. This strategy is fair game. Why? Because your spouse has plotted against you to engage in her relationship with her paramour and expects an unjust reward based upon her deceipt.
You can right that wrong. It's ethical, moral and legal.
The title to tonight's installment may be a bit strong. It's a James Bond reference. But it speaks volumes for having patience to accomplish your objectives. It speaks to the fortitude you have to have while you are collecting the evidence you need to ensure that justice prevails. Your revenge, the cessation of your gravy train, is best and most certainly delivered, long after your blood has ceased to boil, but has chilled in your veins.
Okay, that's a bit strong, too. But this is a serious business. And it is no less serious than the situation you face, if this is your situation. Serious times call for serious measures. I won't excuse it. I don't have to justify it. I just have to prove it. But then, that's what I do.
Michael Manely
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
