BLANK

Tag: reasons

So I want to ask my dad to divorce my mom.

So I want to ask my dad to divorce my mom. She has a troublesome personality, to say. I’m currently 16 and the relationship between not just me and my mother, but also the one between her and my father, is not good in the slightest. Should I ask him? 

Before answering this question myself, I looked at the other answers that have already been provided because I was expecting at least one of them to be along the lines of, “Whether your parents divorce is their choice, and thus none of your business.” And indeed I did. 

It’s a comforting, and thus attempting, position to adopt. But it’s utterly false. 

Given that you are now 16 years old and have, according to you, lived a life in the company of two enemies who happen to be spouses clearly makes your parents’ marriage and the possibility of divorce “your business.” 

Being 16 years old, you are at a unique point in your life where you are starting to think and act more like an adult, but you are still a child. Unless you are unusually mature and wise for your age, there are still many things about adulthood and marriage and family life you don’t completely understand, so you need to respect your parents’ history and experience and thinking on the subject of divorce, if their positions on the subject differ from your own. At the same time, however, given that you have been living in a dysfunctional family for 16 years, your experience, observations, desires, and opinions clearly have weight as well. 

If you determine that you have, in fairness and objectivity, determined in your own mind that your parents would be better off divorced, and you can persuasively articulate why, I can’t think of any reason why you wouldn’t have not only good reason, but the right as well, to argue the case for divorce to your parents. 

If your parents refused to divorce, and you cannot bear to spend another moment of an acrimony-filled existence at home, another option you might consider would be having your parents permit you to leave their custody to live with grandparents or an aunt or uncle or older sibling who might be willing to take you in, if such an option exists. Depending upon the circumstances, that could be done on an informal basis without having to go through a guardianship proceeding, or it may require court action. 

Finally, and as I mentioned before, if you happen to be mature and wise beyond your years, if you are able to support yourself financially (meaning that you can earn enough income to house, feed, and close yourself without contribution from your parents or the government), you might have the option of petitioning a court to declare you legally emancipated before you turn 18 years of age. 

Either way, if your parents don’t want to divorce and you can stand being enmeshed in their dysfunctional marriage another moment, living away from them could be the right thing for you, if circumstances are conducive to it. 

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277  

https://www.quora.com/So-I-want-to-ask-my-dad-to-divorce-my-mom-She-has-a-troublesome-personality-to-say-Im-currently-16-and-the-relationship-between-not-just-me-and-my-mother-but-also-the-one-between-her-and-my-father-is-not-good-in-the-1/answer/Eric-Johnson-311  

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

How do I stop being afraid of divorcing?

How do I stop being afraid of divorcing? I’m so scared. I’ve been a stay-at-home mother for 18 years. I have health issues. I don’t know if I can provide for myself.

Good on you for asking the question before you decide whether to jump into the deep end of divorce with both feet. Divorcing without having any idea whether it will do you and your family more harm than good rarely ends well. 

Most urgent question: If I stay married, does that put my life at risk, i.e., am I at serious risk of my spouse maiming or killing me? If the answer is yes, then you need to run, not walk, away now, get to safety from being killed, and worry about divorce and the aftermath later. No marriage is worth staying in, no spouse worth staying with, if your spouse is murderously violent. Even if leaving your spouse leaves you penniless at the moment, you can overcome that problem. It is not worth risking your life for material comforts. 

If your dysfunctional life/marriage is not life-threatening: then the answer to your question is, as a matter of fact, easy to find. The difficulty lies not in finding the answer, but summoning the courage and the will to act in accordance with the answer. 

How to analyze your situation. Here is a simple but highly clear and effective way to analyze your question to get to the answer used by Ben Carson. Dr. Carson is the former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and before that was one of the best neurosurgeons in the world. Before that, he grew up without a poor black child in the care of a mentally ill mother. He knows a little bit about problems and how to tackle them successfully. One of the ways to identify and choose acceptable risks is to ask yourself four questions, or do what Dr. Carson calls a Best/Worst Analysis (B/WA): 

  • What is the best thing that can happen if I do this? 
  • What is the worst thing that can happen if I do this? 
  • What is the best thing that can happen if I don’t do it? 
  • What is the worst thing that can happen if I don’t do it? 

Ask and answer key questions. Here are some (some, not all) of the questions you should ask in conducting your best/worst assessment: 

  • The question of why. Why am I contemplating divorce? Divorcing for the wrong reason(s) will almost surely result in divorce doing you (and your spouse and children) wrong. 
    • It’s not just good to ask why, it’s crucial. Undertaking anything without knowing why you are doing it (and whether you should) results in poor, haphazard preparation and planning, wasted time, effort, and money, unnecessary fear, and doubt, and flagging focus and motivation. “If you know the why, you can live any how.“ (Friedrich Nietzsche) 
    • A key “why” question: Am I hoping to “escape”? Let me explain what I mean. Taking pain pills to treat pain to help you heal better or faster from an illness or injury is good. Taking pain pills in an effort to escape the burdens of life only makes things (a lot) worse. 
    • If you see divorce or marriage as a means of escaping personal unhappiness, guilt, fear, weaknesses, etc., then you are thinking about divorce and marriage wrong. If you are broken and marriage or divorce is a necessary step you need to take toward repairing yourself, then you’re on the right track. But staying married or divorcing to avoid responsibility for yourself and your demons will only result in 1) your personal weaknesses and their consequences getting worse, and 2) causing your spouse and children unnecessary and unfair collateral damage. 
      • If you determine that divorce is an escape, research and find a good therapist or counselor to help you identify the real problems, the root of the problems, and what is needed to solve the problems. Taking that first step is, fortunately, easy. Once you’ve found someone competent, it really is as simple as making and keeping an appointment. The therapy itself will be as messy and upsetting as it is curative and restorative, but it is worth it. It is. 
  • Is it a question of can’t or won’t?: If you honestly conclude that you need to divorce, are you afraid to divorce because you can’t take care of yourself or because you don’t want to take care of yourself? If you can’t take care of yourself, divorce may not be practical (trading the misery of unhappy marriage for the misery of poverty just exchanges one form or misery for another). If you can take care of yourself, perhaps you are not afraid of whether you can make it on your own but afraid to go back to work and/or live a reduced lifestyle. 
    • If you can, and you are willing to do the work required, then figure out what is needed to achieve an single, independent, post-divorce life and the best way(s) to do so. 
    • Bare minimum you need to have in place to be an independent adult: 
      • church or other support system to help you get started and to guide you and encourage you (and remember: contribute as much or more than you “withdraw”; if your church gives you money or helps with groceries, then “pay it back” by volunteering, teach Sunday school, babysit your fellow parishioners’ kids sometimes, clean the chapel, help the pastor, visit the sick, etc. It will not only help keep your support system strong, it will help you be happier too, and you won’t feel like a moocher because you won’t be a moocher) 
      • a job or jobs that generate sufficient income to support your needs. 
      • budget 
      • shelter you can afford (with essential utilities and furnishings) 
      • food you can afford 
      • clothing you can afford 
      • bank or credit union account 
      • phone and phone plan 
      • health insurance 
      • driver’s license (even if you don’t yet own a car; you may be called upon to drive or rent a car sometimes) 
      • tool kit 
      • friend 
      • hobby (start with a library card) 
      • emergency (rainy day) fund

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277  

https://www.quora.com/Ive-never-asked-anything-on-here-before-How-do-I-stop-being-afraid-of-divorcing-just-do-it-Im-so-scared-Ive-been-a-SAHM-for-18-years-Any-advice-is-appreciated-I-have-health-issues-IDK-if-I-can-provide-for-myself/answer/Eric-Johnson-311  

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

What is a complete list of reasons someone can file child support that cannot be fought?

What is a complete list of reasons someone can file child support that cannot be fought?

There is no such list; however, here is my list of pretty dang safe bets that you’ll be paying child support if one or more of these factors are met:

You are the biological or adoptive parent of the child for whom child support is sought and:

You meet all the statutory/regulatory criteria for your jurisdiction to obligate a parent to pay child support.

You have substantially more money than you need on a monthly basis, i.e., a surplus of money that you can obvious spare for the payment of child support.

Or you are found to be able to earn or otherwise obtain more money than you need on a monthly basis, i.e., a surplus of money that you can obvious spare for the payment of child support.

Or you earn (or are deemed able to earn) enough money such that, even if you have to reduce your standard of living slightly or even somewhat significantly to pay child support, you can still live relatively well on less than you currently spend and pay the difference in child support.

About the only sure way to avoid being ordered to pay child support is to prove to the satisfaction of the court that you are unable to earn enough money to support both yourself and the child financially. Even if the other parent has more than enough money to support the child financially and does not even need your money, most jurisdictions will order you to pay child support, if the other parent wants such an order. The child support may be minimal (say, $30 or even less), but you’ll likely be ordered to pay child support, if you aren’t the child’s sole physical custodian.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-complete-list-of-reasons-someone-can-file-child-support-that-cannot-be-fought/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why is my lawyer ignoring me?

Why is my lawyer ignoring me?

There are many possible reasons. Lawyers are notorious for being hard to reach and for being unresponsive and nonresponsive.

If you aren’t paying your lawyer, don’t be surprised if you’re being ignored and don’t wonder why.

But if you are paying your lawyer (in full and on time), there are still many possible (common) reasons could include, in descending order of the most likely explanations:

  1. Your lawyer has way too many open cases and has thus rendered himself or herself unable to give you and your case the attention they both require.
  2. Your lawyer is incompetent, and so your lawyer avoids your calls and emails to avoid having to do hard work and/or give you bad news about how he or she has screwed up.
  3. Your lawyer is lazy and thus does not respond to you in a timely manner.
  4. Your lawyer doesn’t care about your case enough to give it the attention it requires.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-my-lawyer-ignoring-me-1/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

When a lawyer drops a client, is the reason shared with the judge and/or opposing counsel (i.e., the client refused to be reasonable, etc.)?

When a lawyer drops a client, is the reason shared with the judge and/or opposing counsel (i.e., the client refused to be reasonable, etc.)?

In Utah, where I practice divorce and family law, the answer is: no.

When a lawyer drops a client/stops representing a client (known as “withdrawing as counsel” for that client), the lawyer is not permitted to inform the judge or opposing counsel as to the reasons why. This is due to the attorney’s duties to keep confidential 1) the communications between attorney and client and 2) the information relating to the representation of the client. See Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 1.16(d):

(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests[.]”

Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of Information.

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(b)(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

(b)(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;

(b)(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;

(b)(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;

(b)(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client;

(b)(6) to comply with other law or a court order; or

(b)(7) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.

(c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/When-a-lawyer-drops-a-client-is-the-reason-shared-with-the-judge-and-or-opposing-counsel-I-e-the-client-refused-to-be-reasonable-etc/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When a lawyer drops a client, is the reason shared with the judge and/or opposing counsel (i.e., the client refused to be reasonable, etc.)?

When a lawyer drops a client, is the reason shared with the judge and/or opposing counsel (i.e., the client refused to be reasonable, etc.)?

In Utah, where I practice divorce and family law, the answer is: no.

When a lawyer drops a client/stops representing a client (known as “withdrawing as counsel” for that client), the lawyer is not permitted to inform the judge or opposing counsel as to the reasons why. This is due to the attorney’s duties to keep confidential 1) the communications between attorney and client and 2) the information relating to the representation of the client. See Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 1.16(d):

(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests[.]”

Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of Information.

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(b)(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

(b)(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;

(b)(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;

(b)(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;

(b)(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client;

(b)(6) to comply with other law or a court order; or

(b)(7) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.

(c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/When-a-lawyer-drops-a-client-is-the-reason-shared-with-the-judge-and-or-opposing-counsel-I-e-the-client-refused-to-be-reasonable-etc/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who files for divorce more? Men or Women? Why?

Who files for divorce more? Men or Women? Why?

Women file more

In the United State of America, although the percentages vary depending on the study, the research is unanimous in finding that wives initiate divorce more often than husbands. Between 65% and 70% more, generally. This study published in 2017 set the percentage of wife-initiated divorces at 69%.

You’ll see a lot of articles that claim women file 80% of divorces, but I could not find any studies or statistics to back that claim.

Why is that?

As to why wives file for divorce more often than men, this MSN article (the accuracy for which I cannot vouch) summarized this study from American Psychological Association (ASA) as follows:

  1. Women are more likely to feel like marriage is holding them back.
  2. Women tend to do more emotional labor in a marriage.
  3. Women are less likely to tolerate “bad behavior” today.

According to this article in PMC*

  • when men unemployed, both husbands or wives are more likely to leave the marriage.
  • when wives report better than average marital satisfaction, their employment affects neither their nor their husbands’ exits.
  • when wives report below average marital satisfaction, their employment makes it more likely that they will leave.

*PubMed Central (PMC) is a free archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). It is a repository for journal literature among participating publishers, as well as for author manuscripts submitted in compliance with the NIH Public Access Policy and similar policies of other research funding agencies.

My take

I can tell you from experience as a divorce lawyer that one reason husbands are reluctant to file for divorce is because they are afraid of being labeled pariahs; culturally, it’s easier to sympathize with a woman seeking a divorce because there is this belief that a woman seeking a divorce is a victim seeking escape or relief, while men who seek divorce are often presumed to be self-absorbed cads.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-biggest-initiates-of-divorce-Why-is-that/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , ,

For divorced parents: why isn’t your custody award 50/50?

For divorced parents: why isn’t your custody award 50/50?

Concisely (and in no particular order):

  1. sometimes a parent’s job, physical or mental/emotional disabilities, misconduct (like domestic violence, child abuse, or substance abuse), poverty, or distance from the other parent’s residence prevents him or her from exercising joint equal (50/50) custody, even though the parent is otherwise a loving, caring, and fit parent.
    • sometimes a child is nursing and thus the exercise of joint equal custody is a practicable impossibility.
  2. sometimes a parent who could exercise 50/50 custody may not want to exercise joint equal (50/50) custody. It’s rare, but it happens.
  3. sometimes a parent could exercise 50/50 custody, but the children vehemently and rebelliously oppose it. It’s rare, but it happens.
  4. sometimes, even though the parent wants it and is worthy of 50/50 custody, the other spouse and co-parent is evil and does everything in his or her power to depict that parent as unworthy of joint equal (50/50) custody in a campaign to ensure that 50/50 custody is not awarded. This doesn’t happen all the time, but happens quite frequently (more than most people would imagine).
    • sometimes, when a parent is dealing with a malicious parent, even 50/50 custody could be awarded, the innocent parent agrees to less than 50/50 to spare the children and/or the innocent future haranguing over and sabotage of the custody award. Some parents make it abundantly clear that if 50/50 custody is awarded that he/she will make everyone from the parent to the children to the court regret it.
  5. sadly, some courts believe that 50/50 cannot work, that 50/50 causes or exacerbates inter-parental disputes to the detriment of the children, and so the court awards less than 50/50 custody believing (too often falsely believing) that less than 50/50 is for the benefit of the children. Actually, the science shows just the opposite to be true, that 50/50 custody has the effect of reducing the amount and severity of inter-parental conflict.
  6. sometimes, even though a father wants and is worthy of 50/50 custody, the judge has a bias against awarding it. For some judges it’s a belief that men simply should not or cannot be entrusted with 50/50 custody, that “the only reason the father wants 50/50 custody is because it reduces his child support obligation,” that women are “born nurturers,” or that the children, though not infants, are still too young to spend time equally in the care and custody of both parents. Some judges take the position that if the mother has been, up to the point of separation and divorce, the children’s “primary caregiver” that she must remain their primary caregiver, even though the divorce will necessitate that she get a job and no longer function as primary caregiver.
    • Although men/fathers are being treated better when they seek 50/50 custody than ever before, there is still obvious discrimination generally against fathers who can clearly exercise and who and want and who seek 50/50 custody.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/For-divorced-parents-with-nearly-equal-parenting-time-what-was-the-reason-justification-s-for-it-not-being-equal/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

What does a judge ask a child in a custody case?

In Utah (where I practice divorce and child custody law) the answer is: it’s almost impossible to say. Why?

  1. For reasons that I assert I can demonstrate are not highly rational*, the majority of judges are extremely reluctant to question children on the subject of the child custody award.
  2. Case files for child custody cases are classified as private and not accessible to the public, so unless the child is questioned in a public court proceeding (which happens so rarely one could honestly state that, statistically speaking, it never happens), we will never know (we can never know) what the child was asked or what the child said in response. Those judges who are willing to question children—as they are authorized by the Utah Code to do—almost never question children in public court proceedings but instead question them in chambers, although the questioning is conducted on the record and not covertly.
  3. The law gives judges the opportunity to avoid hearing directly from a child by instead appointing an attorney for the children known as a “guardian ad litem” and thus avoid ever actually hearing any testimony from the child’s own mouth by having the GAL claim to have spoken to the child, albeit not on the record (and thus there is no objectively verifiable way to confirm this), to have elicited from the child his/her experiences, observations, feelings, opinions, and desires (again, without there being any objectively verifiable way to confirm this) and then, based upon literally nothing that is objectively verifiable, make recommendations to the judge as to how the judge should rule on the issue of the child custody award.

*The ostensible reasons that most judges give for refusing to question children or allow children to be questioned by an attorney or attorneys are that they:

  1. A) fear that if parents find out what the child says, then the child may feel guilty for expressing a preference or preferences for one parent over another on particular subjects of parental abilities and fitness;
  2. B) fear that once parents discover what the child had to say the child may be punished or retaliated against if what the child said upsets or offends one or both parents; and/or
  3. C) conclude, without first questioning the child, that children in general are incompetent witnesses and that their testimony would be of little help to resolving child custody questions.

Here is why I assert that such reasons are not rational:

1) First, parents are going to find out what a child thinks, feels, and wants with regard to child custody irrespective of whether the judge questions the child in court proceedings. Parents are going to learn of this (whether directly from the child or from his/her siblings, extended family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, counselors, coaches, ministers, etc.) before the child custody case is filed, during the pendency of the child custody case in court, at trial, and after the trial. It’s unavoidable. It’s inevitable. I submit that i) the belief that not questioning a child about his/her opinions and preferences regarding child custody will prevent the child’s parents from discovering those opinions and preferences, and ii) the believe that the only time and place in which the child will express such things is when questioned by the judge, is rather naive; it’s impossible to prevent parents from learning this information from and about the children.

Second, the value that many judges place on preventing children from feeling guilty or uncomfortable is misplaced. For two reasons. One, children who are going to feel guilty and uncomfortable about their child custody preferences, who are going to feel as though they are betraying a parent by expressing a preference for one over the other. are going to feel that way regardless of whether they express those preferences to the judge or a custody evaluator or a guardian ad litem (GAL). Two, getting to the truth about how children feel and why—when it comes to their child custody preferences—is far more important than sparing them from feeling guilty (especially when we already know they’re going to feel guilty regardless of whether they testify). Otherwise stated, preventing child testimony does no good: it protects the children from nothing, while denying the judge the clearest, purest sources of information about the children’s experiences, observations, feelings, opinions, and preferences as they relate to the child custody award.

2) If the judge believes that children will not be punished for expressing a preference for one parent over another, so long as those preferences are not expressed to the judge, again, that’s not rational either. It is impossible for a judge to prevent parents from learning a child’s feelings, opinions, and preferences regarding child custody. Thus it is impossible for a judge to prevent a parent who gets upset by those feelings, opinions and preferences from learning about them and from punishing and retaliating against his/her child once he/she learns of them. A judge can’t even mitigate the amount and severity of the retaliation and punishment because the judge is powerless to prevent the child’s feelings, opinions, and preferences from being discovered. And so once again, we find the court depriving itself of one of the clearest and purest sources of information and guidance on the subject of thee child custody award based upon a fear and a belief that has no rational basis. Closing one’s ears and eyes to what a child can say on the subject displays, frankly, a shocking disregard for the best interest of the child.

3) Concluding, without first questioning the child, that children in general are incompetent witnesses and that their testimony would be of little help to resolving child custody questions. See self-fulfilling prophecy. While it is certainly true that some children may be, for various reasons (such as being too young to talk, too young to have a consistent and reliable understanding of right and wrong and truth and falsity, placed in circumstances that call the veracity or credibility of the child’s testimony into question from the outset, etc.), one sure way to guarantee that we never determine how informative, probative, and reliable a child’s testimony may be and what weight to give such testimony is to dispense with allowing the child to testify in the first place.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/What-does-a-judge-ask-a-child-in-a-custody-case/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Do regular people who earn average incomes sign prenuptial agreements?

Pros and Cons: Prenuptial Agreements

Pros of Prenuptial Agreements

  • A premarital agreement can protect the inheritance rights of children and grandchildren from a previous marriage.
  • If you have your own business or professional practice, a premarital agreement can protect that interest so that the business or practice is not divided and subject to the control or involvement of your former spouse upon divorce.
  • If one spouse has significantly more debt than the other, a premarital agreement can protect the debt-free spouse from having to assume the obligations of the other.
  • If you plan to give up a lucrative career after the marriage, a premarital agreement can ensure that you will be compensated for that sacrifice if the marriage does not last.
  • A premarital agreement can address more than the financial aspects of marriage, and can cover any of the details of decision-making and responsibility sharing to which the parties agree in advance.
  • A premarital agreement can limit the amount of spousal support that one spouse will have to pay the other upon divorce.
  • A premarital agreement can protect the financial interests of older persons, persons who are entering into second or subsequent marriages, and persons with substantial wealth.

Cons of Prenuptial Agreements

  • The agreement may require you to give up your right to inherit from your spouse’s estate when he or she dies. Under the law, you are entitled to a portion of the estate even if your spouse does not include such a provision in his or her will.
  • If you contribute to the continuing success and growth of your spouse’s business or professional practice by entertaining clients or taking care of the home, you may not be entitled to claim a share of the increase in value if you agree otherwise in a premarital agreement. Under the laws of many states, this increase in value would be considered divisible marital property.
  • Starting a relationship with a contract that sets forth the particulars of what will happen upon death or divorce can engender a sense of lack of trust.
  • It can be difficult to project into the future about how potential issues should be handled, and what may seem like an inconsequential compromise in the romantic premarital period may seem more monumental and burdensome later on.
  • A low- or non-wage-earning spouse may not be able to sustain the lifestyle to which he or she has become accustomed during the marriage if the agreement substantially limits the amount of spousal support to which that spouse is entitled.
  • In the “honeymoon” stage of a relationship, one spouse may agree to terms that are not in his or her best interests because he or she is “too in love” to be concerned about the financial aspects and can’t imagine the union coming to an untimely end.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Do-regular-people-who-earn-average-incomes-sign-prenuptial-agreements/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is it good for my marriage if we live with my mother in law?

Not necessarily.

While it may not be common in the U.S.A. for adult married children to live with their parents or their parents to live with their adult married children, in many other cultures it is common, acceptable, and even considered sensible and honorable for multiple generations to live under the same roof with each other.

Even in the U.S., it is quite common for a widowed mother to live in the same household with her son or daughter who is married, so that the son or daughter can provide support and care for the widowed mother, who may also be elderly, in poverty, and/or in declining health and thus in need of financial support and physical care. in these circumstances, having your mother-in-law live with you may be a moral imperative.

Still, if there is so much friction between you and your mother-in-law as to make living together under the same roof miserable for everyone, then having your mother-in-law live with you and your spouse could be more trouble than it is worth. this is unfortunate when such circumstances arise, because the mother-in-law may really need the help that living with you provides. If you simply don’t like the idea of your mother-in-law living with you, you may need to sacrifice your personal desires for the greater good until your mother-in-law either moves out of her own accord or dies of old age.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-good-for-marriage-if-I-live-together-with-my-mother-in-law/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , ,
Click to listen highlighted text!