Facebook Can Be Used Against You in Court

In the case of a cheating spouse, information learned on Facebook and other social networking sites can certainly be a catalyst for the end of a marriage or other relationship.

Information on a spouse's behaviour, reckless or otherwise, can be of assistance in custody proceedings.

Much can be gleamed about a party's parenting or lack thereof by way of status updates and photos posted on Facebook.

In the case where spousal support is at issue, a spouse can learn information about the payor spouse's financial situation. Did he just buy a new vehicle? Was she looking at a cottage property? And a payor spouse can learn about a recipient's situation. Did he/she just update their relationship status? Maybe there is a claim that another, third party is responsible for support and maintenance of a former spouse.

More often, we see parties using social media as a tool to uncover information related to their former spouse that can assist their own case. Sometimes this information is helpful to a material issue in their matter, and sometimes it simply goes to credibility.

One might be more cautious about what they post because it can come back to haunt them not only in the course of their divorce proceedings, but it may also undermine the already-fragile relationship they have with their former spouse, and potentially with their children. (Children don't want to learn all about mom's new boyfriend on Facebook, and dad doesn't need to learn that his wife just went away for the weekend with her new squeeze).

Call for a free consultation or visit www.discountdivorcepro.com or call (602) 896-9020. Discount Divorce is located at 13817 N. 19th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85023-6105.

Custody: Legal and Physcial, What are the Differances

There are many different types of child custody to consider when filing for divorce from your spouse. From joint custody to the differences between joint legal and joint physical custody.

In Arizona, joint legal custody means that both parents have equal rights and responsibilities in raising their child. The parents will work together to make important decisions regarding the child’s education and religious upbringing and when giving permissions, such as for sleep overs, summer camps, driving, dating, and etc.

Neither parent is set apart as the primary decision maker; they are equal, except where conditions specified by the court are concerned.

Joint legal custody does not ensure that both parents have equitable time with the child. One parent may spend more time with the child than does the other parent.

Joint physical or Shared custody in Arizona means both parents have equal rights and responsibilities in raising their child. They work together to make important decisions regarding the child’s upbringing, and the child shares an equitable amount of time with each parent.

Choosing the custody agreement that is right for your situation can be difficult.  Discount Divorce can help you prepare a Parenting Plan that will work for you.

In addition to Arizona divorce cases, Discount Divorce can assist you in all Arizona family law cases, including child custody, child support issues, alimony disputes, divorce mediation, spousal support issues and visitation.

The experienced family document prepares at Discount Divorce assists clients throughout Arizona, including the cities of Ahwatukee, Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El Mirage, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson and Youngtown.

Call for a free consultation or visit  www.discountdivorcepro.com or call (602) 896-9020. Discount Divorce is located at 13817 N. 19th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85023-6105.

Why you'll pay more than the advertised rate for most attornies -- way more.

The U.S. divorce rate has nearly doubled since 1960, according to the National Marriage Project the number of divorce lawyers has grown apace. Though divorce rates leveled off during the recession, competition among divorce lawyers has increased -- and billboards flashing "Quick and Easy Divorce for $1099" reveal how desperate for business lawyers have become. Those teaser prices aren't a scam, says Randy Kessler, chair of the American Bar Association's family law section, but they usually apply only to parties who have already agreed on the terms of their divorce and just need the lawyer to fill in the forms. Something most divorce paralegals can do at a much lower price.  Those clients who don't fall into that category of an uncontested divorce will likely to pay more. Of course, such come-ons are partly "just to get you in the door," warns Sari Friedman, a New York City matrimonial lawyer. The fine print, she says, will often reveal extra costs -- from initial court fees to eventual asset-divvying lawyer fees. A more realistic final price tag? Anywhere from $15,000 to $30,000, with hourly rates typically running from $150 to $1,000.

At Discount Divorce and Bankruptcy of Arizona we don't play the game of hidden costs.  We disclose all fees up front and in writing.  Call today for a free phone consultation on Divorce or Bankruptcy in Arizona.  (602)896-9020

An Arizona Fights for the Rights of All Fathers

Mike Espinoza’s life has become a stereotype. Like divorced fathers across the country, the Apache Junction flooring installer crams a life with his sons into every other weekend and a few weeks in the summer.

He’s furious about it and is trying to change it.

And while he hasn’t yet won more time with his own children, he has given Arizona fathers a better chance at equal parenting time. In the process, he’s become a role model to his 8- and 10-year-old sons.

Over the past three years, he has worked with state lawmakers, judges, lawyers, university researchers and activists to change Arizona divorce and custody laws.

In 2010, Espinoza successfully pushed to change Arizona law to state that, unless there is evidence of domestic violence or drug use, it is in the child’s best interest to have “substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents.”

A law he helped pass this year, which goes into effect in January, further encourages joint parenting, including requiring the court to adopt a plan that “maximizes” both parents’ time with the child and forbids the court from giving one parent preference based on the parent’s or child’s gender.

“It’s equal,” Espinoza said. “A child deserves to have both parents.”

Getting Exhibts Before the Court

Elliot Wilcox is a local attorney that has great advice for how to get your exhibits before the court.  Since the court holds everyone to the same standards as attorneys I thought I would share this well written article that was submitted by Mr. Wilcox and published in the Maricopa County Bar Associations Family Law Newsletter.

Article:

As a trial lawyer, you know that it's not enough to merely limp across the finish line and get your exhibits admitted into evidence. If you want to win, your exhibits need to persuade the jurors. Unfortunately, the persuasive effect of your exhibits can be diminished by a sloppy presentation or a bumbling attempt to introduce the exhibit into evidence.

Getting exhibits into evidence is easy. Here's all you have to do:

1. Pre-mark the exhibit

2. Show it to opposing counsel

3. Show it to the witness

4. Ask the right predicate questions

5. Ask the court to admit the exhibit

6. Let the clerk mark the exhibit into evidence

That's all there is! But when I'm coaching trial lawyers how to work with exhibits, one of the more frequent problems that I see is the inability to artfully introduce exhibits into evidence. Most of the trial lawyers I've seen tend to stumble and trip over their own words when they reach step #5. It's not because these attorneys don't know what they're doing or because they've never taken an Evidence course. Typically, there are two reasons why their attempts to introduce evidence fall flat:

The first reason is because many attorneys don't understand the difference between their role and the judge's role during trial. Hang around the courthouse for an afternoon and you'll probably hear a lawyer say something like this:

“Your Honor, at this time we would admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 'A' for Identification into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.”

But lawyers don't get to “admit” anything into evidence -- that's the judge's job. The judge is the gatekeeper who determines which exhibits will be admissible and which ones will not. The first step to smoothly admitting exhibits into evidence is to understand that we can only “offer” exhibits into evidence. Once you understand that only the judge has the power to determine whether or not the exhibit is “admitted” into evidence, you'll never make this mistake again.

The second (and far more common) reason why trial lawyers falter when introducing exhibits is because they don't practice saying the “magic phrases” that judges need to hear before admitting evidence.

As you know, in persuasion, it's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Whenever you ask someone to do something, one of the things they'll consider in deciding whether or not to grant your request is how confident you appear when you ask. Compare these two requests:

Example #1: “Um, Your Honor, we would, uh, move the photo of the accident scene, I mean, um, Plaintiff's Exhibit 'A' for identification, into evidence, I mean we would ask you to admit it into evidence.”

Example #2: “The Defense moves what's been previously marked as Defense Exhibit 'C' into evidence as Defense 5.”

Your evidence has a better chance of being admitted when you appear confident that it should be admitted. If you seem hesitant or unsure of yourself, your opponent thinks, “Roger doesn't seem positive that this exhibit should be admitted into evidence. I should probably object...” To smoothly and persuasively move exhibits into evidence, you need to become comfortable with the language of admissibility. Examine these sample phrases and pick one that you'd like to use in court:

• “Your Honor, I ask that what's been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 'A' for
• Identification be admitted into evidence as Plaintiff's #1.”
• “At this time, we offer Plaintiff's 'A' (for identification) into evidence as Plaintiff's exhibit #1.”
• “The Government at this time, Your Honor, would move to introduce Government's
• Exhibit No. 23 into evidence.”
• “Your Honor, we'd offer Defense Exhibit 1701 into evidence.”
• "Your Honor, I move that Plaintiff's Exhibit 'A' be introduced into evidence.”
• “We offer Exhibit 'A' into evidence.”
• “Your honor, I would like to submit People's exhibit 'A' into evidence.”
• “We would ask the Court to admit State's Exhibit 'R' for Identification as State's #12.”

Once you find the phrase you'd like to use, write it down on a separate piece of paper that you'll take with you to trial. Obviously, you'll want to memorize the phrase, but post a copy of it inside your trial notebook or tape it to the lectern (just in case!)

It's not enough to merely know the magic words: You must be completely comfortable with them so that the words appear natural and flow easily from your tongue. After you memorize your preferred statement, you need to practice reading it aloud. Your initial reaction is to probably skip this step, but don't. Just like the actor who practices his lines aloud until he owns the lines, you should practice your statement aloud they become your words.

The last thing you want is to stumble or trip over the phrase when you're trying to be persuasive, so practice saying it aloud until it's second nature. Follow these simple steps, and soon you'll be uttering the magic words of admissibility with ease!

Divorce: Hidding Assets. What to Look for.

If you’re going through divorce, you need to ask yourself is your husband (wife) hiding assets?

Hiding assets during a divorce is sneaky, unethical and illegal –but it happens much more frequently than most would expect.

What to look for:

Purchase items that could easily be overlooked or undervalued. Maybe no one will notice that expensive antique/carpet that’s now at his office? Were you wondering why they recently made several significant additions to his coin/stamp/art collection?

Stash money in a safe deposit box, somewhere in the house or elsewhere. Think through your spouse’s recent habits and activities. Does anything lead you to believe they is hiding assets in actual cash?

Underreport income on tax returns and/or financial statements. If it’s not reported, it can’t be used in a financial analysis.

Overpay the IRS or creditors. If your spouse overpays, they can get the refund later, after the divorce is final.

Defer salary, delay signing new contracts and/or hold commissions or bonuses. This sneaky trick means this income won’t be “on the books” during the divorce proceedings.

 

Create phony debt. Your spouse can collude with family members and/or friends to establish phony loans or expenses. Then, they can make payments to the family members or friends, knowing that they’ll get all the money back after the divorce is final.

Set up a custodial account in the name of a child, using the child’s social security number. They could also use his girlfriend’s social security number, in which case it might be difficult to locate the account.

Transfer stock. Your spouse may transfer stock/investment accounts into the name of family members, business partners or “dummy” companies. After the divorce is final, the assets can be transferred back to him.

The list goes on and on . . . and it certainly begs the question: Why would a spouse do any of these things? There are many possible reasons. They may fear not having enough money after the divorce. They may feel they are getting revenge for an infidelity. Maybe they are just greedy and feel that they deserve it! Whatever the reason, hiding assets, income and debt is not only unethical; it’s also illegal and subject to severe penalties if discovered.

But even so, the burden of proof is often on the spouse with less financial resources (typically the woman) to prove any such unscrupulous behavior.

Just an Opinion

Today’s Arizona Republic had an interesting point of view in the Opinion Section of the paper.

The opinion of Derek McClintock of Phoenix went as follows:

 

“I read with great interest Cathi Herrod's viewpoint on the importance of marriage as a "fundamental building block of our society" ("Support of tried-and-true tradition of man-woman nuptials will grow," Viewpoints, Sunday).

 

With the great weight Herrod attaches to this institution and her obvious expertise in citing "study after study" regarding wealth creation and child rearing, I have a simple question.

 

Would not the greatest threat to this institution be divorce and not expanding the boundaries of the current definition of marriage to include a small minority of the population?

I would like to propose an innovative solution that not only includes the small gay and lesbian population who want to legally recognize their relationships as others are free to do, but also severely penalizes anyone divorcing themselves from these marriage contracts since doing so poses such a threat to the very foundations of our republic.

I would think that libertarians would welcome such a fiscally responsible solution. And this actually has the added benefit of not being a thinly veiled argument of exclusion and prejudice.

-- Derek McClintock, Phoenix”

Now I respect everyone’s right to have an opinion and especially a religious opinion such as this but I don’t think this was completely thought through.  While I am a firm believer in the sanctity of marriage and that all marriages if they can be saved should be when they come upon troubled times but there are scenarios when divorce is the only solution and in those times the person that files for divorce should not be penalized.  I of course am speaking of times when domestic violence rears its ugly head.

 

Is it fair to fine or penalize a woman or a man who is trying to escape violence?  Is it fair for a man or woman who only option is divorce in order to protect the children from an attacker who is a parent?  Should someone be forced to stay in a marriage were one of the parents is sexually molesting the children?

I am in agreement with religions that believe that marriage is serious business and should be saved but I must part ways with a dogma that would force someone to stay in an abusive and possibly fatal situation.  A persons’ safety and that of the children should be out and fortunately the legislator and judiciary of the State of Arizona agrees with me.