Samuel V. Schoonmaker, IV of the The Schoonmaker Legal Group, LLC provides an informative update of family law cases in the State of Connecticut through his "Appellate Preview." Here is a recently submission by Attorney Schoonmaker:

The following Supreme Court decision will be officially released on April 1, 2008:

Testa v. Geressy, __ Conn. __. Affirmed. This child support case has a complicated procedural history in the family support magistrate division (FSMD) and the superior court, as well as in Illinois and Indiana courts.
(1) Support Enforcement Services had statutory authority to help an out of state child support recipient (the obligee).
(2) The state (Attorney General) had statutory authority to provide legal services on behalf of Support Enforcement Services in assisting the obligee.
(3) Providing legal services did not create an attorney-client relationship. Neither the state, Support Enforcement Services nor the obligee enjoy any rights, privileges or obligations attendant to an attorney-client relationship, or to any other fiduciary relationship.
(4) The superior court improperly refused to review several of the obligor's claims on appeal from the FSMD. This case already had been heard by Magistrate Colella, Judge Prestley (on appeal), Magistrate Lifshitz (on remand) and Judge Caruso (on appeal). In the interest of judicial economy the Supreme Court decided to resolve the issues rather than remand them.
(5) The superior court's remand order from the first appeal did not end the case or controversy. No new petition was required before Magistrate Lifshitz could make additional factual findings.
(6) Magistrate Lifshitz properly determined that the Illinois order was valid and enforceable. The court correctly applied UIFSA when it telephoned both a clerk and a judge in Illinois to determine whether the Illinois order was in effect, and when it resolved a conflict between the answers it received by relying on the judge rather than the clerk.
Note: This case raised additional issues, highlighting the complexities of proceeding in the FSMD. Note the relaxed rules of evidence under UIFSA. Although not discussed, different Supreme Court rulings on several issues may have imperiled Federal assistance to Connecticut that is linked to using specific support enforcement procedures. See 71 C.B.J. 303, 335-36.

By ANNE JUNGEN | La Crosse Tribune

Story originally printed in the La Crosse Tribune or online at www.lacrossetribune.com

Published - Sunday, March 30, 2008

He met her in 1998 at a party in Houston, Minn. She was in the kitchen, discussing her 35-pound cat.

They talked for hours. He was drawn to her eyes, her smile, the easy way she kept the conversation going.

“We found out that our parents’ names were the same. We were finding out all these coincidences,” said “Scott,” a 40-year-old La Crosse man whose real name is not being used in this story to protect the family’s privacy.

“We thought this had to be a sign.”

He proposed three weeks later under a starry Texas sky. They married in March 1999.

It wasn’t all bliss. Their type-A, type-B personalities didn’t mesh. Neither realized their hectic and opposite schedules would clash, giving them little time together.

“I don’t think we knew each other when we got married,” Scott said. “We didn’t have the tools to communicate well.”

It was her affair with a married man from Scott’s Bible study class that ultimately collapsed the relationship, he said.

“Emotionally we were distant, and it opened up the window for him,” Scott said. “The stars aligned for them.”

The marriage counselor told her she needed to give up the other man. She couldn’t.

“I woke her up at 2 in the morning and said, ‘We make better friends and parents than husband and wife. I have to let you go,’ ” Scott said.

They filed a joint petition to dissolve their marriage in June 2007.

Their divorce was a best-case scenario: Civil, with equal division of assets and custody of their two young sons. Their divorce was granted in November.

“It’s so painful to go through,” Scott said. “I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.”

End of the road

Sometimes marriage ends long before the “’til death to us part’” clause of the vow takes effect. Last year, 323 La Crosse County couples terminated their marriage. More than 40 couples already have in 2008.

“It’s an incredible, for most people, emotional event, and it’s also an economic negotiation that’s very, very important. And to have those two things happening at once is pretty overwhelming for people, even if they’re the one that wants the divorce,” said Sabina Bosshard, a La Crosse family law attorney.

The only legal basis for divorce in Wisconsin is if the marriage is “irretrievably broken,” which means no chance for reconciliation, according to the State Bar of Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is a no-fault state — neither spouse has to prove the other did something wrong to file for divorce.

The divorce process begins when spouses separately or jointly file a petition. To file in La Crosse County, one spouse must have lived in the state at least six months and in the county at least 30 days.

The initial filing fee is $185 if the couple does not have children, $225 if they do.

A temporary hearing will be set before La Crosse County Family Court Commissioner Gloria Doyle within seven to 10 days on any matters that need to be decided during the divorce process, such as child custody, spousal support and who will live in the house.

Doyle estimated about 50 percent of couples request the hearing.

Wisconsin has a 120-day waiting period before a divorce can be granted.

“The goal during the waiting period is to come up with a marital settlement agreement that would resolve all the issues on a permanent basis,” Doyle said.

The agreement details post-divorce arrangements, including spousal support, asset and property division, and child custody and support, according to the state bar.

If the couple has children, they are required to attend a three-hour class on co-parenting after the divorce.

Children between age 6 and 18 will attend a separate three-hour class to learn more about the divorce process and reassure them they aren’t to blame, Doyle said.

If the marital settlement agreement is reached, a default hearing will be held before Doyle and the divorce finalized.

The length of the process depends on the complexity of the case and how quickly an agreement can be reached, Doyle said.

“It can be 121 days to three years,” she said.

A majority of the divorces filed in La Crosse County are resolved as a default divorce, Doyle said. Once granted, neither spouse can remarry for at least six months.

If spouses fail to reach an agreement, the divorce becomes contested and set for trial in front of one of the county’s five circuit judges.

“It’s not a ruling on can they or can’t they get divorced. It’s they’re going to get divorced, but they can’t agree on division of property, or maintenance, or child support or child placement, or all of them,” Doyle said.

Disputes most often revolve around money, including property, debt, spousal support and allocation of assets, said La Crosse County Circuit Judge Dale Pasell.

The trials can last 30 minutes to several days, depending on the complexity of the case and the number of issues, he said.

The number of contested divorces, Pasell said, is a “distinct minority” of the total number finalized. Spouses, too, often are able to work out an agreement as the trial date approaches, he said.

“I think it’s for the better that people work out a lot of these issues among themselves because, generally speaking, if they come to court and they have to have a judge resolve them, no one leaves happy,” Pasell said. “People are generally far happier if they resolve the issues themselves.”

I see many Connecticut family law parties become entirely dissatisfied with divorce and family law litigation. Collaborative methodologies can provide an attractive alternative. In the following article, Fresno family law attorney Erin Rhames-Childs details how collaborative law can assist people in reducing both conflict and the cost of divorce litigation.

Fresno Family Law Attorney Says Collaborative Law Can Provide Smoother and More Affordable Divorce

by Erin Rhames-Childs

Fresno, California (PRWEB) March 25, 2008 -- Fresno family law attorney Erin Rhames-Childs knows that most divorces are expensive. Divorcing spouses can end up paying between $5,000 and $30,000 or more in legal fees and court costs. People who may not intend to spend several years in court often find themselves caught up in a long fight because zealous attorneys and the nature of litigation push them into it.

"Fortunately," says Rhames-Childs, "most people can avoid the conflict and complete a divorce within a much more reasonable length of time and at much lower expense."

Collaborative law can help divorcing people prevent a long and expensive lawsuit. It can cost much, much less, and take only a few months, instead of several years. Most importantly, it is designed to prevent the contentious and emotionally draining litigation practices by preventing animosity and encouraging cooperation.

In the collaborative process, the parties begin by recognizing that long, costly, and terrible divorces can happen without their really intending them, simply because of the adversarial nature of the process. "I have seen this happen in many cases," says Rhames-Childs. "People get caught up in the battle and then they can't let go."

The next step in the process of collaborative divorce is for the spouses to select collaborative lawyers, who are specially trained in the collaborative process. "Very few lawyers are trained in collaborative divorce, and because the approach is so radically different, an untrained lawyer will usually be less effective and more expensive," says Rhames-Childs.

In response to that prospect, both of the divorcing people, along with their collaborative lawyers, agree in writing to be open and respectful, not to take their dispute into court, and not to take unreasonable positions just to see if they can succeed in squeezing more out of the other side. They will openly negotiate the terms of their divorce, making mutual agreements about property division, child and spousal support payments, and child custody and visitation.

They will negotiate the agreements together, in a series of meetings with both spouses and their respective collaborative attorneys.

Some collaborative divorces can be completed with just one or two such meetings, others take a few more. "It depends on different things," says Rhames-Childs. "Sometimes a case is just more complicated because people have more stuff to divide." Almost all collaborative divorces are completed within a few months, though, without going to court, without racking up shocking attorney fees, and without using litigation to destroy either spouse's financial and emotional stability.

"People facing a divorce need to know they have another option," says Rhames-Childs.

Erin Rhames-Childs is a Fresno collaborative divorce attorney who also provides services for child custody, child support, spousal support, adoptions, guardianships, grandparent rights, domestic partnerships, and domestic violence restraining orders. Childs & Childs is proud to work throughout the Central Valley including cities like Fresno, Madera, Clovis, Kingsburg, Reedley, Selma, Tulare, Hanford, Visalia, Merced, Modesto and Coalinga.

More Iowans Handle Legalities Alone

By GRANT SCHULTE
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

Marvin and Lisa Taylor's divorce filtered through the Polk County court system as smoothly as an unhappy marriage could: a clear-cut settlement, a 15-minute hearing and two signatures scrawled in blue.

But unlike divorces with lawyers and steep legal fees, the Taylors divided their lives -- the house, their belongings, his retirement savings -- almost entirely by themselves. A procedure that would have cost thousands with an attorney shrank to $150 in filing and court fees. The paperwork, Lisa Taylor said, was "a little harder than filling out my taxes."

"It was all very well-explained, very inexpensive," she said. "It really eliminated the need for an attorney."

The Taylors, whose marriage ended last month, are part of a growing statewide and national movement. Iowans are increasingly handling domestic disputes, small claims and divorces with little or no help from attorneys, according to lawyers, judges and recent studies.

Many consider the growing do-it-yourself approach a response to high legal fees and an explosion of free online forms. Yet the increase also creates new, unwelcome challenges for Iowa's courts, where self-taught citizen lawyers and a complex legal system collide.


Self-help legal forms abound online

Self-help cases became a priority for state court officials in 2005, when a task force of lawyers and judges convened to create simple, legally binding forms that allow couples without underage children to divorce.

The forms drew a "positive and immediate response," Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus told lawmakers in January. More than 1,000 were handed out in the first month, she said, in addition to downloaded copies.

Lisa Taylor, who now goes by Lisa Slaughter, initiated her divorce in October after months of trying to keep the marriage alive. More than a year of legal feet-dragging from an earlier divorce soured her on lawyers, she said, so she hunted online and within minutes found Iowa's 94-page divorce packet on the state judiciary Web site.

The rise in do-it-yourself cases springs partly from the number of forms online, said Robert Rigg, a law professor at Drake University.

On a recent afternoon, Rigg plugged the phrase "divorce forms" into an online search engine and found 475,000 results that offered "easy online divorces," "do it yourself divorces" and "divorce forms online."

"It's like going to Kmart," Rigg said. "You walk down one aisle and you see divorce law over here. You walk down another and see criminal law over there."

Iowa court officials do not track the number of lawyer-less -- formally known as pro se -- cases, but contend that the available evidence "strongly suggests" an increase and strain similar to other states.

Judges and lawyers, as a result, spend more time reviewing incomplete or unreadable paperwork and explaining how to file cases, according to a joint report by the Iowa Judges Association and Iowa State Bar Association. The self-help forms seek to improve citizen access to the courts while "minimizing disruption to an already overburdened court system," the report said.

Research in pockets of Iowa and the nation confirms what judges, lawyers and court clerks have noticed anecdotally.

• A 2004 study in Woodbury County found that 58 percent of the 125 court cases in one week involved at least one party who was not represented by a lawyer.

• A 2006 study in Utah found that 49 percent of the people who seek a divorce, and 81 percent of the people who receive divorce papers, go to court without an attorney.

• New Hampshire residents who try cases without lawyers account for 85 percent of the civil cases in district court and 48 percent in superior court. In almost 70 percent of the domestic relations cases, at least one person has no lawyer.

• More than 4.3 million people in California represent themselves in court each year, as do 80 percent of people who file for divorce.

Ben Busha of Davenport opted to use the online divorce forms after losing one-quarter of an earlier $10,000 legal award to his lawyers. Busha said his divorce was legally straightforward because he and his ex-wife had no children.

"I've used lawyers for other things -- car accidents and whatnot -- and it cost me a lot," Busha said. "I didn't have any problems with this at all. It was all pretty much laid out."

Most Iowans who try their own cases do so for financial reasons and, in some cases, because they distrust lawyers, experts say. They tend to have lower incomes, but generally have at least a high school education, said Tim Eckley, an attorney for the American Judicature Society, a national legal group in Des Moines. A majority are women and young adults, he said.

"We've become more of a self-help society," Eckley said. "People trade their own stocks online. This is just another kind of trend."


Pro se cases create challenge for courts

Judge Richard D. Morr frowned as he thumbed through the Taylors' tentative divorce agreement.

The settlement was incomplete. Marvin Taylor had submitted one set of forms without his wife's signature, and the form that split their work benefits was incorrect.

"It takes a separate document to do this, and I'm not going to do it for you," Morr told the couple. "It's extremely complex."

Pro se cases pose a significant challenge to judges and court clerks, Eckley said. Legal questions and paperwork errors clog judicial dockets. Do-it-yourselfers ask court clerks and judges for advice they cannot ethically give, or stumble during routine hearings.

"Not a lot of legal matters lend themselves to being conducted without a lawyer," Eckley said. "There's a reason people go to law school."

The self-help divorce forms have simplified legal proceedings to a point, said Polk County Judge Robert Hanson. But the complexities of law, he said, are not easily condensed.

"People have questions - a lot of questions," said Hanson, who frequently hears pro se family law cases. "It's pretty hard to distill the forms down to the point where the average layperson wouldn't have any questions."

Greg Hurley, an analyst with the National Center for State Courts in Virginia, said the litigants often make mistakes that a lawyer would not. Some, for instance, present paperwork from other states that do not conform to Iowa law.

But in cases with lower stakes - a simple misdemeanor, or a claim of less than $5,000 - proceeding without a lawyer "might be worth a shot," Hurley said. "If you have a civil case where you're looking for $2,000 or $3,000, and you don't really want to give one-half to two-thirds of that to a lawyer, it may behoove you to go it alone."

Such cases also attract lawyers who offer limited, or "unbundled," services, such as document preparation without courtroom representation.

"It's a win-win," said Will Hornsby, a lawyer for the American Bar Association. "The lawyer can charge their hourly fee, but with fewer hours. Clients benefit because they receive legal services at a lower cost."

The 2005 task force wanted to make legal jargon simple and forms understandable. Dan Bray, an Iowa City family law attorney who was on a joint task force that addressed the state's growing pro se load, said Iowa's courts will likely move more toward do-it-yourself forms in cases commonly filed without lawyers, such as child support modifications. The group did not tackle the forms for Iowans who speak little or no English, a growing statewide demographic.

"As our economy has changed, it's become harder and harder for people in a marginal economic situation to process basic legal needs, like getting a divorce or modifying child support," Bray said.


Self-representation rare in crime cases

The number of Iowans who defend themselves in felony criminal cases remains low, experts said, largely because the state provides free public defenders to accused criminals who cannot afford their own.

Judges cannot force an accused criminal to take an attorney. But to preserve a trial's fairness, they often appoint "standby counsel," a job many attorneys loathe.

"Let's suppose you were a college basketball player," Rigg said. "It's like taking one of your starters and replacing him with someone who has never played basketball. Then imagine someone telling the starter, 'We want you to assist him, but you can't dress out. When we have timeouts, you're going to describe to him how to dribble and shoot the ball.' Can you imagine what that would be like?"

Hurley, a former West Virginia criminal defense attorney, worked as standby counsel on dozens of pro se cases.

Clients, he said, often didn't know when to object. They offered secondhand information in hearings, which forced judges to intervene, and spouted far more information than needed. In about 10 percent of the cases, clients would try to explain their actions in court and accidentally incriminate themselves.

"The cases are not as polished as they would be going into court with an attorney," Hurley said.

Pro se criminal cases also worry prosecutors, said Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness. Efforts to strike a plea deal are complicated, she said, because prosecutors cannot talk to unrepresented defendants without a judge's permission. In first-time drunken-driving cases, she said, defense attorneys can frequently arrange probation and a deferred judgment, in which the conviction is eventually wiped clean.

"But if a defendant doesn't have counsel to request it, nobody's going to give them that device," Lyness said.

Jody Nolan McCullah, 39, represented himself recently in Polk County against a slew of assault charges for an attack on jail guards. A jury convicted him.

Corey Michael Forrester, 31, defended himself in February against charges of kidnapping, false imprisonment, assault and eluding authorities. A jury convicted him on the eluding and false imprisonment charges.

During the first day of his trial in February, Forrester -- hunched over a pile of legal papers -- interrupted Judge Robert Hutchison with a question about jury selection. Hutchison gently explained a legal fine point.

"I'm sorry, your honor," Forrester said, shaking his head. "This stuff's complicated."

by Raquel De Brito (Perth Now)

March 22, 2008 04:00pm

DIVORCE will drive real estate sales - regardless of interest rate rises.

Break-ups among married and de facto couples account for up to 15 per cent of all residential sales, L.J. Hooker WA manager Luke Walker said.

A Sydney agent recently claimed the figure was closer to 40 per cent, with every second client selling because of divorce.

Professionals WA Real Estate chief executive officer David Hobbs said that while he thought this figure was overstated, he agreed divorce triggered a big percentage of sales.

"Two properties in my street are being sold due to divorce. It is fairly prevalent at this stage,'' he said.

``It is certainly a growing area, but not 30 or 40 per cent.''

Propell National Valuers WA valuation manager Travis Colemann said the company now had many more requests for initial consultation and negotiation valuations between separating partners and requests for full Family Law Court valuations in preparation for trial.
Mr Walker said: ``It's a very ugly situation to be in.

"Often one party wants to get out and the other wants to stay, but doesn't have the finance to buy
the other one out, or isn't speaking to the other person to discuss their options.''

Breaking-up could prove costly for those who married in a boom and separated in a bust.

"Things like interest rate rises put pressure on people and they end up in a position of disposing of their assets at a bad time,'' he said.

"It ends up costing them a lot of money in the long run.''

Mr Walker said the best advice for separating couples would be to speak to a lawyer about their rights.

Australia has one of the highest divorce rates in the world, topped only by the US and Britain.
According to a recent Australian Institute of Family Studies report, divorce or separation affected nearly 50 per cent of marriages in Australia.

More women (40 per cent) than men (29.5 per cent) lodged applications for divorce in 2006.

by Carroll Straus

Happy Beginnings

Literally hundreds of thousands of people get married every year - most are happy when they decide to wed, and many are convinced they are going to be happier. The wedding business Is HUGE. Thousands are spent to create a much needed (if over-glitzed) rite of passage - and couples vow their commitment to being "us." They stop being individuals and become "a couple." This don’t really know what they have committed to, or that it is… irrevocable.

And then, after a while, many not are getting the bliss they thought awaited them. Misunderstandings set in. The person they wake up to is not the person they imagined themselves getting old with. Somehow, this Is a surprise. Depending on age bracket, education and income, 40-50% decode to throw this marriage away and go look w for a new one.

More surprises await them!

Many couples have children in the years between "I do" and "I don't." "Us" is now a family. And yet, when divorce looms, there is no game plan, no budget, no insurance, and no easy solution. Chaos reigns. Misery is the result.

This should be seen as a national problem, but it's not. If this were a disease, the NIH would be putting warnings out everywhere! But because it is so commonplace, it's not seen as an unacceptable situation in desperate need of serious reform. Why does divorce seem to be hovering near the 50% mark? (and why are so many unwed couples with kids also in the legal system?) Maybe because, despite the numbers, most people still expect the dream to come true, and maybe they want kids to love them, and are shocked when It's even harder after the kids come. Who knows? No one seems willing to look beneath the surface to find out.

But we do know and can show that all cross America, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on divorces and (somewhat less so) on paternity cases. Just the simple cases, where the legal battle theoretically ends with Judgment cost many thousands. (Many paternity cases are done by people with no lawyers and these are a hidden problem with significant effect on the children. the costs on these will come due in the future.)

The ugly cases can literally bankrupt one parent, and destroy lives and families. (Few seem to realize that the case actually continues until there are no more minor children. When you have kids, after divorce, you are under a "life sentence"-- a court order-- Big Brother is watching you!)

However, some people keep fighting after the judgment. This is how "case law" is made, sometimes even making news. (Think Barry Bonds.) In each of these cases that make new law (i.e. when grandparents can be denied visitation, when parents can or can't move away, when same sex couples are both parents and when one is not, when child support is enough—the list goes on….) hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent. College tuition amounts are squandered. All of this is the result of disputes about what happens to the family. But what scares me MOST is that this is all based on a delusion—that any judge (with hundreds of cases and tunnel vision) can possibly know what's best for YOUR child!

Economic paradoxes end up with men feeling cheated-- and women in poverty. men pay money to women they no longer have any "quid pro quo" from, and women remain dependent on men they no longer respect-- or may even loath. The irrevocable vows of the marriage are not so easily ended, and such exchanges have a steep psycho-spiritual cost.

Alas, even in cases where income potentials are roughly equal, families are torn apart-- and children are invariably the innocent bystanders. This is clear-- yet the system is blind. The effects on children range from life-long abandonment issues, to "learning" that adult relationships are temporary. And few children ever see conflict resolved in any healthy way.

Many people accept that people going through divorce are angry, hostile, and in a "divorce trance." Lawyers in particular point to the ugliness seen in court cases (and lawyers' offices) as proof. Sadly, the folks who vow to stay far away from that don’t get any press, nor do they spread the word about their quiet successes. (But see "Breaking Apart, a Memoir of Divorce" by Wendy Swallow for an exception.)

NEW FLASH! Divorce does NOT equal all of the above. There are new options! The truth is that the ugliness of most divorce cases is caused by a system that presupposes it, then amplifies it and always utterly ignores the family unit. Litigation assumes that truth will emerge from the clash of opposing viewpoints. This may work in assessing past events-- but marriage, and it’s ending, are not about past events. they are about the future of the family, an entity that is not ending in most divorces. Is there a solution? Yes!!

The way to stay out of the battle is to use "ADR" - "Appropriate Dispute Resolution." It could be mediation, which it great for couples in full agreement on how they want their family to be after divorce, but who need expert help with the "how." But for many, if not most, couples, who need help with many aspects of the family reorganization-- financial, emotional AND legal. This Is only be possible in "Collaborative Divorce", or, sometimes, in private judging. (The "Hollywood" model.) Collaborative Law, the newest and most sophisticated "ADR" option has been on the Today Show and Los Angeles' Talk of the City.

Recently collaboration has begun to receive media attention, thanks to a few brave souls who were willing to "go public". Most Family Law judges are enthusiastic about it, and some courts are sending letters recommending couples seek "ADR" and mentioning Collaborative Practice. (Of course it is usually too late by the time someone has filed in court, so the letters are probably useless-- but they do show a growing realization that court does not fit all.)

What's the bottom line? Couples need to know that their divorce from each other should not, nor does it have to, mean they divorce their kids, and lose their family. ADR works for families, and it works for divorce professionals who have watched in horror as the legal system trashed lives and families.
Ask about "Collaborative Divorce." Ask about "private judging." Get all the facts, read books. Research on line.

Don't take no for an answer. Your quality of life depends on it!

Many parties going through Connecticut family law matters often complain about the ability to keep things afloat while their cases are pending. With the financial constraints of needing to pay for two households, some parties face foreclosures and substantial debt. Connecticut is not unique. In Australia, many families are having difficulty as well. Les Stubbs is a senior associate with the legal firm Turner Freeman provides and eye-opening account of how things are working in Australia.

Legal Backlog Plays Havoc On Families

By Les Stubbs

If you thought our State Government was just a bit cute when it changed the definition of an on-time train from four minutes out of schedule to five, then prepare yourself for more because the previous federal government was in on the act, enlarging targets for the Family Court of Australia, rather than funding it to take better aim.

"Family justice descends into farce" was the front page news headline of the Herald back in 2006. Many of us believed the attorney-general at the time, Philip Ruddock, might have been spurred by the report into action. But he wasn't.
Instead, when the Herald's story was published, the Family Court's declared aim (published in its annual report) was changed, from having 90 per cent of its cases "finalised within 12 months" to an absolutely electric finalisation rate of "90 per cent within 18 months".

If you've been through a family break up - or you know someone who is - you'll understand what it means to describe this widening of the goalposts as nothing short of human tragedy. We often use the words "messy" and "ugly" when we talk about divorce, and, of course, no one expects divorce to be clean or pretty. But at the very least, we should try to make it easy and quick.

But we don't. Instead it can be very, very difficult. This happens because - as the legal process drags on - many believe it is easier to simply give up on the legal system and agree to whatever their combative former partner demands. This is the wrong reason to resolve disputes in the best interests of the children, and future financial security.

This has led to instances of people losing their homes to banks which are not prepared to wait until the Family Court has the time to hear the case; parties having to declare themselves bankrupt as they cannot continue to meet their debts until a hearing finally comes on; businesses going bust because a party is frustrated in running it for too long while they wait for a court hearing, and children being taken by one parent, and the other parent not being able to get into court to seek a recovery order until months later. This is simply unacceptable.

Sure, we shrug our shoulders when a government plays funny buggers with a train timetable, but should we really allow battles over the emotional wellbeing of distressed children to go on and on and on?

In 2006 someone filing for orders in the Family Court of Australia could expect to wait about two years to have their matter resolved. This meant that separated couples who had paid for valuations to be used in the case - as much as $2000 for homes and $10,000 for companies - had to have them valued all over again, at their expense, along with any family reports made concerning their children.

The waiting time has now increased to as much as 2½ to three years. And it appears to be getting worse. All this when the federal government promised to reduce delays as far back as 1998, and was warned by the Audit Office in 2004 about its "significant concern" at the Family Court's inability to meet its targets, causing delays that increasing the emotional and financial hardship on families.

The Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services released in January this year says the Supreme Courts and District Courts of every state and territory in Australia had a total of 31,201 lodgements for serious legal matters for 2006-07, compared with a high of 122,014 for the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.

Family justice is overwhelmed with four times the number of lodgements as our state courts. The situation is only going to get worse - much worse - because cases involving disputes over the property of de facto couples have finally now been referred to, and accepted by, the federal government from the states. This will undoubtedly lead to a flood of lodgements in the Family Law Courts.

Add to this the string of recent interest rate rises, with hints from the Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens, that there are more to come. And the greatest factor in family breakdown - financial troubles - will also, with an average of dozens of homes a week being repossessed in western Sydney right now, take its toll.

The previous attorney-general responded to the Herald's 2006 front-page story by announcing he was surprised extra resources allocated to the Federal Magistrates court had not solved the problem. His government's hopes that Family Relationship Centres would mediate the problem away have also proved illusory. When it can take up to 12 weeks just to get an appointment, and perhaps months more for follow-up appointments, people can find themselves forced into the court process.

To properly solve this problem - which the Audit Office estimates as costing between $3 billion to $6 billion a year - we have to get more judges into the system. It's as simple as that. With only three federal magistrates in Sydney and three judges in Parramatta it's little wonder it can take 12 months just to get a hearing appointed to your case.

People are losing their homes, their money, their businesses, their livelihoods, their children and their self respect by being denied the opportunity to go to court in a timely manner.

We need many more judges and federal magistrates to clear the backlog so distressed and unhappy Australians can get back to getting on with their lives. The cost of appointing them is far outweighed by the social cost we are now suffering by allowing this to go on.

Although it may seem like a simple issue, there is often confusion as to what matters qualify as "family relations matters" in the State of Connecticut. See Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-1, Family Relations Matters Defined:

Matters within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court deemed to be family relations matters shall be matters affecting or involving: (1) Dissolution of marriage, contested and uncontested, except dissolution upon conviction of crime as provided in section 46b-47; (2) legal separation; (3) annulment of marriage; (4) alimony, support, custody and change of name incident to dissolution of marriage, legal separation and annulment; (5) actions brought under section 46b-15; (6) complaints for change of name; (7) civil support obligations; (8) habeas corpus and other proceedings to determine the custody and visitation of children; (9) habeas corpus brought by or on behalf of any mentally ill person except a person charged with a criminal offense; (10) appointment of a commission to inquire whether a person is wrongfully confined as provided by section 17a-523; (11) juvenile matters as provided in section 46b-121; (12) all rights and remedies provided for in chapter 815j; (13) the establishing of paternity; (14) appeals from probate concerning: (A) Adoption or termination of parental rights; (B) appointment and removal of guardians; (C) custody of a minor child; (D) appointment and removal of conservators; (E) orders for custody of any child; and (F) orders of commitment of persons to public and private institutions and to other appropriate facilities as provided by statute; (15) actions related to prenuptial and separation agreements and to matrimonial decrees of a foreign jurisdiction; (16) custody proceeding brought under the provisions of chapter 815p; and (17) all such other matters within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court concerning children or family relations as may be determined by the judges of said court.

Samuel V. Schoonmaker, IV of the The Schoonmaker Legal Group, LLC provides an informative update of family law cases in the State of Connecticut through his "Appellate Preview." Here is a recently submission by Attorney Schoonmaker:

Jeudy v. Jeudy, __ Conn.App. __. Affirmed.
(1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to open a dissolution judgment. Facts supported the determination that abode service was adequate.
(2) The trial court properly denied a motion to open for fraud because of the defendant's inexcusable delay in raising the issue.
In re Anthony A., __ Conn.App. __. Affirmed.
The trial court properly found that a newborn child was neglected on the date a neglect petition was filed. The mother was inpatient at a psychiatric hospital, and the father was incarcerated.

Official Release Date: March 18, 2008.

Matthew Hirsch
The Recorder
March 18, 2008

Andrew Ross' client is in a bit of a jam.

The Walnut Creek, Calif., divorce lawyer represents a man whose wife wants to keep the family home. But because of the tight consumer credit market, she can't get enough cash to buy his client's piece of the property.

To facilitate a settlement, Ross said his client is thinking about helping his wife secure a new loan on the house. "He needs $200,000 to $300,000 to make it an equal division of property," he said.

A haven for mortgage brokers and McMansions, California's Contra Costa County has been hit especially hard by the U.S. housing slump and the credit crunch.

The weakening economy, in turn, has some lawyers and judges in divorce cases grappling with issues they haven't seen in years, if ever. And it's affecting families at all income levels.

"It seems to me that a lot of people have been using their house as a bank," said Barry Goode, a family court judge in Contra Costa County Superior Court.

That was fine when prices were increasing, Goode said. But with prices sliding downward, the judge said he hears about home foreclosures "if not every day, then certainly every week."

Some lawyers are asking the court to take judicial notice of the softening real estate market, said Jeffrey Huffaker, a superior court commissioner.

One way he's responding to the weakening economy: He's become more inclined to force the sale of family property before trial in a divorce case.

Traditionally, Huffaker said, he would deny those motions "out of hand." In trial, Huffaker said he can get a broader picture of the family situation and craft a better plan to dissolve the marriage.

But lately, Huffaker said, he has seen more parties come to court saying they face foreclosure and the prospect of losing all equity in their homes if they don't sell fast.

Without keeping count, Huffaker estimates that cases where the parties stipulate to sell family property before judgment have "probably quadrupled," and that he is granting twice as many motions to force the sale of family property when the parties can't agree.

Walnut Creek neutral Lee Pearce said he is seeing more people in private mediation who want to maintain the family home as a joint investment, hoping to hold out until the market recovers so the parties can sell later and split a larger profit.

Pearce said he has also seen several cases involving mortgage brokers whose annual income has plummeted, leaving them with less money for child support.

"I haven't seen a real industry hit like this since the dot-com [collapse], where all of the geeks and the computer specialists were all out of work," he said.

Judges and divorce lawyers say they have seen real estate lose value throughout Contra Costa County. But many say less affluent communities in the eastern part of the county, like Pittsburg and Antioch, have been hardest hit by the housing slump.

David Lederman, whose main office is in Antioch, said that in the last year he has begun representing more clients whose debt outweighs their assets.

During that time, Lederman said, more prospective clients have asked for consultations instead of asking to retain him on the spot. Lederman said he bills $325 an hour.

For clients who can't afford full representation, Lederman said, he offers help with legal writing and litigation advice. The pay-as-you-go option is known as unbundled services.

"You need to find other ways to deal with the new economy, [and] you've got to do it in a manner that's not going to drive you into bankruptcy," said Lederman, president of the family law section of the Contra Costa County Bar Association.

In this real estate market, legal bills can present an issue even for more affluent clients.

Ross, the Walnut Creek lawyer whose client's wife wants to keep the family home, bills $450 an hour. "I'm pushing him to settle, because the real problem is they can't afford to continue to litigate."

Caroline Byrne and James Lumley, from Bloomberg, discuss the judgment in the McCartney divorce case.

March 17 (Bloomberg) -- Former Beatle Paul McCartney's wife Heather Mills will receive 24.3 million pounds ($49 million) under a judgment ending the couple's marriage of almost four years.

McCartney, 65, must pay Mills 16.5 million pounds and she will retain 7.8 million pounds of her own assets, a court in London said today. Mills, 40, had been seeking almost 125 million pounds, the court said in a summary of the judgment today.

McCartney, who co-wrote songs such as ``Let It Be'' and ``Can't Buy Me Love,'' and Mills announced they were getting divorced in 2006. The award ``is in line'' with what lawyers expected, said Alan Kaufman, head of family law at London-based Finers Stephens Innocent in London.

``He is going to be much happier than she will be because it is a lot nearer what he proposed, 15.8 million pounds, than the number she wanted, 125 million pounds,'' said Kaufman, who isn't involved in the case.

Mills said she was ``very pleased'' with the award. The judgment ``was always going to be between 15 and 30 million'' pounds, she said.

Judge Hugh Bennett found that McCartney's total wealth, including business assets, was about 400 million pounds, not the 800 million-pound figure cited in some media reports, according to the summary of the judgment.

4-Year-Old Daughter

McCartney declined to comment after the hearing today. While Mills told reporters that she would not appeal the judgment, she is appealing the court's decision to make the full text of the ruling public.

Bennett decided ``the needs of the wife were a factor of magnetic importance,'' the court said in a statement. Bennett also ordered McCartney to pay 35,000 pounds a year to provide for their 4-year-old daughter, Beatrice, and pay for her school fees and a nanny. The divorce will be final when a ``decree absolute'' is issued.

``The court has been keen to ensure there is no great disparity between the lifestyle Beatrice will enjoy with her mother and the one she will enjoy with her father,'' said Emma Hatley, a divorce lawyer at London-based Withers LLP.

McCartney married Mills in 2002 four years after Linda McCartney, his wife of almost 30 years, died of breast cancer.

McCartney was born in Liverpool, England, in 1942. He met John Lennon at church picnic in 1957 when Lennon was playing in a band called ``The Quarrymen,'' according to Rolling Stone Magazine's Web-site. By 1960, the band had renamed itself ``The Beatles'' and was playing clubs in Hamburg. They broke up in 1970.

To contact the reporter on this story: Caroline Byrne in London at cbyrne12@bloomberg.net. James Lumley in London at jlumley1@bloomberg.net.