When parents get divorced or separate through the legal system, the court requires that a parenting plan be put into the final judgment. The goal of the court is to ensure that both parents have frequent and meaningful contact with their children. At Brittle & Brittle P.C., we recommend that parents put together a detailed parenting plan to help avoid future litigation. Even when parents are getting along at the time of their divorce, we remind clients that circumstances can change. What happens if you or your ex-spouse remarries? Or either of you has another child? In those circumstances, conflict often arises and couples who used to get along begin having difficulty communicating. Future problems can often be avoided by careful drafting of a parenting plan.

For example, a statement that “the parties will each have 50% parenting time” is one we often see in judgments prepared by paralegal services. But what does this really mean? Will one parent have Junior from January 1 through June 30^th, and the other parent from July 1 through December 31^st? Or from Sunday to Sunday? Or alternating months? You get the picture! Be specific! List specific times, exchange locations, and who will handle transportation. Do the same for holidays and school vacations.

The lawyers at Brittle & Brittle P.C. can help you write a parenting plan, even if you are using the court forms or a paralegal service to prepare your other court documents. We will give you suggestions about language to address safety provisions, transportation issues, scheduling of activities, exchange of clothing, and more. Give us a call to schedule an appointment!

When getting a divorce, one key question on a client’s mind is how much one party will be ordered to pay in child support. Generally, child support is easy to calculate in advance. The State of Oregon has an online child support calculator, which takes into consideration each parent’s gross monthly income, the number of children each parent has, the cost for healthcare for the children, the monthly cost for childcare, and the number of overnights each parent has the children throughout the year. With these numbers, the calculator generates an amount of child support. This amount is presumed to be the correct amount of support. The Court does have the authority to deviate upwards or downwards from this amount, based on the circumstances of the case. However, in most circumstances, the number generated by the child support calculator is the amount ordered by the court at the conclusion of the case.

Do you have questions about child support? Call one of our experienced divorce lawyers today!

When parents are self-employed, the Court must determine that parent’s actual income before calculating child support. To do so, the Court must deduct from a business’ gross receipts the cost of goods and necessary expenses required to operate that business. In this case, there was insufficient evidence to determine Father’s actual income because the documentation he provided lacked credibility. Under that circumstance, it is appropriate for the Court to determine Father’s potential income for his given field under the Oregon Administrative Rules.

Read the case, decided on 4/20/2011

Matthews v. Matthews

Are you seeking to modify child support? One of our experienced family law lawyers can help!

In this divorce, the trial court divided ownership of Alabama Shopping Center (ASC), which was the parties’ primary source of income. ASC provided both parties with equal incomes post-divorce. However, the trial court then awarded Wife $4,000 indefinite monthly spousal support. Husband appealed, arguing that there was no evidence that he had a greater earning capacity than Wife and that less (or no) support should be awarded. The Court of appeals agreed, and said that without evidence of a greater earning capacity, the trial court’s award of $4,000 was purely speculative and therefore inappropriate. Although the court may make an award of spousal support based on a forecast of Husband’s income, the forecast itself cannot be based on speculation but must be based on reliable estimates of future income. Further, Husband argued that support cannot be higher than what he could afford to pay. Wife argued that spousal support was still appropriate, because of Wife’s health issues and more limited work experience, even though Husband was currently retired. The Court found that there was enough evidence to justify some spousal support, and modified support to $400 per month indefinitely.

Read the case, decided on 04/20/2011: Hendgen v. Hendgen

Are you seeking to modify spousal support? One of our experienced divorce lawyers can help!

When parents get divorced in Oregon, the Court requires both parents to attend a parenting class prior to the finalization of the divorce. This is also true in modification cases, where custody or parenting time may be changed. The purpose of the class is to provide parents information about: (1) the emotional impact of a divorce or separation on children at different developmental stages; (2) parenting during and after a divorce; (3) custody vs. parenting time; (4) the development of parenting plans; (5) the effect of conflict or parental conduct on children, including long-distance parenting; and (6) mediation and conflict resolution. Each county has their own required class, and the cost and length of the class varies. Find out more about the class required by clicking on the links below, or by contacting the family law clerk at the court in your county.

Multnomah County: Parent Education Program (one 3 ½ hour class, $55/$70)

Clackamas County: Parents Helping Children Cope with Family Change (one 3 ½ hour class, $55/$70)

Washington County: Kids' Turn (four 90-minute classes, $210)

Contact a Portland divorce lawyer.

After a divorce or custody case, parents often find themselves in the situation where a modification of custody is necessary. Generally a modification requires a showing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the last determination of custody, and that the change is in the child’s best interests.

In Buxton v. Storm, the Court of Appeals determined that the increased conflict between the parties, and the effect of that conflict on the child, qualified as a change in circumstances sufficient to modify custody. The record reflected that the case between the parties was highly litigious. Mother had repeatedly accused Father of serious crimes, but all accusations proved unfounded. Mother repeatedly excluded Father from participating in various medical and psychological interventions to treat and evaluation the child. Mother influenced the child such that the child’s behavior problems escalated. Finally, the experts who evaluated the case determined that the child displayed symptoms of anxiety, developmental delay, and aggressive behavior, which could be attributed to the conflict between the parties. In reviewing the statutory factors related to custody, the Court particularly focused on which parent would be willing and able to facilitate and encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent. Upon their determination that Mother severely interfered with Father’s relationship with the child, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision and awarded sole custody to Father.

Read the case, decided on 8/11/2010. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A136958.htm

Are you seeking to modify custody? One of our experienced divorce lawyers can help!

In many marriages, one or both parties own a business. In the case of Slater and Slater, Husband owned a chiropractic business, which he purchased in 1996. Part of the purchase price included $37,000 for “goodwill” and the prior owner’s patient list, and another $75,000 for the prior owner’s execution of a non-compete covenant. The revenues generated by this business were substantially higher than the national average for chiropractic businesses. One issue at trial was whether the business’ “goodwill” included the value of a non-compete covenant, even though Husband asserted he did not intend to sell the business.

The appellate court reviewed the case, and first defined “goodwill” as the value of a business over and above the value of its assets, irrespective of the owner’s continued personal services, personality, or reputation. In other words, where a business has no value beyond its assets unless the owner personally promises his/her services to accompany the sale of the business, there is no “goodwill.” The court held that the trial court erred, and held that a future covenant is not recognized in the marital property division, because the valuation of the business as a marital asset could not be predicated on the enhanced valuation of the business based on an assumption that Husband would be bound by a noncompetition covenant.

If you own a business, talk to one of our Portland divorce lawyers about how the Court may value the business.

Read the case, decided on 12/29/10. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A137465.htm

Many people ask why they would use an attorney for purposes of getting divorced. The short answer is that you do not have to. The courts provide many forms and instructions for performing a basic divorce. If a so-called “simple” divorce is all you need, then this is great.

However - and this is a big however - there are many things that you can overlook when doing a marital dissolution on your own. The division of assets and debts, child custody, and parenting schedules all contain potential pitfalls for couples if not properly performed. Often, the very simplicity of a divorce agreement can create confusion down the road. For example, if parents agree to “joint custody, 50/50 split in parenting time” without further detail, what does this actually mean? Every other day? Every other week? Even if things are amicable now, what happens down the road when the parties disagree on which 50% of the time they actually get?

Talking to a qualified attorney can help make you aware of the things you should look out for, even if you plan on doing the divorce yourself. Some of the most contested cases end up as a result of poor planning on the front end. If you are contemplating a divorce, even if you are in agreement with your spouse about how it should look, you are well served by talking to an experienced lawyer.

Contact one of our Portland, Oregon divorce lawyers for Oregon-specific legal questions

Summary provided in whole by NCVLI
Elliot-Park v. Manglona, No. 08-16089, 2010 WL 92482 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2010).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that law enforcement officers who are accused of failing to investigate a crime or make an arrest due to the race of the victim and that of the perpetrator are not entitled to qualified immunity in a case where an automobile accident victim brought a civil rights action against police officers, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The victim, a woman of Korean ethnicity and race, argued that the officers failed to investigate the crime or make a drunk-driving arrest due to her race and the race of the alleged perpetrator, who, like the officers, was of Micronesian race and ethnicity. After the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, defendants appealed, arguing, inter alia, that victims do not have a constitutional right to have police arrest others who have victimized them, and, even if defendants’ conduct violated the victim’s constitutional rights, they were entitled to qualified immunity because such rights were not clearly established at the time of the violation. The court rejected defendants’ first argument, finding that the victim did not base her equal protection claim on a general constitutional right to have an assailant arrested, but instead claimed that the officers’ failure to make an arrest was the result of their racial bias against her and in favor of the alleged perpetrator. As the court noted, although police have broad discretion in deciding whom to arrest, they cannot exercise such discretion in a discriminatory fashion: “For example, a police officer can't investigate and arrest blacks but not whites, or Asians but not Hispanics. Police can't discriminate on the basis of the victim’s race, either.” The court held that the discriminatory failure to investigate a crime or make an arrest violated equal protection. Upon finding that the right to the non-discriminatory administration of protective services is clearly established, the court also held that qualified immunity did not apply to the failure to investigate a crime or make an arrest based on the victim’s and perpetrator’s race. As such, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the officers’ motion to dismiss.
A PDF of this decision can also be found at www.ncvli.org, under “New & Noteworthy Cases.”

Brittle & Brittle P.C. is proud to announce that Jill E. Brittle has been chosen by the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors to serve on the Public Service Advisory Committee, effective January 1, 2010, for a two-year term. The committee provides volunteer opportunities to increase understanding and respect of the justice system by adult Oregonians.