When separated parents are working out a co-parenting arrangement, and one of the parents suffers from mental illness, alcoholism, or chemical dependency, the other parent sometimes will often be concerned about a potential crisis. The crisis would involve the addict parent’s relapse or the mentally ill parent’s breakdown. So the other parent will seek a parenting plan that factors the potential crisis into the regular parenting schedule. They may seek curtailed parenting time, supervised parenting time, or even the suspension of parenting time altogether. Sometimes this will happen in an effort to disingenuously gain an advantage in the parenting schedule. But sometimes it will be a completely genuine concern.

Not only does an emphasized focus on the potential crisis improperly stigmatize the parent with addiction or mental illness, it is a disservice to the child(ren) as well. The children deserve to have a parenting schedule that is “normal.” It is more constructive to create a parenting plan that has a Main Track and a Crisis Track. The Main Track is the parenting schedule that proceeds without regard to the addiction or mental illness. It allows normalcy for the affected parent and (probably more importantly) the children. The Crisis Track is the schedule (or conditions, or suspension of parenting time) that is to be in place in the event of a crisis.

There is the potential for the parties to disagree about the occurrence or onset of a crisis, and whether the Crisis Track should be triggered or not. But establishing a Main Track and a Crisis Track is helpful in moving beyond getting the parenting plan worked out.

When negotiating a settlement during a mediation, and the time comes to make an offer, many people believe you need to go high (if you are the recipient of the settlement) or to go low (if you are the one making the payment). The logic is that, this way, you are setting things up so that hopefully the other party responds with a counterproposal that is at or around the settlement you are seeking.

Most family law mediations do not play out that way. Certainly not when both parties have agreed to pay half of the mediator’s fees, possibly in addition to their own attorney’s fees, to get to settlement. If they could have settled the matter merely by trading a proposal and a counterproposal, and that is all it takes, one might wonder whether they needed a mediator in the first place.

In many cases, one is well-served to take a different approach. It may be worthwhile to make an offer that is a stretch for you, a proposal that meets, or even slight exceeds, your limit. Because any offer of settlement that you make that is not accepted, is an offer that you are not obligated to follow through on. You only have to follow through on the offer if it is accepted.

If you make a “comfortable” offer, and the other party rejects or counters it, no big surprise. You haven’t learned much from that negotiation. If you make a “stretch” offer, and the other party rejects or counters it, then two important things result. (A) You are not required to follow through on the offered terms (so, in the end, no harm in having made the offer); and (B) You have learned more than you would have by having a comfortable offer rejected.

Having a comfortable offer rejected results in an impasse of sorts. But it might be an impasse avoided by digging a little deeper and stretching the proposal outside your comfort zone. Conversely, having a “stretch” offer rejected is an indication that the impasse is a true sign that the issue cannot be resolved in mediation. If the parties are going to have to incur the cost and the risk of litigating the issue in court, they are both better off with a genuine impasse, rather than an impasse resulting from one or both parties just keeping their heels dug in the sand.

So, the “risk” of making a “stretch” offer is that it is accepted. Then, you are contractually bound to honor the offered terms. That is a “nice problem” to have if it means that the case is settled, and it is unnecessary to litigate the issue in court.

It is important not to make an offer that you are not prepared to follow through on. But it may be equally important not to limit your “best offer” to something that is not a “stretch,” especially one that perhaps factors in the risk and cost of litigation. Because if you stick with the comfortable offer, you may end up at a somewhat unmeaningful impasse.

It is not unusual in divorce and family law cases for issues to arise that pertain to harassment. Not harassment as in physical or sexual assault, or residential picketing (although these do constitute harassment by statute). It is the form of harassment defined as “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target.” Minn. Stat. Section 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1).

What is an unwanted act in one person’s view is completely innocuous in another person’s view – especially when the two persons involved do not get along. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly identify that something (such as showing up unannounced at one’s residence, or sending hostile emails) is unwanted. It is a matter of setting the record straight, for example, on whether a rash of emails is hostile or harmless.

Essentially, it is a 3-strike rule. Strike 1: Offender engages in conduct that Recipient considers hostile, but Offender considers (or claims to be) harmless. Recipient is fed up, and so informs Offender in writing. Recipient is well served to make it clear in the written correspondence that Recipient (a) finds the act to be hostile, not harmless; (b) therefore, future similar conduct is unwanted; and (c) legal action will be taken if Offender persists. Strike 2: Offender persists with hostile conduct. Under these circumstances, the act squarely fits the statutory definition of harassment, because Recipient has clearly called out the fact that the conduct is unwanted. Offender cannot reasonably claim that the conduct is innocuous when Recipient has identified the “unwantedness” in writing. If Recipient is successful in obtaining a Harassment Restraining Order from the court restraining Offender from the unwanted conduct, that leads to… Strike 3: Offender further persists with hostile conduct, and is subject to arrest and prosecution.

If parents separate when their children are young, hopefully by the time the children are teens, they have a level of cooperation that provides for smooth co-parenting decisions. And if the children are teens when the parents separate, it can add an extra challenge to establish workable grounds rules in both homes. Here are three categories of expenses and decisions for parents to tackle as the children get older.

1. Extracurricular activities. How many different activities should a kid be allowed to pursue? How much time should a child devote to activities (esp. so as to avoid a negative impact on the child’s grades and health)? Does the activity have additional levels of time commitment and expense that the child and both parents need to agree on?
2. Cell phones. At what age should a child be allowed to have a cell phone? Should its use be restricted as a discipline tool? Should its use be restricted in general? Are there the same ground rules at both parents’ homes?
3. Driving. When does the child get his or her own car? Funded by the child? By one or both parents? By another loved one? Does the child fill the gas tank? Are there restrictions on when the child is allowed to drive? Restriction by hour? By distance?

The new child support law that went into effect in August 2018 addresses basic child support, child care support and medical support, just like the previous law did. The new law also is silent about many of the children’s expenses – such as extracurricular costs – just like the previous law was.

The reason is simple. The child support statute provides for a monthly sum to be paid from one parent to the other. It contemplates that the children’s day-to-day living expenses will be properly covered by the parents once the monthly support obligation has been conveyed by the obligor parent to recipient parent. But what if they aren’t?

The new law calculates child support such that the more parenting time an obligor parent has, the less that parent pays to the other parent. So it stands to reason that the more parenting time an obligor parent has, the more that parent pays the kids’ day-to-day expenses in real time.

If the obligor has no parenting time, then there is no parenting expense adjustment downward with the expectation that the obligor parent covers other expenses. But if the obligor has parenting time, and therefore there is a parenting expense downward, the parents should probably have a mutual understanding and expectation regarding what contributions the obligor parent will make to day-to-day expenses, such as clothing, school lunches, and cell phones.

Minnesota’s artificial insemination statute is in need of gender neutralization. Minnesota Statute Section 257.56 provides that “if…a wife is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her husband, the husband is treated in law as if he were the biological father of a child thereby conceived.”

In the current age of marriage equality, this should read, “if…a woman is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her spouse, the woman’s spouse is treated in law as if the spouse were the parent of the child thereby conceived.”

In the absence of gender-neutral language, if the spouse of the woman who is artificially inseminated is also a woman, she is required to adopt the child. As related in a Pioneer Press article authored by Dave Orrick, this creates unnecessary legal burdens that do not serve any useful purposes.

Here’s hoping that the Minnesota legislature remedies this problem so that other couples are not confronted with the same useless barriers.

https://www.twincities.com/2019/01/29/marriage-equality-lesbian-married-parents-actually-arent-treated-the-same-legally-as-straight-couples-will-it-change/?utm_content=fb-PioneerPress&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2pIdhcRCuJ7NZZDVEI1w9i1T1nN9GFm2Kt1E0q1cxk-qTG1rMDNiurvVI

When a separated couple is addressing a child custody dispute, and one of the parents has a mental illness, it is not uncommon for the other parent to try to use the mental disorder as a “trump card.”  The underlying logic would be that a parent with a mental illness is “less fit” as a parent than one without a mental illness.  The fact is, if a parent is struggling with mental illness, and not properly managing it by following the advice of professional care providers, a child may be adversely affected.

However, if the parent is properly managing their diagnosis and complying with the care recommendations of their psychiatrist and/or psychologist, the other parent may be off-base to try to use it as an advantage.  Many mental illnesses are hereditary, so it may be problematic for children to hear one parent  speak negatively of mental health challenges that the children may themselves confront.

More importantly, if a parent is properly managing their mental illness, that may present a positive – not a negative – as it pertains to good parenting.  Meeting the challenge of addressing mental illness often requires a focus on all aspects of one’s health, and may provide better insight as a parent on how to model healthy behavior for one’s children.