Wiliams Divorce & Family Law Logo

CAN WE HELP?Request your free 30 minute consultOR CALL US AT 651-332-7650

  • Home
  • Our Staff
    • Attorney Gerald O. Williams
    • Paralegal Jocelyn Daul
  • Practice Areas
    • Alimony
    • Child Custody
    • Child Support
    • Collaborative Divorce
    • Divorce
    • International Custody
    • Interstate Custody
    • LGBTQIA+ Divorce & Custody
    • Mediation
  • Billing
    • Billing FAQ
    • Flat Fee Divorce
  • Blog
  • Clients
    • Making Payments
  • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Directions to Williams Divorce and Family Law
    • Resources
    • Privacy Policy

Formal Discovery Versus Informal Discovery

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· November 25, 2007 
· 1 Comment

Discovery is the process of obtaining and providing information in the family court proceeding.  The formal process of discovery includes interrogatories; requests for production of documents; and depositions.  Interrogatories are questions or demands for information that must be answered in writing.  Requests for production of documents involve providing copies of documents such as bank statements, asset verifications, tax returns and real estate records.  Depositions are oral proceedings in which the person answering questions is providing sworn testimony, and the questions and answers are placed on record by a court reporter. 

In many cases, it is not necessary to proceed with formal discovery, if there is enough cooperation between the parties and their attorneys.  In divorce cases, the parties are required by law to disclose relevant information so as not to defraud each other (or the court) in arriving at a fair and equitable settlement.  Consequently, it is often possible to streamline the exchange of information in a manner that is mutually beneficial and economical. 

Informal discovery typically happens by letter, or by meeting in person, or both.  The person providing information furnishes sufficient detail and supporting documentation in a manner that obviates sworn testimony at a deposition.  The person on the receiving end, in following up and requesting additional detail or additional documentation, often does not need a great deal of the information that would be part of the formal discovery process.  The exchange of information is tailored to the specific claims and relevant circumstances of the case, instead of the "fishing expedition" that the formal discovery process is characterized as by many lawyers and judges.

1 Comment
Categories : General Family Law

Child Custody Neutrals

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· November 4, 2007 
· No Comments

If divorcing or separating parents disagree about child custody or parenting arrangements, it is likely necessary for a neutral professional to be involved in resolving the dispute.  The most common neutral professionals are custody evaluators, guardians ad litem, parenting time expeditors, custody mediators and parenting consultants.

Custody evaluators investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the child’s situation, and render a written report with observations, comments and recommendations.  Typically the custody evaluation takes three to four months.  The custody evaluator will interview each parent; meet with the child (usually at least once in each parent’s care); and contact collaterals such as family members, teachers and medical professionals.  The custody evaluator does not have the authority to make a final decision, but his or her recommendations are given substantial weight when the court makes that decision.  The custody evaluator does not stay involved in the case beyond the point that the custody report is issued.

Guardians ad litem are appointed to represent the interests of the child.  A guardian ad litem is not literally the child’s attorney, and may or may not be a practicing attorney.  The guardian ad litem becomes familiar with the child and the child’s circumstances so as to be able to inform the court of what is in the child’s best interests.  The guardian does not have the authority to make the custody decision, but the guardian’s comments and observations are given substantial weight.  The guardian may be involved in the case over the course of weeks or months (and less commonly, years).

Parenting time expeditors are described in a separate post.  Custody mediators meet with the parents to attempt to facilitate an agreement.  The mediator typically will not meet with the child directly, and has no authority to make a decision, and no opportunity to speak directly to the court.

A parenting consultant has broader authority that is usually defined in the agreement that provides for the consultant’s appointment.  The consultant will meet with the parties and will determine to what degree it is necessary and appropriate for the consultant to meet with the child.  The consultant typically will attempt to mediate the dispute, as a mediator would.  But if there is an impasse, unlike a mediator, a consultant often has the authority to make a decision.  Depending on the terms of the consultant’s appointment, the consultant’s decision may be binding on the parties and subject to review by the family court.

Different child custody cases can benefit from different child custody neutrals, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the custody dispute.  The purpose of the neutral is to bring the dispute to a conclusion relatively quickly and inexpensively, and to avoid the high conflict of family court litigation.

No Comments
Categories : Child Custody, Divorce, General Family Law, Guardian ad litem, Parenting Time, Parenting time expeditor

The Status Quo

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· October 21, 2007 
· No Comments

In many instances when facing a dispute during a divorce or custody case, it is important to be mindful of the existing circumstances: where the child is living; who is in possession of the house; whether both spouses are working outside the home.   It is important because, all other things being equal, the court is very likely to maintain the status quo, if possible, when deciding an issue. 

This is especially important in the case of temporary orders (i.e., court orders that are in effect while the case is pending).  If the court must decide the temporary parenting schedule, the court will likely need a specific reason to CHANGE what the current pattern is.  Unless there is good reason, the court is likely to stick to the "status quo."  If one party has refrained from working outside the home for several years, the court is unlikely to expect that party to immediately produce substantial income.  Instead, the court will (at least temporarily) maintain the status quo, and refrain from expecting separate earnings from that party.

The status quo issue is an important consideration when someone is deciding whether or not to move out of the marital residence.  If someone moves out of the house, they can be creating a new "status quo" that they may need to be prepared to stick with.  Someone who moves out, leaving children at the marital home with the other parent, allows for a new "status quo" that the children are living with one parent in the home.  The party who moved out may have a difficult time later obtaining sole custody, or even joint custody, based upon the status quo established with the move-out. 

The same can be said of later obtaining possession of the house.  If one party moves out, then the family court is unlikely to impose upon the other party the disruption of moving out over his or her objection. 

No Comments
Categories : Child Custody, Divorce, General Family Law, Parenting Time

Removing a Judge

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· October 7, 2007 
· 1 Comment

In a Minnesota family law case, each party has one opportunity to remove the assigned judge without having to provide a reason.  The case is then assigned to a different judge.  The removal must be made within ten days, and must be made before the judge takes any substantive action on the case. 

If someone wants to remove the judge after reassignment, after the ten day deadline, or after the judge has taken substantive action on the case, it requires the judge’s assent (either by the judge’s own action, or by the requesting party’s motion).  Many parties wish for, or even seek, removal in these instances; but relatively, very few are granted. 

1 Comment
Categories : Divorce, General Family Law

What is a Temporary Order?

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· September 27, 2007 
· No Comments

When the court issues a divorce decree, the order provides for final relief as to child custody, financial support and property issues.  However, in many cases, it is necessary for the court to make provisions in the interim, while the divorce is pending.    For example, if a divorce begins in March and the final decree is entered in September, the court may need make an order for interim relief to be followed by the parties between March and September.  This is called a temporary order, or order for temporary relief.

If there is a child custody dispute, and a custody evaluation is undertaken, the parents must have a temporary arrangement to abide by in the mean time.   If the marital residence is going to be sold to provide both spouses money needed to buy a new home, the court may need to decide which spouse may reside in the house while it is listed and marketed.  In many cases, the spouses reach agreement on the interim terms, in which case the court issues a stipulated order for temporary relief. 

The temporary order expires when the final decree is issued by the court.  Some of the terms from the temporary order may carry over into the final decree, and others may not. 

No Comments
Categories : Divorce

How Long Before the Court Order is Issued?

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· September 22, 2007 
· No Comments

When a family court judge or referee presides over a Minnesota family court hearing, he or she may let the parties and attorneys know the court’s decision at the close of the hearing.  More often, however, the court will make known its decision later, after taking the matter under advisement.  When the court takes a matter under advisement, it may be necessary for the court and the court’s staff to research a legal issue, dig a little deeper into the file for information on the facts and circumstances, or just plain give the matter some more thought. 

The family courts operate under a general guideline that the court order will be issued within ninety (90) days of the hearing.  That time frame is extended when there are additional submissions after the hearing, such as a legal memorandum, or specific documents that the court has requested.  In those instances, the court must issue the order within 90 days of the final submission.

That said, it is more common for the court to issue an order within one to two weeks for motions involving one or two issues, and several weeks for motions involving several issues and/or complex legal matters. 

No Comments
Categories : General Family Law

Temporary, Emergency Custody Jurisdiction

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· September 9, 2007 
· 4 Comments

Typically, parents and children need to be residents of Minnesota for 180 days or six months for the Minnesota courts to have jurisdiction over their family law situation.  However, there are times when it is necessary, and possible, to invoke the jurisdiction of the Minnesota family court without the requisite six-month residence period. 

In child custody cases, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) provides for temporary, emergency jurisdiction if the child(ren) is (are) presently in the State of Minnesota and are subject to abandonment, mistreatment or abuse (or the threat thereof).   (Minn. Stat. Section 518D.204)

In those cases in which the child(ren) remain in Minnesota as residents for more than six months, the Minnesota family court’s temporary jurisdiction may become permanent jurisdiction.  This is most likely to occur if there is no previous court order from another jurisdiction, or if the state where previous court orders were issued is no longer the place of residence of either parent (nor any party to the court action). 

4 Comments
Categories : Child Custody, Interstate issues

Taxable Alimony, Nontaxable Child Support

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· August 26, 2007 
· No Comments

The tax consequences of child support and alimony (spousal maintenance) are different.  Child support has no tax consequences, which is to say that child support is not taxable to the recipient, and not deductible from the income of the payor.  Typically, however, spousal maintenance is taxable to the recipient, and deductible from the taxable income of the payor. 

If a court order provides for one party to pay child support of $1,500 per month, and maintenance of $750 per month, on paper that combines to be $2,250.  Assume that one’s combined state and federal taxes are at a rate of 33% of total income.  Since the payor will save approximately $250 on taxes (due to deducting the $750 from taxable income) and the receiver will incur approximately $250 in taxes (due to including the $750 in taxable income), the net amount of the $2,250 in combined payments is closer to $2,000.

If the court order instead provides for the party to pay child support of $750 per month, and maintenance of $1,500 per month, on paper that combines to be the same $2,250.  But the net amount is closer to $1,750, due to the approximately $500 in tax on the $1,500 in maintenance.

Moreover, if the party paying the support and maintenance is in a higher tax bracket than the party receiving the payments, the parties can mutually enjoy a net benefit.  Assume that the payor is in a tax bracket that results in a 33% tax liability, and the receiver is in a tax bracket that results in a $20% tax liability.  In the first example above, if the payor saves $250 on tax, the net effect to the payor is a combined expense of $2,000.  At the same time, the receiver may incur tax of only $150, so that the net effect to the receiver is a combined receipt of $2,100.  Together, the parties save $100 per month in taxes.

The net benefit increases with the second example ($750 child support, $1,500 maintenance).  If the payor saves $500 on taxes, the net expense is $1,750.  But if the receiver incurs tax of only $300, the net receipt is $1,950.  Together, the parties save $200 per month in taxes. 

No Comments
Categories : Alimony / Spousal Maintenance, Child Support

New Child Support Law Reduces Disputes About Parenting Time

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· August 12, 2007 
· No Comments

The new Minnesota child support law that came into effect in January 2007 has helped to improve the dynamics between divorced, separated and unmarried parents.  In the past, a parent in the midst of a dispute with the other parents about visitation or parenting time might not want to agree to the other parent having more parenting time, because that might result in a lower amount of child support paid by the visiting parent.  Conversely, a parent in the midst of a child support dispute might insist on having more parenting time for the sake of paying lower child support. 

The new law encourages parents to keep separate the issues of the parenting schedule and the money.  Under the new law, there is no distinction in the child support obligation between a parent who sees the child(ren) eleven percent (11%) of the time and one who sees the child forty-four percent (44%) of the time.  Such a parent is given a break on their child support to reflect the time that the child is in that parent’s care. 

If a parent sees the child less than ten percent (10%) of the time, there is no such reduction.  And if the parent sees the child more than forty-five percent (45%) of the time, both parents pay day-to-day expenses of the children, and a smaller amount of child support is transferred between the parents. 

Relatively few children have parents arguing about which kind of parenting schedule applies, i.e., whether it is 10%-or-less; 45%-or-more; or between 10% and 45%.  Consequently, fewer children suffer the conflict that results when parents squabble over "money for parenting time." 

No Comments
Categories : Parenting Time

Settlement Versus Trial

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· August 5, 2007 
· 3 Comments

Why do some divorce and child custody cases settle out of court, and some cases have to go to trial?  There are many factors that determine whether a family law case will settle outside of court, the most important which involve the willingness of the parties to compromise, and the willingness of the attorneys for the parties to facilitate that compromise. 

Preparing for and proceeding with a family court trial is a long, expensive process.  If the parties are close to reaching an agreement, but are unable to arrive at the final stipulated terms, both parties are likely to spend more on the expense of going to trial than they would if they EACH accepted the other party’s terms. 

Conversely, if the parties are not close to reaching an agreement, there most likely is a principal issue that needs to be addressed by the family court.  Examples are whether there should be any spousal maintenance at all; whether an antenuptial agreement is void or not; or whether a third party is entitled to visitation with a minor child. 

In the first example, the AMOUNT of spousal maintenance might be resolved by compromise, but only if both parties presume that there will be spousal maintenance.  Otherwise, the dispute about whether there should be spousal maintenance at all may need to be decided by the court.  In the second example, how to apply the terms of an antenuptial agreement can be negotiated and compromised.  But if there is a fundamental question about whether the antenuptial agreement is even valid or not, the family court may need to render a decision.  In the third example, discussions about a visitation schedule cannot take place if there is disagreement about who is entitled to have the court-ordered right to have the subject minor child in their care in the first place.

One key advantage to a settlement out of court is the fact that the parties have the final say in the terms of their divorce or child custody dispute, rather than the court.  In all likelihood, the parties will be assenting to a conclusion that is not as favorable as their best possible result in court.  But it may be worth avoiding the risk of going to court and not getting the best possible result.

3 Comments
Categories : General Family Law
← Previous Page
Next Page →

Recent Posts

  • Child Support and Alimony Arrears
  • Spousal Maintenance Payments Are Not Deductible From Taxable Income
  • Interesting Perspective on Divorce, Mediation and Collaborative Law
  • Independence of Provisions for Parenting Time and Child Support
  • Name Change in Divorce

Categories

  • Alimony / Spousal Maintenance (8)
  • Child Custody (42)
  • Child Support (21)
  • Co-parenting (1)
  • Court of Appeals (2)
  • Divorce (45)
  • Financial Issues (2)
  • General Family Law (53)
  • Guardian ad litem (6)
  • Interstate issues (2)
  • LGBTQIA Divorce (5)
  • Mediation (5)
  • Mental Health (3)
  • Parenting Plans (1)
  • Parenting Time (17)
  • Parenting time expeditor (3)
  • Uncategorized (37)
  • Uncontested Divorce (6)
Copyright © 2026 Williams Divorce & Family Law All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy

The content of this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an attorney-client relationship. To establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Divorce & Family Law requires a retainer agreement signed by you and attorney Gerald O. Williams.

Minnesota divorce attorney, Gerald O. Williams, represents clients in divorce and family law primarily in the communities of Woodbury, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Cottage Grove, Maplewood, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, and Stillwater, as well as the greater seven county metro area including Washington, Ramsey, Hennepin, Dakota, Anoka, Scott, and Carver.