Tag Archive | "Family Law"

2017 Year in Review – Dec. 5-6

DAY 1 TOPICS:
Welcome and Introduction
– Alan M. Hux, Program Chair

Ethics Law Update
– Charles M. Kidd & Kevin P. McGoff

Constitutional Law Update
– Kenneth J. Falk

Tort Law Update
– Roy T. Tabor – Plaintiff Perspective
– Thomas Rosta – Defense Perspective

Income Tax Update
– Richard L. Bartholomew

Data Breach & Cybersecurity Liabilities
– William C. Wagner

Unmanned Aircraft Systems / Drone Liabilities
– Richard S. Pitts

The Expungement Process
– Michael J. Bruzzese

Criminal Law Update
– Maureen T. Keefe

DAY 2 TOPICS:
Insurance Law Update
– John C. Trimble

Family Law
– Andrew Z. Soshnick

Employment Law Update
– Stephanie Jane Hahn

Recent Developments in Estate Planning
– Todd I. Glass

Elder Law Update
– Robert W. Fechtman

Recent Developments in Real Estate Law
– Andrew B. Buroker

Bankruptcy Law Update
– Thomas P. Yoder
______________________

FACULTY:
Alan M. Hux – Program Chair
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indianapolis, IN

Richard L. Bartholomew
Girardot, Strauch & Co, Lafayette, IN

Michael J. Bruzzese
Paganelli Law Group, Carmel, IN

Andrew B. Buroker
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN

Kenneth J. Falk
American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN

Robert W. Fechtman
Fechtman Law Office, Indianapolis, IN

Todd I. Glass
Fine & Hatfield, Evansville, IN

Stephanie Jane Hahn
Attorney At Law, Indianapolis, IN

Maureen T. Keefe
Attorney at Law, Carmel, IN

Charles M. Kidd
Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, Indianapolis, IN

Kevin P. McGoff
Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Indianapolis, IN

Richard S. Pitts
Arlington / Roe & Co., Indianapolis

Thomas E. Rosta
Metzger Rosta LLP, Noblesville, IN

Andrew Z. Soshnick
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN

Roy T. Tabor
Tabor Law Firm, LLP, Indianapolis, IN

John C. Trimble
Lewis Wagner, LLP, Indianapolis, IN

William C. Wagner
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indianapolis, IN

Thomas P. Yoder
Barrett & McNagny LLP, Fort Wayne, IN
______________________

2017 YEAR IN REVIEW
12 CLE / 1 E – Tuesday & Wednesday, December 5-6
9:00 A.M. – 4:45 P.M. Both Days

LIVE IN-PERSON SEMINAR
– Ritz Charles, Carmel

LIVE GROUP WEBCASTS
– Bingham Greenebaum Doll, Evansville (Central Time)
– Grand Wayne Center, Fort Wayne
– Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Indianapolis
– ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
– Blue Chip Hotel & Casino, Michigan City
– DeFur Voran, Muncie

LIVE INDIVIDUAL WEBCASTS
Day 1 -or- Day 2  from your home or office computer

VIDEO REPLAY SEMINARS
– Available after Live Seminar date

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in News0 Comments

Advanced Family Law – Live in Fort Wayne – Nov. 16

Join Fort Wayne Attorney Neil Hayes and an esteemed faculty panel for our annual discussion of family law issues at the conveniently located Grand Wayne Center in Fort Wayne.

TOPICS:
Family Law Update
– Andrew Soshnick

Family Law at your finger tips: The Family Law Notebook
– Thomas Massey

Ethical Considerations in Using and Responding to 3rd Party Discovery
– Paul Leonard

Avoiding the Family Feud (Cooperative/ Collaborative Practice)
– John Brandt

Appellate Matters for Family Lawyers
– Michael Michmerhuizen

Emerging Ethical Considerations of interest to Family Lawyers
– Debra Dubovich
_____________________

Luncheon:
Our day-long agenda includes a networking luncheon in the bright and airy Gallery Room of the Grand Wayne Center. So, bring your questions and leave with answers from this informal and engaging program.
_____________________

FACULTY:
Cornelius Hayes
Hayes & Hayes, Fort Wayne

John H. Brandt
Beckman Lawson LLP, Fort Wayne

Debra Lynch Dubovich
Levy & Dubovich, Merrillville

Thomas A. Massey
Massey Law Offices, Evansville

Michael H. Michmerhuizen
Barrett & McNagny LLP, Fort Wayne

Andrew Z. Soshnick
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indianapolis
_____________________

ADVANCE FAMILY LAW
A Masters Series Seminar
6 CLE / 1 CME / 2 E – Thursday, November 16; 9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.

LIVE IN-PERSON ONLY SEMINAR
– Grand Wayne Center, Fort Wayne

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Sale/Featured Items0 Comments

Trial Court Properly Recognized & Enforced a Foreign Court’s Custody Order

Family Law Case Review

Case: Maimouna Coulibaly v. Eric Stevance
by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham Greenebaum Doll

HELD: Indiana trial court properly recognized and enforced a Malian court’s custody order, over Mother’s objection that the order was unenforceable under the UCCJEA because Mali’s child custody laws violate fundamental humanrights.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Mother and Father are both dual citizens of France and Mali. In 2001, they married in Mali and later had two children together.  Father filed for divorce in Mali in 2008. At a hearing there, Mother testified that she wished to move away from Mali, and that Father had been abusive to her. Father denied the abuse claim, and expressed concern that Mother might kidnap the children. Both parties requested custody. Before the Malian court could rule, Mother took the children and moved to France. The Malian court subsequently issued an order granting custody of the children to Father.

Mother never returned the children to Father, and after unsuccessfully contesting the custody order in Mali and France, Mother moved to Indiana, where she continued to challenge the order. At a trial in Indiana, Mother presented evidence of corruption in Mali and of widespread female genital mutilation (“FGM”), which Mother feared the daughter would be subjected to. The Indiana trial court ultimately concluded that that Malian child custody order was entitled to enforcement and that the Indiana court lacked jurisdiction to modify it. Further, Mother was ordered to return the children to Father. That order was stayed pending Mother’s appeal.

Indiana’s adoption of the UCCJEA includes a provision that essentially allows an Indiana court to disregard a foreign custody order, “if the child custody law of a foreign country violates the fundamental principles of human rights.” The interpretation of this so-called “escape clause” was a matter of first impression in this case.  Mother’s arguments that Malian law violated principles of human rights included that its laws favor men over women. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Malian law treats men and women in different ways, but their custody laws ultimately provide for a “best interests of the children” standard. As to the application of gender differences, “we simply cannot say that they are so utterly shocking to the conscience or egregious as to rise to the level of a violation of fundamental principles of human rights.”

The Court of Appeals also rejected Mother’s arguments based upon the FGM issue: Under the UCCJEA “our scrutiny is limited to Mali’s child custody law and not on other aspects of its legal system, including the law (or absence of law) concerning FGM.” Failing to prove that Mali’s custody laws violate fundamental principles of human law, the trial court properly ordered that the Malian custody decree should not be disturbed by the Indiana court.

The trial court’s order was affirmed.

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: Maimouna Coulibaly v. Eric Stevance

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

James A. Reed and Michael R. Kohlhaas of Bingham Greenebaum Doll represent clients in a wide spectrum of relationship transition and wealth planning matters, including premarital agreements, estate planning, cohabitation, separation, divorce (especially involving high net worth individuals and/or complex asset issues), custody, parenting arrangements, adoption, and domestic partnerships. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, a multidisciplinary law firm serving regional, national, and international clients, is the fourth-largest law firm in Indiana. The firm’s main practices include corporate, property, litigation, labor, government law, and personal services law. Visit the firm’s website at www.bgdlegal.com.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Family Law Case Review0 Comments

Trial Court Erred When It “Quasi-emancipated” a 17-year-old Child

Family Law Case Review

Case: Ginger Moell v. Stephen R. Moell
by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham Greenebaum Doll

HELD: Trial court erred when it “quasi-emancipated” a 17-year-old child who was a subject of a pending petition to modify parenting time between his divorced parents.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Mother and Father divorced in 2012, with two children. The parties reached a settlement agreement on all children’s issues.

The following year, Father remarried and moved 45 minutes away. The relocation, especially the new amount of travel time required to follow the parenting time schedule, caused significant stresses and disagreement. In 2015, Father filed a petition to modify parenting time.

At the time of the hearing, the parties’ children were 17 and 14 years of age.  As to the 17-year-old, the trial court ordered that he would have discretion to determine his own parenting times schedule, health care decisions, participation in school and extracurricular activities, as well as his religious participation. Mother appealed.

The Court of Appeals noted that the trial court’s order did not formally emancipate the 17-year-old, as could occur pursuant to Ind. Code 31-16-6-6.  The Court observed that the trial court took this step of “quasi-emancipation,” yet made no changes to the parents’ obligations to support the child, though it is unclear that would have changed the outcome of the case.  The Court of Appeals also noted the constitutional implications of the right to parent a child. While the Court was sympathetic to the judicial economy that may have been served by accelerating a process that would occur soon on its own as the child aged, and that the child appeared to be very mature, the orders regarding the older child were reversed and remanded.

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: Ginger Moell v. Stephen R. Moell

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

James A. Reed and Michael R. Kohlhaas of Bingham Greenebaum Doll represent clients in a wide spectrum of relationship transition and wealth planning matters, including premarital agreements, estate planning, cohabitation, separation, divorce (especially involving high net worth individuals and/or complex asset issues), custody, parenting arrangements, adoption, and domestic partnerships. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, a multidisciplinary law firm serving regional, national, and international clients, is the fourth-largest law firm in Indiana. The firm’s main practices include corporate, property, litigation, labor, government law, and personal services law. Visit the firm’s website at www.bgdlegal.com.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Family Law Case Review0 Comments