The Oregon Court of Appeals filed an opinion in Stokes and Stokes on March 31, 2010.  The entire opinion can be found here:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A136795.htm  The case addressed the treatment of the following issues:  1.  Whether military benefits that are non-taxable can be included in gross income for child support calculation purposes;  2.  What the proper valuation date for a pension is; 3. The proper method to divide a pension interest; 4. Whether payment for other debts can be credited against support obligations.

Husband is in the military and receives BAH and BAS payments which are included in his monthly paychecks.  He argued that the court should not consider those benefits as income for child support purposes since they are non-taxable.  The court of appeals did not agree and held that pursuant to OAR 137-050-0340 which defines gross income as “income from any source including, but not limited to, salaries, wages, commissions, advances, bonuses, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, honoraria, trust income, annuities, return on capital, Social Security benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, disability insurance benefits, gifts, prizes, including lottery winnings, and alimony or separate maintenance received,” that the BAH and BAS payments were gross income.  It did not matter that those payments were non-taxable.

Husband, as a member of the military, is entitled to a military pensiion after 20 years of service.  At the time of the divorce he had not completed 20 years of service, but testified that he would complete said service.  Under Oregon law, the marital portion of husband’s pension must be calculated as a fraction of the entire actual pension, rather than as a fraction of a hypothetical pension amount.  The trial court had awarded wife a potion of the pension based upon a hypothetical retirement date prior to his full srevice.  The “time” rule is typically used to calculate the marital portion of benefits under a defined benefit retirement plan.  Under that rule, the marital portion is determined by multiplying the total actual pension benefit by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of years (or months) of service during the marriage and the denominator of which is the total years (or months) of employment.  Wife’s interest in the pension should be based on the total pension benefit as of the date of retirement, determined either by way of an actuarial present value or through a division of benefits as they are distributed.

The court used the date of the parties’ separation to determine the marital portion of the pension.  The court of appeals held that the proper date is the date of dissolution, not the date of separation.

The court of appeals also held that in view of the fact that wife is entitled to a share of the marital portion of husband’s retirement benefits, and because those benefits would terminate if husband were to predecease her, it is appropriate that wife’s interest be protected by the provision of survivor benefits in an amount sufficient to cover wife’s share of the marital portion of the pension, with the parties to share equally in the cost of the annuity. 

The trial court ruled that husband satisfied his pretrial child and spousal support obligation via payment of the parties’ credit card debt.  Under Oregon law, a court cannot forgive a past-due support obligation.  Wife was awarded temporary spousal and child support in order to provide her with assistance in meeting her monthly expenses during the pendency of the proceeding as sset forth in ORS 107.095.  The trial court should not have credited husband’s obligation by his payment of credit card debt.

This case shows that a trial court can make myriad errors in its decisions.  In this case, the divorce was finalized by the trial court years prior to the court of appeals rendering its decision.  The issues in this case were complex.  In complex cases, the parties are frequently unable to reach a settlement due to their lawyers not being sure of a proper result.  Obviously, the alternative of throwing the issue into the hands of a trial court was not helpful in this case.  It is important to make sure that your lawyer has a firm grasp of the law and is able to property understand its application to the facts of your case and to the trial court.

I wrote a post a few weeks ago about the effect of the current enconomy on child support modification. The State of Oregon has taken note of the problem. Margaret Olney with the Oregon Attorney General’s Office sent out the following email with regard to the changes being made effective today, May 7th. Please contact Stephens Margolin P.C. to see how the changes may affect your child support situation.

Here is the letter:

Greetings,

As you know, the Attorney General has initiated a special project to respond to current economic crisis. The goal of this project is to speed the entry of fair and enforceable orders. We are also hoping to use the project as an opportunity to try out some other changes in the guidelines and procedures.

There are two important changes that will become effective May 7, 2009. First, at the request of the Division of Child Support, the legislature has enacted and the Governor signed emergency legislation and rules authorizing the temporary modification of existing orders based upon employment related loss of income to either parent. HB 2275A. These temporary modifications are only available through the child support program, either through the Division of Child Support (DCS) or through District Attorneys offices. Private attorneys and the court cannot independently issue temporary modifications. DCS has established a specialized unit in Salem called the “Recession Response Team” (RRT) to handle these modifications, using streamlined procedures designed to encourage consent and expedite modifications. Parents can access this team through the DCS interactive telephone system, by dialing 1-800-850-0228 and listening to the instructions.

The second change is to the child support guidelines themselves. The most significant changes include a cap on child care costs, adjustments relating to medical support orders and the establishment of a presumption $100 minimum order.

More details regarding the changes follow. The proposed rules are currently posted on the DOJ/DCS website in draft form. http://www.dcs.state.or.us/oregon_admin_rules/child_support_rules/draft.htm. In addition, a training module will be available through the DOJ-DCS website.

Statutory Change:

HB 2275A was signed by the Governor on May 5 and makes a number of changes to ORS 416.400 through ORS 416.465. It authorizes the Attorney General to declare that we are in a period of significant unemployment (an unfortunately easy decision to make in this economy), during which time existing orders can be suspended and replaced with a temporary modification based upon actual income. These temporary modifications automatically expire six months from the date of entry in court, but may be renewed. HB 2275A also authorizes alternate forms of service designed to speed the modification process.

Regular Division Rule Changes:

OAR 137-055-2140 (Delegations to Administrative Law Judge): this change allows an administrative law judge (ALJ) to enter a final order by default on employment-related modifications. It also allows the ALJ to dismiss the temporary modification request if the requesting party fails to appear for the hearing.

OAR 137-055-2165 (Request to Reschedule): this change requires requests to reschedule a hearing to be filed within 60 days of the notice of hearing cancellation.

OAR 137-055-3420 (Periodic Review): this change clarifies that a temporary modification does not affect the time period for a periodic review and adjustment of the order that is suspended.

OAR 137-055-3430 (Change of Circumstance Review): this change amends the change of circumstance rule to:

• Provide a definition of an “temporary modification” pursuant to HB 2275
• Define “employment-related change of income”
• Allow for a verbal request for temporary modifications
• Allow for alternative service methods on temporary modifications

The online calculator will be modified and ready with the changes outlined above on May 1, 2009.

Guideline Rule Changes:

OAR 137-050-0320 (Definitions): this change provides that when a parent must self-enroll in medical coverage in order to enroll his/her child(ren), the providing party’s portion of the health care coverage premium may be deducted from modified gross income. The coverage must still be found to be appropriate before it can be ordered. The child’s portion of the cost is still handled as set out in OAR 137-050-0410.

OAR 137-050-0330 (Computation): this change clarifies that when the self-support reserve lowers the child support obligation, the reduction is applied first to the cash medical support amount and then to the cash child support amount.

OAR 137-050-0340 (Gross Income): this change moves the requirement that gross income must be attributed to the parent who is a recipient of TANF to the “Income Presumptions” rule.

OAR 137-050-0360 (Potential Income): this change renames the rule to “Income Presumptions” and provides that a rebuttable presumption of actual income is to be used for temporary modifications and potential income for all other modifications.

OAR 137-050-0420 (Child Care Costs): this change caps child care costs based on the age of the child and where the care is provided. The figures used for the cap are captured from the Department of Human Services administrative rules, averaged across the board.

OAR 137-050-0430 (Cash Medical Support): this change creates the priority of cash child support over cash medical support when the self-support reserve lowers the obligation amount. It also prohibits entry of an order for cash medical support if the obligor’s income is less than Oregon minimum wage.

OAR 137-050-0475 (Ability to Pay): this change provides that where the self support reserve is presumed to be the correct obligation amount, any reduction in the obligation amount applies first to the cash medical support amount, if any, and then to the cash child support amount.

OAR 137-050-0485 (Minimum Order): this new rule authorizes a rebuttable $100 per family minimum order, except in certain situations.

Looking to the Future

The Attorney General is extremely committed to making the Oregon Child Support Program effective and fair to all participants. DCS staff have worked extraordinarily hard to develop and implement this Recession Response project on a very short timeline. I am confident that many families will benefit from the program and that we will be able to learn from this project. Some aspects will work, others not, so please let us know your experience and thoughts.

If you have questions, you may contact me directly and I will attempt to answer you question or point you in the right direction.

Margaret Olney
Special Counsel
Office of the Attorney General
margaret.olney@doj.state.or.us

1162 Court Street, NE
Salem, OR 97301
503.378.6002
971.673.1880 (Portland)
503.367.4017 (fax)

Clients often feel very upset about having to provide a life insurance policy to secure their spousal or child support obligation. The most common complaint is with regard to the beneficiary designation for securing child support. Generally the other parent is designated as the trustee over the proceeds of life insurance for the benefit of the children. Clients feel upset that the other parent will receive a good sum of money at the time of their death.

As part of any life insurance provision in a judgment, a clause is always added stating that a “constructive trust” will be established over the life insurance proceeds. On April 15, 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled on this issue in the case of Tupper v. Roan v. Tupper.

Jerry Tupper and Heather Tupper divorced in 2004. As part of the divorce, Jerry was required to provide a life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000 to secure his child support obligation. In addition, the judgment stated that a constructive trust would be established over the proceeds of any life insurance policy if a party designates a different beneficiary on the policy.

Jerry started living with Danette Roan shortly after the divorce and designated her as the beneficiary on his life insurance policy in direct violation of the terms of the judgment. Jerry died in 2006 and the proceeds of his policy went to Danette. Danette received $600,000 and no money went to Heather to secure Jerry’s child support obligation.

Heather sued Danette claiming that she improperly kept $100,000 in violation of the terms of the judgment. Danette’s response was that she was not aware of Jerry’s obligation to maintain a life insurance policy for child support before he died. Danette further asserted that the court could not impose a constructive trust over the $100,000 because Heather could not prove that Jerry transferred property to Danette that rightfully belonged to Heather and that Danette either knew or should have know of that wrongful conduct.

The court of appeals ruled in Danette’s favor, holding that since Jerry created the life insurance policy after the divorce, Heather did not have an interest in it at the time of the divorce and it was therefore never her property.

For clients, this case creates a difficult situation. Unless a party has a life insurance policy in place at the time of the divorce, the other spouse will likely have a very difficult time obtaining the funds from that policy unless the other spouse follows the requirement to maintain the beneficiary designation required by the terms of the judgment.

If you have questions about life insurance provisions in divorce, custody, or other support situations, the lawyers at Stephens Margolin P.C. would be happy to answer your questions. The entire opinion can be viewed here: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A136095.htm.

As a Portland Oregon divorce law firm, Stephens Margolin P.C. is dedicated to keeping up to date on Oregon Court of Appeals and Oregon Supreme Court opinions. As a service of The Oregon Divorce Blog, we will be providing updates as new opinions come out.

On February 18, 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals published an opinion in Talik and Talik. The case is an appeal from a divorce judgment. Husband objected to the trial court ruling on three issues: 1. That the court erred in calculating child support; 2. That the court erred in not awarding him compensatory spousal support; and 3. That the court erred in limiting his parenting time.

The parties were married for 16 years. During the marriage, Husband worked for a period of time while Wife attended medical school. The parties moved around in order to meet Wife’s needs. The parties had three children.

With regard to the limitations on Husband’s parenting time, the court of appeals agreed with the trial court. There was evidence at trial that husband hit and kicked two of the children. The trial court found that Husband’s behavior negatively affected the children. In addition, a custody evaluator made recommendations regarding parenting time that the court agreed with. Husband provided no compelling argument to the court of appeals to deviate from the court’s decision.

With regard to Husband’s argument that he should have been awarded compensatory child support, the court of appeals disagreed with Husband and agreed with the trial court. The court explained that compensatory spousal support is available where the party requesting the support shows that they made a “significant financial or other contribution” to the factors set forth in ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B)(i) to (vi). The significant contribution is not limited to enhancing the earning capacity of the other party because that is only one of the “areas to which a spouse may contribute in order to meet the threshold requirement for compensatory spousal support.” A contribution to the education, training, or career of the other party is sufficient. If a party meets the initial threshold, then the court must determine whether a compensatory spousal support award is “otherwise just and equitable in all of the circumstances.” Here, the court of appeals found that while Husband had met the threshold requirement of a significant contribution that such and award would not be just and equitable in the circumstances of this case.

With regard to Husband’s claim that the court erred in calculating child support, the court of appeals disagreed. The trial court had the opportunity to hear witnesses and obtain a clear understanding of the parties’ finances.

The entire opinion can be found at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A134376.htm

The case teaches us that trial court factual findings are key in any appellate case. While the court of appeals does review these cases de novo, it relies on the court’s factual findings.

The lawyers, including Daniel Margolin, who focuses part of his pratice on family law appeals, at Stephens Margolin P.C. can assist parties going through a divorce or appeal from a divorce judgment. As this case shows, it is crucial to have a competent attorney at the trial court level. If you have any questions about Oregon appellate law please contact Daniel Margolin or C. Sean Stephens at Stephens Margolin P.C.

I read a recent article in the LA Times about attorney Terry Christensen, who represented Kirk Kerkorian in his child support case, and his private investigator, Anthony Pellicano.  They were indicted and found guilty on federal wiretapping charges related to their work on family law cases for celebrity clients.  Prosecutors said that Christensen had the mother’s phones tapped.  In the case, Christensen’s client was seeking child support in the amount of $320,000 per month. 

Client’s ask me all the time about taping conversations and other forms of snooping in the opposing party’s life.  There are legal and illegal methods for doing so.  For instance, taping a phone call between yourself and your ex-wife without her consent is a misdemeanor in Oregon. 

The laws in Oregon regarding wiretapping are as follows:

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 165.535, 165.540: It is illegal to obtain or divulge a telecommunication or radio communication, unless one is a party or has obtained consent from at least one party to the conversation. It is illegal to obtain or divulge an oral communication unless all parties to the communication are informed that their conversation is being obtained. Certain enumerated exceptions apply. Violations are punishable by a maximum sentence of $5000 or one year in jail.

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.543: It is also a misdemeanor to intercept a wire or oral communication where one is not a party to the communication, and none of the parties to the communication have consented.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.721.

The state’s highest court ruled in1996 that interception, without consent of any of the parties, of the radio portion of a cordless telephone call through use of a police “scanner” is illegal under Oregon’s wiretapping laws. Oregon v. Carston, 913 P.2d 709 (Or. 1996).

Using a hidden camera to record another person “in a state of nudity” without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy is a misdemeanor. Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.700.

Before taking any action like this, it is best to consult an attorney to find out whether the evidence you gained would be admissible in court, whether the method of gaining that evidence is legal, and how such behavior could affect your case, either negatively or positively.

In divorce and filiation cases involving custody of children, frequently the children suffer most. As divorce and family law lawyers, we have seen the good, bad, and the ugly of well meaning parents putting the kids in the middle of the case. If your case involves a custody or parenting time dispute, nothing will draw the wrath of the court faster than involving your kids in the dispute. The following is a top ten list of things NOT to do during your custody or divorce case. DO NOT:

1. Talk to them about the case. The last thing they need to hear is that mom and dad are involved in a legal dispute. The first thing they need to hear is that mom and dad both love them very much.
2. Use them as pawns in the battle against your spouse. The kids are not weapons. Don’t make a frivolous custody or parenting time claim to gain leverage in financial negotiations. Whatever you think you may gain, your children will lose.
3. Use them as your therapist, or treat them as your peers. If you need a therapist or need counseling, seek a professional rather than involving your children in your turmoil.
4. Put your spouse down in front of the kids. Divorce and custody disputes can be bitter. Emotions can run high. No matter your frustrations with the other parent, don’t put them down in front of the kids. You are not only harming your case, you are harming your children.
5. Turn your children in to messengers. The parents are the adults. Send the kids the correct message and talk and problem solve with the other parent directly.
6. Grill your children about what is happening at the other parent’s home. You may not live under the same roof, and may be curious about what he or she is up to. Questions about whether mom or dad is dating, what hours they keep, and what happened, blow by blow, on the visit send the wrong message to the kids, custody evaluator, and court. You will satisfy your curiosity at the expense of your children and your case.
7. Ask the kids to take sides. Asking a child to tell the court, custody evaluator, or children’s attorney that they want to live with you enmeshes the kids in an adult process. Don’t do it. Some judges and evaluators think it is child abuse.
8. Make the children feel disloyal for enjoying time with the other parent. Oregon’s statutory policy is that kids are better off having wholesome and frequent contact with both parents, if the parents are fit.
9. Sabotage the other parent. Don’t purposely forget important clothing or gear when we are going to our other parent’s place. Don’t forget the coat on the ski trip. Do you think you will look better in court because your son or daughter was cold on the ski trip because they didn’t have their coat? (which was in your possession.)
10. Ask the kids to keep secrets from the other parent. You may think you are bettering your position, but the children’s attorney, custody evaluator, and judge will think differently. Don’t put the kids in the middle, and don’t pit them against the other party by asking them to keep secrets.

Clients often come to me asking whether they or their ex-spouse/unmarried parent of their child can claim their joint child as a dependents for tax purposes and receive the dependent tax exemption. They often think that this is a decision that is up to them and attorneys often use it as a bargaining chip.

In a divorce or custody case I am representing clients in state court. The United States Congress, through the tax code, has determined how the child/dependent tax exemption should be awarded. The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution prevents state courts from deciding issues of federal law. This means that a state court cannot properly award the exemption to a parent who otherwise would not qualify for the exemption under federal law.

The qualifying parent under IRS rules is the “custodial parent,” which is defined as “the parent having custody for the greater portion of the calendar year.” The award of “legal custody” has no effect on this definition, rather the custodial parent is “the parent with whom the child resides for a greater number of nights during the calendar year.” In cases where the child resides an equal number of overnights with each parent, the parent with the higher adjusted gross income for the calendar year is awarded the exemption.

Parties can agree to share the exemption or to have the parent that does not qualify receive the exemption. This is usually accomplished by a provision in the parties’ judgment. In order to provide the non-qualifying parent with the exemption, the qualifying parent must sign a written declaration and the declaration must be attached to the non-custodial/non-qualifying parent’s income tax return. This can be completed using IRS tax form 8332, which can be found here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8332.pdf.

A decision to allocate the dependent exemption to the non-qualifying parent should not be taken lightly. In addition to the exemption, the non-qualifying parent will also receive the child tax credit. Therefore, an agreement to deviate from IRS rules can have significant tax impacts for the qualifying parent and creat a tax windfall for the non-qualifying parent. If the agreement will be included as a provision in a judgment, the decision to do so should be carefully discussed with your attorney.

The IRS faq located at http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq-kw46.html provides detailed information on this question.

With the Oregon Family Fairness Act (OFFA) now in effect, registered domestic partners now have some of the same rights as a married couple, at least in Oregon and any other state which chooses to recognize these partnerships.* This post explains what a domestic partnership is, both for heterosexual and same-sex couples, and what the benefits of registering are for same-sex couples.

Let’s start with what seems like the easy part: what are domestic partnerships? Under OFFA, same-sex couples over 18 may register as partners. However, heterosexual couples may not register as partners (primarily because they already have the ability to receive these benefits through marriage). Because the Oregon Constitution limits marriage to heterosexual couples, a separate mechanism for uniting families was required. (Check out the Basic Rights Oregon website for a wonderful guide to the legislation.)

But what are these automatic rights married couples get that unmarried and unregistered domestic partners don’t have?

Some rights are obvious: for example, to make medical decisions for a partner when the partner is unable to make those decisions him or herself or to automatically inherit property if a partner dies without a will. Others aren’t as obvious, like the ability to claim wrongful death benefits or crime victim survivor benefits if a partner is killed.

Some rights are provided by the state, like the automatic inheritance of a partner or how custody would be determined in a partnership dissolution, because inheritance and family laws are set by the state. Other rights are federal, like the ability to file jointly on federal income taxes. Oregon’s domestic partnership law can only affect state-provided rights. Subsection 9 of the legislation provides that “any privilege, immunity, right or ben3efit granted by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was married….is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a domestic partnership…”

It doesn’t get more equal than that in Oregon, save in name alone. Additionally, registered partners also have all the same responsibilities as married couples!

But since this is a legal blog, we’re mostly concerned about the juicy bits – those rights dealing with estate planning, wrongful death claims, adoptions, custody, and, of course, dissolution of the partnership.

But first, a little history. Some readers might be surprised to learn that domestic partnerships in family law courts aren’t new in Oregon. In fact, Oregon family law courts have dissolved an increasing number of heterosexual domestic partnerships. In doing so, the court would look back and determine whether or not the parties actually intended to form a domestic partnership: even though these are relationship dissolutions, frequently one party argues it was not a partnership (usually the party with assets) and the other argues that it was (usually the party with fewer assets). To find out what the parties intended, the court uses a test usually used in the context of business partnerships – did the parties intend to pool resources and share liabilities? If the answer is yes, then the court tries to find an equitable way to divvy up the parties’ resources. If no, then the parties keep their separate property.

Sounds easy, right? But it’s not. The court can’t order spousal support. Custody of children is very complex, because for a non-biological parent to receive custody or visitation, another action must be filed (although in fairness, it may be joined to the dissolution of domestic partnership action). Basically, in the absence of a clear statute, the family law court exercises its equity powers — basically, whatever the court thinks is fair on that day. This means results can vary even more widely than they can with the assistance of statutes.

What OFFA does for same-sex couples is give the court all of the well-developed tools the legislature has enacted over the years for the dissolution of marriage cases, as well as providing more options for determining custody of children in a partnership dissolution. (If you want to know just how busy the legislature has been in developing and honing those family laws, take a gander at ORS 107 and ORS 109!)

We hope domestic partnerships thrive. However, if you have registered a partnership and wish to dissolve it, think carefully about your next steps and consult with an attorney well versed in dissolution of marriage procedures. Due to the sensitivity of the subject matter, don’t be shy about asking your attorney what he or she thinks of your lifestyle. It does matter. It’s important that there be an open and trusting atmosphere in your dealings with your dissolution attorney.

*Although states are supposed to give each other’s laws “full faith and credit” under the US Constitution – and this includes honoring marriages – states do not have to do so when another state’s laws violate public policy in that state. This was, generally, the way the law was practiced before the enaction of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (or DOMA) in 1996, but it’s now the law of the land. So, for example, if a couple marries at the age of 14, and that is legal in the state in which they reside, but is illegal in another state, the question of the marriage’s validity in the second state is up for grabs, depending on the policy implication of 14 year olds marrying. If thinking about this makes your head hurt, you’re not alone: the topic of marriages alone took up weeks in my Conflicts of Law class.

If you are contemplating divorce, you should consult with an experienced family law attorney. Once you set up a consultation, be prepared for the first meeting, and have a list of questions to ask the lawyer. The following questions should help you understand the divorce process, how your lawyer’s office operates, and if the lawyer is a good fit for you and your case.

1. How experienced are you in family law? All lawyers have law degrees, but many lawyers practice in several fields other than family law. You don’t want a generalist. Family law is a specialized field, and you will likely be better served by a lawyer who focuses on family law. Make sure that most of their cases are family law cases. Ask the lawyer if they have handled cases like yours before.
2. What steps are involved in the divorce process? Your lawyer is there to educate you and guide you through the process. Have the lawyer clearly explain the process to you, from filing the petition, negotiating temporary orders, and the trial process.
3. How will you charge me? If you hire the lawyer, you should expect to sign a retainer agreement that covers how you will be charged. Ask about the hourly rate, and how often you will be billed. Ask if you will be charged for time spent with paralegals and other staff in the office, and at what rate. Ask what will happen if you cannot pay your bill in full every month. Ask if you can pay by credit card, and if payment plans are available.
4. How will we communicate? Ask your lawyer if they prefer phone contact over email, and how long you should expect to wait for a return call. Is your lawyer tech savvy enough to email you draft documents as PDF files? Is your lawyer’s office set up to scan and email incoming and outgoing correspondence? Do you automatically get a copy? The last three are essential if you live out of state, or a distance from your lawyer’s office. Lawyers ta
5. How long will the process take? Ask your lawyer about what is their estimate for how long the case will take depending on if you settle quickly, settle after protracted negotiations, or have a trial.
6. Can you estimate the cost of my divorce? This is an important question, but a very difficult one to answer. Don’t worry if your lawyer is hesitant to answer. The cost of a divorce depends on what you ask the lawyer to do, the level of conflict between you and your spouse, and the reasonableness of your spouse and their lawyer. Many of the cost factors are outside your control.
7. What kind of resources do you make available to clients to make the divorce process less difficult and painful? Divorce is a difficult time, and good lawyers provide information and resources to help deal with the human side of the impact. Does your lawyer provide information about the process for self education? Are they patient with you? Do they offer referrals to other professional services if you request them? Our firm provides information through this blog, and educational articles on our website. We also maintain a list of recommended reading materials, and a list of qualified counselors and therapists for those who ask.
8. Do you recommend mediation? Ask your lawyer if your case is appropriate for mediation. Ask about private mediation, and about how often the lawyer uses private mediation with clients. Good lawyers try to settle their cases once they have analyzed the case. A lawyer that does not use private mediation or other alternative dispute resolution tools may be doing you a disservice.
9. What fees and costs can I expect other than charges for your time? Your local county (Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, etc.) will charge a filing fee to open a case. You will likely have to pay a process server to server your spouse with divorce papers. Your case may require experts, such as appraisers, actuaries, accountants, social workers, or psychologists. Ask your lawyer what costs to expect, what experts may be needed, and how you will be charged for these additional services.
10. How would you predict a judge would rule on the issues in my case? While no lawyer can guarantee specific results, listen closely to the analysis behind the lawyer’s answer. Understanding the facts that would make a favorable ruling more likely will help with strategy during the case.

The Oregonian reports that a Washington man has been accused of running an Internet prostitution ring in order to make payments on his child support — for his eight children (by seven women). The man allegedly advertised on Craigslist.

While it’s good to see that he was taking his child support obligation seriously, we here at the Oregon Divorce Blog urge anyone struggling to make child support payments to avoid committing felonies to support your kids. Instead, contact an attorney to request a modification of the amount owed each month. It’s a much better bargain in the long run — plus, no jail time!