This is an advertisement.

Divorce Advice for Men | Fathers' Rights Divorce | Child Custody

Providing men with essential divorce advice, fathers' rights divorce information and child custody articles. Dads Divorce is a community for men facing divorce or fathers' rights issues and run by Cordell and Cordell. Cordell & Cordell is a family law firm with a focus on men's divorce, child custody and fathers' rights divorce.
Mar 07, 2006

Question:

My ex will not take her share of the 401K out. Is there a statue of limitation on it and can she drag me back to court and request more money. Since our divorce, it states she was only entitled to half at the time of divorce and I

Mar 07, 2006

Question:

My wife divorced me three years ago while I was extremely mentally ill. I am a disabled veteran receiving social security and V.A. disability. I had depression, PTSD, and was diagnosed with Bipolarize shortly before the end of our marriage. I was unrepresented and did not challenge anything that my wife wanted. We were in Washington State and I felt like moving quickly was the only option for saving my life and obtaining competent medical care as I had not received it in the prior 11 years in Washington State. How long do I have to challenge the terms of the divorce and at least get a fair day in court?

Answer:

Every state will have different requirements concerning the time to file a motion to set aside or reconsider. If you can show that you were mentally ill at the time of the divorce you may be able to extend the time you have. Since the time limits will vary you need to consult an attorney in Washington where the divorce was ordered. Do not delay as the time limits are usually fairly short.

Feb 27, 2006
When our supposedly compassionate federal government pokes its nose into areas that, under our principle of federalism, should be none of its business, the result is often unintended consequences, gross injustices, and of course massive costs. A prime example is the 1986 federal Bradley Amendment, which mandates that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven even if the debtor is unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see his children, or loses his job or suffers a pay cut. The result of this incredibly rigid law is to impose a punishment that makes it impossible for any but the very rich to get out from under a Bradley debt. Thousands of fathers are sentenced to debtors' prison (a medieval practice we thought abolished in the United States centuries ago), and thousands more have their drivers license confiscated (making it extraordinarily difficult to get a job). There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child's needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the father to pay for college tuition). The Bradley debt is misnamed "child support"; it is a court-imposed judgment to punish men and extract money from them to support some mothers and a $3 billion federal and state bureaucracy. Take the case of Larry Souter as reported recently in the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press. He was released after spending 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of second-degree murder. He was then summoned to court to explain why he should not be convicted of contempt for nonpayment of his Bradley debt that kept rising during his years in prison: $23,000 in back support plus interest and penalties that raised the total to $38,082.25. The ex-wife's attorney argues that Souter should pay because she "has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support." Because the children are now adults, this case proves that the Bradley debt has nothing to do with child support. It has to do with court-ordered transfer payments from which the state gets a cut. This case is not an anomaly. Clarence Brandley spent 10 years in prison before he was exonerated and released in 1990, whereupon the state hit him with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support debt that accumulated while in prison. Many other cases prove that men cannot escape the Bradley debt even if DNA proves that they are not the father. The law even forbids bankruptcy to alleviate the Bradley debt. Three years ago, a Maine court ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his. But Maine nevertheless demands that Fisher pay $11,450 in back child support and Maine took away his drivers license for failure to pay. The Bradley debt makes no allowance for the growing problem of paternity fraud committed by mothers, estimated by some to be up to 30 percent of DNA-tested cases. Our compassionate government demands that a mother seeking welfare identify the father of her child and, like greedy lawyers, greedy women often target the man with the deepest pockets. A few states have passed a recent law to end so-called child support if DNA proves a man is not the father, but that doesn't get rid of the Bradley debt accrued before DNA results came in. We haven't heard of any women being prosecuted for paternity fraud, and of course the man who was cheated doesn't get any refund. There is no excuse for Congress and state legislatures allowing these injustices to continue. Court-ordered child support should not be final until DNA proves paternity. Feminist defenders of the Bradley Amendment claim that the Bradley debtor could have reduced his debt by going into court and challenging the amount of support when his income decreased. That argument is legalistic cynicism taken to the extreme. Most Bradley debtors cannot afford a lawyer to advise them about and to defend their rights, yet they are up against government or government-paid lawyers; the system has built-in incentives to set the support as high as possible because collections bring bonuses to the state bureaucracy; and, according to the Los Angeles Times, roughly 70 percent of fathers in Los Angeles County are not present when the court (not biology) rules on paternity and irreducible monthly obligations are set in concrete. President George W. Bush's initiative to promote marriage is a non-starter so long as the Bradley Amendment exists. Who would marry a man with a Bradley debt hanging over his future? Shakespeare famously wrote, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." Since the author of the Bradley Amendment, former Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., is still alive, he should tell his pals in the Senate to terminate his evil law before any more injustices take place.
www.eagleforum.org

Feb 19, 2006

custody battle

Compiled by Cordell & Cordell Divorce Attorneys For Men

The divorce process is usually very difficult and trying for anyone experiencing it. These difficult times often cause a person to act or react irrationally and in ways that detrimentally affect his or her case.

You should be aware prior to court proceedings that the court will evaluate your behavior in its entirety throughout the proceedings and always behave accordingly. 

Below are some of the factors judges consider when making a child custody determination along with the 10 most common mistakes made by men during custody battles.


Feb 11, 2006
One of the more common post-divorce issues parents must face is the relocation of one of the parties. Divorce strains the relationship between a parent and child, especially for the non-residential parent. When the other parent relocates with the child this strain is exaggerated. The greater the distance between the parties, the greater the strain on the relationship between the non-residential parent and the child. Further, once a residential parent legally relocates it is very difficult to get a court to reverse the arrangement and bring the child back to the area where the non-residential parent lives. For these reasons it is important to quickly, and effectively, address the issue of relocation as soon as it becomes a possibility. A recent article by attorney Maury D. Beaulier, which is posted on this site and is also available at www.divorceprofessionals.com, discusses the factual issues which are relevant to a relocation case. The purpose of this article is to discuss the nuts and bolts of the process in a relocation case. It is very important to keep in mind each case is unique. Additionally, laws vary widely from state to state. I will discuss Kansas law as it relates to relocation cases. No matter where you live, however, it is important to seek legal counsel as soon as you become aware of a possible relocation.
Ken McRae, Esq.
The Kansas law regarding relocation of a child is found at Kansas Statutes Annotated section 60-1620. The law requires a party who plans to either change the residence of the child or remove the child from the state for more than ninety days to provide the other parent written notice at least thirty days in advance of the relocation or removal. The notice shall be sent by restricted mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of the other parent. The statute goes on to say failure to provide the notice is indirect civil contempt which can result in the assessment of attorney

Divorce, Child Support, Alimony Information.
Men's Rights Website
Contact DadsDivorce.com