You may lose rights that you never knew you had.

Obviously, if you are not paying an attorney – you will save money upfront. Even though people do go through simple divorces without an attorney, the chances of a divorce remaining simple is low. I often hear of people who represent themselves through the divorce process and I am not surprised to find out that they lost many rights that they would have kept had they hired a good family law attorney. There are numerous rights that most people are unaware that they have. Without an attorney advising them, those that self-represent as pro-se will remain in the dark, unaware about their rights when they could have, and should have, received a better settlement.

Going through the grieving process involved in divorce is not the best time to handle the most important issues of your life by yourself.

When we are emotionally invested with our own case, as the case often is when we represent ourselves, we allow our passion to blind our ability to reason.  The divorce process is an emotional rollercoaster of highs and lows that some describe as being more painful than the death of a loved one.  It would logically follow that we will experience the same stages of grief that we experience when a loved one dies.  Such emotional turmoil creates a passion in us that clouds our normal reasoning ability.  Thus, self-represented divorcees have a high likelihood of unreasonably focusing their attention on matters of slight, if any, significance.  This causes them to miss the forest for the trees and they end up becoming less likely to obtain the outcome they seek.  We often hear the old saying that “we are our own worst enemy.”  I believe that to be true when going through the divorce process and that is one of the reasons why I will hire an attorney to represent myself.  Good family law attorneys can see our cases from an objective and professional perspective.  Such a perspective allows them to avoid missing the forest for the trees, keeps their focus on the relevant issues that will help us and our cases, protects us from further emotional turmoil, and guards our rights through the process.

Avoid being the person who has a fool for a client and invest in your future.

Why is it said that he who represents himself has a fool for a client?  The self-represented pro-se divorcee is likely to lose much more money in the long run than they would have spent had they hired an attorney who can help them understand their rights and mediate, negotiate, or litigate to keep them.  The long term costs of the loss of rights affect our pocketbook, our children’s lives, and our own quality of life.  How much time would you like to have with your kids?  What will your parenting plan look like?  How will your assets be divided?  There is something to be said about letting your attorney work for you to advocate for your future.  We would not have to negotiate with our spouse or ex-spouse directly. This can protect us from a lot of the emotional costs involved in our divorce case.

The heavy costs of self representation through the divorce process.

At first glance, it may seem like a good idea to go through the divorce process on your own.  After all you can save upfront costs on attorney fees. However, your long term financial and emotional costs may outweigh your short term benefit.  Thus, if you would like to save yourself more money in the long run, be able to rest assured that your case is being handled professionally and that your rights are being watched out for, rather than attempting to deal with the complexities of the law while you are going through the grieving process, then I recommend hiring a good family law attorney to work for you through the divorce process.

Warm regards,

James P. McGarvey
Intermountain Legal, p.c.
(801) 784-8654
[email protected]

In this REPORT, co-sponsored by several family-focused non-profits, the authors studied marriage and childbirth trends in the United States.  According to the research, a growing number of Americans are waiting to tie the knot.  “Over the last four decades, the age for tying the knot has risen steadily for all educational and socioeconomical groups.”

The reasons for putting off marriage are varied.  Many young adults wish to build their own financial and psychological independence before starting a family.  For women, later marriage has resulted in increased financial success.  College educated women who wait until they are over 30 to marry earn up to $18,152.00 more than college educated women who marry early.

Later marriage has also helped decrease America’s divorce rates.

But fear not, school teachers, child psychologists and family lawyers.  You will still have plenty of work.

The decrease in early marital unions does not correlate to a decrease in childbirth.  Young couples now cohabitate and have children at about the same age they used to marry.  An estimated 48 percent of first child births are to unmarried women.  “At the age of 25, 44 percent of women have had a baby, while only 38 percent have married.”  Since 2010, a large majority of child births to American women in their early twenties have been non-marital.

Just as with married couples, cohabitating couples frequently split up.  In fact, cohabitating couples reportedly split up and enter into new relationships at much greater frequency than their married counterparts.  Unmarried parents must work together, with or without the assistance of the court, to create a workable co-parent arrangement for their children.

In some ways, custody cases can be more difficult than divorce cases.  For example, an unmarried father in Utah has no right to custody or visitation with his child unless he can first establish his paternity.  Unmarried parents may also have greater differences in their values, religious beliefs and educational goals, possibly leading to more parental decision-making disputes.

“Thirty’s the new twenty,” and unmarried parenthood may be the new normal.  Intermountain Legal’s experienced custody attorney can assist you in establishing parental rights and obtaining a Utah custody order.

The rights and obligations of non-biological parental figures are far less clear.  As more states recognize same-sex marriage and domestic partnership, it is becoming increasingly important for states to clearly define parental relationships.  Courts have been presented with new legal issues relating to therelationships between biological parents and parental figures in child custody cases.

The Kansas Case

The state of Kansas recently sued a sperm donor for child support and hospital expenses for a child born to a same-sex couple.  The man answered a Craigslist ad for a sperm donor.  Prior to donating his sperm, the man signed an agreement severing his parental rights and obligations.  However, the procedure was done through an at-home insemination kit, rather than through a health care provider.  Under Kansas law, a sperm donor’s parental rights are severed only when the insemination procedure is performed through a licensed doctor.  The biological mother’s former partner, who has acted as a parent to the three year old child, has intervened in the child support case.  The state’s position may be at odds with a recent Kansas Supreme Court decision holding that the non-biological mother of children in a same-sex relationship can have the same parental rights as the biological mother.

The Florida Case

In another recent case, a Florida judge listed three individuals as parents on a child’s birth certificate.  After a same-sex couple made several unsuccessful and expensive attempts to become parents through fertility clinics, they asked a male friend to donate sperm for artificial insemination.  The parties did not enter into a written contract defining each person’s rights and responsibilities with regard to the child.  After the child was born, the man sought parental rights.  The parties settled the case after two years of litigation.  Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, all three parties were listed as parents on the child’s birth certificate.  The agreement was approved by the court as an adoption.  The biological mother retained sole custody, and the child was legally adopted by the biological mother’s same-sex partner.  The biological father’s parental rights were severed by the adoption, but he retained the right to visitation.

Utah Adoption Law

The Utah legislature has made it nearly impossible for two same-sex partners to be recognized as the legal parents of a child.  Utah does not recognize same-sex marriage or domestic partnership.  Surrogacy agreements are valid only if the intended parents are married.  If a married woman becomes pregnant through the assistance of a sperm donor, the woman’s husband has parental rights to the child.  However, no such right exists for a same-sex partner.   Utah law in fact prohibits the adoption of a child by a same-sex partner.  Only adults who are legally married or single adults who are not cohabitating are eligible to adopt.  However, as domestic laws continue to change throughout the nation, our courts will be required to tackle difficult new legal challenges.

Read more about the Kansas case at:

Yahoo News

San Francisco Chronicle

Huffington Post 

Read more about the Florida case at:

Reuters

Miami Herald

a Rafflecopter giveaway