TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS

Each year a substantial number of children are abducted by non-custodial parents, members of their family or others as a result of bitter custody proceedings or fears of sexual or physical abuse while the child is with the other parent. Multiple states, including North Carolina, now recognize a civil cause of action for abduction of a child. This cause of action or tort states that, a person who, with knowledge that the parent of a child does not consent, abducts or otherwise compels or induces a minor child to leave a parent legally entitled to its custody or not to return to the parent after it has left him or her, is subject to liability to the parent. There are cases extending the tort to interference with visitation rights.

The elements of the tort of Interference with Parental Rights are as follows.

1. A parent has a legally protected custodial interest in his or her minor child; and

2. The defendant abducts or removes the minor child from the parent’s custody, or, if the child left home voluntarily induces the child not to return without the parent’s consent and against his or her will; and

3. The plaintiff suffers damages for loss of the society of the child, for his or her emotional distress resulting from the abduction or enticement and reasonable expenses incurred in regaining custody of the child or treating any physical harm resulting to the child as a result of the abduction

This cause of action for abduction of a child was first recognized in North Carolina in the case of La Grenade v. Gordon, 46 N.C. App. 329, 264 S.E.2d 757, 758-59, a 1983 case in which the mother stated a cause of action against the father and paternal grandparents for abduction where she had the superior right to custody of the child. This cause of action has been recognized in many other states such as New York, Texas and Wisconsin. In Wisconsin the case was filed in federal court which held that where the mother and boyfriend abducted a two year old child from father in violation of Maryland custody order and conspired with grandparents to keep the child from the father, compensatory damages of $70,000 and punitive damages of $250,000 were awarded. Lloyd v. Loeffler, 694 F.2d 489, 495-96 (7th Cir. 1982)

Contributor: Carole S. Gailor - Carole S. Gailor, a Raleigh Family Law Attorney is a leading North Carolina Divorce Lawyer. She is a Board Certified Family Law Specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Ms. Gailor is a founding partner with North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC.

For more information contact the Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604, Tel: 919-832-8488 or go to www.gailorwallishunt.com.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case by a qualified family law attorney.

In North Carolina, the trial court has the authority to make an order on all issues o pertaining to custody and visitation of children as well as child support. These initial orders are always modifiable by the court. In regard to custody, the court will always ask, “What is in the best interests of the child?” In considering what is in the “best interests” of the child, the court may review a number of different factors. Essentially the court may review anything and everything that affects the welfare of the child. For example, these factors may include (but are certainly not limited to) the morality of the parents and child, wishes of the child, domestic violence in the home, and nurture of a child’s spirituality. Furthermore, when modifying a custody determination, the court must decide if there has been a “substantial change of circumstances” which affects the welfare of the child. The Court may consider all changes, regardless if the change affects the child negatively or positively.

Of the many factors that affect the welfare of the child, one of the more interesting areas that the Court may consider is the “lifestyle of the parent.” The term lifestyle covers a wide range of topics, from adultery to substance abuse to career change to military service.

One of the topics included within the pertinent case law dealing with a parent’s lifestyle is homosexuality. The flagship case on this topic is Pulliam v. Smith, 348 N.C. 616, 501 S.E.2d 898 (1998), which is a North Carolina Supreme Court decision from 1998. In Pulliam, the facts showed that the mother and father separated in 1990 when the mother went to live with her boyfriend in Wichita, Kansas. In 1991, pursuant to a consent order, the father was granted physical custody of the two minor children. At the time of the consent order, the two boys were six and three years old, respectively. In 1993, the mother married her boyfriend, Mr. Pulliam, in Kansas. In 1994, Tim Tipton, the father’s boyfriend, moved into the home with the father and the two minor children.

In 1995, based upon the father’s homosexual relationship, the mother filed a motion to modify custody. The trial court granted the motion and the father appealed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the grounds that a substantial change in circumstances had not occurred based on the evidence in the record. The mother appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered that the trial court’s ruling be reinstated. The Supreme Court found that the evidence showed that the father and his boyfriend would kiss and hold hands in front of the children, and shared the same bedroom while the children were in the house. The father and Tim Tipton also admitted to engaging in oral sex in the bedroom, but only with the door closed and never in front of the children. Furthermore, the Supreme Court cited the trial court’s finding that, “The activity of the Defendant will likely create emotional difficulties for the two minor children….That the active homosexuality of the Defendant and his involvement with Tim Tipton by bringing Tim Tipton in to the home of the two minor children is detrimental to the best interest and welfare of the two minor children.” Id. at 623, 902.

Justice John Webb wrote the dissent and claimed that the true reason behind the majority opinion was the fact that the father was gay. The majority responds to the dissent by stating, “We conclude that activities such as the regular commission of sexual acts in the home by unmarried people, failing and refusing to counsel the children against such conduct while acknowledging this conduct to them, allowing the children to see unmarried persons known by the children to be sexual partners in bed together, keeping admittedly improper sexual material in the home…support the trial court’s findings of ‘improper influences’ which are ‘detrimental to the best interest and welfare of the two minor children.’” Id. at 627, 904.

The Court went further to say, “Nor does this Court hold that the mere homosexual status of a parent is sufficient, taken alone, to support denying such parent custody of his or her child or children.”

Despite the Court’s assertion, it is clear from the ruling that leading an openly homosexual lifestyle can be fodder for the court in determining custody between two parents. Those in the gay and lesbian community did not see Pulliam as a step forward in the rights of homosexuals, and many commentators believe that the Court of Appeals wrote the correct opinion. Many in the legal community feel that if the same set of facts had been applied to a heterosexual couple, then the outcome would have been dramatically different.

If you find yourself questioning your spouse’s lifestyle choices, or find that your own lifestyle is being questioned, it may be necessary to meet with a family law attorney in your area to understand the implications it may have on the custody of your child. The family law offices of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC in Raleigh, North Carolina are openly accepting of all clients, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Contributor: Rebecca F. Redwine. Rebecca Redwine is a Raleigh Family Law Attorney with the North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC.

For more information contact the Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604, Tel: 919-832-8488, or go to www.gailorwallishunt.com

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case.

Cathy C. Hunt educates on the issue of a gifted business interest in divorce and whether one spouse can get part of a business that the other spouse was gifted from his or her parents.

Often when people are married one of the spouses has an ownership interest in a family business that was gifted to him or her by a parent or other family member. When a divorce occurs, the court must determine whether the business interest is marital property subject to distribution with the house, retirement and other marital property or whether it is the separate property of the owner-spouse and not subject to distribution.

Under North Carolina law, when parties get divorced the court must first classify property as marital or separate property. Marital property is valued and distributed between the parties. Marital property is defined as all property acquired during the marriage and prior to the date of separation, except property that is classified as separate property. Separate property is defined as all property acquired by a spouse before marriage or acquired by a spouse by bequest, devise, descent, or gift during the course of the marriage. Separate property remains the separate property of the spouse who received the property. However, if during the marriage there is an increase in value of the separate property and that increase is due to the efforts of the owner spouse (“active efforts”), then the increase in value will be classified as marital property and subject to distribution to the parties.

For example, if during the marriage the husband received shares of stock in the family business from his father, that ownership interest in the business is the husband’s separate property, and the wife is not entitled to any of the husband’s interest in the business. However, if during the marriage the husband also worked in the business and his active efforts during the marriage contributed to an increase in value of the business, that increase in value that can be attributed to the husband’s efforts should be classified as marital property and included in the marital estate for distribution. In the alternative, if the husband worked in the business during the marriage but his role was not one that had any impact on the value of the business, then any increase in value should remain the separate property of the husband and not be subject to distribution with the remainder of the marital estate.

Determining efforts that are active such that they contribute to an increase in value of the business and determining an increase in value from merely passive forces such as the economy is a highly technical area of law. When business owners are getting divorced, there are a number of strategic issues involved in valuing the business and analyzing the “active/ passive” factors relative to the owner spouse. One of the most important things a business owner must do when faced with divorce is to retain counsel with experience in business valuation cases to provide essential advice on protecting the rights and assets of the business owner.

Contributor: Cathy C. Hunt: Cathy C. Hunt, Raleigh Family Law Attorney is a leading North Carolina Divorce Lawyer and is experienced in business valuation in cases of separation and divorce. She is a partner with the North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. For more information contact: North Carolina Family Law Firm, Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201,Raleigh, NC 27604,Tel: 919-832-8488, www.gailorwallishunt.com.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case by a qualified family law attorney

Your spouse, who works for a fairly large company, has been acting suspicious lately: putting in more hours at work, traveling extensively for business, having conference calls at odd times. Your marriage is strained from the behavior, and your spouse wants a separation.

After investigation, you find that your spouse has been having an affair with the supervisor at work. The seducing supervisor and your spouse are both employed by a multi-million dollar corporation. You believe the paramour enticed your spouse while the two were working, carried on the relationship while both were on the job, and even had sexual relations within the office. Further, there exists evidence that other employees knew about the affair. Now your spouse and the supervisor are living together, and divorce is imminent.

In North Carolina, you may have a suit for alienation of affection or criminal conversation, i.e. a tort claim, against the paramour. However, the “big pockets” belong to the corporation. Can you sue the paramour and the corporation? Is the corporation liable for the supervisor seducing your spouse while “on the clock?”

Until very recently, this question remained unanswered by North Carolina case law. However, in October 2007, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, in Smith v. Lee, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78987, decided the answer is “No.” (As a procedural note, the case was heard in federal court because the parties were from different states.)

In Smith v. Lee, the facts were similar to the scenario described above. Douglas Smith was married to Melissa Smith. Douglas discovered that Melissa was having an affair with her supervisor, Troy Lee. Troy and Melissa both worked for Progressive Lighting, Inc. Douglas decided to sue Troy for alienation of affections and criminal conversation. However, Douglas also decided to join Progressive Lighting, Inc. as a party, on the theory of vicarious liability to the claim for alienation of affection.

For an employer to be liable under a theory of vicarious liability in North Carolina, the plaintiff must prove one of the following about the employer:

1) The employer authorized the employee’s acts;
2) The employee’s acts were committed within the scope of his employment and in
furtherance of the employer’s business; or
3) The employer ratifies the employee’s acts.

A straight-forward example of a typical vicarious liability suit is when a pizza restaurant owner is taken to court for a wreck caused by one of his pizza delivery trucks.

In Smith v. Lee, Douglas tried to use the “pizza delivery boy” theory. Douglas claimed that Troy solicited his wife in his capacity as her supervisor, that Troy’s acts happened while he was at work, and in the scope of his employment and in furtherance of Progressive Lighting’s business; and therefore, Progressive Lighting should be held responsible for the very personal injury inflicted on Douglas and his marriage.

Not only did the Court not agree with Douglas, but they dismissed his claim against Progressive Lighting on a summary judgment motion. The Court found that “even if the Court accept[ed] [Douglas’] allegations that [Troy’s] employer knew of the affair, knowledge alone is not enough to show ratification…Progressive Lighting is not in the business of relationships, and the Court fails to see how relationships between employees would be either in the scope of the company’s business or would further the business in any sort of productive manner.”

The Court did not elaborate on what else – besides actual knowledge of the affair – was needed to show that the company had “ratified” the affair. The Court may have excused itself from such elaboration because of what it found next.

After clarifying that Progressive had not “ratified” the behavior, the Court also extended its holding to include a public policy basis for ruling against Douglas. It stated, “[T]his Court is loathe to apply vicarious liability against employer for torts of alienation of affection or criminal conversation. It is simply unreasonable to expect businesses to regulate the intimate and personal affairs of their employees…NC public policy disfavors the extension of marital torts to employers. Torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation are private and personal. Holding employers to owe a duty to the spouses of their employees would extend the potential liability of employers infinitely.”

Smith v. Lee presents a broad holding that seems to shut the door on vicarious liability for employers for plaintiffs asserting heart balm torts. If you suspect your spouse is having an affair, regardless if it is with a coworker, you should arrange a consultation with a family law attorney in your area as soon as possible. Such conduct could lead to a claim for alienation of affection, or on a more basic level, affect a claim for alimony.

Contributor: Rebecca F. Redwine. Rebecca Redwine is a Raleigh Family Law Attorney with the North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC.

For more information Contact the Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604, Tel: 919-832-8488, or go to www.gailorwallishunt.com

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case.

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself (emphasis added) nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: 1) grand juries for capital crimes; 2) a prohibition on double jeopardy; 3) a prohibition against required self-incrimination; 4) a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial; 5) and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may “plead the Fifth” and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.

“Pleading the Fifth” typically occurs in family law cases when there is evidence of illegal activity by one of the spouses. According to North Carolina criminal law, adultery is a criminal offense. Because the act of adultery is technically a crime, a spouse or paramour who has committed adultery can refuse to testify about the adulterous behavior based upon his or her Fifth Amendment right, because he or she could technically be subjecting himself or herself to criminal prosecution. Though I know of no prosecutorial district in North Carolina that enforces the adultery statute, it is still valid law and accordingly allows the person(s) to plead the Fifth. Another instance where a spouse may plead the Fifth in a family law case is when there are allegations of illegal drug use. Obviously, the State and/or Federal government could use any admission of illegal drug activity in the indictment and prosecution of such drug offenses. Domestic violence/physical abuse is another potential criminal offense that frequently arises in family law cases. Parties can face criminal and civil liability for abusive conduct and have the right to plead the Fifth Amendment regarding such conduct. Finally, a party may sometimes play private investigator and tape record telephone conversations involving his/her spouse. Clients should proceed with extreme caution before recording any telephone conversations and consult with an attorney about potential civil and criminal liability associated with such recordings. A client may have Fifth Amendment protection associated with potential criminal charges associated with such recordings.

Pleading the Fifth Amendment in a civil domestic, however, can have a dramatic effect on the client’s civil domestic case. Asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege protects the person from self-incrimination in the criminal process. However, North Carolina courts have held that the Fifth Amendment “is intended to be shield and not a sword.” Thus, if a person pleads the Fifth Amendment in a civil domestic action, the trier of fact (judge or jury, depending on the issues involved), is allowed to infer that the answer to the question would have been negative to the person’s interest. If the privileged information sought from the client is material and essential to the defense of the client’s claim, the client must decide whether to come forward with the privileged information or whether to assert the privilege and forego the claim in which such information is necessary. Therefore, a lawyer should consider carefully when a client should plead the Fifth Amendment, weighing the likelihood that the client will actually face criminal prosecution versus the potential impact on the client’s civil domestic action.

Contributor: Stephanie T. Jenkins. Stephanie Jenkins is a Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Attorney and a Partner in the Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. She is a former Wake County, North Carolina Assistant District Attorney. Stephanie has been practicing family law and criminal law for over 15 years in Raleigh, North Carolina.

For more information contact: Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604, Tel: 919-832-8488 or go to www.gailorwallishunt.com.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case.

04/22/2010

Hollywood, CA (Manhattan divorce attorney news)—With cameras constantly rolling, the taping of a reality TV show, which captures every moment of your life, can certainly put strain on any marriage. Heated arguments and fights happened to be one of the moments caught on film while taping the fifth season of “Tori & Dean: Home Sweet Hollywood.” The fights have recently been circulating through Celebrity tabloids, creating a buzz around Tori Spelling and Dean McDermott’s so called “crumbling” marriage, as reported by MSNBC.

Manhattan, New York divorce mediator, YS Mediation (Manhattan divorce attorney)reports although the couple has denied divorce rumors, claiming they are “committed to each other;” they could be secretly hashing out a divorce settlement behind closed doors through a mediation.

Tori, the former “Beverly 90210” star and daughter of late TV mogul Aaron Spelling, met Dean in 2005 while filming the movie “Mind over Murder.” But despite being married at the time to their respected spouses, they fell madly in love with one another. After each of their divorces was finalized, they tied the knot to celebrate their love.  While still in wedding bliss, the newly married couple began filming a series of realty television shows titled “Tori & Dean: Inn Love” and “Tori & Dean: Home Sweet Hollywood,” where they laid everything out on the table for cameras to capture. Even both of their children’s births, Liam, 3, and daughter Stella, 22 months, were filmed for the world to see.

While filming the fifth season of their TV reality series, the couple is seen having heated arguments and appears to be reaching the end of their ropes with one another. In one clip, Spelling says to Dean, “It’s like you got more and more unhappy and angry. I just want the old Dean back. I really do. I miss you so much.” But Tori refutes the claims that they are headed for divorce, stating, “We’re committed to each other, we’re committed to this family. But you know, we work on things just like everyone else.”

Although the reality TV couple denies the claims that they are headed to divorce court, they could be seeking divorce meditation behind closed doors. Divorce meditation, like YS Mediation in New York, can help an unhappy couple bring a peaceful end to a tumultuous relationship. By choosing the mediation path, a couple can come to a settlement behind closed doors without the details leaking to the media; thus protecting their family, kids, and relationships. Only upon reaching an agreeable division of assets and a final draft of the divorce paperwork, will the couple file in court and the media storm begins. This avenue to divorce allows the couple to make those hard decisions without the immense pressure of publicity. If you are seeking a peaceful end to an unhappy marriage for the sake of yourselves, your children, and valuable relationships, contacting  divorce mediators like YS Mediation of New York can help you reach a happy end to your demised marriage. If you or someone you know is separating or divorcing contact YS Mediation for a private and confidential consultation.

Media Contact: YS Mediation - Manhattan divorce lawyer
Toll Free: 1-888-616-0445
http://www.ysmediation.com

Press Release Contact Information:

YS Mediation Center, Inc.

888.616.0445
245 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10167

04/09/2010

NBA star Allen Iverson marital separation becomes public record when spouse hired typical divorce attorney elected divorce court over private divorce mediation.

New York, NY(news)–NBA star’s wife chooses divorce litigation instead of divorce mediation and finds her private and personal family matter making national headlines. Philadelphia NBA basketball player, Allen Iverson, is now involved in a divorce court proceeding according to recent news reports and the public record filing in Fulton County Superior Court.

What seems to be most interesting about numerous media reports is that Tawanna Iverson is apparently a very private person and has always maintained a private stance for herself and her family throughout Iverson’s high profile career. Most couples don’t realize when they hire a typical divorce lawyer and file a petition for divorce through the court system they have now entered into a civil litigation. This means their filing and petition are now public record and available for viewing. The private matter of the Iverson’s marital separation and now pending divorce is available for the world to see.

Iverson’s wife listed their more than 8 year marriage as “irretrievably broken” and demanded child support, alimony, attorneys’ fees, and equitable division of their assets and property. Her private life has now become highly public. By choosing divorce mediation with an experienced divorce attorney firm who specializes in marital discord and separation, couples maintain their privacy, dignity, and community reputation. Don’t litigate; mediate. New York divorce mediation; the solution to conflict resolution. http://www.ysmediation.com For divorce mediation in  new york city call: 

New York City divorce lawyer specializing in divorce mediation. 

YS Mediation represents clients in all five boroughs of New York City: Manhattan/New York County, Staten Island, Queens, Brooklyn/Kings County and the Bronx, as well as Suffolk County, Nassau County/Long Island, Westchester County, Rockland County, upstate New York and New Jersey. 

Press Release Contact Information:

YS Mediation Center, Inc.

888.616.0445
245 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10167

04/09/2010

Sandra Bullock and Jesse James in splitsville leaving the media wondering divorce mediation or divorce lawyer.

New York, NY(news)–The news media continues to circle the divorce question around the names of Hollywood mega star Sandra Bullock and her motorcycle riding husband Jesse James. According to recent news reports, the Oscar winning actress has moved out of her home and is not shopping for a divorce lawyer. When the unexpected event of a cheating husband or wife surfaces the biggest question the naive partner faces is, “should I stay or should I go?”

Many questions begin to ring through the faithful spouses ears when they discover their partner is cheating. Private matters like cheating with porn stars, frequenting strip clubs, and even sex addiction bring horror and embarrassment to the unknowing partner. Contacting a divorce lawyer who specializes in divorce mediation helps both partners end the marriage and maintain their dignity in the community.

When choosing divorce mediation instead of hiring the typical sparring divorce attorneys couples maintain their private affairs in a confidential setting. Divorce mediation offers privacy, huge economic savings, and allows the divorcing couple to maintain control of their information and affairs. http://www.ysmediation.com 1-888-616-0445.

From: YS Mediation

New York City based divorce mediation service – YS Mediation Service 

Press Release Contact Information:

YS Mediation Center, Inc.

888.616.0445
245 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10167

04/07/2010

New York, NY(press release)–New York divorce Law Mediator - YS Mediation a firm of skilled divorce attorneys educates Manhattan couples, who find themselves separating and heading for divorce. Choosing a divorce  is personal because the legal professional mediating your divorce will help both you and your estranged spouse decide about the most important things in your lives: children, home, money, financial security, and division of personal effects.

A New York city divorce lawyer specializing as a mediator helps couples avoid the high cost of hiring individual divorce lawyers and keeps their disagreements out of court and confidential. Consider the following when shopping for a divorce mediator in Manhattan:

Choose a mediator who is a licensed attorney in New York

Choose a mediator who has practiced family law

Select a mediator who is willing to meet with you before you hire

Hire a mediator who is compassionate, knowledgeable, and dedicated

YS Mediation attorneys and their knowledgeable legal team in New York help sparring couples through their conflicts in a private, confidential setting. When a divorce happens both parties experience a personal life trauma. Select the client centered and flexible firm of YS Mediation for a solution to all your divorce conflicts like child custody, support, alimony, joint assets and personal belongings.

Media Contact: YS Mediation

Http:www.ysmediation.com

Toll Free: 1-888-616-0445

Press Release Contact Information:

YS Mediation Center, Inc.

888.616.0445
245 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10167

06/15/2010
New York, NY (News)-The shocking separation announcement made by Al and Tipper Gore after 40-years of marriage, has left many friends, fans, and family members in disbelief. But marriage experts suggested the Gores are a part of a growing phenomenon, in which couples who have invested 20-40 years together, are deciding to spend the rest of their “golden years” apart, as reported by CNN.

Marriage experts reported “Break-ups among long-term married couples-who have spend 30, 40 or more years together-is an uncommon phenomenon compared to the skyrocketing divorce rates among naive newlyweds or parents overwhelmed with children. But the number of long-term relationships headed towards separation-like the Gores-is becoming more frequent with longer life spans and the growing acceptability of divorce.”

Al and Tipper Gore announced their decision to separate through an email to friends, which stated they have reached “a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration.”

“People think you only get closer over time, but that’s not necessarily true,” says Pepper Schwartz, professor of sociology at the University of Washington. Schwartz believes that because of the advancement of science and medicine, we are able to live longer, giving people extra years to live, which has led some married couples to divorce. “Previously, older couples married for decades usually stayed together — not wanting to go through the legal and emotional turmoil so late in life. But now, a longer life span means the possibility of finding a new relationship or enjoying the ‘golden years’ without the stress of fighting with a spouse,” Schwartz said.

When the kids leave home, the empty nesters no longer have children holding their marriage together, which has been a trigger for divorce among many long-term couples. Even a major life change, like a career can cause a marriage to dissolve. But divorces among long-term marriages, are a “tragically a different kind of divorce,” says marriage experts. “Cold divorces,” characterized by disengagement, distance and isolation, and a product of gradual buildup is a term used to describe divorces of long-term married couples. Divorce is often brought on by problems building to the point where no one cares, and realizes that the “good is not outweighing the bad,” says marriage experts.

The divorce attorneys at YS Mediation have a positive track record of helping couples reach a divorce settlement when the fire in their relationship has burnt out. Sometimes, time will only make the cracks in a relationship become larger, and couples of several decades realize they just don’t have anything in common anymore. Divorce mediation offers a way for couples to amicably spilt after living many years together, without enduring the ugly court battles that are often associated with divorce. Contact YS Mediation for a private consultation and take the first step to freedom from a typical, high cost divorce.

Media Contact: YS Mediation

Toll Free: 1-888-616-0445

http://www.ysmediation.com

Press Release Contact Information:

YS Mediation Center, Inc.

888.616.0445
245 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10167