Although divorce rates have declined across the nation, divorce is becoming increasingly common for Americans age 50 and over. In fact, the divorce rate for the age group has reached an all-time high. In 1990, about 10 percent of individuals divorcing were over the age of 50. By 2009, that number was approximately 25 percent and more than 600,000 people in the United States over 50 chose to end their marriage. By 2030, more than 800,000 people over the age of 50 are expected to divorce each year.

A survey conducted by the AARP in 2004 reportedly found that women between the ages of 40 and 69 were more likely to initiate a divorce than men. Men initiated a split in only 34 percent of divorce cases within the age group. Additionally, infidelity played a factor in only about one fourth of divorces for older Americans. 53 percent of the time, it was not the first divorce for at least one of the spouses. In fact, Americans aged 50 to 64 who are previously divorced are reportedly twice as likely to become divorced again. For those over 65, the likelihood quadruples.

Experts believe many members of the so-called baby boomer generation are seeking additional fulfillment as they reach the empty nest stage of life. They are purportedly looking ahead and seeking to make the most of their remaining healthy years. Divorcing during a recession can be complicated, however. A spouse who is awarded an underwater home may be burdened with additional debt.

Despite the rising baby boomer divorce rate, the AARP survey found that being alone was the top fear among both women and men between the ages of 40 and 79. Perhaps as a result of the divorce trend, dating websites geared to the 50 and up crowd are becoming increasingly common. In 2011, the number of dating website users over the age of 50 reportedly grew twice as fast as any other age group.
Continue reading

Wisconsin Senator Glenn Grothman has sponsored a bill in the state legislature that would make single parenthood a recognized contributing factor to child abuse and neglect. Senate Bill 507 would require the Wisconsin Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to teach that children are less likely to be abused or neglected in a so-called traditional household consisting of both of a child’s parents. The bill was co-sponsored by State Representative Donald Pridemore.

Critics of Senate Bill 507 believe its wording will create a slippery slope for single parents in the state. Senator Lena Taylor, a single parent herself, has expressed outrage over the bill. She believes Senate Bill 507 is blatantly hostile towards women. According to Nicole Angresano of the Milwaukee United Way, the language is non-inclusive and unnecessarily divisive. Angresano believes Grothman has unfairly placed all single parents into the same category.

According to Grothman, the intent of the proposed law is being misunderstood by the public. He said the bill is aimed at promoting public awareness regarding child abuse and neglect. Grothman stated he is not trying to make state law call single parents child abusers. Grothman claims children are 20 times more likely to experience abuse in households where they are not raised by both natural parents. He believes the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board should be teaching that a traditional family is a superior way of raising children.

In 2009, more than one-fourth of children under 21 in the United States lived with a single parent. Single mothers also reportedly outnumbered single fathers by a ratio of 5 to 1. In Wisconsin, approximately one-third of all parents are single. Senate Bill 507 would not establish criminal or civil penalties for single parents, but would affect what the state-funded the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board teaches. The board currently has an annual budget of $3 million.

Family law is an emotional subject due to its very nature. Every year, many Wisconsin residents find themselves in the midst of an unexpected divorce. The host of emotions associated with the end of a marriage can be understandably overwhelming and the financial damage can oftentimes feel devastating. One of the best ways to deal with divorce is to prepare yourself and your children for the possible emotional roller coaster. If you are contemplating divorce, a qualified family law attorney can help you protect your interests.
Continue reading

Can a putative father obtain an injunction in a Wisconsin paternity case before he has been adjudicated the father? The answer – at least in one court – appears to be “yes.”

Mom filed a paternity action regarding her unborn child. Alleged dad learned that mom was planning to subject the baby to an elective medical procedure shortly after the baby’s birth. Specifically, mom was planning to have the baby circumcised.

Alleged Dad objected to the circumcision on health and cultural grounds. Dad moved for a temporary order enjoining the parties from consenting to non-emergency medical procedures pending further order.

Continue reading

So you’ve decided to sell your residence and you have discovered an encroachment on your boundary line with your adjacent neighbor. This can take the form of a driveway that lies partially over the lot line, or even a garage that straddles the lot line. Whatever the case, you will have to deal with the situation prior to closing. In most cases your neighbor will grant a simple easement allowing the encroachment to remain. But what if your neighbor declines to grant an easement?

We recently faced this very situation in which a paved driveway was placed approximately one foot over the lot line. For various reasons, the neighbor refused to grant an easement and instead offered to sell the area of encroachment to our client. This greatly complicated the situation, but with proper planning we were able to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the neighbor, the neighbor’s lender, the buyer’s lender, and the title company.

In this case, we had to first determine the area to be conveyed by means of a survey and needed to confirm zoning requirements. The next step was to determine the existence of any encumbrances on the area to be conveyed which required a title search on the neighbor’s property. Once these measures were taken, we reached an agreement with the neighbor for the transfer of the encroachment area. Amendments were made to the purchase contract in the underlying transaction and partial releases of mortgages were obtained on the neighbor’s property to assure that clear title would be conveyed. Finally, we obtained city approval of the plat of survey and successful closings followed.

Continue reading

In January we blogged about a child support issue that’s headed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That case has now been scheduled for oral argument. Attorney Keith Wessel of Wessel, Lehker & Fumelle will argue the case before the full Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday, October 6, at 1:30 pm.

Under current Wisconsin child support law, parents may not agree to a maximum amount of child support. Such agreements are held to violate public policy because children should share in their parents’ increased earnings. Yet the courts have imposed few restrictions on parents’ agreements on a minimum amount of child support. In the case before the court, the child support payer’s income decreased – a common scenario in today’s economy – yet the payer was precluded from seeking a reduction in his child support payments. We argue that child support should be modifiable as the parents’ financial circumstances change, whether the modification is an increase in child support or a decrease in child support.

With the current composition of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the October 6 argument should be lively and interesting. Oral arguments in the Wisconsin Supreme Court are open to the public. Come hear a thought-provoking argument and, whatever your opinion, demonstrate by your presence that the public cares about this issue.

Much confusion has surrounded the recent enactment of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, the so-called “budget repair bill” here in Wisconsin. This has proved problematic for public employees and family law attorneys alike in planning budgets looking into the future.

Until Thursday, March 31, this writer had been preparing budgets for state employees as if the Act were in effect and preparing budgets for other public employees, such as local, municipal, and school district employees, without taking the Act into account. This was due to the fact that the state government had taken the position that the Act was in effect as of March 26, while most other public entities had taken the opposite approach.

With Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi’s March 31 ruling that the Act is not in effect, we are now safe, at least for the foreseeable future, in preparing our divorce clients’ budgets without factoring in the impact of the Act and will continue to do so until further judicial ruling.

Attorneys are often asked to explain the difference between divorce and legal separation. From the client’s perspective, the only substantial difference will likely be that a divorce will terminate the marital relation, that is, after a divorce the parties are no longer married. However, after a legal separation the parties remain married. In either action, the court will enter a judgment with provisions for legal custody and physical placement of minor children, child support, maintenance, and property division.

In our experience, most parties choose to pursue divorce rather than legal separation. Furthermore, if one party asks for a legal separation and the other asks for a divorce, the court will generally grant the judgment of divorce. The reasons why a party will choose to pursue a legal separation are varied. Some health insurance policies still allow a spouse to remain on his or her spouse’s policy if the parties are legally separated rather than divorced. This often proves to be a compelling reason to pursue a legal separation rather than a divorce. Others believe that there may be a reasonable likelihood for a reconciliation and opt for a legal separation rather than a divorce. Still others pursue a legal separation for religious reasons.

Once a judgment of legal separation has been entered it can be converted to a judgment of divorce. During the first year following entry, a judgment of legal separation may be converted to a judgment of divorce by stipulation of the parties. Once the parties so stipulate the court has no discretion but to convert the judgment of legal separation to a judgment of divorce. Once a year has passed since entry of the judgment of legal separation, either party acting alone may petition the court to convert the judgment of legal separation to a judgment of divorce and, again, the court has no discretion but to convert the judgment.

Continue reading

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently certified a child support issue to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an appeal pursued by Wessel, Lehker & Fumelle.

One glaring disparity in Wisconsin law is its treatment of child support agreements. Parents are free to agree to a minimum amount of child support, but agreements to a maximum amount of child support are unenforceable because they violate public policy. The reasoning goes something like this: It’s good for children to share in their parents’ increased earnings, and good for children to have a minimum amount of child support despite a parent’s decreased earnings.

This analysis may have been defensible back in the days when kids spent most of their time in one home – usually mom’s – and had brief visits in the other home. Now that physical placement (sometimes called custody) is usually shared, it makes no sense to allow child support to increase as the payer’s income increases, but not allow child support to decrease as the payer’s income decreases.

Continue reading

A Michigan child support case has made headlines across the nation recently. Just last month the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Department of Human Services v. Lawrence Michael Beck that even though the father’s parental rights had been terminated, his obligation to pay child support could continue. The court based its decision largely on the Michigan legislature’s “clear distinction between parental rights and the parental obligation to support a minor child.”

In Wisconsin, the legislature has done just the opposite. The Wisconsin Children’s Code provides, “An order terminating parental rights permanently severs all legal rights and duties between the parent whose parental rights are terminated and the child. . . .” Wisconsin Statutes Section 48.43(2). Thus in Wisconsin, termination of parental rights ends all legal rights, including the parent’s right to spend time with the child, and all legal obligations, including the parent’s obligation to provide financial support.

People often use the terms physical placement, visitation rights, and child custody interchangeably in the context of divorce, legal separation, paternity, and related matters. Under Wisconsin law, however, each of these terms has a distinct, specific meaning.

Parents frequently use the term child custody to describe how a child’s time is divided between the parents, or which parent the child will live with for the majority of the time. The law, however, gives this term a different and very specific meaning. Legal custody is the right to make certain important decisions for a child. The Wisconsin Family Code defines “legal custody” as “the right and responsibility to make major decisions concerning the child,” and defines “major decisions” as including “consent to marry, consent to enter military service, consent to obtain a motor vehicle operator’s license, authorization for non-emergency health care, and choice of school and religion.” Thus custody has nothing to do with where the child lives or spends time.

Often the most important issue for separating parents is where the children will spend their time. Wisconsin law calls this physical placement. If your court order allows you to have your children with you every Tuesday and every other weekend, for example, then those are your periods of physical placement with your children. If you have physical placement periods, then you also have the right to make routine, day-to-day decisions concerning your children during those placement periods. The right to make major decisions, however, is the separate issue of legal custody, as described above.

Continue reading
Contact Information
811 E Washington Ave #400
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 256-1480 Fax: (608) 294-7250

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Wessel, Lehker & Fumelle Inc
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design