Thinking About Leaving? Timing and the New Family Law Act

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

Whether you are currently living in a common law relationship or are married, if you are thinking about ending your relationship, the current state of the law invites you to put your mind to the timing of your exit.

While this post may seem iterative of the earlier post titled Property Now, Property Later, as the induction of the new Family Law Act nears, men or women thinking about leaving their significant other are pressed to take a critical look at how the timing of their exit may affect their property rights down the road.  If you are in the difficult position of deciding to end your marriage, and you share or have assets that either existed prior to your marriage or have been inherited since, leaving now rather than waiting until March of 2013 may have a significant impact on the eventual division of assets.

On March 18, 2013, British Columbia’s new Family Law Act comes into force, and any new litigation commenced at that time will be decided in accordance with its terms. Currently, division of assets is handled by the Family Relations Act and only applies to married couples. There is a presumption of an equal division of family assets under the current law, and the onus lies on the party seeking a greater piece of the pie to demonstrate that it would be unfair for the Court to do otherwise.

Currently, common law couples have no presumptive right to the assets of the other party, and the party seeking any of the assets of the other bears the onus to prove that they have made a contribution that justifies their claim to part of those assets.

Under the new Family Law Act, couples who are either married or common law, will share equally in the growth that accrued in the value of any assets during the marriage, but the initial value that a party brought into the marriage can be taken back out by that party. Further, if you inherited assets while married, you can also take those assets out of the marriage, minus half of any growth in the value.

As the new law is just around the corner and provides for significant changes to how assets are divided, people thinking about leaving would be wise to see a lawyer to discuss their situation and whether a separation prior to the new law coming into place will attract a significantly different result than if you hunker down and wait it out.

Does a father have to pay support for children from a previous marriage if he elects to be a stay at home dad for the children of his second marriage?

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

In September, 2012, the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered a case where a father remarried and had a child with his new wife, electing to stay at home with the new child and subsequently reducing his income to zero. He then argued that, due to his status of earning no income, he could not pay support for the children from his previous marriage.

The children from the prior marriage were in their teen years. The children resided solely with the mother and had little to no contact with their father. The father lost his job in 2008 and discontinued paying support that had been previously ordered at $760 per month. The mother sought to obtain the arrears and impute income to the father, who she argued was employable and should have his income imputed for the purpose of child support.

The father argued that he should be permitted to stay at home to care for the new child until she became old enough to start going to school full time.

The Chambers judge allowed the father a period of time akin to maternity leave to be free from the obligation to pay support, but then imputed an income to the father after that point. The BC Court of Appeal upheld the ruling that relief from child support for children of a previous marriage based on obligations to children of the new marriage should be limited to the normal period of paternity or maternity leave:

The question is therefore whether the appellant’s decision to stay at home and care for his youngest child of a subsequent marriage, is one that in the circumstances of this case lawfully excuses him from his child support responsibilities to his two older children.

[35]         This Court had occasion to consider this same issue in McCaffrey v. Paleolog, 2011 BCCA 378, 24 B.C.L.R. (5th) 62 and specifically the application of s. 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines. That section provides as follows:

19(1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following:

(a) include the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;

[36]         After first noting that each parent bears responsibility for the support of their children under s. 19 of the Guidelines, Justice Chiasson, writing for the court in McCaffrey, referred to the general principles concerning the imputation of income from Donovan v. Donovan, 2000 MBCA 80, 190 D.L.R. (4th) 696 at para. 21 as follows: (adopted by this court in Watts v. Willie, 2004 BCCA 600) (at para 46):

1.         There is a duty to seek employment in a case where a parent is healthy and there is no reason why the parent cannot work. It is “no answer for a person liable to support a child to say he is unemployed and does not intend to seek work or that his potential to earn income is an irrelevant factor” (Van Gool v. Van Gool (1998), 166 D.L.R. (4th) 528 (B.C.C.A.)).

2.         When imputing income on the basis of intentional under-employment, a court must consider what is reasonable under the circumstances. The age, education, experience, skills and health of the parent are factors to be considered in addition to such matters as availability of work, freedom to relocate and other obligations.

3.         A parent’s limited work experience and job skills do not justify a failure to pursue employment that does not require significant skills, or employment in which the necessary skills can be learned on the job. While this may mean that job availability will be at the lower end of the wage scale, courts have never sanctioned the refusal of a parent to take reasonable steps to support his or her children simply because the parent cannot obtain interesting or highly paid employment.

4.         Persistence in unremunerative employment may entitle the court to impute income.

5.         A parent cannot be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations.

[37]         He then summarized the law in respect to imputation of income to a parent who has decided to stay home and care for a new child in the following way:

[58]      In summary in a case like this:

1.         income may be imputed to a parent who is intentionally under-employed or unemployed unless the parent establishes under s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines that the  needs of a child require the parent to remain at home;

2.         it is recognized that generally a newborn child or a child of very young age is a child who needs care at home in the context of s. 19(1)(a), but

3.         childbirth does not provide an automatic relief from a parent’s child support obligations;

4.         the circumstances of each situation must be evaluated using all of the criteria articulated in Donovan v. Donovan (2000), 190 D.L.R. (4th) 696 (Man. C.A.) as adopted by this Court in Watts v. Willie, 2004 BCCA 600;

5.         any period of non-support must be reasonable in the circumstances.

[59]      In my view, the circumstances to be considered include a consideration of the financial condition of the payor parent’s present family. It is the needs of the child of that relationship that are in issue. In some situations the financial circumstances of the first family may be relevant: for example, where the second family is very affluent and the first family is destitute. The circumstances may compel an almost immediate return to work or may provide for full or part-time in-home assistance. Assisted care or day-care may not be available readily or be available only on a limited basis. In considering the applicability of s. 19(1)(a), the court should be given every assistance by the parties so as to take into account all relevant factors that bear upon the reasonableness of a period of relief from child support, always recognizing that in a case like this the burden is on the parent who seeks an hiatus from the obligation to provide child support to prove that a period of underemployment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child.

[38]         See also Barker v. Barker, 2005 BCCA 177, 45 B.C.L.R. (4th) 43 at para 19.

[39]         In applying McCaffrey and the principles in Barker to the facts of this case I note first the evidence of the appellant’s present wife, contained in an affidavit of the appellant, in which she states:

My job commitments require me to work irregular and extended hours, sometimes without advance notice, and I am frequently required to travel for days at a time, making outside childcare virtually impossible. Additionally we have no family nearby, who would be in a position to assist us.

It is a core value of ours to have a parent at home with […] until she attends school. It is in […] best interest to be raised by her parents, to have consistency to her schedule and to be in her own home, and her own crib at nap time. We are not prepared to relinquish control of her environment to strangers during these very formative years for emotional and cognitive development. Patrick is therefore required to stay at home and care for her.

This has turned out to have been the best decision for all concerned. […] has bonded very strongly with her father and Patrick has been given an opportunity to focus his love and attention on his daughter subsequent to his estrangement with his other two girls. I see […] developing into a happy, secure, interactive child.

[40]         The chambers judge was not satisfied on this evidence that it was necessary for the appellant to remain at home on a full time basis with his child. This relief from payment of child support will, in any event, rarely extend beyond the usual parental leave period. The judge noted the financial needs of the respondent and her children and the very difficult financial circumstances in which the respondent was endeavouring to support the children. There was no evidence of any special needs of the appellant’s child of his second marriage. There was very little in the way of evidence of the appellant’s own financial circumstances and, as I have already mentioned sparse evidence concerning his inability to find employment. The judge noted the evidence of the appellant’s previous work experience. He concluded that the appellant was not justified in refusing to pay child support. I agree with the conclusion of the chambers judge.

To read the case, go to http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/03/2012BCCA0378.htm

Baby Daddy, Baby Momma - Determination of Paternity Under the Family Law Act

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

On March 18, 2013, British Columbia’s new Family Law Act comes into force, replacing the former Family Relations Act. The new Family Law Act seeks to legislate presumptive rules around parentage in a society where the structure of the family is moving further and further away from the traditional married, heterosexual parental unit. As families are becoming generally more complicated, so is the law.

Where a child is born in a heterosexual relationship where the parents are married, the father is presumed to be the father. Once presumed to be the father, the onus lies on him to make an application for a paternity test to prove otherwise.

Where a child is born to parents as a result of a donor, such as a same sex couple who utilizes assisted reproduction to have a child, the two same sex partners are the parents of the child and the donor is not. This principle also applies to heterosexual couples who access assisted reproduction as well.

Where a child is born to a surrogate on behalf of another couple, the intended parents of the child and not the surrogate will be the parents of the child only if the surrogate gives permission in writing to both the parentage and after the child is born gives written permission to surrender of the child into the care of the intended parents.

Oddly, the new legislation provides that a father is presumed to be the natural parent of a child if he was married to the mother within 300 days of the child’s birth. In most normal circumstances, a divorce requires the parties to live separate and apart for one year prior to an order for divorce being granted. The average human gestation period, according to Wikepedia, is 259 - 294 days. So, theoretically, a man may have left his marriage a full 624 to 659 days prior to his former wife having a child, and still could be placed in a situation where the onus is on him to prove that he is not the father. Maury Povich anyone?

Property Now, Property Later

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

At the time of the writing of this post, the division of property upon the breakdown of a marriage is handled very differently under the Family Relations Act than the division of property upon the breakdown of a common law relationship. Married couples have a presumptive right to half of the “family assets”, unless the other party can demonstrate that it would be unfair to not reapportion the division of property in their favor.

Sometimes, there is property that is not automatically subject to division. Current legislation applies a “family purpose test” that allows property to be excluded if it was not used for a family purpose. An example of this would be property that one party owned prior to the marriage that is not used or invested in by the parties during the relationship.

Common law couples, on the other hand, take away only what is registered in their names. If they wish to make a claim on an asset that is registered in the other party’s name, they must make an application seeking a finding of constructive or resulting trust. Put plainly, they have to show that they made a contribution to the property to the other party’s benefit and their own detriment that justifies them having a claim against that property. Arguments seeking a declaration of trust can be very complex and can result in expensive litigation.

The new Family Law Act, that comes into force on March 18, 2013, changes this up. Under the Family Law Act, common law couples and married couples are subject to the same rules regarding division of property. There is no longer a “family purpose test”, and all property brought into the relationship can be taken out by the original party owning that property. However, any growth in the equity or value of the property is subject to an equal division, regardless of whether it was used for a family purpose or not. Any inheritances received during the relationship can be taken out by the inheriting party, subject to division of any growth.

Due to the radical change in the rules surrounding the division of property, there will be a period of growing pains, where the new legislation is tested in the courts and the true effect on separating couples will be refined and clarified. It is anticipated that argument that was once focused on the “family purpose test” and trust arguments will now be replaced with arguments around the exact dates of the start and end of the relationship, and values of assets at both of these points in time. 

Adultery

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

According to a study completed by the Institute of Occupational Health at the University of Burmingham, (link) divorce is the 9^th most stressful event that a person will likely face in their lifetime. Women and men suffer equal amounts of stress from divorce. Infidelity of a partner, however, generally causes somewhat more stress in women than men.

So how does this play out in the legal field? In short, it shouldn’t. The Divorce Act (Canada) prohibits the Court from considering the conduct of the other party, except where it goes to their ability to parent a child. The Courts will not consider adultery, and most judges will not want to hear evidence about the alleged adultery of the other party. Theoretically, a party can obtain a divorce more quickly if their former spouse has cheated, however, the time it takes to prove the adultery may bring you past the standard 12 month period of separation where anyone can obtain a divorce, and in the end significantly increase your legal fees. You can not obtain a divorce based on adultery if you were the person committing the adultery – the opposing party has to make that application.

Where adultery does have the most impact is during negotiations between the parties. Without a good counsellor, it is sometimes difficult for the injured party to separate their hurt and anger from the position that they are taking on individual issues. Files where infidelity has taken place can be more difficult to resolve, as the spouse who has been the ‘victim’ of adultery may be seeking validation and retribution through the legal process. Success in resolving these files through negotiation relies heavily on the lawyer’s skills in helping their client separate their emotional process from the legal.

In the event that you are the injured party, be careful to consider this separation between the legal and emotional process. The emotional process is valid and important to address, but there is little space in the legal realm to validate your hurt feelings. Even worse, if negotiations have been difficult because the injured party wants to punish their former spouse and the file ends up in court, the judge may find that the evidence lead by the injured party bears less weight, because it has been tainted with the desire to punish their spouse for their adultery. 

How Family Files are Billed

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

In British Columbia, family lawyers can not take a case on a contingency basis (where they receive a percentage of the final amount awarded at the end of trial or settlement). Family lawyers require clients to pay a lump sum up front, called a retainer, which is held in their trust account to be used to pay bills as they are issued. The amount of your retainer depends on the complexity of your case and the estimate of the amount of work involved. When that retainer is depleted, you will be required to replenish the retainer to the original amount, or more if attempts to negotiate a resolution have not been successful and you and your lawyer decide together that litigation is necessary.

The amount of your initial retainer will be established at the outset upon an analysis of the work to be done. This amount can range from $2,500 to $25,000, depending on the issues and status of your file. If a trial date is set, you will have up until 60 days prior to your trial to pay your trial retainer, which is normally set between $5,000 and $7,500 per day of trial. Any funds that remain after your file is resolved will be paid to you once your final account is satisfied.

Lawyers traditionally bill in 6 minute increments, or 1/10^th of an hour. It has become growing practice by some lawyers to charge their minimum amount of time as 0.2, or 12 minute increments, for any matter taking 12 minutes or less (such as reading an email or taking a phone message). At Paine Edmonds, we have not followed this practice and continue to bill in 0.1 hour increments.

Other costs associated with your file will be taxes and disbursements. Disbursements are any costs incurred on your behalf, such as courier fees, faxes, copying, filing fees or long distance phone calls. Sometimes significant disbursements, such as medical reports or costs for a mediator, will need to be paid by you directly, especially in cases where the disbursement risks depleting your retainer.

The lawyers at Paine Edmonds know that the costs involved in litigation can be scary, and that often our clients are at risk of depleting critical personal resources while attempting to resolve your family law issues. We will engage in a cost-benefit analysis with you, so that you can feel confident that you are spending your money effectively during this difficult time. We will work hard with you to explore options for resolving your file in the most cost effective manner, while continuing to advocate for the best possible result.  

Are We Common Law?

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

Family law in British Columbia is currently governed primarily by two pieces of legislation; the Divorce Act (Canada), which is federal legislation, and the Family Relations Act, which is provincial legislation.

Unmarried couples do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Divorce Act, and so must seek their relief under the Family Relations Act. The Family Relations Act defines spouses to include a couple who have lived in a “marriage-like relationship for a period of at least 2 years”.

Under the Family Relations Act, a common law couple who has resided together for two years can seek relief for child and spousal support, but has no recourse with respect to property. Currently, if you are leaving a common law relationship and the property is held under the name of your spouse, you must make your application for its division under the law of trust. This is complicated law that requires you to prove your entitlement in proportion to your contribution, and you must demonstrate that your contribution was to the benefit of the other party and subsequently your detriment, with no juristic reason.

If a couple has lived together for less than two years, they can only make application for support of a child under the Family Relations Act. A party does not have to have lived with the other parent to seek or pay support for a child, so long as they are the biological parent of that child. Where a person has stood in the place of a parent for a period of at least one year, that party may also be liable for support of that child.

The Government of British Columbia is changing the rules with respect to property in the new Family Law Act. The new Family Law Act also defines common law relationships as a couple that has lived together for two years, but brings them under the same property regime as married couples. This act changes the old regime of a presumption of an equal division of property for married couples, and applies that presumption only to property accrued during the course of the relationship.

The definition of common law may be different under other legislation or regulations. For example, the Canada Revenue Agency defines a common law couple as two people who reside together in a conjugal relationship for 12 continuous months, or reside together for any period of time and share a child. The Canada Pension Plan defines common law partners as two people who have resided together in a conjugal relationship for at least one year, as does the British Columbia Public Service Agency Employee Benefits program.

What is this going to cost?

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

It is rare that a lawyer will be able to give you a dependable estimate of the end cost of your family file. A survey of average costs found at this link of a contested divorce indicates that the cost can range from $6,582 to $86,644. These costs can be even higher if lawyers are involved in other issues, such as communicating between the parties over childcare issues or appealing a trial decision to the Court of Appeal. There are many factors that will change the end cost of your case, only some of which are in your control. These factors may include the complexity of the situation, the dynamics of the relationship between the parties, whether there are allegations of abuse, whether there are businesses that require detailed analysis of business records, how far apart each party’s perception of a fair result is, and whether counsel for both parties are committed to working to diffuse rather than increase conflict.

The lawyers at Paine Edmonds subscribe to a philosophy that every effort should be made to negotiate a fair resolution for the parties. It is in the client’s best interests to attempt to resolve a file with the best possible result at the lowest cost, whether by settlement offer, negotiation or mediation. Where these negotiations break down or are impossible due to the dynamics between the parties, at times it can be more cost effective in the long run to make an application to court to resolve an issue, rather than engaging in protracted negotiations with little chance at success.

Other steps you can take to keep your costs down include:

- instead of  a series of short emails or phone calls to your lawyer, save your questions for an appointment or one longer email, as each email or phone call is billed separately;

- make a checklist of items that you want to discuss with your lawyer, so that you stay focused and use your time effectively;

- leave your lawyer to handle the big-picture things, and try to handle smaller items yourself. Having your lawyer involved in passing mail, arguing over lunch choices for your child at school, or reviewing every angry text shared between you and your former spouse will increase your costs significantly;

- bring in your documentation well organized. You will need to provide documentary evidence to your lawyer, such as bank statements, tax returns, paystubbs and relevant assessments. If these documents are organized in chronological date-form and by subject area, then your lawyer will spend much less time having to go through them and organize them;

- try talking to your lawyer’s assistant before talking to your lawyer. Most firms charge a reduced rate for the assistant’s time; at Paine Edmonds we do not charge for this time. The assistants are familiar with the files and can answer many procedural questions without you having to speak with your lawyer.

Changes to Family Law in British Columbia

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

A new bill was passed on November 23, 2011 which received Royal Assent on November 24, 2011. The new Family Law Act changes much of the terminology used in Family Law and redesigns the Family Relations Act. Much of the new law is not yet in force, and the Family Relations Act is still predominantly the governing legislation in British Columbia.

The new Family Law Act will be in full force as of March 18, 2013. At that time, it will replace the Family Relations Act.

Some main features are:

- the Act sets out the “best interests of the child” as the only consideration when making determination     affecting the children;

- the concepts of “custody” and “access” are being replaced with “guardianship”, “parenting time” and “parental responsibilities”;

- the Act encourages alternatives to court for resolving family disputes: including, mediation, negotiation, use of parenting coordinators and arbitration;

- the Act attempts to define and address family violence;

- the Act sets out a series of tools and remedies to support children having access to both of their parents;

- the Act brings significant changes to how property is treated in both marriage and common law relationships;

- the Act seeks to create presumptions of parentage, including in cases of assisted reproduction (such as a donor or surrogate).

Is there a Code of Conduct for Family Law Lawyers?

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

All lawyers in British Columbia are bound to a professional code of conduct governed by the Law Society of British Columbia.

In July, 2011, the Law Society of British Columbia issued the Best Practice Guidelines for lawyers practicing in the area of family law in British Columbia. The guidelines set out are not binding on family law lawyers, but all lawyers on the family law team at Paine Edmonds LLP adhere to these guidelines. The guidelines set out are:

BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR LAWYERS PRACTICING FAMILY LAW

Lawyers involved in a family law dispute should strive to ensure it is conducted in the

following manner:

1. Lawyers should conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive, respectful and seeks to minimize conflict and should encourage their clients to do likewise.

2. Lawyers should strive to remain objective at all times, and not to over-identify with their clients or be unduly influenced by the emotions of the moment.

3. Lawyers should avoid using inflammatory language in spoken or written

communications, and should encourage their clients to do likewise.

4. Lawyers should caution their clients about the limited relevance of allegations or evidence of conduct.

5. Lawyers should avoid actions that have the sole or predominant purpose of

hindering, delaying or bullying an opposing party, and should encourage their clients to do likewise.

6. Lawyers cannot participate in, and should caution their clients against, any actions that are dishonest, misleading or undertaken for an improper purpose.

7. Lawyers should keep their clients advised of, and encourage their clients to

consider, at all stages of the dispute:

a. the risks and costs of any proposed actions or communications;

b. both short and long term consequences;

c. the consequences for any children involved; and

d. the importance of court orders or agreements.

8. Lawyers should advise their clients that their clients are in a position of trust in relation to their children, and that

a. it is important for the client to put the children’s interests before their own; and

b. failing to do so may have a significant impact on both the children’s wellbeing and the client’s case.

9. Lawyers should advise their clients of and encourage them to consider, at all stages of the dispute, all available and suitable resources for resolving the dispute, in or out of court.

Do I have to divorce?

By Michelle Guy, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer at Paine Edmonds LLP

No! You do not have to apply for a divorce at any time. However, in British Columbia, we have a no-fault divorce system. If either party applies for a divorce, they will be successful if they prove one of three things: you have lived separate and apart for 12 months; the opposing party has committed adultery; or they have subjected you to physical or mental cruelty that makes continuing to live together intolerable.

However, if neither party moves towards applying for an actual divorce, that is fine. All aspects of separation, including division of assets and care of the children, can be handled through the drafting of a separation agreement.. That agreement can then be rescinded by the parties if a reconciliation occurs, or a divorce can be applied for at a later date, if either party chooses. If there is no agreement between the parties about division of assets or child care arrangements, application can be made to the courts with or without a divorce, to resolve these issues. Sometimes a divorce can take several months to process, and so if you wait until you make plans to remarry before starting your divorce, you may face delays that are outside of your and your lawyer’s control.

My World is Suddenly Upside Down ... Where Do I Start?

By Michelle Guy, Associate at Paine Edmonds LLP, Vancouver Family Law Lawyer

The initial phase when a marriage or common law relationship comes to an end is overwhelming and disorienting. This is a time when the road map of your life has been crumpled up and thrown in the fire. A new roadmap needs to be built, but that process is overwhelming when managing the emotional aspect of coping with the end of your significant relationship. Whether you are the leaver or the leavee, there are huge emotional obstacles that you will have to overcome over the following number of months.

In your first meeting with your lawyer, you will talk about the relationship and how and why it ended. Your lawyer will help you identify the issues that need to be considered and will create with you an action plan for how you can move forward with creating a new life. Often, the emotional aspect will become easier when you know that someone is helping to solve the logistics of where you will live, how you will survive, how much you will have to pay, how you will preserve the assets that are meaningful or necessary to you, and how you will protect your relationship with your children. Sometimes your lawyer will recommend that you seek the help of a good counsellor, to help you find clarity in what you want for the future.

Coming to see a lawyer is much like coming to see an architect when you are building a house. You are in charge of the overall design, but the lawyer helps to create the structural foundation for the life that you want to begin to unfold. 

Welcome to the Paine Edmonds LLP Family Law Blog

In today's fast changing world, family law issues are becoming increasingly complicated.  With so much at stake, it is absolutely critical to have an experienced family law lawyer on your side to help you.
At Paine Edmonds LLP, our Family Law Group is made up of a team of specialized and experienced family law lawyers who resolve our clients' family law issues cost-effectively. Our lawyers have vast experience in all facets of family law, including divorce, custody, drafting separation agreements, and child and spousal support.
If you are facing a family law-related issue and would like to speak with one of our Family Law lawyers, please call Michelle Guy or her assistant, Rebecca Wahl, immediately to arrange for a consultation.