Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer Rob Hagy

Mother Could Relocate Children from Virginia to Wisconsin

In the case of Judd v. Judd, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, ruled that a mother could relocate with her two children to Wisconsin.  The move did not substantially impair the non-custodial parent's relationship with the children where the father exhibited little to
no interest in spending time with his sons until he learned wife was keeping a detailed log of his
behavior toward the children and was planning to file for divorce.  The other kinds of things that father did with the children could be arranged in expanded visits that would take place on a less frequent basis.  The children were 4 and 6 years old.  The move was necessitated by a possible job loss by mother and would actually result in mom spending more time with the kids.  The cost of living in Wisconsin was significantly lower than in Virginia and that mother would more easily be able to earn enough money to support herself and the children there than in Virginia.  The evidence supported a finding that wife's extended family, including her parents, three brothers, one sister,  and their families, all resided in Wisconsin.  The trial court also found that the children were of an age and stage in life where they had not developed ties to friends and places in Virginia such that a move would be difficult for them.  Wisconsin was a familiar place with familiar people.

No Published Family Law Opinions Released by the Virginia Court of Appeals Today

Retirement Benefits and Fees Properly Divided and Awarded; Trial Court Lacked Authority to Order Husband to Carry Life Insurance

In the case of Lewis v. Lewis, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, upheld a trial court’s award of a pension plan and a profit sharing account to wife and an award of of attorney’s fees to wife.  But, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled the trial court did not have authority to order the husband to obtain life insurance listing wife as beneficiary to make up for the husband's destruction of wife's right to a lifetime pension under the the parties' property settlement agreement.  The trial court properly calculated husband's monthly pension plan.  As for the profit sharing plan, wife was entitled to interest which accrued on her share of the profit sharing plan from the date of separation until the date of distribution.  Contrary to husband's position, the court had sufficient information before it to rule on the parties' financial ability to pay for their attorneys fees and the wife was not precluded from admitting evidence of her fees up until the time of argument because the case was not set to conclude until that argument.