What’s new with you?
The first rule of blogging: don’t stop blogging.
Because while I’ve been offline, the law hasn’t slowed down.
Right now we have three different family law cases at the Minnesota Supreme Court, including one on prenups, one on “temporary” custody awards, and a third on Orders for Protection. Oh, and just the usual run down of legislative changes and pending bills to keep track of. NBD.
I’ve been away from blogging too long. It’s good to be back.
The run down.
Even though I’ve been off the grid the last few months, I haven’t disappeared. In fact, I’ve been busily keeping track of all 2016’s legislative changes and fashioning them into a handy-dandy chart to assist my fellow family law wonks in keeping them straight. (For those who love charts, stay tuned. I’ve got more)
While nothing may be as dramatic as the bills passed in 2015, the 2016 legislative session managed to cram more than a few big changes into an abbreviated session.
Here are a few highlights:
- The amendment likely to get the most notice is Minnesota’s new parenting time expense adjustment, which should substantially reduce child support obligations for many families (more on that to come).
- We also shouldn’t forget Minnesota’s new cohabitation statute either (for more, I’ve got an article here).
- Minnesota also put in a place a child support workgroup, that continues to meet regularly on a variety of issues, including making our state guidelines more effective for more families.
For a full list of changes, along with cites, I put together this chart.
What’s on the horizon?
Though few family law bills made their way through the legislature in 2017, 2018 promises a return to the shared-parenting debate.
Four new custody and parenting time bills all dropped late in the session, all calling for a stronger statutory mandate for equal (or “maximized”) parenting time. The new proposals run the gamut from HF 2603, requiring the court to “maximize” parenting time, except in certain, limited cases, to HF 2545 and HF 2413 creating presumptions in favor of joint physical custody and equal (or near equal) parenting time, to even more muscular equal time presumptions that sweep away much of the “best interest” analysis in HF 2699.
Though none of the bills received a hearing this year, these issues will almost certainly be back in 2018.
As will I.