Divorce Lawyers Dallas

The mere possibility, always at least potentially present, that proceedings for dissolution of marriage might be commended during the term of an agreement between spouses relating to their property or business dealings, should not preclude the availability of declaratory relief where an actual controversy has arisen with respect to the construction of the agreement. Stern v. Stern
Inasmuch as complaint pled the existence of an agreement in settlement of pending litigation and required that the court construe the agreement’s terms and declare the rights of the parties, it constituted a request for the construction of a contract and was properly brought in a suit for a declaratory judgment. Stern v. Stern

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in assigning the debts to the wife where the wife had economic means to pay the debts because she had income from her employment and received liquid assets under the terms of the judgment. In re Stufflebeam
Apportionment of property and debts was proper where there was a disparity in net income between the parties, and respondent did not have to pay maintenance to petitioner. In re Ward
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating a $2,000 debt on the marital home to husband, even though wife received the home pursuant to the court’s disposition of property, where husband failed to demonstrate how such assignment was unfair to him in light of the overall distribution of property and obligations. In re Klein

Once petitioner spouse established that respondent spouse had obtained exclusive control over the marital savings, the burden shifted to respondent to show by clear and convincing evidence specifically how the funds were spent. In re Jerome
Testimony offered to explain or justify expenditures charged as dissipation must, at a minimum, be offered by the spouse charged with dissipation, and the explanation given then requires that the trial court determine the spouse’s credibility as to whether these expenditures were for a purpose related to the marriage; the court’s manifestly against the weight of the evidence. In re Hagshenas
A party charged with dissipating marital assets is obliged to establish how those funds were spent by clear and specific evidence; general and vague statements that the funds were spent on marital expenses or to pay bills will not suffice to avoid a finding of dissipation. In re Hagshenas
A party charged with dissipating marital assets is obligated to establish by clear and convincing evidence how the funds were spent. In re Phillips
A person charged with dissipation has the burden of establishing by clear and specific evidence how the funds in question were spent. In re Petrovich
Once it is established that one party has liquidated marital assets the party charged with dissipation must establish by clear and specific evidence how the funds were spent; general and vague statements that they were spent on marital expenses or bills are inadequate to avoid a finding of dissipation. In re Smith
The spouse charged with dissipation of marital funds has the burden of showing, by clear and specific evidence, how the funds were spent and if expenditures are not documented adequately by the person charged with dissipation, courts will affirm a finding of dissipation; general and vague statements that funds were spent on marital expenses or to pay bills are inadequate to avoid a finding of dissipation. In re Rai

A conveyance of a marital residence from husband to his wife, where the husband continued to make mortgage, tax and improvement payments, was part of an estate tax planning scheme and constituted clear and convincing evidence necessary to rebut presumption of marital property. In re Davis
Conveyance of the entire property to the wife upon divorce was justified where the wife testified that she made all mortgage payments, together with all taxes and insurance premiums, out of her own earnings from her employment. Dmitroca V. Dmitroca
Decree compelling conveyance of property could not be rendered upon facts shown by the evidence which would warrant relief where those facts were not alleged in the complaint. Walsh v. Walsh

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding decedent’s children one-third of $300,000 life insurance policy; even though under the terms of the dissolution judgment the decedent was to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of this children, at the time of the judgment decedent had two policies in the total amount of $55,000. Downey v. Downey

In a custody dispute, a court should give great weight to the claim of a third person who has had actual or legal custody of the child for a substantial period of time, especially if the evidence shows that the child has become an integral member of a true family unit. In re Krause
Prior long term actual or legal custody is not controlling and does not transfer the superior right from the natural parent to the third person; it remains simply a factor to consider in ascertaining what will best serve the interests of the child. In re Krause

Where support obligation and visitation rights were established in the respondent, along with a prior judgment of parentage, when respondent filed petition to transfer custody it should have been treated as a motion to modify custody under 750 ILCS 5/610 rather than treated as if it were an initial custody determination under this section. In re M.M.W.
Petition Required
The court cannot modify custody under 750 ILCS 5/607.1 absent a petition to modify pursuant to this section or 750 ILCS 5/610. In re M.M.W.
Name Change
In determining whether or not any restraint should have been put upon the plaintiff’s action in aiding a minor child to change his name, the first and most important consideration before the trial court should be the welfare of the child. Solomon v. Solomon
Natural Parents
Presumption
The law presumes that it is the best interest of a child to be raised by the natural parent. In re Krause
The court could not deny the natural mother her right to have custody of her child, on a record which did not support the trial court’s finding of parental unfitness and dependency. In re Bartha
Parents are entitled to custody of their child unless they are unfit or if the welfare of the child would be best served by denying the parents custody of their child. McAdams v. McAdams

In General
The evidentiary ingredients in a custody dispute, by the very nature of the contest and the individuality of the disputants are, indeed, numerous, varied, and interrelated and thus each factor must be weighed and considered in its relationship to all of the others shown to exist. Brandt v. Brandt
Expert Witnesses
When considering the issue of custody of a child, the court was not obliged to follow the advice of an expert. In re Seymour
Recommendation of expert that the parties continue splitting physical custody of child was not binding on the court. In re Felson
In a case involving custody of a child, receiving the opinion of a psychiatrist would not usurp the decision making function of the court. Marcus v. Marcus

A natural parent has a superior right to custody of the child so long as it is in accord with the best interest of the child. People ex rel. Lutz v. Lutz
The paramount issue in determining custody of a child is the determination of what will be the best interest of the minor involved; the superior right of the natural parent to custody of his child can only be determined in the context of the best interest of threat child, and may be limited by the conduct of such parent, or other circumstances. Sholty v. Sholty
The right of the parent surpasses that of the stepmother who is in law a stranger; thus, the court erred in awarding the custody of the children to the stepmother. McAdams v. McAdams
As a party to the original proceeding, the mother had a right to petition for modification of the custody provisions of the decree, and as the mother of the child she had a natural right to custody, subject only to the like natural right of the father, and to the best interests and welfare of the child. Horn v. Horn
A court is only warranted in depriving a father of the custody of his child where the evidence discloses that the child is destitute, abandoned or dependent; that the father is living an immoral life or in vicious or disreputable circumstances; that he has neglected or treated the child cruelly or unkindly or that he may so treat the child; that he is wanting in good principles or that he is illy adapted to the care of the child on account of defects in his mental or physical qualities which prevent him from being a kind and affectionate father. Jarrett v. Jarrett

Where a psychiatrist testified that he could not say either party was unfit to have custody of the children, where other witnesses similarly testified regarding the virtue of each parent’s ability to raise the children, the trial court was in a better position than the reviewing court to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the needs of the children in custody cases, and the trial court’s decision to award custody of the children to petitioner was not erroneous. In re Shedbalkar
The trial court did not err in awarding custody of minor children to the father in a divorce where the trial judge was well advised of the circumstances of both the parents from personal friends of the parties and from experts who rendered impersonal opinions; therefore, the award was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Kennedy
The determination of the trial court that former husband should be granted custody of two minor children was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the children were mature and showed a preference for their father. In re McCune