Blogs

Minnesota divorce and other family law matters can cost a proverbial "arm and a leg" in the form of attorney's fees. This is especially the case if no agreement can be reached and the matter eventually is decided through a multi-day trial. What if one parent or spouse has a much greater income than the other, and has a greater ability to pay attorney's fees? Or, what if one parent or spouse is pursuing relief from the Court that he or she clearly is not entitled to, forcing the other parent or spouse to incur unreasonable and unnecessary attorney's fees to defend him or herself?

These are the two situations where Minnesota Courts in family law cases can order one party to pay to the other party an amount as reimbursement for, or a contribution towards the other party's attorney's fees. These two situations are commonly referred to as (1) need-based attorney's fees; and (2) and conduct based attorney's fees, and are codified in the Minnesota Statutes.

Need-based attorney's fees are awarded if there is a substantial disparity in the parties' incomes and the Court finds that the one party has the means to pay the other party's attorneys fees, the other party does not have the means to pay the attorney's fees, and an award of attorney's fees is necessary to allow the other party to make a good faith assertion of that party's rights in the Minnesota divorce or other family law proceeding. In such a case, the Court will award attorney's fees, costs, and disbursements in an amount necessary to enable a party to carry on, or contest the family law proceeding.

Conduct-based attorneys fees are awarded against a party who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the Minnesota divorce or family law proceeding without a finding of either party's need or ability to pay the attorney's fees. Such conduct based attorney's fees are awarded if a party is pursuing a frivolous or meritless claim, the party fails to appear in Court or for a scheduled deposition, a party fails to respond to discovery requests, or the party simply engages in vexatious litigation that forces the other party to incur attorney's fees to defend.

Attorneys fees can also be awarded if the parties expressly stipulated to it in their Minnesota divorce decree or other family law order. For instance, they could stipulate that one party shall pay a credit card debt as part of a divorce and shall indemnify and hold harmless the other party, and that if the party failed to pay the credit card debt the other party could recover reasonable attorney's fees in a post-decree motion in connection with enforcing the divorce decree. In such a case, the parties created a contractual provision to provide for an award of attorney's fees. This is consistent with the principle known as the "American Rule." In the United States, generally each party to a civil lawsuit is responsible for paying his or her own attorney's fees, unless a statutory or contractual provision provides otherwise. The ability to order need-based and conduct-based attorney's fees in family law proceedings is via the Minnesota family law statutes; the ability to order attorney's fees in the above-example would be based on the parties specifically contracting for an award of attorney's fees.

As a Minnesota divorce lawyer, the issue of attorneys fees is almost perpetually present in all divorce and family law proceedings. However, the Courts do not frequently award attorney's fees, and when they do, it usually only covers a fraction of the actual fees incurred by the party. And in the few cases where the Minnesota Courts do award attorney's fees, a bigger problem normally results in the attempt to actually collect the attorney's fees from the other party after the Court has awarded them.

By: Adam Blahnik, Minnesota divorce attorney, in Scott County and Dakota County, and owner of Blahnik Law Office, PLLC, 16180 Hastings Avenue, Suite 201, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372. (952) 479-0449, adam@blahniklawoffice.com

In the year 2007 the child support laws in the State of Minnesota were changed to form a nexus between the amount of time that a parent has with a child and the amount of child support that the parent must pay. Prior to 2007, the amount of child support paid was contingent on the actual custody label agreed to: if one parent received sole physical custody, then the other parent was required to pay a set amount of child support (with some exceptions).

Now, the custody labels do not have any impact on the amount of child support to be paid, but instead, the amount of “court ordered” time that each parent has with the children is the deciding factor. Specifically, there are two “parenting time adjustments” equivalent to ten percent, and forty-five percent. Some States have several parenting time adjustment tiers, but Minnesota decided to go with just two. So, in Minnesota, if a parent has parenting time with his or her children at least ten percent of the time, that parent will receive a 12% reduction in his or her child support. There is a presumption that each parent has parenting time at least 10 percent of the time, and this usually is a non-issue. If a parent has parenting time at least forty-five percent of the time, that parent will receive a 50% reduction in his or her child support. This is the battleground.

Attaining parenting time of at least 45% of the time has been the goal and the opposition of many child custody litigants. Often (and probably most of the time), the parents sincerely want the most time with their children as possible. However, what has evolved since the inception of the revised child support laws in 2007, is a skepticism by the Courts, by opposing attorneys, in mediation and through custody evaluations that the sole reason a parent is pursuing substantial parenting time is to avoid child support. While this is the case sometimes, it frequently is not the case. Yet, these sincere fathers and mothers fighting for time with their children, are often accused of this.

This is especially the case in a post-decree motion (a Court hearing after the divorce or custody proceeding has been finalized) wherein one parent is requesting additional time with his or her children based on a change in circumstances, but this additional time would incidentally push that parent's total time with the child or children to something more than 45% of the time. It can be very difficult on the parent who legitimately wishes to spend more time with his or her children, when everyone is accusing the parent that he or she simply and solely desires to reduce his or her child support.

As a Minnesota divorce lawyer and child custody lawyer, this issue seems to rear its ugly head at some point in almost all of the divorce and child custody proceedings that my law firm handles. I would advocate adding a couple more “tiers” to the parenting time adjustments, say at 25% and at 35% of the time. This would eliminate the “all or nothing” situation that we currently have regarding the need to have 45% of parenting time to get a discount in child support (excluding the presumed 10% adjustment).

By: Adam Blahnik, Minnesota divorce attorney, Prior Lake lawyer and owner of Blahnik Law Office, PLLC, 16180 Hastings Avenue, Suite 201, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372. (952) 479-0449, adam@blahniklawoffice.com

If you are in a position where you will either have to pay child support or will be receiving child support, this article provides an overview of the child support laws in the state of Minnesota. When talking with a Minnesota divorce or family law lawyer, the lawyer may frequently refer to our current child support laws as the new child support laws, as opposed to the old child support laws.  However, the new child support laws really are not all that new. These laws came into effect in January 2007. Thus, we have been operating under the "new child support laws" for almost five years now.

The old (previous) child support laws, which were in effect from the early 1980s until 2007, required the child support obligor (the parent paying child-support), to pay child support based on a percentage of that parent's net income. These guidelines provided for the individual to pay 25% of his or her net income for one child, 30% for two children, 35% for three children, and so on. Again, this was based on net income which was determined after income taxes were deducted, in addition to the cost of health insurance, a reasonable pension amount and union dues.

As of January 2007, Minnesota has been operating under the “new child support laws.” Child support is currently based on both parties' incomes and is based on gross income, not net income. The amount of child support to be paid is calculated by totaling both parties' gross incomes to arrive at a "combined parental income for determining child support." This parental income is then allocated between the parents based on their proportionate share of the parents' combined income. This is frequently referred to as each parent's "PICS" income. The total amount of child support to be paid based on the parents' combined parental income, may be modified and increased each year.  Currently (2011) these amounts can be found on a chart in Minnesota Statute § 518 A .35 Subd. 2.

The current child support laws also provide for a "parenting time adjustment." A child support obligor gets a 12% reduction in his or her child support if he or she has parenting time with the children in excess of 10% of the time. The law presumes that a parent has parenting time at least 10% of the time. The next parenting time adjustment is at 45% of the time. This parenting time adjustment - 45% of the time - seems to be the "battleground" in Court.  Thus, if one parent has parenting time of approximately 40% of the time, that parent often times will fight for an additional 5% of the time, because this additional 5% can make a difference of several hundred dollars (and even over a thousand dollars) every month in a potential support obligation.

In my family law practice, I will often compromise with the other parent when either parent may have parenting time between 40% and 45% of the time. In these situations, I may suggest that we "deviate" from the child support guidelines, so there is not a substantial impact if the one parent does not quite have parenting time in excess of 45% of the time. In these cases, it is necessary to fully explain to the Court why we are deviating from the child support guidelines and why the deviation is in the best interests of children.

The current Minnesota child support laws also include provisions to allocate to each parent the cost of medical insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs for the children. The cost for the children's medical insurance premium may be built directly into the child support obligor's monthly child support payment. The out-of-pocket costs are divided based on each parent's respective PICS income. Also, daycare costs may be included within the child support computations and included within the child support obligor's monthly child support payment. Typically, the obligor will pay something less than what his or her PICS income otherwise is, to adjust for the benefits of the daycare credit that the child support obligee (the parent receiving child support) may be entitled to. The contribution towards the children's health insurance premium and contribution towards the children's daycare costs are "in addition to" the basic child support obligation.

Child support can be relatively simple to calculate if both parents are W-2 employees and work 40 hour weeks. Child support can be more complex when one or both of the parents are self-employed or if one or both the parents are unemployed or underemployed. The Minnesota child support laws do provide a presumption that each parent is capable of working a 40 hour week for child support purposes. If a parent does not provide sufficient documentation of his or her income, the Courts could impute “potential income” to that parent based on 150% of the federal minimum wage.

There are many other details of the Minnesota child support laws that I will not discuss in this article. However, as you may have noticed, it is more difficult as a Minnesota divorce lawyer to inform a potential child support client of his or her likely child support obligation under the current child support laws. Prior to 2007, it was easier for a lawyer to inform a client over the telephone of an approximate child support obligation, based on a percentage of that parent's net income.

One useful tool for parents who may curious of what their child support obligation may be, is the Minnesota child support calculator (http://childsupportcalculator.dhs.state.mn.us/). However the amount of child support calculated by the Minnesota child support calculator is only as good as the numbers that are inserted into the calculator. It is important to seek advice from a Minnesota child support attorney if faced with a child support proceeding whether through a Minnesota divorce proceeding or simply a separate child support matter.

By: Adam Blahnik, Minnesota divorce attorney, Prior Lake lawyer and owner of Blahnik Law Office, PLLC, 16180 Hastings Avenue, Suite 201, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372. (952) 479-0449, adam@blahniklawoffice.com

So you find yourself either contemplating divorce, or in the middle of a divorce in the State of Minnesota, and need to know what your rights are with regard to all the personal and real property owned by you or your spouse. This article will touch on the “ins and outs” of property division in divorce proceedings consistent with the laws of the State of Minnesota. There are two competing doctrines amongst the various Sates in this country on how property rights are vested to married couples, - “common law property” states and “community property” states. Minnesota is considered a common law property state (or “marital property” state) when it comes to property rights during the marriage. In the United States, there are ten States that are considered “community property” states, which include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. This article deals specifically with common law property rights within the State of Minnesota.

As a Minnesota divorce attorney, it is critical to meet thoroughly with divorce clients to ascertain all the property interests owned by the divorce clients and the “character” of those property rights. All property will be classified as either “marital property” or “non-marital” property. There is a presumption in the law that all property is marital. Thus, it becomes the burden of the party attempting to classify the property as non-marital to come forth with the necessary proof and evidence to consider the property non-marital.

So – what the heck am I talking about? What do I mean by marital property? . . . and non-marital property?

Per Minnesota divorce laws, all marital property shall be divided equitably between the divorcing spouses. Marital property consists of all property owned by the spouses that is not otherwise classified as non-marital property as explained below. To “equitably divide” the marital property does not necessarily mean to divide the property 50-50 between the spouses. However, in the majority of the Minnesota divorce cases, this is exactly what happens. But, if there is a large disparity in the spouses incomes, the Courts may award to the lower wage earner a higher percentage of the marital property.

So, what is non-marital property? In Minnesota, non-marital property consists of any property that a spouse owned prior to the marriage; that a spouse inherited at anytime, either before or during the marriage; or any property that was gifted directly and solely to one of the spouses (except for gifts from the other spouse). If property is classified as non-marital, then that spouse is entitled to all of such property, without having to divide any portion of it with the other spouse.

To prove the non-marital character of tangible personal property is often times not that difficult. However, when we are dealing with various bank accounts, retirements accounts or investment accounts, things get a little trickier. The spouse must properly and thoroughly “trace” the non-marital funds from their inception through the date of divorce. If the non-marital funds are commingled with marital funds, then that has the effect of converting all the funds to marital funds. Thus, it is very important that the holder of non-marital funds retain such funds in a separate account . . . however, it may not be the most pleasant conversation to have with your spouse when you explain why you are retaining the funds in a separate account: “Honey – I am just keeping the money in a separate account, so in case we get divorced I will get to keep all the money.”

Similarly, if a spouse has an non-marital claim in real estate, it can be difficult to trace such a claim. This comes about when one spouse owns a home prior to the marriage, which has equity, then the parties sell that home and use the proceeds from the sale as a partial down payment towards the new home, and so forth and so on. There are many factors that come into play with this – too many to discuss in this article. However, it should be noted that when computing a potential non-marital claim in real estate, the Courts discern “active appreciation” (i.e. appreciation of the property due to improvements) with “passive appreciation (i.e. appreciation of the property due to market forces). Further, if at anytime during the course of owning the real property, the actual equity in the property is reduced to zero, then this has the effect of eliminating any non-marital claim that may have existed.

As you can see, it can become quite complex and complicated in determining and ascertaining whether any non-marital property exists as part of the marital relationship. It is always very important to speak with a qualified Minnesota divorce lawyer to discuss your rights in the Minnesota divorce proceeding.

By: Adam Blahnik, Minnesota divorce attorney, Prior Lake lawyer and owner of Blahnik Law Office, PLLC, 16180 Hastings Avenue, Suite 201, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372. (952) 479-0449, adam@blahniklawoffice.com

If you are obtaining a divorce in Minnesota and you own a house, there are several factors that come into play as to whether you should pursue possession and eventual ownership of the house, or whether you should relocate to a different residence. An obvious concern as to whether a divorcing spouse wishes to stay in the marital house, is whether or not there is equity in the home. The less obvious issue on whether to stay in the house or not as part of a divorce in Minnesota, involves the issue of child custody.

The Choice is in Your Hands

If there are minor children involved, as a divorce attorney, I will almost always advise my client to NOT leave the house – at least on a temporary basis. The reason for this is, if the Minnesota divorce is disputed/contested, and in particular if the issue of child custody is disputed, more than likely the Court will be requested (through a motion for temporary relief) to issue a Temporary Order granting temporary child custody to one of the parents. One of the main objectives that the Court considers in assessing “the best interests of the children” to determine which parent will receive temporary child custody, is to “maintain the stability of the children.” To maintain the stability of the children, the Court usually will want to keep the children in the house where the children resided during the parties' marriage. Thus, often times is the case, the parent who gets possession of the house pending the divorce, will also get temporary child custody (or at least the majority of parenting time) with the children. However, this is just a temporary order (a temporary fix) until a permanent solution regarding the house can be agreed to or decided. As a divorce attorney and lawyer in Prior Lake, Minnesota, and as a resident of Prior Lake, Minnesota, I have witnessed and been subject to the recession and the adverse impact that the recession has had on the housing market. The Prior Lake area and neighboring Savage, Shakopee, Burnsville, and all of Scott County, Dakota County and the Twin Cities metropolitan area in Minnesota as well as the vast majority of the country did not evade the declination of housing values. As a divorce attorney and as part of my divorce practice it is always an issue of “what to do with the marital house.” A few years ago, the notion of the value of one's home decreasing was inconceivable and the parties' house was almost always considered an “asset” for divorce purposes. However, now days, more times than not in my divorce cases in Minnesota, the house is a liability – and often times a substantial liability. So, the concern is whether to choose to stay in a house with an “upside down” mortgage. In many of my divorce cases, the parties simply elect to “let it go” and discontinue paying the mortgage. However, the divorcing couple cannot stipulate in a Court Order that they will no longer pay the mortgage payments – because the Court cannot sign an Order providing that the parties will violate the terms of their mortgage and promissory note. So, in these cases, it is usually “implied” that the payments will no longer be made. In such cases, as a Minnesota divorce attorney, I will advise the parties to agree that one spouse will receive possession of the house during this process and that they will each be liable for any costs and expenses associated the inevitable foreclosure process. In the few cases where there is still equity in the marital home, and where one of the spouses can afford the mortgage payments and other expenses associated with the house, it may be a wise decision (depending on house and location) to choose to stay in the house, since the housing market did decline substantially, it may rebound exponentially one of these days – hopefully that is not just wishful thinking on the part of the author . . . By: Adam Blahnik, Minnesota divorce attorney, Prior Lake lawyer and owner of Blahnik Law Office, PLLC, 16180 Hastings Avenue, Suite 201, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372. (952) 479-0449, adam@blahniklawoffice.com

With Thanksgiving a few days from now, and Christmas to follow shortly thereafter, tis the season for every family law attorney and Minnesota divorce attorney to start receiving the telephone calls regarding holiday parenting time disputes with their minor children. All too common in Minnesota divorce decrees and in Minnesota custody orders, are parenting time schedules that provide loose terms for the parties' holiday time with their minor children. Some orders do not provide for a holiday schedule at all, some simply provide for "alternating holidays," while others provide for specific holidays but not specific times for exchanging the children for holidays.

This is most prevalent for Christmas parenting time when an order provides that "mom shall have the children on Christmas Eve and dad shall have the children on Christmas day." The question then becomes - when does Christmas Eve end and Christmas Day begin? Is it Christmas Eve evening or Christmas Day morning? For most little children, "Santa arrives" sometime overnight on Christmas Eve, prior to Christmas Day morning, so it makes a big difference. Also, many families have traditions on Christmas Eve evening, Christmas Day morning and for a Christmas Day dinner. Not to mention, many families will work in a visit to their church on either Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.

Usually, family traditions run deep with regard to where and when these holiday traditions occur. And often times, if the parties are not counseled properly during the divorce or child custody process, these details will not be addressed in the final custody order or divorce decree.

Also, I am frequently told by my divorce or child custody clients that, "Oh I can work out these details with my soon to be ex (or the father/mother of my children) because we get along well." Well, first I want to commend such individual that they have the current ability to cooperate with the other parent regarding these parenting time details. However, the key word there is "current" ability. Lets say the parties have a two year old child, then they will have to cooperate for the next 16 years on such details (at least 16 years under the watchful eyes of the Court). And yes, it is true, many of these individuals are unable to agree as the years pass.

Therefore, I almost always recommend to my divorce and child custody clients to include an extremely specific and detailed parenting time schedule and holiday schedule to use, if not only as a "default." By this I mean, if the parties get along well now, they can choose to deviate from the specific schedule. However, if the proverbial "push comes to shove" then they have a specific parenting time schedule to default to and there would be no need to make a frantic last minute call to their local family law attorney.

By: Adam Blahnik, a Minnesota divorce attorney, Prior Lake attorney and owner and managing attorney of Blahnik Law Office, PLLC (952-479-0449) in Prior Lake, Minnesota.

As a Minnesota divorce attorney, a question that is often posed to me by my divorce and child custody clients is, “Can't my spouse (or the other party) and I just agree to something on our own?” Normally, my answer to that question is a resounding “yes” – the more you can agree to, the less there is to argue between the attorneys and the less Court involvement that will be necessary. What this normally also means is the divorce or custody proceeding will be easier on your pocket book as well.

However, there are a few exceptions to the “lets just agree to this and follow it” approach. First, if the agreement pertains to minor children in any manner, the Court will always apply an independent “best interests of the child” analysis. In other words, just because you agree to something, if that agreement impacts minor children, the Court could reject the agreement.

With regard to child support, there is a legal presumption that the statutory child support guidelines must be used in all child support determinations. If the parties wish to agree to a different amount, they must provide to the Court an explanation on why this “deviation from the guidelines” is in the children's best interests.

For an initial child custody determination, the standard for the Court would be “what is in the best interests of the children.” If the parties agree to the child custody and parenting time schedule and provide an explanation for it, generally the Court's will defer to this agreement. The Courts generally appreciate the parties reaching an agreement on custody and parenting time – because in most cases the parents know their children the best and know what is best for their children. So, if they can agree on custody and parenting time, the Court should adopt that agreement.

The tricky part arises when the parties wish to modify an existing Court order (a post-decree modification). For example, John and Jane got divorced. They had two minor children, Jenny and Jimmy. In the divorce, Jane was awarded sole physical custody, the parties were awarded joint legal custody, John was awarded parenting time every other weekend and was ordered to pay $1,000.00 per month in child support. One year after the divorce, John was terminated from his employment, began receiving unemployment and was home for the majority of the days. Based on this, the John and Jane agreed between the two of them that they would modify their agreement to provide for joint physical custody, each spouse alternating every other week of parenting time with the children and that neither spouse would pay to the other spouse any amounts for child support. John and Jane agreed to this in writing, each of them signed it, but they did not submit it to the Court for a Judge to sign and file with the Court.

John and Jane's agreement would be considered an “extra-judicial agreement.” Is it enforceable? Maybe.

Minnesota courts have approved extrajudicial modification of an existing divorce decree through stipulated agreement. (Kielley v. Kielley, 674 N.W.2d 770, 774-75 (Minn. App. 2004)). There is a policy favoring the use of stipulations in divorce proceedings. But these stipulations are given considerably less weight when the agreement involves children. (Frauenshuh v. Giese, 599 N.W.2d 153, 158-59 (Minn. 1999)). The Court is not bound by stipulations involving child custody. Further, child-support stipulations are given less weight to protect "the welfare of the children” as the paramount consideration. (Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30, 182 N.W.2d 840, 842 (1970)).

The enforceability of an extrajudicial agreement depends on whether the agreement is both contractually sound and otherwise fair and reasonable. (Kielley). To be contractually sound, the extrajudicial agreement must be supported by consideration. Consideration is "`a benefit accruing to a party or a detriment suffered by another party.'" (Invs. v. Beaudoin, 364 N.W.2d 850, 853 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. June 14, 1985)). The amount of consideration is not relevant to a determination of an agreement's enforceability. When parties make mutual, concurrent promises that are incorporated into a bilateral contract, such promises are sufficient consideration for each other. (Koehler & Hinrichs Mercantile Co. v. Illinois Glass Co., 173 N.W. 703, 704 (1919)).

Also, to be enforceable, an extrajudicial agreement must not be unfair or unreasonable to (1) the children by causing an adverse impact on them; (2) one of the parties as a result of overreaching, a lack of disclosure, or lack of opportunity to consult with counsel; (3) the state by causing one or both parties to seek public assistance; and (4) the district court by unnecessarily complicating future court proceedings. (Kielley) In determining the enforceability of an extrajudicial agreement, the district court may accept or reject the terms of the agreement in whole or in part.

So, the “long and short of it” is, just because you agreed to it, doesn't mean that the Court will recognize your agreement. However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this article, it is always best if you and your ex-spouse or the parent of your child can agree on the terms of your custody, parenting time and child support. But, the lesson to be learned here is, if you do reach a “post decree” agreement, please incorporate that agreement into a stipulation and order to submit to the Court for a Judge to sign and file with the Court Administrator. By doing this, you convert a semi-enforceable “extra-judicial agreement” into an enforceable “Judicial Court Order.”

If you find yourself in this situation, please contact me, a Minnesota Divorce Attorney and Prior Lake divorce attorney.  I can assist you in converting your extrajudical agreement into an enforceable Court Order.

By: Adam Blahnik, a Minnesota Divorce Attorney, Prior Lake lawyer and managing attorney and owner of Blahnik Law Office, PLLC (952-479-0449) in Prior Lake, Minnesota.

The title to this article is actually a trick question, because it is one that I as an attorney cannot answer for you. Having grown up in a Catholic family, my father stills comments to me (I believe in a facetious manner) about my "chosen profession" as a Minnesota divorce attorney and how divorce is more than frowned upon in such faith. Then of course the conversation inevitably leads to how I must cause acrimony in the relationships of married couples for job security (which is, of course facetious).

The actual decision to get a divorce from a spouse is a decision that should be made prior to contacting me as a Minnesota divorce attorney. Almost all of my clients who contact me regarding a divorce had made the decision to get a divorce months, if not years prior to actually mustering the courage to call a divorce attorney. However, I have had a few clients during their initial divorce consultation, "tear up" when they tell me that they want to divorce their spouse. In these few clients, I could tell in their eyes that they were not ready for the divorce, for whatever their reasons may be - still hoping that he or she can mend the differences with the spouse, going to first try marriage counseling, the minor children will be too adversely impacted, the financial strain will be too great, he or she does not know a life other than the life with that spouse, etc. Many of these are very legitimate reasons for delaying divorce, or to not get a divorce altogether.

The question of whether parents should stay together in an unhappy marriage for the sake of the minor children has been, and continues to be a topic of much debate. If the parents argue daily in the presence of the children and expose the children to a hostile living environment, then more harm may result to the children than good by remaining together. This could be the case on both an immediate level - by subjecting the children to a tumultuous environment, and on a long-term level - by teaching the children negative "life lessons" that will resonate with them as adults. However, if the parents do not argue, but have simply fallen out of love and are living two separate lives under the same roof while both looking out for what is best for the children - then is there harm to the children be staying married. In this situation, the parents must make an independent decision about their own happiness.

Whether someone should or should not get a divorce is a huge, and life changing decision to make. It is a decision that should not be made hastily and should be a decision made by that person alone - without the influence of peers, friends and other family. Friends and family can often times provide good objective insight into the relationship "from the outside looking in." However, every relationship is different and each person "should" know what is best for that person.

If you have not made the decision to actually get a divorce, but you would like to know what your legal rights would otherwise be in the case of a divorce (especially if you believe your spouse is contemplating a divorce), please contact me as a Minnesota divorce attorney and Prior Lake divorce attorney for a free divorce consultation. By calling and speaking with me, you, by no means, have to actually follow through with the divorce; you would simply be learning your legal rights that would potentially result from the divorce proceedings.

By: Adam Blahnik a Minnesota Divorce Attorney, Prior Lake lawyer and managing attorney and owner of Blahnik Law Office, PLLC , Minnesota - (952) 479-0449

Attorney Adam J. Blahnik is the owner of, and attorney at Blahnik Law Office, PLLC in Prior Lake, Minnesota.  The majority of Mr. Blahnik's Blog Entries will address  Minnesota divorce and Minnesota family law issues.  However, from time to time, Mr. Blahnik will submit blog entries on other areas of law and other issues that impact the legal community.

February 6, 2012: An Award of Attorney's Fees in Minnesota Family Law Cases   Mr. Blahnik explains the circumstances in which the Courts in Minnesota divorce and family law cases may order one party to pay, or contribute to the attorney's fees incurred by the other party.

October 26, 2011: Minnesota Parenting Time & the Battle for Forty-Five Percent   Mr. Blahnik discusses the problems with the Minnesota child support laws regarding the inherent skepticism of parents who are legitimately wanting parenting time with their children at least 45% of the time.

	August 27, 2011: Minnesota Child Support: How Much do I have to Pay?   Mr. Blahnik breaks down the basics of the Minnesota child support laws.
	April 13, 2011: Minnesota Divorce and Property Division: What Can I Keep and What Must be Divided?   Mr. Blahnik explains how Minnesota is considered a common law property State (or marital property State) as opposed to a community property State.  He then details the difference between "marital property" and "non-marital property" in Minnesota.
	January 14, 2011: Marital House: Should I Stay or Should I Go?   Mr. Blahnik discusses the reasons why a divorcing spouse should, or should not choose to remain in the parties' marital house both pending the divorce and after the divorce.
	November 21, 2010: Holiday Parenting Time Disputes.   Mr. Blahnik explains how many disputes arise over the holidays regarding the specifics in their holiday schedule in their child custody order or divorce decree.  Mr. Blahnik indicates that these disputes can be avoided by simply providing as much details and specifics in the divorce decree or custody order from the beginning.
	November 15, 2010: Should I Get a Divorce?   Mr. Blahnik addresses the decision making process in whether someone should actually get a divorce, and how such a decision is outside the realm of his legal representation.
	November 14, 2010: Can't We Just Agree?   Mr. Blahnik discusses issues surrounding "extra-judicial agreements" and the ability of parents to agree to family law issues outside of the Courts, especially pertaining to minor children.

Adam J. Blahnik, Attorney at Law, Blahnik Law Office, PLLC, 16180 Hastings Avenue, Suite 201, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372, 952-479-0449, adam@blahniklawoffice.com, www.blahniklawoffice.com