The impact of realistic estrangement on child custody matters
In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
¿Quién fue "la mujer del César"?
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 7 - Invisible Scars: The Impact of Coercive Control on Children
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 5 - Parallel Proceedings: The Intersection of Criminal Law and Family Law
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 4 - Splitting Costs: Forensic Accounting in Divorce
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 1 - The Truth Behind Coercive Control
Jewish Divorce Talk: Episode 8 - Narcissism and Parental Alienation Talk
Let's Talk About the Anatomy of a Prenuptial Agreement
Jewish Divorce Talk: Episode 6 - “Let’s Gett Serious” Talk
Let's Talk About Common Law Marriage
The $6 Million Wedding
Marriage and Divorce Considerations for Health Care Providers
Let's Talk Family Law 101
Let's Talk Family Law Taxes
Estate Planning & Family Law: How To Protect Your Assets For Future Generations
End Game in the Fight Over Same Sex Marriage?
What is a petition for dissolution of marriage and what does it mean to serve the petition?
Protecting Separate Property in Arizona: Basic Principles
Polsinelli Podcast - Defense of Marriage Act
In recent guidance, the Department of Treasury and the IRS issued proposed rules that clarify under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) that the terms “spouse” and “husband” and “wife” refer to individuals who are lawfully...more
There are two important updates with respect to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). First, on September 17, 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance to...more
In recent months employers around the country, have been scrambling to keep up with developments with respect to the evolving rights of employees in same-sex relationships. This articles touches on some recent guidance in...more
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is seeking to extend coverage of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to same-sex couples following a Supreme Court ruling that federal benefits cannot be limited based on a...more
Employers have been considering the impact on benefit programs, including the qualified retirement plans, of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision recognizing the validity of same sex marriages. In September, 2013, the IRS issued...more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Windsor, the requirement that an ERISA health plan provide health coverage for same-sex spouses has often hinged on whether an employee benefit plan was insured or...more
The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) have issued Notice 2014-9 (the “Notice”) and related Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) providing much anticipated guidance on the application of the Supreme...more
Earlier today, Harrisburg-based Federal District Court Judge John E. Jones, III, struck down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage. In this landmark ruling, Jones concluded that "same-sex couples who seek to marry in...more
This is the second of a seven-part series describing "Hot Employment Topics for 2014." Part II focuses upon "The Aftermath of the Demise of the Defense of Marriage Act." The United States Supreme Court in 2013 struck...more
Following a highly-publicized U.S. Supreme Court decision and subsequent guidance from both the Labor Department (DOL) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), employers need to rethink how they treat same-sex spouses under...more
With same-sex marriages to begin in the state of Illinois next year, employers should expect an increase in requests for spousal benefit coverage from employees who have legally married their same-sex partners. The new law...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that Section 3 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevented the federal government from recognizing state-granted same-sex marriages, was unconstitutional because...more
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Windsor and supplemental guidance in Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Notice 2013-61, providing optional special administrative...more
In Revenue Ruling 2013-17 (Ruling), the IRS stated that for purposes of federal tax laws, same-gender couples who have been legally married in a jurisdiction (domestic or foreign) that allows same-gender marriage will be...more
Well, our title is a bit provocative in that not all of your “post-DOMA” questions have yet been answered by the IRS (who defines “spouse” for purposes of employee benefits under ERISA as well as taxation under the Internal...more
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) yesterday announced that same-sex couples legally married in a jurisdiction that recognizes their marriage will be treated as married for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security...more
A few weeks after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stated that it will apply a “place of celebration” rule in recognizing same-sex spouses for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (including with respect to employee...more
Plan sponsors will need to take prospective and, possibly, retroactive action in order to ensure compliance with the guidance. On August 29, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)...more
With this summer’s Supreme Court rulings on DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and Prop. 8 allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized in states that allow them, private sector and public agency employers in California...more
After months of speculation, on August 29, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service published formal guidance on the treatment of same-sex spouses under the Internal Revenue Code. In Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the IRS confirmed that a...more
Here's something that should be at the top of your to do list on this Monday morning: make sure your benefits and other employee policies are in compliance with new guidance from the IRS that becomes effective today relating...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Windsor v. United States holding the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) unconstitutional. This decision will have implications for...more
In 1996, as states were beginning to consider the concept of same-sex marriage, and before any state had acted to permit it, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act. Section 3 of DOMA defined the term “marriage” as “a...more
Following up on our recent e-blast on IRS guidance re: federal taxation for same-sex spouses (link), Rhode Island’s Division of Taxation has clarified that all same-sex married couples will be treated as “married” for all...more
Federal Agencies Respond to Supreme Court’s DOMA Ruling - In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), federal agencies are starting to respond with new...more