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
The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was initially introduced this summer in reaction to the Supreme Court's overturn of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Lawmakers were concerned that same-sex...more
You probably already know that employers are required to honor qualified domestic relations orders (commonly referred to as “QDROs”) regarding the division of qualified retirement plan benefits (such as 401(k) balances) when...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
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
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
On August 29, 2013, IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 which clarified that for federal income tax purposes, the marital status of a same-sex couple is based on the state law or foreign law (e.g. Canada) where the marriage was...more
Earlier this summer we sent you an Alert concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic ruling (United States v. Windsor) regarding same-sex marriage. This decision declared, as unconstitutional, Section 3 of the federal...more
As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), in which the Court held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) was unconstitutional, same-sex...more
The United States Supreme Court significantly changed the treatment of same-sex spouses under qualified retirement plans in United States v. Windsor. ...more
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) that defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. This decision will...more
Health Care Reform Employer Mandate and Reporting Provisions Delayed until 2015 - The U.S. Department of the Treasury unexpectedly announced on July 2, 2013 the delay of the employer shared responsibility ‘pay or play’...more
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal law purposes to mean opposite-sex marriage, is unconstitutional (United States v. Windsor, 2013 WL...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which required the federal government to deny married same-sex couples the rights and benefits provided to...more
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages. ...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Windsor, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) was “unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Windsor v. United States, No. 12-307. The Court ruled (in a 5-4 decision) that the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that required federal...more
The United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision on June 26, 2013 in United States v. Windsor that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional has far reaching implications for employee...more
News articles, social media, protests, and lunchroom conversation were all dedicated to the two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this week. Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. United States could potentially transform...more