<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; Family Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/category/news/Family-Law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 20:49:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Md. court must hear same-sex divorce case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/md-court-must-hear-same-sex-divorce-case/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/md-court-must-hear-same-sex-divorce-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 15:41:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-sex marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84492</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A state court should have heard a complaint for divorce filed by a woman who entered into a same-sex marriage in another state, Maryland’s highest court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff married another woman in California in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal. The parties separated and the <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/md-court-must-hear-same-sex-divorce-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/md-court-must-hear-same-sex-divorce-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parent’s years of residency not imputed to alien child&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/parents-years-of-residency-not-imputed-to-alien-child/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/parents-years-of-residency-not-imputed-to-alien-child/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Board of Immigration Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-80407" title="passport-visa" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2011/09/passport-visa.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />The Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that a parent’s years of residency are not imputed to a child is a permissible construction of federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.</p> <p>The first of two consolidated cases involved a Mexican national who <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/parents-years-of-residency-not-imputed-to-alien-child/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/parents-years-of-residency-not-imputed-to-alien-child/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Posthumously conceived kids not entitled to benefits&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/posthumously-conceived-kids-not-entitled-to-benefits/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/posthumously-conceived-kids-not-entitled-to-benefits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 16:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in vitro fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-82210" title="car-seat" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/01/car-seat.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />The Social Security Administration reasonably interpreted federal law in determining that only children supported by a deceased wage earner in his or her lifetime are entitled to Social Security benefits, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.</p> <p>Children conceived by in vitro <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/posthumously-conceived-kids-not-entitled-to-benefits/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/posthumously-conceived-kids-not-entitled-to-benefits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Community property includes military service credit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/community-property-includes-military-service-credit/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/community-property-includes-military-service-credit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Military service credit that a husband purchased during his marriage constituted community property subject to division when he divorced, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The husband served in the U.S. Air Force for four years before his marriage. After leaving military service, he became a <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/community-property-includes-military-service-credit/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/community-property-includes-military-service-credit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Photocopy of military POA not good enough&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/benchmarks-photocopy-of-military-poa-not-good-enough/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/benchmarks-photocopy-of-military-poa-not-good-enough/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 13:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military power of attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[§1983]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84395</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/05/US_soldier_in_Nuristan_Province_of_Afghanistan.jpg"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-84397" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/05/US_soldier_in_Nuristan_Province_of_Afghanistan-199x300.jpg" alt="" width="199" height="300" /></a>A military power of attorney is a critical document for managing affairs on the home front when a spouse is deployed overseas. A Kentucky military family had to learn the hard way that only having a photocopy of that document can <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/benchmarks-photocopy-of-military-poa-not-good-enough/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/18/benchmarks-photocopy-of-military-poa-not-good-enough/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ex-spouse’s disability pay counts for income tax purposes&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/16/ex-spouses-disability-pay-counts-for-income-tax-purposes/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/16/ex-spouses-disability-pay-counts-for-income-tax-purposes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 15:34:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability pay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A divorced taxpayer was required to report as income her share of her former husband’s disability pay, the U.S. Tax Court has ruled in upholding a $3,587 deficiency assessment.</p> <p>The taxpayer’s former husband was a Los Angeles County, Calif. employee. The taxpayer’s divorce decree awarded her a share of the <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/16/ex-spouses-disability-pay-counts-for-income-tax-purposes/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/16/ex-spouses-disability-pay-counts-for-income-tax-purposes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Noncompete can be ordered in divorce&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/11/noncompete-can-be-ordered-in-divorce/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/11/noncompete-can-be-ordered-in-divorce/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 16:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[noncompete]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property division]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A state court had the authority to order a wife not to operate a competing business when it awarded the husband the family business in their divorce, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>In their divorce, both parties sought sole ownership of the family business, a feed <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/11/noncompete-can-be-ordered-in-divorce/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/11/noncompete-can-be-ordered-in-divorce/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Subchapter S distribution didn’t affect child support&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/10/subchapter-s-distribution-didnt-affect-child-support/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/10/subchapter-s-distribution-didnt-affect-child-support/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 14:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A distribution that a divorced wife received from her Subchapter S corporation for investment in another business did not affect the amount of her former husband’s child support payments, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The wife is a 20 percent shareholder in a family Subchapter <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/10/subchapter-s-distribution-didnt-affect-child-support/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/10/subchapter-s-distribution-didnt-affect-child-support/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama voices support for same-sex marriage&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/10/obama-voices-support-for-same-sex-marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/10/obama-voices-support-for-same-sex-marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 13:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-sex marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84211</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-82428" title="obama" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/01/obama.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said he believes same-sex couples should be able to marry, becoming the first U.S. president to publicly endorse gay marriage.</p> <p>Previously, Obama voiced support only for same-sex civil unions.</p> <p>“I’ve been going through an evolution on <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/10/obama-voices-support-for-same-sex-marriage/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/10/obama-voices-support-for-same-sex-marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Genetic mother entitled to declaration of maternity&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/09/genetic-mother-entitled-to-declaration-of-maternity/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/09/genetic-mother-entitled-to-declaration-of-maternity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 16:04:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gestational carrier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in vitro fertilization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>State courts had the authority to declare the maternity of a woman whose genetic child was conceived through <em>in vitro</em> fertilization and carried and delivered by a gestational carrier, Maine’s highest court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff provided the egg and her husband the sperm for a child <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/09/genetic-mother-entitled-to-declaration-of-maternity/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/09/genetic-mother-entitled-to-declaration-of-maternity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
