While many clients think the trial resolves everything, most lawyers know that is not the case.  If the mother of your children was difficult before the trial, the trial is not going to make her into a different person.   She will still be difficult, you will have disputes regarding the children and you will need to resolve them somehow.

The court has the power to enforce its orders or the agreement of the parties.  So the court can order a mother to allow visitation or can order a father to pay child support.  However, the court will only do this if one of the parties asks it to do so by filing a petition.  The other party will then have an opportunity to respond and a hearing to present their side to the judge.

It is always better to resolve disputes yourselves if possible.   If you have a settlement agreement, you can include a provision that disputes will be submitted to mediation before taking the other party back to court.

You can also include a Parenting Coordinator in an agreement.  This would be someone that the parties can take their disputes to and let them make a decision.  This is less costly and time consuming than litigation.

If you cannot resolve your dispute through one of these methods, then you must go back to court and ask the judge to decide.  In some cases, it may be like trying your case all over again.  In addition to resolving post-trial disputes, the court has the power to modify legal custody, physical custody, timesharing and child support after the trial, if circumstances change and the modification would be in the best interests of the child.

Clark Rockefeller made headlines when he took his seven year old daughter in Boston on July 27 during his first supervised visitation with a social worker.  Rockefeller lost custody last December when the mother relocated to London for work.

Rockefeller turned himself in in Baltimore and now faces felony charges in Boston.

Some websites portray Rockefeller as a hero of fathers’ rights and are using his case to draw attention to problems with the family court system.

Dahlia Lithwick, writing at Slate.Com, recognizes these problems:

“Many good fathers will be downgraded from full-time dads to alternating-weekend-carpool dads. They will be asked to pay at least one-third of their salaries in child support for that privilege. Simple rules of modern life make it likely that an ex-wife will someday decide that a job or new husband demands a move to a faraway state. At which point the alternating-weekend-carpool dad is again demoted—to a Thanksgivings-if-you’re-lucky dad.”

But, she notes, that “lionizing Clark Rockefeller or other violent, lawless fathers will not promote fathers’ rights or fix the family-court system.”

She’s right.  The system is imperfect.  But until we come up with something better, it’s the best we’ve got.  As Rockefeller found out, taking the law into your own hands will not work.

“In 85% of divorces, fathers get just two weekends a month and a couple of hours during the week.” — Mike McCormick of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

With the divorce and custody trial of Christie Brinkley vs. Peter Cook in the news, the Intelligence Report at Parade Magazine is asking if divorce courts are anti-dad and is taking a survey on this question:

“Should divorced dads get equal time with their kids?”

Parade notes that up to half of fathers lose contact with their kids after a divorce even with a trend toward shared custody over the past twenty years.

Proportional time is a new legal trend according to Jennifer Rosato of Philadelphia’s Drexel University School of Law, where “the custody decision is based on the time dads spent with their children before the divorce, rather than presuming that dads have, and want, limited involvement with their kids.”

But, says McCormick, “Courts want a check first and a relationship second.”

Martin and Margaret Nolan got married in 1962 and adopted three children.

When they divorced in 1974 in the District of Columbia, Martin agreed to pay $750 a month for child support.

Things got confusing when Martin made some payments to the schools and sent some money directly to the children. Margaret filed suit for $28,085 in back child support.

Martin claimed the parties had modified their agreement orally and by conduct (even though the agreement said it could only be modified in writing) and that he didn’t owe any back child support. Margaret denied she had agreed to waive child support.

The trial court decided that, while the agreement could have been modified orally or by conduct, the burden was on Martin to prove it, and he had failed to convince the judge of this. The Court of Appeals agreed. Nolan v. Nolan, 568 A.2d 479 (1990).

The lesson to learn from the Nolan case is this. If your ex-spouse agrees that you may pay child support directly to the school or the children instead of her, get it in writing. And if there is a court order for child support, ask the court to amend the order as well.