Divorce attorneys no longer need to hire private investigators to get the dirt on spouses who may be cheating.

All they need now is a computer.

Liz Steele, of Mesa, is going through a divorce and she has no problem with her attorney looking up everything he can on her husband.

“I have nothing against lawyers digging and doing their job,” said Steele. “The more information, the better.”

Much of what Valley attorney Craig Simon needs can be found online, in places like Facebook and MySpace.

Simon is among a growing number of divorce attorneys turning to social networking sites to catch cheaters.

“It pops up and there are pictures of the new girlfriend,” said Simon. “They’re kissing and hugging. They’re on a beach by themselves.”

According to Simon, the sites are also helpful determining whether a spouse is going on a wild spending spree, buying expensive items when the spouse claims to have no money.

“All of a sudden there are pictures showing how they bought their new friend jewelry or they are boasting about a new car,” said Simon.

Simon is still surprised by what he uncovers online, but said it sure makes his job a lot easier.

“It happens more often than you can believe,” said Simon. “It’s amazing how brazen people get.”

How will my divorce affect my pension benefits?

If you are divorced, but your marriage lasted 10 years or longer, you can receive benefits on your ex-spouse’s record (even if he or she has remarried) if:

• You are unmarried;
• You are age 62 or older;
• The benefit you are entitled to receive based on your own work is less than the benefit you would receive based on your ex-spouse’s work; and
• Your ex-spouse is entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits.

http://www.peoples-law.org/Family/divorce/property/divorce_affect_on_pension.htm

If you remarry, you generally cannot collect benefits on your former spouse’s record unless your later marriage ends (whether by death, divorce or annulment).

If your ex-spouse has not applied for retirement benefits, but can qualify for them, you can receive benefits on his or her record if you have been divorced for at least two years.

If you are eligible for retirement benefits on your own record we will pay that amount first. But if

• the benefit on his or her record is a higher amount, you will get a combination of benefits that equals that higher amount (reduced for age).
• you have reached full retirement age and you are eligible for a spouse’s benefit and your own retirement benefit, you have a choice.

You can choose to receive only the divorced spouse’s benefits now and delay receiving retirement benefits until a later date. If retirement benefits are delayed, a higher benefit may be received at a later date based on the effect of delayed retirement credits.

If you

• continue to work while receiving benefits, the retirement benefit earnings limit still applies. If you are eligible for benefits this year and are still working, you can use our earnings test calculator to see how those earnings would affect your benefit payments.
• will also receive a pension based on work not covered by Social Security, such as government or foreign work, your Social Security benefit on your ex-spouse’s record may be affected.

The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the amount of benefits your ex-spouse or their current spouse may receive.

If you need information about benefits your ex-spouse can receive based on your record, please read Benefits for your divorced spouse.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/divspouse.htm

In a unanimous decision, the judges said the ability to prevent a move is limited to the non-custodial parent.

Stanley Murray, [a Cantor Simon Law Group attorney] who specializes in grandparental visitation rights cases, said the ruling effectively undermines the whole 1983 law, which first gave grandparents the right to see their grandchildren after a divorce.

Murray said he expects to ask the state Supreme Court to review the decision. But he conceded it may take legislative action to guarantee the rights lawmakers first granted 24 years ago.

That law came at the behest of grandparents who complained a parent who got custody of a child after a divorce would deny access to the former spouse’s parents. They argued children were being unfairly denied access to extended family.

The law says courts can grant grandparents visitation rights if a judge determines it is “in the best interest of the child.” Courts are required to consider various factors, ranging from the historical relationship between the grandparent and the child to the reasons the custodial parent is denying visitation.

The case involves Kiley Sheehan, who was awarded custody of a child after her divorce. The child’s grandmother, Lou Ann Flower, subsequently sought visitation time, which a trial judge awarded over the mother’s objections.

Two years ago, though, Sheehan announced she would be going to Indiana to care for an ailing relative. Flower asked a Maricopa County Superior Court judge to prevent the move, saying the sole purpose of Sheehan’s action was to prevent visitation.

By the time the judge held a hearing, Sheehan had permanently moved to Indiana.

Murray, representing the grandmother, said divorce laws say a custodial parent who wants to relocate has to give notice. The law also permits a judge to forbid relocation if it’s in the child’s best interests.

But appellate Judge Patricia Norris pointed out the statute refers only to “parents.” That, Norris said, means grandparents have no such rights.

“The court’s already determined it’s in the interests of the child to have access to the grandparents,” Murray said. “How can the parent just take off and not have to worry about it any more?”

Murray said lawmakers could fix the problem. “I’m hoping the legislature would do that,” he said.

If your case involves any custody issue, click on “CONTACT US” or call The Cantor Simon Law Group for a free initial consultation today!

The father then registered the North Carolina Order in the Maricopa County Superior Court, in Phoenix, Arizona, and filed a Petition seeking to enforce the Order so that the child would be returned to him. The Arizona Court held an evidentiary hearing and modified the North Carolina Order, instead of enforcing it, and granted sole custody to the mother. Father appealed the ruling to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals applied the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which had been adopted by both Arizona and North Carolina, to determine whether the Arizona Court could modify the North Carolina order. The Court held that since the purpose of the UCCJEA was to resolve issues concerning interstate custody disputes, the Arizona Court should have contacted the North Carolina Court first to determine if the North Carolina Court would relinquish its “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” so that the Arizona Court could then modify the order. Since the Arizona Court had failed to do so, the modification order was vacated, as Arizona did not have jurisdiction (authority) to modify the out-of-state order. The case was sent back to the Maricopa County Superior Court for further proceedings.

The case is Cullum v. Cullum (CV 06-0038, Ariz App. Div. I) and by clicking on this link you can review the entire text of that opinion.