Divorce TV -- New Developments in Child Custody Law

Interview with Attorney Bob Barrasso. Discussion about new child developments in child custody law including update of new child support guidelines, joint custody, ARS-25-103, cost of custody cases, role of mental health professionals, what couples fight about, effect of drug problems, and more.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Divorce
• Mediation
• Tucson
• Arizona
• AZ
• children
• alimony
• custody
• child support
• marital mediation
• military divorce
• collaborative practice
• collaborative divorce
• collaborative law
• love
• anger
• sadness
• QDRO
• pension
• 401k
• IRA
• marital property

[chasinjustice]

I forgot to mention this. Bob, you left out the most important word of 25~103. THE WORDS ARE SUBSTANTIAL, FREQUENT, CONTINUING, AND MEANINGFUL. Those four words constitute equal time.

[chasinjustice]

I wish Bob would not give out so much misinformation

[bulldogg70]

Although Bob Barrasso has 25 years in the family law field, his presentation is more of a semi-informed preson about the progress of events instead of a well informed people. He keeps referring to fathers right group(S), name all of those groups? You cant, there is only one, and it is doing nothing in regard to the SLC and custody statute change, so, that presentation by Bob is not accurate, why is he communicating missinformation?

[bulldogg70]

Next the Arizona Legislature did not appoint the Ad Hoc committee, and currently the SLC, which arises from the Ad Hoc at the direction of the DRC, is rogue and losed it's moral compass and has pursued language which would encourage litigation. The SLC is primarily seated (by attendence) by attorney's who practice in famiy law, they have a direct financial interest in making sure langauge is complicated and confusing for litigation, instead of simple and useful for pro per's.

[bulldogg70]

Mr. Barrasso indicated that alot of fathers rights groups opposed COBS. The reality is, one fathers rights group opposed it. Another reality is COBS was defeated for various reasons, including the person who provided the studies in support of COBS was also the person supporting COBS for a potential money winfall. The Supreme Court did not reject COBS it deferred it to the legislature because of the appearance of offending activity by the Committee which was accused of a Cloak of Secrecy.