ILNews

Housing can cause conflicts in divorces

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus


There is often obvious animosity between a husband and wife who are divorcing, and for those still living under one roof, more problems can arise. One person might think of what he or she could do to oust their partner from the residence - no easy feat if the other party has nowhere else to go or simply doesn't want to leave.

In Indiana, this rarely happens before a preliminary hearing, unless there's domestic violence that leads to the granting of a protective order, Indianapolis family law attorney Patty McKinnon said.

In a typical divorce, she said, "Neither party has exclusive possession of the house, pending the preliminary hearing. The same applies to neither party having sole custody, or receiving child support, prior to a court order. Most attorneys tell their clients, 'We need to wait until the hearing occurs to get possession of the house.'"

She said attorneys will tell their clients the same thing for an order regarding custody, parenting time, or child support.

"So, virtually everything is up in the air until a preliminary hearing occurs," she added.

Typically, in Marion County it has been her experience that it can take three to four weeks, if not longer, for a preliminary hearing to take place, she said.

"So, is this an issue for the divorcing parties? Yes. Is there something the attorney can do about it prior to preliminary hearing? Not unless the client files for a protective order" that specifies one party be evicted.

She added this could also happen if the parties reach an agreement, in writing, to give one or the other possession of the house.

The Protective Order Pro Bono Project of Indianapolis, which is part of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, has had more clients in the past six months or so who have sought help after putting off divorce filings because of the economy but have reached a point where it's no longer safe to be in the same residence as an abusive partner, according to Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, legal director of ICADV and director of the POPBP.

While putting off a divorce might make sense for financial reasons - it is expensive to hire a divorce attorney and it's not always easy to sell a house in the current market without taking a loss - a bad economy is also something that can make an already volatile situation worse because of the stress of financial hardship, job loss, or the possibility of losing one's home.

In situations that do involve a married couple going through a divorce, Blomquist said it's not the norm but once in a while a client will ask for exclusive possession of the house. However, in most situations she and others at the POPBP will strongly encourage the victims to seek shelter instead of staying in the same place while trying to evict their partners.

"Indiana Code is drafted after the model code of family violence, which provides for circumstances allowing for economic relief. It doesn't make sense to revictimize a victim of violence by making that person leave," she said. "It's a viable remedy as is child support and restitution and other forms of relief."

She added, "Domestic violence advocates will say it's nice to have that available in some situations, but when there's high lethality, we will always recommend the person to go to a shelter."

Getting a person into a shelter is just part of the process, she said. She added that while many shelters are full at least partly because of the bad economy that doesn't mean there is nowhere for victims to go to be safe.

"We will find a place," she said. "We're planning holistic safety. I have to think, 'Am I empowering this person to live without them?' That might not be the case if they are staying in a house or apartment they can't pay for by themselves. Even if the person is benefiting in some way by staying, that sort of defeats the purpose in the long run."

There have been some exceptions, including a woman from the Middle East who was living with her husband who was abusive and rarely let her leave their home.

"She was beaten with a belt ... and emotionally abused," Blomquist said. "She was precluded from having a driver's license or money of her own. She was married to a wealthy guy who owned a big house and apartment complexes. ... Because she had been completely isolated, once we got a protective order we did request he be evicted. Her home was the only place she felt she could be safe, and he also had other places he could go to."

Blomquist said, "They all have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I never want to give the impression that it's a readily available remedy. ... People will think, 'I don't have to file for divorce, I'll just get a protective order,' and that takes it away from the victims who really need it."

She added the conflicts that arise during the process of going through a divorce should also be considered by family law attorneys and the courts that hear their cases.

"I don't think very real domestic violence issues are considered as much by family courts as they should be. ... The vast number of relationships that end do not end cheerfully. There is a lot of potential for very real danger in a highconflict divorce," she said.

She credited family law lawyers on the whole for recognizing the difference between cases that are "full of conflict and those that are unnecessarily or illegally dangerous," but added, "I wish we got more calls. We can provide statistics, and free expert testimony about domestic violence and patterns of behavior."

Because it's a statewide organization, she said, she and her co-workers can provide attorneys with contact information for agencies all over the state.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT