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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT