Archives: Articles By Gregg Herman

Winston Churchill once said, “There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in right direction.” Over the past two decades, family law has seen tremendous change, mirroring changes in society. Years ago, for divorcing parents, the “child of tender years” doctrine meant that custody was usually awarded to the mother, with the father having […]

Has shared time truly become the norm? Is it mandatory? Most importantly, is it a good thing?

It seems that every few years, the Court of Appeals needs to remind trial courts that rules of evidence and procedure apply in family law cases.

For years, Wisconsin appellate courts have wrestled with the treatment of defined benefit plans as either income available for support, property to be divided or (shudders) both. Now a new case creates substantial confusion.

Recent developments in case law along with the effect of the depressed economy on family law make this a good time to visit the current law of contempt remedies.

On the other hand, one’s heart has to go out to grandparents who have lost a child through death and then run the risk of losing their grandchildren due to the capriciousness of the surviving parent. Yet both sides cannot be right.

As almost any family law attorney can attest, manipulative payors exist. Unfortunately, due to a recent decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, their gamesmanship may continue.

While family lawyers were sleeping, two bullets were dodged with the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Tensfeldt v. Haberman, Or, more accurately, one bullet was dodged and one deflected for the time being.

In the final days of the 2008-09 term, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Tensfeldt v. Haberman, and, although the factual situation is somewhat complicated, bear with me — it has some important family law and ethical implications.

The Court of Appeals decision in Heppner raises a number of serious questions, not the least of which is, whatever happened to trial court discretion?