Military Divorce and the 20-20-20 Rule

I have a long family history of military involvement. The Pennsylvania Army National Guard, in particular, is a favorite military choice of many of my relatives. Others have joined the Marines, Air Force and Navy. My family has served here, in the Gulf War, in World War II, in Vietnam and recently my brother served three tours in Iraq with the Marines. I am proud of them all and thankful for their dedicated service.
As a divorce attorney, I am often asked about military benefits and what a former spouse may or may not enjoy when the divorce is finalized. Often the military retirement package is the most substantial asset in the marriage. In general, a military spouse will be entitled to some portion of military retirement. The portion of entitlement is based on the servicemember's years of military service, the years of the marriage, and how many years of service overlap the marriage.
Health insurance may also be available to former spouses and entitlement is determined by a calculation called the 20-20-20 Rule. If you have been married for 20 years, your spouse has been in the military for at least 20 years, and you have 20 years of marriage overlapping the 20 years of service, then the former spouse is entitled to the same benefits as the servicemember spouse - meaning health care and full commissary benefits. If there have been 20 years of service, and 20 years of marriage, but only 15 years of marriage overlap the service years, the former spouse is entitled to health care for a year after the divorce is finalized.
There are other rules and benefits to be aware of if you are getting a divorce and your spouse is in the military. I encourage you to find out what you are entitled to before you sign any divorce paperwork or go into a courtroom.

Divorce, Housing & the Economy

I have been hearing buzz that more and more "separating" or divorcing couples have decided to remain living together due to the economic infeasibility of maintaining two households given the current economy. While it is not ideal for unhappy couples to continue to remain under the same household unless they can set their differences aside, especially when there are children involved, ideal and reality seem to have parted ways. However, even couples with children who just cannot continue living together can find creative ways to manage two households. One solution could be to retain the marital residence for the sake of the children and also rent an inexpensive small efficiency or one bedroom apartment. The children could continue to reside in the marital residence, thereby preserving their familiar lifestyle, friends, location, while the parents rotate between the apartment and the house. It is certainly something to consider.

Rights of First Refusal in Custody

Good idea or nightmare waiting to happen? Some couples have included provisions in their custody agreement that the non-custodial parent has a right of first refusal to exercise custody of the children when the custodial parent needs to leave the children with a sitter. The benefit is that the children get to see the other parent more than otherwise provided for in the couple's standard custody arrangement and, generally, the cost of a babysitter is avoided.

The difficult part is trying to figure out when such a right of refusal should kick in and how do you enforce it? This would be a personal preference and depend on your own schedules, the distance between the parents, the children's ages, etc. Make sure you consider that to some extent the non-custodial parent may become privy to far more of the custodial parent's social life than desirable (by either party!). If you agree to a right of first refusal provision for each time you must leave the children with a sitter for, say, longer than three (3) hours, be prepared to have to call the non-custodial parent almost each and every time that you go out on a date or socialize with friends. If you agree to a right of first refusal for anytime you leave the children overnight, you may effectively cut out the children's opportunity to stay with Grandma for the night. One parent's experience may be of interest to you. I do not know this parent and did not have any involvement with the case, but thought that his story may be somewhat typical of what can go wrong and why significant thought should go into the wording of any Agreement. The advice offered by the posters is their thoughts only and my directing you to the page is not intended to be considered legal advice from me.

Military Deployment Doesn't Mean You Lose Custody of Your Children

It is just amazing that it requires a law to make sure that common sense is used...

Bill puts child custody battles on hold for deployed soldiers By RICHARD FELLINGER Evening Sun Harrisburg Bureau Article Launched: 10/15/2008 11:05:20 AM EDT Pennsylvania courts will be precluded from rewriting custody arrangements for the children of deployed soldiers under a new state law. Gov. Ed Rendell has signed the bill sponsored by Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon. Folmer said the law is needed to ensure that soldiers don't suffer the extra stress of a custody case while they are overseas. It also prevents one parent from taking advantage of a soldier's deployment to gain custody. The bill allows temporary custody orders to be implemented while a soldier is deployed, but it puts the original orders back in place when the soldier returns home.

Passports And Child Support Collection

Passports are fast becoming a valuable tool in child support enforcement. In 1999, the Department of State began denying passports to persons who were delinquent in child support payments. According to the Associated Press states reported collecting $22.5 million in 2007, thanks to the program. Now with passports necessary for travel to Mexico and soon Canada, it is likely that the program will be responsible for collecting even more delinquent child support.

Medical Benefits, COBRA, and Divorce

Beware of failing to notify your employer regarding the entry of a divorce decree! Upon divorce, ex-spouses can no longer maintain each other under employer paid health insurance policies except through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reform Act (COBRA). By electing COBRA an ex-spouse can generally maintain coverage for up to thirty-six (36) months. Some parties choose to negotiate payment of COBRA benefits as part of their marital settlement agreement. In Trustees of the AFTRA Health Fund v. Biondi the court found the former Husband liable for over $100,000 in claims paid on behalf of his former Wife after the Husband failed to notify the employer regarding the divorce.