AAML PENN RESOURCES
This article is provided by Robert D. Weinberg, partner in the Pittsburgh, PA office of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, AAML Pennsylvania Fellow.
A common premise in litigation or settlement negotiations is to start high (or low) to land in the middle. To settle at $500, ask for $1,000.
This premise applies to most issues. Except for custody. And this reality fuels client discontent in family law matters.
Clients often want to file for primary custody out of the gate based on their understanding of how settlements generally work. These clients want to “shoot for the moon and land on a star” (the metaphor has always seemed backward to me).
Except in extreme circumstances, filing for primary custody is a bad idea. Why? Because custody cases are different. Custody cases involve the most important relationship parents and children have in their lives. These are not “zero sum” scenarios where a loss for you is a win for me: a win for me could be a loss for the children.
Moreover, courts prioritize supporting healthy, stable, and safe parent/child relationships.
This is not to say that every custody case should result in a 50/50 arrangement. It is to say that parents in custody cases must always be consistent with their sincere belief as to what is in the children’s best interests.
And this “sincere belief” often requires some counseling. Parents in high conflict cases have difficulty seeing why the other parent (hereinafter, “cretin”) should have any custody or why that cretin deserves any support regarding his or her relationship with the children.
Reframing the conversation with clients at the outset is critical. Lead with the following questions:
If a parent is still insistent on seeking primary custody, ask the following:
Custody litigants often miss the point that the best thing they can do for their children is to give the children the opportunity to have safe, healthy, happy relationships with both parents. In fact, failing to do so can be a significant weakness in a custody case.
No parent is ever created equal, and each has strengths and weaknesses. Likewise, children have developmental needs that change through their lives. Starting from the premise that children benefit from healthy attachments with both parents helps navigate each variable implicit in these considerations.
Why does this matter regarding tactics and strategy in custody cases?
Strategy
The overarching approach to every case should be determining a consistent approach to supporting safe and healthy parent child relationships. To be clear, this is not the same as a presumption of shared custody—not even close.
Where there is an imbalance of parenting strengths, the “better” parent’s strategy should be to figure out how to support the child’s time (even if limited) with the “weak” parent.
Conversely, the “weak” parent should determine an overarching plan to address the legitimate concerns of the other parent, and to develop parenting skills that include emotional and psychological insight and focuses on augmenting the parent’s relationship with the child.
On both sides of the aisle, the strategy is to move in a positive direction as far as possible toward building and nurturing healthy parent/child relationships, regardless of the specific schedule.
Tactics
These are basically the same on both sides of a case:
These tactics buttress strategic goals in terms of promoting parent/child relationships. However, you are still a lawyer and it is important for clients
These tactics buttress strategic goals in terms of promoting parent/child relationships. However, you are still a lawyer and it is important for clients to know that, if these tactics fail, and your client has done everything to support the other parent but it is not working from a child’s perspective, you have also built your case.
Indeed, following the strategy and tactics outlined herein allows a parent to credibly testify in a custody hearing that he or she has done everything to support the other parent’s relationship with the child; it will also highlight any issues with the other parent that are interfering with the parent/child relationship; and it will inform the elements of a final custody order.
This approach requires patience and counseling of the client, especially because it runs counter to typical notions of settlement and litigation strategy. But it is consistent with expectations from the court; it supports parent/child relationships as much as possible; and it puts your client in the strongest position if the matter must be litigated.
This article is provided by Crossover Capital, AAML Pennsylvania Gold Partner.
In our recent Forbes article, How Digital Assets Are Reshaping Divorce Discovery, Alex Pron, founder of Crossover Capital, details:
Read more:
https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2026/03/02/how-digital-assets-are-reshaping-divorce-discovery/
This article is provided by Conservest, AAML Pennsylvania Platinum Partner.
Divorce is not only an emotional process, it’s one of the most complex financial events most people will face. Matrimonial lawyers are skilled at navigating the legal aspects of separation, but the financial implications of dividing assets, liabilities, and potential future income streams often require specialized expertise. This is why close coordination between financial advisors and matrimonial lawyers at the beginning of a divorce case is so critical.
When lawyers and financial advisors work together from the start, they can create a coordinated plan that aligns legal rights with financial realities. Lawyers ensure compliance with divorce laws and advocate for their client’s best interests in settlement negotiations. Meanwhile, financial advisors can model the long-term consequences of settlement options. Whether it’s dividing retirement accounts, determining spousal support, or deciding whether to sell the family home(s). Without this partnership, clients may accept terms that look favorable in the short term but can be unsustainable over time.
Divorce cases can involve complex financial assets such as stock options, private business ownership, pension benefits, or investment portfolios. Lawyers will identify these assets, but financial advisors are best positioned to value them accurately, access tax implications, and project future returns. By working together, the legal team guarantees nothing is overlooked, and the financial team verifies assets are properly valued and the risk profile is properly understood. The proactive approach minimizes surprises and reduces the risk of post-divorce litigation.
The end goal of divorce is a fair settlement and a strong foundation for the client’s new financial life. A financial advisor helps the client transition from the old reality to the new one by creating budgets, investment strategies, and retirement plans. When guided by legal protections secured by the lawyer, these plans provide clients the confidence to move forward.
Reach out to Conservest to see how their team can help you today!
This is a re-post of an article by Zoe Greenberg, originally published on March 21, 2025, via the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The decision in Glover v. Junior was seen as a win for LGBTQ families and those using assisted reproductive technology.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on Thursday that established a new pathway to legal parenthood in the state.
The High Court ruled that in situations where aspiring parents use assisted reproductive technology, like IVF, with the intent to conceive and co-parent a child together, they have effectively proven that they are parents. They do not need to sign a formal contract or share genetics with the child to establish their legal parenthood.
“We believe the time has come for our law to embrace a fifth pathway to parentage,” the justices wrote in the majority opinion. “It is apparent that in some ways, parents who conceive using [assisted reproductive technology] essentially demonstrate their stability and dedication to a child by going through a more rigorous, time-consuming, and expensive process to conceive a child than do many parents who conceive through sexual intercourse.”
Pennsylvania does not have any statutes defining parentage, so it has largely been left to the courts to decide. The decision was heralded by LGBTQ groups and family law advocates as a major victory.
“We’re elated,” said Helen Casale, an attorney who co-authored the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers amicus brief in the case. “It protects all families in Pennsylvania that need to use assisted reproductive technology to start their families.”
The decision marked the likely end of a bruising three-year legal battle.
The case centered on Chanel Glover and Nicole Junior, a married lesbian couple who decided to conceive using IVF. They determined that Glover would become pregnant, and chose a sperm donor who shared traits with Junior. They went through the long, expensive fertility process together.
But the couple’s marriage deteriorated before their baby was born. In April 2022, Glover filed for divorce. Junior filed a petition asking the court to recognize her as a parent to their unborn child.
Soon after, a family court judge ruled in Junior’s favor, deciding that she was a legal parent to the child. Glover appealed to the Superior Court, which eventually agreed to hear the case en banc—a rare kind of session reserved for especially significant and complex cases, where nine judges are present.
In December 2023, the Superior Court ruled that Junior was indeed a legal parent for multiple reasons, including “intent-based parentage.” The ruling set a precedent, and meant that courts would take into account the intentions and actions of parents before, during, and after conception to determine legal parenthood.
Glover appealed again. On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s decision, rejecting the idea that couples using assisted reproduction should have to sign a formal contract.
“The decision made within a loving couple to have a baby is generally not a quid pro quo,” the Court wrote. “We prefer to recognize a more dignified means to establish parentage.”
“It’s pretty incredible,” said Megan Watson, an attorney at BKW Family Law who represented Junior. “It’s a decision that supports families.”
Watson said she aimed to return to Family Court as soon as possible to figure out a custody arrangement.
At the center of the precedent are Glover and Junior and a little boy who is almost three years old. Glover did not respond to requests for comment, though her attorney, Barbara Schneider, said in an interview they were considering their options.
Schneider expressed concern that the new legal framework would require courts to decide intent case by case, muddying the issue rather than clarifying it.
“I just think it’s an issue that should be properly left for the legislature,” Schneider said.
A bill to define parentage in Pennsylvania died in a Senate committee last year, though lawmakers plan to reintroduce it this year.
More than that, Schneider said, she felt her client’s voice was lost in what became a politically charged case about LGBTQ rights.
Junior was wrestling with her own reaction to her victory. On the one hand, she was overwhelmed with joy, thinking about the other people who would not have to go through what she did to prove she was a parent.
But she was also still grieving. The only time she has seen her son was in a grainy sonogram photo from before he was born.
“Despite this big win on behalf of families, if I can just be honest, I am also reminded of the three years — three years — our son has been denied my love, care, and stability,” she said.
Her grandmother died in January, without ever getting to meet him. Though Junior longs to hold her son, read to him, cook for him, tuck him in at night, she has no illusions that it will be easy to erase the last three bitter years.
Still, her eyes were now on the future.
“For me,” she said, “the next step is seeing my son.”
With case backlogs, judge shortages, and mandatory time limitations, it is challenging to have pendente lite matters heard. As a result, discovery disputes, temporary support motions, and custody issues are often delayed in favor of ongoing trials. Many of these issues can and should be addressed in private arbitration. Hear from experienced arbitrators on how they have been able to hear and resolve pre-judgment disputes through the arbitration process.
March 25 12 – 1 p.m. (Central Time) – 1 Hour CLE $50 (Fellows) – Login Required | $75 (Non-Fellows)
Paul Tusch Cacace Tusch Santagata
Richard Diamond Diamond & Diamond P.A.
Inquiries: office@aaml.org
HB 1210 was signed into law on November 18, 2024, becoming Act 146 of 2024. The Act amends 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6108 to give judges in PFA actions the authority to grant temporary ownership rights to a pet (referred to as a “companion animal” in the bill). It also allows judges to direct a defendant to refrain from possessing, contacting, attempting to contact, transferring, or relocating the animal, as well as from contacting or entering the property of any person sheltering the animal.
The Act goes into effect on Friday, January 17, 2025.
The text of the Act will be available soon at the following link: Act 146 of 2024. A copy of the bill is also accessible at the same link.
by Amy J. Amundsen and Carolyn Moran Zack
In the 1989 classic film “Field of Dreams,” Iowa corn farmer Ray Kinsella envisions a baseball diamond in his cornfield with baseball legend “Shoeless” Joe Jackson standing in the middle and then hears a voice whispering, “If you build it, he will come.” After Ray and his wife Annie plow under their corn crop to build a baseball field, they risk financial hardship, but with the support of some imaginary and real-life characters, they persevere. In addition to reconnecting with his father, Ray finds economic success and personal fulfillment as hundreds of people arrive and pay to watch the National Pastime.
The phrase “If you build it …” has become a metaphor for the law of attraction, which suggests that using long-term goals to make specific, concrete changes in the present will help you to achieve those goals. Achieving resolution of family law disputes privately, more quickly, more cheaply, and with less adversarial posturing, are goals shared by family lawyers and their clients. Family law arbitration, which is the process by which parties voluntarily submit their claims for adjudication to a third-party neutral, allows parties to effectuate these goals.1 By recognizing the benefits of family law arbitration and encouraging clients to use this process routinely, family lawyers can shift away from the litigation forum into a trend-setting confidential forum of arbitration. With more family lawyers striving to reap the myriad benefits resulting from family law arbitration, trying it out in their cases, and working together to improve the applicable laws and rules, this method of resolving disputes may become the new field of dreams.
This article will help family lawyers guide clients who are trying to decide whether arbitration is appropriate for their case. Part I discusses what lawyers need to know to propose arbitration to their clients and opposing lawyers, including trends and research in favor of arbitration, the laws applicable to arbitration, the cases or issues that are appropriate for arbitration, and its advantages and disadvantages. Part II addresses the essential components of an arbitration agreement, including considerations for child-related awards, and distinguishes private judging. Part III gives an overview of the arbitration process. Part IV discusses techniques that can be used, including final-offer arbitration, mediation-arbitration, singleissue arbitration, and a panel of arbitrators. Finally, Part V argues in favor of the need for family law-specific legislation or rules to provide more reliability in the process and to protect the interests of family law participants.
View the full article here, beginning on page 65.
AAML Pennsylvania Chapter Fellows Robb Bunde and Carolyn Zack attended the ceremonial signing of the Pennsylvania Family Law Arbitration Act by Governor Josh Shapiro on October 22, 2024. Also pictured are Anna King (Director of Legislative Affairs for the PBA); Representative Melissa Shusterman (prime sponsor of the bill); David Vitali; Tim Clawges (House Judiciary Committee Executive Director); Representative Liz Hanbidge; Representative Kate Klunk; and Representative Tina Davis. Robb and Carolyn led a four-year effort by the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Family Law Section to promote family law-specific arbitration legislation to improve the arbitration process for family law participants. On March 14, 2024, the AAML Board of Governors adopted a resolution to, among other things, encourage each state’s AAML chapter to work with their legislature to introduce the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act (“UFLAA”), with modifications as appropriate to codify or incorporate any established family law arbitration caselaw, statutes, policies or procedures, and with the goal of helping family law litigants resolve their matters expeditiously, competently, cost efficiently, and confidentially in this alternative dispute forum. Pennsylvania is the latest state to adopt the UFLAA.
By Gregory Kohr, Partner, Marcum LLP and Noel Capuano, Director, Marcum LLP | AAML Pennsylvania Platinum Partner
Imagine you and your client have spent countless hours attempting to negotiate a settlement in their matrimonial matter, and FINALLY, a resolution has been reached. Now is a chance to breathe since the hard part is over, right? Unfortunately, that may be far from the case.
While it may seem that the preparation of the Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) is a straightforward process memorializing the terms that the parties agreed to, the fact is “the devil is in the details.” Choice of terminology, references to specific calculations/methods (or omission of same), and a variety of potential pitfalls can, and have, caused misunderstandings and misinterpretations, landing the parties back to where they started - in litigation. Cases with complex financial issues frequently utilize a forensic accounting expert to bring clarity to the process. In almost all of these cases, leveraging the services of a financial expert is an invaluable but often underutilized resource when preparing the MSA.
The following are sections of the MSA, but certainly not all, where vague or missing language may lead to unforeseen complications down the road:
When one spouse owns an interest in a business, all or part of the business is considered part of the marital estate and may be subject to equitable distribution. In almost all of these instances, a business valuation, whether formal or informal, is necessary for several reasons. First and foremost, while the owner spouse will likely retain the business, the non-recipient spouse needs an understanding of what their equitable "share" of the business is worth to understand what they will receive. The MSA should reference the business value and the value of the asset(s) the non-recipient spouse will receive
It should also be noted that some businesses have no value; they provide a job for the owner and nothing more. This does not mean the business should not be referenced in the MSA; instead, it should be noted that 1) the business was considered, but 2) it was determined to have no value and was therefore not considered in determining the marital estate.
Careful consideration should be taken when defining "income" for purposes of calculating alimony, and each component should be clearly laid out in the MSA. If one or both parties are W-2 wage earners, determining alimony should be relatively straightforward. The challenge comes when a spouse is self-employed or has a more complex compensation structure.
If a spouse is self-employed, their income may be derived in the form of various expenses paid through the business, such as auto, personal credit cards, life insurance, etc. (known as perquisites). They may also own the building from which the company operates, giving rise to rental income. All of these economic benefits need to be considered for alimony purposes. Additionally, recognition needs to be given to the fact that the business owner can potentially manipulate their income in the process of what is commonly referred to as "divorce planning." An example would be a sudden decline in revenue that the owner attributes to external factors (competition, economy, etc.) when, in reality, they are simply working less. An accountant is frequently engaged in these cases to determine the business owners’ true economic benefit.
This issue comes up so frequently that it deserves further discussion. It is imperative to understand the type of equity-based compensation, how it is awarded/granted, how/when it vests, and how it is ultimately received. We have seen instances where equity-based compensation was defined incorrectly in the MSA, leading to complications when facilitating equitable distribution. Further, it should be noted that the existence of a grant/award of stock options or RSUs does not guarantee receipt of the same, as these forms of equity-based compensation can be subject to both vesting schedules and forfeitures. If the recipient spouse’s employment is terminated prior to vesting, they cannot monetize the awards, and alimony or equitable distribution could be impacted. The MSA should include language that explicitly addresses these potential situations to avoid surprises in the years to come.
There are instances where one spouse has an asset that cannot be easily liquidated or divided for equitable distribution. In those cases, the non-asset-owning spouse will likely have to "ride along" until the asset is disposed of. When this occurs, there is often a tax consequence due to the owner spouse reporting pass-through taxable income. This gives rise to an inequity in that the asset-owning spouse will be responsible for 100% of the tax obligation for an asset that was to be divided as part of equitable distribution. Language is necessary in the MSA to lay out how a tax true-up will be calculated. The language should be detailed and specific to avoid misinterpretation, and the non-asset-owning spouse's personal tax preparer can verify the calculations are correct. Utilizing your financial expert will make this process easier for counsel and the parties to understand.
While accountants are often involved in determining business value and income, their experience and familiarity with the case can be a valuable resource when drafting the MSA and minimizing the potential for post-judgment disputes in the future.
AAML Pennsylvania recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief for Glover v. Junior, urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to issue a ruling protecting a lesbian mother’s parental status. This brief was cited in an article recently published by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).
Read the full article here.
AAML Pennsylvania
Chapter Administrator Address:
215 East Ridgewood Ave, Suite 201
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
Contact Us
Email: info@aamlpenn.org
Office: (201) 445-7007
Social Media
Copyright © 2026 AAML Pennsylvania
.png)
%20(10%20_%2010_cm)%20(15%20_%2010_cm)%20(15%20_%205_cm).png)