Header graphic for print

Pennsylvania Family Law

Updates, Events & Useful Tips Surrounding Family Law Issues


Posted in Alimony, Divorce, Support

On October 5th of this year, the Superior Court disposed of an alimony modification request that was decided by the trial court in October, 2014.  The facts and the ruling present a tale of how divorce practitioners need to pay heed to language when modifying an order of alimony.

Egan v. Egan, 2015 Pa. Super. 2013 was decided in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania but began as a divorce in Montgomery County, Maryland.  In 2002, the Maryland Court issued a divorce decree with an alimony order providing for one year of alimony at $4,000 per month and then alimony of $3,000 per month “thereafter.”   In 2004 the former husband filed to register the alimony award in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and in April 2005, the parties formed a stipulation that transferred both the alimony and child support to Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania order made several modifications to alimony, child support and arrearages.  The Pennsylvania Order contained a provision that should father succeed in reducing his child support, his alimony obligation would have a corresponding increase.  We have seen these kinds of arrangements in agreements for many years, but this is the first time we have seen this discussed in an appellate case.  If Father petitioned to decrease child support, the agreed upon increase in alimony was also to render the revised alimony number, non-modifiable.  This agreement was made an order of court in April, 2005 in Pennsylvania.

In February, 2013 Husband/Father filed in Pennsylvania to modify the alimony.  Wife/Mother countered that the alimony was non-modifiable because what was submitted in 2005 was a stipulation or “agreement”.  In a ruling made without a hearing, the trial court ruled as a matter of law that the 2005 document was an agreement under Section 3105 of the Divorce Code and therefor was not subject to modification.  It also held a hearing on Wife’s counterclaim and held Husband in contempt for failure to comply with the 2005 stipulation.  Husband or rather ex-husband appealed.

Because the Maryland divorce decree mandated payment of indefinite alimony, it appears that the Pennsylvania court viewed the alimony award as modifiable as registered here in 2004.  But the “agreement” to modify the alimony and child support provisions of the Maryland decree after registration in Pennsylvania was “agreed”.  The Superior Court ruling is a determination that in resolving the modification of alimony by “agreement”, the parties took an order that otherwise was subject to modification under Section 3701(e) and converted it to an agreement under Section 3105(c).

Section 3105 (c) states that an agreement regarding disposition of existing alimony shall not be subject to modification absent “a specific provision to the contrary.”  In this case, husband argued that Section 3105 governed only those cases where there was a comprehensive agreement.  The Superior Court rejected the argument that agreements under Section 3105 need to be comprehensive, holding instead that if he wanted his 2015 modification to continue to permit further modification, that language needed to be written into the modification instrument.  His argument that alimony was modifiable because he never did seek a modification in child support was rejected for similar reasons.  By reaching the agreement embodied in the 2005 stipulation, husband took an otherwise modifiable alimony order and transformed it into a non-modifiable agreement.

The opinion discussed at length the policy reasons behind the difference in modifiability between Court ordered and agreed alimony.  In a word, the view expressed is that parties to an agreement understand that non-modifiable alimony under Section 3105 is a fundamentally different animal than agreed alimony under Section 3105, and that the parties have to understand that when they negotiate agreements.

The net of the ruling is that a party seeking to modify judicially ordered alimony needs to understand that unless the right to modify again is clearly enunciated, the right is lost where an agreement is reached.  This might be said to have a chilling effect upon such agreements, but the Superior Court found the statutes in controversy to be unambiguous.  It also found the argument that the unmodifiable alimony obligation was onerous (62% of payor’s net monthly income) to be unworthy of consideration.

To the practitioner, the lesson is to draft alimony modifications with great care. To the layperson, the lesson is, do not try to modify your own alimony orders without someone with experience looking at your modification documents.




Posted in Divorce

In April, 2014 the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis published a monograph on financial status of older Americans.  It corroborated a trend that has been evolving for several decades. Beginning with the advent of Social Security old Americans began for the first time to preserve and in many cases grow their net worth in retirement where historically, they had become dependent on their children for financial support as their earning years ended.

The Fed study reported on data last compiled in 2010 and found that by 2010, the median wealth of older age groups (ages 70+) were more than twice as large as the median wealth of a middle-aged family (ages 40-61) and close to 20 times as large as the median wealth of a young family (under 40).  What made this data all the more startling was that it came just after a major economic downturn which typically would be expected to hit older investors harder than middle and younger aged income earners.

Another interesting piece of datum comes from the Center for Disease Control and was published in an article about “graying divorce” published by the Washington Post on October 8 2014. The CDC statistics tracked divorce filings between 1990 and 2012 among various age groups. Among those aged 34 and younger, the rate of divorce actually declined over 20 years. Among those over 34-45 it rose slightly. But once we look at folks over 45 the rates have doubled. And yes, this was true for even those aged 65 and older where a length marriage was once considered a sign of stability today more than half the divorce filings are by individuals who have been married 20 or more years.

While, there is no direct correlation to be had from these facts, as practitioners we see a developing trend. In a word, old people have money that young people do not. Younger people perceive that their parents and grandparents don’t really need a lot of the money they have. So when mom and dad find that their marriage is no longer working for them, a growing number of younger Americans are insinuating themselves into the economics of their parents’ divorces. A generation ago, children typically became involved in providing emotional support to one parent to allow him or her to “stand up” to the spouse. Today, children appear to have their own agenda; whether it is private school/college for their children or to finance a business or some other project. In some situations we have had clients express fear that access to their grandchildren may become a bargaining chip if the divorce does not proceed as the adult children would like. This makes an emotionally tense world, doubly so. Much as the first World War began, once one adult child decides to become a participant in a parent’s divorce, siblings tends to wade in either to thwart that child’s agenda or to introduce one of their own. Then the acrimony really heats up with accusations like: “Mom never worked so how is it that she is entitled to so much of Dad’s money” and “There would be more to divide if you hadn’t spent an extra year getting your degree and spent a month in rehab.”

If you are an adult child of a parent getting a divorce, perhaps there should be a neutrality compact early on. And if you are the mature adult getting a divorce, it may make sense to agree with your spouse that adult children are not invited to the party. It’s bad enough going through a divorce without bringing the entire family through it with you.

International Custody Disputes

Posted in Custody

Thanks to our partner, Leslie Spoltore, in Delaware, we have a consolidated blog entry for our previous articles on international custody. The Hague Conventions on child custody can be difficult to navigate and we are fortunate to have attorneys with experience dealing with them. It is important to remember that travel to a signatory county of a Hague Convention does not mean the country has ratified the convention as a treaty. If you think that you may have a custody issue arising elsewhere in the world, consult with an attorney immediately since timing often becomes a critical element to success.


Aaron Weems is an attorney and editor of the Pennsylvania Family Law Blog. Aaron is a partner in Fox Rothschild’s Blue Bell, Pennsylvania office and practices throughout the greater Philadelphia region. Aaron can be reached at 610-397-7989; aweems@foxrothschild.com, and on Twitter@AaronWeemsAtty.

Same-Sex Common Law Marriage Declared in Bucks County Case

Posted in Same Sex Marriage, Taxes

Up until about two years ago, a good portion of questions which came through this blog were questions about common-law marriage. Usually, it was someone asking whether or not they had a common law marriage and if so/if not, what they needed to do to dissolve it or enforce it.

I felt bad for many of those people who described facts in which a long-term relationship abruptly ended or the need to be designated as a spouse to receive medical benefits. Often, their facts simply did not describe the criteria for a common law marriage under Pennsylvania law before it was abolished in 2004. The one critical factor always seemed to be lack of any specific intent to be considered “married” by the parties.

An interesting case out of Bucks County, however, recently applied common law marriage to a same-sex couple even though one of the partners was dead. The Honorable Theodore Fritsch Jr. granted the request of Sabrina Mauer to have her twelve year relationship with Kimberly Underwood declared a common law marriage. Ms. Maurer cited their 2001 New Jersey commitment ceremony as indicia of their intent to be married.

Ms. Mauer brought the Bucks County action after Ms. Underwood passed away in November 2013.  Since then she’s been refused certain spousal benefits and is required to pay inheritance taxes on Underwood’s estate; issues which, ironically, are nearly identical to those raised by Edith Winsor in the seminal same-sex marriage case, United States v. Windsor.

Judge Fritsch found the marriage valid back to the date of their New Jersey commitment ceremony. An article by Gina Passarella of The Legal Intellgencier quotes the Order as stating, “[their] marriage is valid and enforceable, and they are entitled to all rights and privileges of validly licensed, married spouses in all respects under the laws of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” Ms. Passarella also identifies that of the several governmental agencies which were put on notice of the action, none appeared to contest the case; the Department of Revenue sought more time to respond before opting not to take a position which, in such cases, is very much a position.

Prior to civil unions, domestic partnerships, and, eventually, marriage, exchanging rings and having a commitment ceremony before friends and family was perhaps the only symbolic way a same-sex couple could celebrate a commitment to each other.  This case proves that what was once a symbol, without any legal import in 2001, can ironically fulfill in 2015 the elusive element of common law marriage by demonstrating a public or cognizable intent of the parties to be married.

Unaddressed in the judge’s order or the article is the consideration of whether or not the timing of the entire relationship factored into the decision. Ms. Mauer’s common law marriage began in 2001 before the 2004 abolition of common law marriage and ended upon Ms. Underwood’s death in November 2013 – four or five months after Windsor essentially legalized same-sex marriage. Any common law marriage must be deemed to have been entered into before January 1, 2005; less certain is whether the relationship had to continue through the Windsor decision to be a valid common law marriage. If Ms. Underwood had passed away in 2012, would it have changed the outcome? Perhaps, it would. It may take other same-sex couples or widow/ers to raise this issue, but Judge Fritsch’s decision undoubtedly opens the door for such questions to be considered.

(Photo credit: 123rf.com; Jens Tandler)


Aaron Weems is an attorney and editor of the Pennsylvania Family Law Blog. Aaron is a partner in Fox Rothschild’s Blue Bell, Pennsylvania office and practices throughout the greater Philadelphia region. Aaron can be reached at 610-397-7989; aweems@foxrothschild.com, and on Twitter@AaronWeemsAtty.

ADULTERY BY AVATAR?: Chapter 2 of Ashley Madison

Posted in Divorce

Last month brought the revelation that someone had managed to hack the database of Avid Life Media’s primary source of revenue; the AshleyMadison.com website.  The report that some 34,000,000 names were now available for discovery has prompted a huge controversy and a lot of angst among its subscribers.  As the scandal progressed it claimed the job of CEO and founder Noel Biederman, who resigned on August 27.

But the big news today is not about “Avid Life”  but life itself.  Reports are circulating that because women never really were interested in having an affair, they formed only about 5% of the subscription base.  So, how does one run a dating business with 19 men searching in a pool for each woman?  Reports on sites like Salon and Gizmodo are suggesting that the easiest way to accommodate was to create something called a feminine robot or “fembot”  who used programmed titillating “chat” to allow male customers to think that they had the interest of a live woman who was giving consideration to having an affair.  Needless to say, this conversation did not have to go very deep to keep an electronically aroused male customer interested in keeping his subscription current.  The article posted on Gizmodo contains a letter from the California Attorney General asking Avid Life to respond to a customer fraud complaint.  The customer complaint is also revealed and he does seem to make a point when asserting that some of the women with whom he was corresponding were reportedly logged on all day Christmas.  Even the most licentious married woman typically takes off Christmas morning, if only to see her spouse and kids open their gifts, right?

So, it would appear that while the website may have promoted adultery, it not clear just how much product was delivered, so to speak.  Now the question becomes, is it enough to intend adultery?  Under Pennsylvania law, that’s a problem.  Back in the day when adultery was a crime, the requirement was a “carnal connection.” As we know, Ashley Madison did not keep track or even charge for carnal connections.  Fees were charged based upon electronic ones.  For a person to secure a divorce premised upon adultery the evidence needed to be “direct and clear”.  And while Pennsylvania adopted the English rule that adultery could be proved by circumstantial evidence, this produced what is called the “inclination and opportunity rule.”  This was a three step test that required proof of the inclination of the defendant; inclination of the co-respondent and circumstances which established that the two had the opportunity to fulfill their shared desires.  But, while that test seems quite loose the Courts were also emphatic that suspicion was not a substitute for proof.  Thus in a 1921 Allegheny County case, man and woman were found registered in the same room of a hotel but before they reached their assigned room, a hotel detective intercepted the woman and ordered her to leave.  Yes to inclination; yes to opportunity but the commission of the “act” was thwarted.  Had they been discovered leaving the room together the following morning, another result would have been certain.  See Naylor v. Naylor 59 Pa. Super. 547, 554 (1915).

But, for those who discover a male spouse as a registered customer of Ashley, the road will not be easy even though paved with bad intentions.  The “intent” is clearly there where the website shrieks that “Life is short.  Have an Affair.”  But the intent of the co-respondent is not so easy to gauge if the co-respondent is little more than an algorithm written to make suggestive comments and ask cutesy questions.  One can’t have carnal connection with an algorithm no matter how spirited the attempt.  Computer programs don’t have intent and certainly don’t offer much “opportunity” for physical connection.  So before loading up your subpoena to the Toronto based owner of Ashley, think twice.  The rumors are the girl just doesn’t deliver.

N.B.   We should also mention that rumors have circulated that Avid Life Media did not do much to verify who was on its website.  This creates an authentication problem under the recent Superior Court decision in Commonwealth v. Koch, 29 A. 3d 996 (2013).  Of course, credit card or other confidential information was provided to open an account, the authentication issue may well disappear.


Mother Jailed for Kidnapping Daughter

Posted in Custody

A New Hampshire mother will serve 10 months in county jail after pleading guilty to custodial interference stemming from her removal of her daughter from the county in 2004. At the time, Genevieve Kelley had accused the child’s biological father of sexually abusing the child. Kelley’s husband was sentenced to five months in county jail assisting in the act. They spent ten years living in Honduras and Costa Rica until her daughter was 18 and beyond the court’s control.

Based on other reports, after authorities failed to charge her ex-husband with sexual abuse, Kelley felt she had no alternative than to flee with the child. This began an incredible life on the run for the family, which including Kelley giving birth to a son (now 10) while in Honduras. It is also incredibly complicated: the allegations made by Kelley gradually turned to suspicions about her and whether she was, in fact, brain washing her daughter into believing an incident of abuse occurred. The child, seven at the time of the alleged abuse, displayed bizarre and troubling behavior and, when prompted on video by her mother, stated an allegation of abuse.

It is uncertain as to whether this is a case of a mother protecting her child from an abusive parent, or a manipulating and alienating woman who successfully kept her daughter from having any contact or relationship of any kind with her father – both during her childhood and now, in her emancipation, when the court cannot order any form of reunification. As Nestor Ramos of the Boston Globe points out (linked above), by pleading guilty, the Kelleys prevent the biological father, Mark Nunes, from having any trial and the opportunity to get his story into the record or have  his daughter hear from him directly. Their efforts to keep the child from her father was truly all encompassing.


Aaron Weems is an attorney and editor of the Pennsylvania Family Law Blog. Aaron is a partner in Fox Rothschild’s Blue Bell, Pennsylvania office and practices throughout the greater Philadelphia region. Aaron can be reached at 610-397-7989; aweems@foxrothschild.com, and on Twitter@AaronWeemsAtty.

Think Before You Text: iPad Texts are not Protected Under the Wiretapping Act

Posted in Divorce, Equitable Distribution, Evidence, Practice Issues
iPad Texts?

iPad Texts?

We have written about electronic discovery and Pennsylvania’s wiretapping law on this blog before. For family law attorneys, they are issues which can be critical to your case, but also present a minefield of ethical and evidentiary issues. How information may be collected and in what manner can be unclear; similarly, it can be ambiguous to counsel and the courts how to weigh evidence collected electronically and presented to the court in a manner which makes it difficult to authenticate (i.e. text messages).

The criminal courts are, as always, the great laboratory of evidentiary law and last June the Superior Court issued a ruling in a case involving text messages from an iPad. Specifically, whether the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act was violated by police when had an informant relay text messages to them from the defendant in a drug deal.  The trial court in Commonwealth v. Diego suppressed the text message evidence.

The Wiretapping Act was originally passed in 1978 and has been periodically updated to address evolving technology, though probably not quickly enough. This case presents iPad communication as a case of first impression.  The Superior Court cited a 2001 case (Commonwealth v. Proetto) which found that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in sending emails or chat-room messages to third parties. Basically, using email and text services renders moot any expectation of privacy. Not unlike arguments used with social media; once released, an email or text may be forwarded, modified, and read by anyone the recipient chooses to disclose it to. Knowledge that the message was being recorded by text or email was sufficient notice to keep it from within a protected category of communication.

An iPad is not a telephone under the common understanding of the relevant term, the Superior Court reasoned, and no one would misidentify an iPad for a telephone.  The Superior Court’s decision, however, did not ultimately hinge on the type of device more so the method of intercept. The informant cooperated with police and relayed to them the contents of the text messages he received from Diego. Rather than observing them before the informant received them – which the Court identified as being a separate and distinct legal issue – the informant was voluntarily disclosing them to the police after he received them.  Accordingly, the evidence collected which lead to Diego’s arrest was legally obtained.

The take-away, as always, is that anything placed in a digital format poses a threat of being repurposed, passed along, or disclosed to unintended third parties. Maintaining solid “e-security” is difficult, if not overwhelming, but as this case indicates, you cannot be certain that texts and emails are not going to be discoverable or accessible to third parties; you can never be sure the recipient’s eyes are the only ones on them.

(Photo Credit: 123rf.com; Dirk Ercken).


Aaron Weems is an attorney and editor of the Pennsylvania Family Law Blog. Aaron is a partner in Fox Rothschild’s Blue Bell, Pennsylvania office and practices throughout the greater Philadelphia region. Aaron can be reached at 610-397-7989; aweems@foxrothschild.com, and on Twitter@AaronWeemsAtty.

Delaware Passes Children’s Bill of Rights

Posted in Child Abuse, Custody

Leslie Spoltore in our Wilmington office recently wrote about Delaware’s passing a children’s “Bill of Rights” into law.  This law specifically addressed what children are to receive while under the care of the Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families.  I suspect that many of these rights already exist in whole or part in other sections of Delaware Code, but by condensing them down to a single law and, perhaps more importantly, allow the child the right to address any violation of these rights through equitable relief with the court.

Pennsylvania revamped its Child Protective Services Law effective January 1 of this year in a reaction to the administrative and functional vulnerabilities and ambiguities cases like that of convicted abuser Jerry Sandusky exposed in the existing code.

There cannot be too many checks and balances in place when it comes to the care of children.  I think Delaware’s Bill of Rights for children is good law combining the symbolic act of distilling protective service concepts into a “bill of rights” along with some functional, helpful methods for a child to obtain relief when those rights are violated.

16 Ways to Better Manage Custody Cases

Posted in Custody

I try not to become angry with clients; recognizing that they are in the middle of family law litigation.  But there are times when a client will insist that they know best “what the court will do”.  That can be a frustrating experience.

I had this occur with a client on Friday yet with a remarkable result.  The client was giving me conflicting messages of the result he desired and when I suggested possible settlement approaches, each was summarily rejected.  So, I got mad.  Along the way the client referenced the sixteen factors which Courts must now consider in rendering any custody decision.  So I told the client: “Look, this is going to court so I want you to be prepared.  Look at the factors and give me a brief analysis of each so that we have mustered our best arguments.”  I wasn’t expecting much because I really felt that the client was trapped in his own anxiety and paralyzed in the decision making process.

I still believe that to be correct.  But, on Monday I received a six page single space analysis of the factors as they related to his children.  The analysis was both reasoned and balanced.  He identified the other parent’s strengths while also giving full rein to the weaknesses.

The client surprised me.  And as I read his work, it occurred to me EVERY custody litigant should be required to prepare and submit a similar document with EVERY custody pleading.  I am not a fan of “make work” projects.  But in a world where I recently have had several conversations with judges and masters bemoaning the avalanche of new pleadings, many of which do little more than say that custody should be modified because “it’s in the child’s best interests”, is it not time to make litigants and counsel do more to frame the issues?  I have witnessed many hearings where the parties and, sadly, sometimes the attorneys, cannot articulate what change they want or why the existing arrangement no longer works.  I have watched judges and hearing officers tamper with arrangements where no one can really articulate how the current arrangement is broken, yet they will try to fix it through modification anyway.  Sadly, this does little more than invite more petitions and more tampering.

So, I offer a modest proposal.  Every custody pleading should have appended to it an analysis of the factors described under 23 Pa.C.S. 5328(a) prepared by the filing party.  The responding party has 20 days to file a similar document.  If the General Assembly thought these factors important enough to insist that the judges evaluate them in every case, shouldn’t the litigants be obliged to provide both the Court and each other with a specification of what is, right, wrong and/or in the best interests of the child.  As we all know the process of putting pen to paper often crystallizes issues and forces most people do deeper thinking.  As any judicial officer in Pennsylvania will tell you, custody litigants and attorneys could not be harmed by thinking more about custody issues and vocalizing less.

Note Bene: The “Factors” can be found by searching the statute:   23 Pa.C.S. 5328(a)

What the Ashley Madison Data Breach Really Means to Divorce Lawyers and their Clients

Posted in Divorce, Equitable Distribution, Evidence, Practice Issues, Support
Ashley Madison Data Breach only Slightly Less Obvious

Ashley Madison Data Breach only Slightly Less Obvious than Lip Stick on the Collar


When I first heard of the Ashley Madison data breach, I seem to be one of the few family law attorneys who felt somewhat cool to the idea it was going to result in a crescendo of divorce filings. First, due to Ashley Madison not having an email verification protocol, the presence of an email on the list is not in any way a confirmation that the legitimate owner of the email registered it with the website. Secondly, I had to assume that anyone with common sense was not using a “real” email and the chance for exposure would be minimal. Thirdly, I assumed that of the millions of identified users, perhaps a smaller percentage were active users and a portion were fake emails or users who registered as a goof; I imaged a much smaller pool relative to amount of registered users. Finally, I considered the other spouse and whether they would have the wherewithal or suspicion to search for their spouse’s email (emails?) among the users. Overall, I imagined a smattering of “Ashley Madison motivated divorces” being reported, but nothing that would move the needle on average filings.

If initial reports are accurate, I clearly overestimated the common sense of many Ashley Madison users and grossly underestimated their laziness in not opening anonymous, dedicated email accounts to register to the site.

Now that the data has been dumped and various websites are combing the data for notable users and email suffixes, I am much more certain that there will be some serious fall-out for relationships, certainly, but also for the employment of users. The news coverage surrounding the breach also brought to light what might end up being the most relevant aspect of the breach for any future divorce cases: the expense. Again, while the presence of an email is not dispositive of use, the credit card records are pretty conclusive.

Based on the price scaling reported, a motivated philanderer could rack up a fairly significant bill on Ashley Madison before they ever get to their first illicit rendezvous. When you factor in the costs of carrying on an affair (i.e. meals, travel, and gifts) the expenses increase exponentially. Each dollar applied to the affair is a dollar inappropriately dissipated from the marital estate.  Once the affair is exposed and a case is in litigation, a forensic accounting of bank accounts and credit cards will occur and eventually the financial scope of the affair will emerge.

The affair, in of itself, may not have a tremendous impact on a case since equitable distribution in Pennsylvania is blind to the bad actions of parties (unless those actions have a financial impact on the estate). For members of the armed forces, however, adultery is a punishable crime which could lead to dishonorable discharge and loss of financial benefits, such as pensions. Losing a pension adversely impacts not just the service member, but the service member’s spouse. Losing a retirement account due to such behavior would undoubtedly be argued as a dissipation of that marital asset and with the value of the lost pension being assigned to the service member and corresponding assets given to the spouse (assuming there are any).

Other people may be in sensitive positions involving confidential data or public positions where the appearance of impropriety from an exposed affair has a greater impact than whether the affair affects their ability to do their job. Losing a job over an affair could be interpreted as a “voluntary decrease” in income, not unlike being fired for cause or voluntarily taking a lower paying position to avoid a support obligation.

The real story about Ashley Madison data drop is not the salacious exposure of people seeking out affairs, but the breach of security for an organization relying so heavily on confidentiality – their entire business model and marketing campaign hinges on it. Go see our blog on data security for more information on such topics.

What will continue to generate news for the coming weeks, however, will be the cases where Ashley Madison data will be presented as evidence for economic loss in divorce or support cases, and the jumping off point for investigations into certain registered users. After the initial fireworks of the disclosures, this will be a slow burn story as more people are exposed and the repercussions are felt. The easy joke is that this is a boon for divorce lawyers, but I think it will be the family therapists and accountants who end up the busiest in the end.

(Photo Credit: Copyright a href=’httpwww.123rf.comprofile_toniton’toniton  123RF Stock Photoa)


Aaron Weems is an attorney and editor of the Pennsylvania Family Law Blog. Aaron is a partner in Fox Rothschild’s Blue Bell, Pennsylvania office and practices throughout the greater Philadelphia region. Aaron can be reached at 610-397-7989; aweems@foxrothschild.com, and on Twitter@AaronWeemsAtty