October 21, 2012

DOMA Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court

by Philip Yabut in gay marriage and divorce

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the statute that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, suffered another blow when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared Section 3 of the act unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision. In striking down DOMA, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, applied "intermediate scrutiny" in finding that homosexuals are a class historically subject to discrimination and with little political power to defend themselves against the majority, and that DOMA's "classification of same-sex spouses is not substantially related to an important government interest." Further, the court did not consider DOMA's interest in protecting "traditional (i.e., opposite-sex) marriage" as a civil institution:

Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition. But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door.

With two federal appeals courts now on record striking down DOMA, it is probably only a matter of time when the Supreme Court gets the final say.

The case is Windsor v. U.S., (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012).

This blog is an advertisement for the Law Office of Philip R. Yabut, PLLC, and the information in this post is not to be construed as legal advice, nor does reading it form an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post confidential information in the comments section.

October 18, 2012

News Update: Marriage Equality Ahead in Three States

by Philip Yabut in gay marriage and divorce

Besides high-profile presidential and congressional elections, three states -- Maryland, Maine and Washington state -- are voting on whether to legalize same-sex marriage. In all three states, supporters of marriage equality are leading in varying degrees. A fourth state, Minnesota, has a constitutional gay marriage ban on its ballot.

In Maryland, the governor signed a law legalizing same-sex marriage, but the measure is up for a referendum next month. A recent poll showed that the those in favor upholding the law are ahead 52% to 43% of likely voters.

Like Maryland, Washington's governor signed a law legalizing gay marriage, but the measure is appearing on the ballot as Referendum 74. A recent poll showed that marriage equality is leading 56.3% to 35.6%, with 6.1% undecided.

In Maine, the measure is up for a vote as a "citizen's initiative," and a recent poll showed support for marriage equality is leading 55% to 39%, with 4.5% undecided.

Unlike those three states, Minnesota has a ballot initiative for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This race is extremely tight in a state that is widely depicted as liberal, with 47% in favor of the ban 46% opposed.

Up to this point, every single state ballot measure banning same-sex marriage has passed. This year promises to be different, and possibly the start of a trend going the other way.

September 30, 2012

SCOTUS brief: DOMA

by Philip Yabut in gay marriage and divorce

The Supreme Court is beginning its 2012-2013 term tomorrow (October 1). While in this election year a lot of press and attention has been focused on challenges to affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, there is much speculation that a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Clinton-era law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, will make it to the high court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has further fueled speculation by predicting that it will be before the court within the next year.

What is at stake? As of this writing, six states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage, while two other states have referendums on laws pending this November. Currently, DOMA prevents legally married same-sex couples from enjoying federal benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex married persons, including (but not limited to) joint federal tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits. Several lower federal courts have ruled on various provisions of DOMA, putting pressure on the Supreme Court to have its say sooner rather than later. So far, the Court has not announced when (or if) it will hear oral arguments on DOMA, but on the eve of the first day of the new session, it is premature to speculate one way or the other. We'll see in the coming days and weeks.

September 19, 2012

Third-Party Custody and Visitation (Virginia)

by Philip Yabut in child custody, child visitation

The majority of child custody and visitation disputes involve the parents. However, there are cases where someone other than either parent can obtain custody if there is sufficient evidence that it is in the best interests of the child for the court to do so.

Third party custody or visitation is limited only to "person[s] with a legitimate interest," which is defined in the Code of Virginia § 20-124.1 as "includes, but is not limited to grandparents, stepparents, former stepparents, blood relatives and family members provided any such party has intervened in the suit or is otherwise properly before the court," and is "broadly construed to accommodate the best interest of the child." The person seeking custody has to show that the child's parents or legal guardians are unfit by clear and convincing evidence, which is a high burden of proof. If the court determines that he or she has standing to challenge parental preference, it will treat the person as co-equal with the parent(s) in proceedings going forward. In other words, the third party "person with a legitimate interest" will have an fair shot to show the court that it is in the child's best interest to grant custody to someone other than either of the parents.

There are a number of court cases further defining what "legitimate interest" entails. A nice summary of these cases and more can be found here.

September 12, 2012

Pro Bono opportunity: DC Volunteer Lawyers Project

by Philip Yabut in pro bono

Recently, I learned of a pro bono organization that could help young or new attorneys gain hands-on experience and give back to the community. The DC Volunteer Lawyers Project is always looking for new volunteer attorneys, so if you're interested, please visit http://www.dcvlp.org/ for more information. From their website:

The DC Volunteer Lawyers Project is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide high-quality, free legal services to low-income District of Columbia residents in family law cases. Our volunteer lawyers provide pro bono legal representation to:

survivors of domestic violence in civil protection order, custody, visitation, divorce, child support and immigration cases
children in high-conflict custody cases
foster parents in adoption, guardianship, placement and licensing matters
third-party caregivers in custody cases

Founded in January of 2008, the DCVLP addresses the urgent need for more pro bono family law lawyers by tapping into an unused resource -- experienced lawyers who have left full-time legal practice, many of them to raise families, and want to use their legal skills to help the community. The DCVLP assists these lawyers in reentering the legal profession by providing training programs, a professional support network, and mentorship and supervision throughout the duration of a case. The DCVLP also provides volunteers with malpractice insurance, an office for client meetings, online legal research tools and other resources they need to provide free, high-quality legal representation to indigent clients.

September 7, 2012

Divorce in Virginia -- it's not always no-fault

by Philip Yabut in divorce

No-fault (uncontested) divorce became commonplace late in the last century, and now it has become a lot easier to end a marriage than it had been historically. Since the bonds of matrimony were chiefly religion-based, civil law made it exceedingly difficult to break them. But even before the divorce revolution of the late-20th century, there were ways to get out of a marriage. And, in fact, Virginia still has them on the books (Va. Code § 20-91(A)(1-6)).

Virginia, of course, has its uncontested divorce law at § 20-91(A)(9)(a). The other "fault" grounds are:

1. Adultery,

2. Sodomy or "buggery" (sexual act against nature) committed outside the marriage,

3. Conviction of a felony by either party resulting in one year imprisonment, and

4. Cruelty or willful desertion, one year after the date of such act. In cases of cruelty, the abused spouse will not be charged with desertion if s/he leaves the marital home as a result.

DC no longer has fault grounds for divorce -- all proceedings must begin after living separate and apart for six months if it is voluntary and mutual. If it is not mutual and voluntary, the period is one year.

September 4, 2012

In the news: DNC moves forward with same-sex marriage

by Philip Yabut in current events, gay marriage and divorce

This morning (9/4/2012), the fight for marriage equality took another step forward when the Democratic National Committee became the first major political party to adopt same-sex marriage as part of its official platform:

We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference. We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

See the entire DNC platform here (opens in PDF reader).

September 3, 2012

Child Support: the ABCs

by Philip Yabut in child support

Determining child support is mostly a mechanical process. The parents present the court with their gross monthly incomes and the court applies them to the guidelines based on the percentage of the whole each parent makes. The guidelines, which are revised from time to time, are the default for determining support, but the court has some leeway to adjust amounts based on mitigating factors. These include actual monetary support from other family members, special needs of the children, and earning capacity of the parents.

I've said it before, but it cannot be said enough that it is important to remember that child support is not for the parents but for the children. The court will take its #1 rule in proceedings involving children -- do what is in the best interests of the child -- and apply it to its determination of child support. Unlike other proceedings like custody or visitation, whatever personal feelings and acrimony that exist between the parents are not a consideration -- it's all about numbers.

Child support schedule - Virginia: Va. Code § 20-108.2.

Mitigating factors: Va. Code § 20-108.1(B).

Child support schedule and mitigating factors - DC: D.C. Code § 16-916.01.

August 26, 2012

Civic Duty

by Philip Yabut in Uncategorized

Recently, I found myself back in DC Superior Court. Not for "court-sitting" or for a client, but for jury duty. Not even lawyers can get out of jury duty in DC, though it's a point of contention if many actually get selected for a trial. In DC, any citizen can be chosen for jury duty as long as there is no felony on their criminal record, and no one can be chosen again for 24 months.

Here's an account on how my day went.

8:10 am -- I got in line outside the Jurors Office with about 30 others waiting to check in.

8:25 am -- After checking in, you get sent to the jurors' lounge to wait until you are called for a trial. The lounge is brightly lit and fairly comfortable with a few amenities, including free wi-fi Internet access and a business center with access to fax and copy services.

8:52 am -- Finally watching the orientation video. It's long. There's an explanation of voir dire and a note not to take it personally if counsel uses a peremptory challenge to strike you.

10:00 am -- Watching the orientation video. Again. For the "9:30 group."

11:26 am -- The disembodied intercom voice finally calls a bunch of people out of the lounge to get empaneled on an actual jury.

12:00 noon -- Still here. Just wrote a blog post about Chick-Fil-A.

12:42 pm -- I can hear someone snoring loudly, even though I'm wearing headphones. A woman chuckles.

1:00 pm -- Lunch. Had a conversation with a client.

2:35 pm -- The disembodied intercom voice tells all jurors to assemble in the lounge for a "status report." People wonder if it means we're getting dismissed for the day.

2:47 pm -- Dismissed! For two years!

Without jurors, our justice system does not work. When you get a jury summons, don't just throw it out or ignore it -- show up. Or use the proper court procedures to get out of it if you absolutely need to.

August 19, 2012

From the Client Files: Voluntary Unemployment to Avoid Child Support

by Philip Yabut in child support

Child support is a big deal. State and local governments go to great lengths to protect the "best interests" of children, especially in family law statutes. So it's no surprise that just about every state has an "imputed income" provision in their child support guidelines.

Imputed income is simple -- if a non-custodial parent decides to voluntarily become unemployed or underemployed in for the purpose of lowering his/her support responsibilities, the court can assume the income that he/she would have made and add it to its child support determination. The reason is also simple -- to prevent unscrupulous people from cheating the system and to protect children from poverty.

It is always important to remember that child support payments are not for the benefit of the parent, but for the children. Often, children end up becoming pawns and innocent bystanders when parents fight over finances. Maybe if more parents thought about their children's well-being there would be a little less acrimony in child support cases.

D.C. Code § 16-916.01(d)(10): If the judicial officer finds that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed as a result of the parent's bad faith or deliberate effort to suppress income, to avoid or minimize the parent's child support obligation, or to maximize the other parent's obligation, the judicial officer may impute income to this parent and calculate the child support obligation based on the imputed income. The judicial officer shall not impute income to a parent who is physically or mentally unable to work or who is receiving means-tested public assistance benefits. The judicial officer shall issue written factual findings stating the reasons for imputing income at the specified amount.

Va. Code § 20-108.1(H): In any proceeding on the issue of determining child or spousal support or an action for separate maintenance under this title, Title 16.1, or Title 63.2, when the earning capacity, voluntary unemployment, or voluntary under-employment of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending, upon the motion of any party and for good cause shown, may order a party to submit to a vocational evaluation by a vocational expert employed by the moving party, including, but not limited to, any interviews and testing as requested by the expert. The order may permit the attendance of the vocational expert at the deposition of the person to be evaluated. The order shall specify the name and address of the expert, the scope of the evaluation, and shall fix the time for filing the report with the court and furnishing copies to the parties. The court may award costs or fees for the evaluation and the services of the expert at any time during the proceedings. The provisions of this section shall not preclude the applicability of any other rule or law.

Brody v. Brody, 16 Va. App. 649, 432 S.E.2d 20 (1993). In an initial proceeding for child support, the unemployed/underemployed parent must prove that his/her situation was not voluntary. Also, if childcare is available, a unilateral decision to stay at home is not sufficient to show that unemployment is involuntary. Finally, the court can impute income from employment recently and voluntarily terminated.

Other cases: Virginia Divorce and Family Law Legal Resources at www.vadivorcelaw.net.

August 8, 2012

Mmm...Chicken...

by Philip Yabut in current events, gay marriage and divorce

The recent flap over Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy's very public stance about same-sex marriage brought out a lot of back-and-forth press releases, accusations, and insults by and between people and groups on both sides of the marriage equality issue. Here's what I got out of it:

1. There are no First Amendment issues at stake. The First Amendment only applies to the government suppressing the right to free expression. No one is attacking Dan Cathy's right to express his views, support any group, or practice his religion, and those who oppose him have every right to say that they do.

2. Those who complain about boycotts of Chick-Fil-A should remember that it's a very old tactic that has been used time and again over the years. Remember the Dixie Chicks?

3. Taken as a whole, "Biblical" marriage includes concubines, mistresses, and multiple wives (but not husbands). The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is full of examples of each. Also, there are various prohibitions on (among other things) eating pork (Leviticus 11:7-8) and shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), cutting your hair incorrectly (Leviticus 19:27), tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), and divorce for any reason (Mark 10:8-9). Hey, I should be out of a job!

The Chick-Fil-A story dominated the news cycle for a few days, but like every big splash it has faded and will soon be relegated to, at most, an historical footnote, though no doubt various groups will raise a lot of money from it. What will not fade is the advance of marriage equality and the resistance that it faces in the legislatures and courts.

July 24, 2012

DUI 103: What Happened at the Traffic Stop?

by Philip Yabut in DUI

The traffic stop and/or arrest are crucial to the timeline of a DUI case. It is when the officer responds where the case possibly can completely unravel for the prosecution, if the circumstances are right.

The Fourth Amendment comes into play when a police officer stops a vehicle under reasonable suspicion that the motorist has or is in the process of committing a crime. The leading case is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), where the Supreme Court held that a person stopped and detained by police under is protected by the Fourth Amendment, and that any evidence obtained by police through an illegal traffic stop cannot be admitted in court (the "exclusionary rule"). And in U.S. v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), the Court clarified that an officer need only to have "reasonable suspicion" that a motorist had or was in the process of committing a crime to pull over the vehicle and detain the occupants. The consequences of these and other court rulings are that police departments have specific guidelines and training on how to conduct a legal traffic stop.

It is here where a good investigation can lead to information that can make or break a DUI defense. First, ask a series of questions about events leading up to the traffic stop. What were the viewing conditions for the officer-- day or night, good or bad weather, obstructions from traffic or objects on or along the side of the road, items in the police car that could have blocked the view, etc.? What specific behavior did the officer see? Were the road markings and signs clear enough to see? If the officer did not have reasonable suspicion that you or your client did not commit a traffic infraction, than s/he did not have any cause to conduct a traffic stop.

After the officer stops the vehicle, there are more questions. Were the officer's directions to the driver clear and understandable? Was the pat-down search performed properly, i.e., on the outside of clothing, without probing into pockets? Did the officer properly conduct the Standard Field Sobriety Tests? If the driver was unruly or otherwise uncooperative or belligerent to the officer, did s/he reasonably respond in kind? Did the officer properly read the driver his/her Miranda rights, and after that, did the police conduct a proper interrogation? And if the police seized anything from the vehicle, was there probable cause for a search incident to arrest, or did they get a warrant?

Any and every question about what happened at the traffic stop, no matter how insignificant they may seem, must be answered in order to give yourself or your client the best defense possible. And it goes a long way towards letting the judge and prosecution know that you did your homework.

More information:

July 19, 2012

From the Client Files: Separate and Not Apart

by Philip Yabut in divorce

The Code of Virginia is very plain about the basic requirements for an uncontested divorce:

On the application of either party if and when the husband and wife have lived separate and apart without any cohabitation and without interruption for one year. Va. Code § 20-91(A)(9)(a).

With the onset of the Great Recession and economic sluggishness still lingering thereafter, many divorcing couples are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to find and finance separate living arrangements during the one year time period. So it is important to know that it is still possible to get a divorce even if both parties live under the same roof.

First, it would be helpful to sign some kind of mutual separation agreement which specifically delineates how the parties will maintain separate lives while sharing a roof. But even if the parties do not create such an agreement, there are a number of things that they can do to show the court that they have the intention to divorce:

Hold yourselves as separated to all of your friends, relatives, co-workers, etc.
Maintain separate and distinct living spaces in the house.
Do not pay for the other's necessities, including food, clothing.
Have absolutely no sexual relations with each other.
Do not attend religious services or social functions together.
Prepare and eat meals separately.
Keep separate finances, including (but not limited to) savings, checking and retirement accounts.
Do not share household chores -- i.e., clean up after yourself only.
Show evidence that it would be financially difficult or onerous to pay for separate living arrangements.
Have a someone check in from time to time to corroborate separate living arrangements.

While it is more difficult to get a divorce under these arrangements, it is not impossible. Just plan ahead, be ready to thoroughly explain your situation to the court and a have corroborating witness who will back up your claims.

Family Law News article with case law.

July 17, 2012

From one newlywed to another...

by Philip Yabut in gay marriage and divorce

Congratulations to Rep. Barney Frank and Jim Ready! They got married on July 7, less than a week after my wife and I tied the knot. Rep. Frank became the first Member of Congress to be wed in a legal same-sex ceremony, yet another step forward for the cause of marriage equality.

Mazel tov!

July 16, 2012

Adventures in Court-Sitting, Part III: City of Alexandria

by Philip Yabut in law firm management

Compared to the behemoths in DC and Fairfax, Alexandria City's Franklin P. Backus courthouse seems tiny, which is understandable because Alexandria is a city of "only" about 139,000. Inside, the hallways are stately but simple, and the General District and Circuit courtrooms have an old-time feel, with large windows, high vaulted ceilings with chandeliers, and paintings of judges of years past on the walls. And unlike some of the newer judicial buildings in the DC metropolitan area, Alexandria's halls of justice are brightly colored and make great use of natural light, giving an almost cheerful atmosphere -- if only your matter weren't so serious. The docket was light that day with no family law cases on the schedule, so I spent the first part of the morning checking out traffic court. Unlike my experiences in Fairfax and DC, the courtroom was sparsely populated with folks challenging tickets, and the judge zipped through uncontested cases in lightning speed. Later, I picked up the tail end of a civil docket, a very short small claims session, and a couple of more hardcore criminal cases in Circuit Court.

Another observation: since the courthouse is in the middle of Old Town Alexandria, the surrounding neighborhood is a lot less forbidding than its counterparts in DC and Fairfax and Arlington. Don't forget to get a sandwich or visit the waterfront after your day in court.

July 14, 2012

DUI 102: Check Out the Scene

by Philip Yabut in DUI

In defending a DUI case, it's best to first go back to basics. And there's nothing more basic than finding out what happened at the accident/traffic stop scene.

Every accident or traffic stop is like a person -- no two are exactly alike, even if they happened in the same location under similar circumstances. You cannot assume that a new case will be anything like something you had dealt with in the past. So you should take the time to visit the scene. Make note of everything you can -- pavement conditions, the way the lines are painted on the road, placement of signs and traffic signals, trees and other vegetation, the angle of the sun at different times of the day, sidewalks and/or sidewalks, buildings and other landmarks. And also pay close attention to where the police officer observed the alleged behavior or responded to the accident.

Taking the time to visit and learn everything you can about the scene of the incident can go a long way. Foremost, you'll give notice to the judge and the prosecution that you prepared a thoughtful defense. And it will give your client some peace of mind that you are looking after his/her best interests.

July 9, 2012

DUI 101: A Summary of Your Defense

by Philip Yabut in DUI

The repercussions of a DUI conviction can be severe. Not only can you face a fine and/or jail time, but you will likely lose your driving privileges for an extended period. So, of course, the best way to avoid a DUI conviction is simply to avoid drinking and driving.

But if you do somehow end up in a situation where you are charged with DUI, and you want to go to trial and not try to cut a plea deal for a lesser charge with the prosecution, there is a minefield to negotiate on your way to an acquittal. In your preparation for that undertaking, you should begin formulating your defense with the following points:

1. Visit the scene of the traffic stop and arrest and learn it backwards and forwards.

2. Know the specifics of the arrest and detention itself, paying close attention to possible 4th Amendment search and seizure violations.

3. In cross-examination, dissect the arresting officer's knowledge and administration of the Standard Field Sobriety Test for deficiencies.

Above all, be thorough. The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so even minor details that can question the evidence against you or your client can be important enough to result in an acquittal.

June 22, 2012

Adventures in Court-Sitting, Part II: DC Superior

by Philip Yabut in law firm management

On an extremely hot early summer morning, I embarked on my second day of courthouse self-orientation observation tours, this time the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In short, it was an exercise in re-orientation and sampling the nuances of DC's trial court.

This wasn't the first time I had visited the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse, but every time I go I am amazed by the controlled chaos inside. The courthouse is very reminiscent of a busy commuter train station. There is a grand central lobby with a giant message board listing all of the judges and their courtroom numbers. From that lobby you see wide hallways leading to rows of courtrooms, with plenty of seating for anyone waiting for their cases to come up, and each room's daily docket is usually taped on the wall next to the door. On a normal day, there are dozens of people milling around, conferring with their families and/or attorneys or simply waiting around in silence.

The courtrooms themselves are unique in that the gallery seats are nothing like church pews, but are padded with arms like in a movie theater. The room setup is circular, with a large round lit structure on the ceiling over the judge's bench, which makes it look like you're looking up inside the Hirshhorn Museum's "donut hole." I sat in on a morning criminal docket, so I saw a few shackled defendants being led in and out of the holding room for scheduling hearings and guilty pleas. There wasn't much else for me to see that morning, but it still was worth my time.

June 19, 2012

Adventures in Court-Sitting, Part I: Fairfax County

by Philip Yabut in law firm management

As a new-ish solo practitioner, I am constantly looking for ways to increase both my experience and exposure in the field. Recently, I had a morning scheduling conference for a divorce case in Fairfax County, Virginia, and since those proceedings normally last no more than 10 minutes, I decided to make the trip out there worth my while by watching random court proceedings.

I took in a sampling of cases in General District and Traffic courts in order to get a feel of what these proceedings are like since I have never practiced in them before (I already have some limited experience in Circuit and Juvenile and Domestic Relations courts). This is what I learned:

* Cops don't recognize the popular concept of "rolling stop." Neither do judges.

* If you ask a witness a question, don't interrupt him before he fully answers. Judges don't like that.

* General seating in a courtroom can be really tough on your back.

* Never, ever let someone use your driver's license to operate a vehicle, even if it's your our own brother and you love him dearly. You might end up with a criminal record without actually doing anything wrong.

Besides that, I did get one very important lesson reinforced out of watching other lawyers practice law in front of judges. Even if s/he disagrees and rules against you, a judge will always appreciate a good advocate.

June 14, 2012

Easy does it -- Virginia's new divorce decree

by Philip Yabut in divorce

There has been a lot of big news lately -- the seemingly endless presidential campaign, dying musicians, the life and times of the Kardashians. So I may forgive you if you have not heard of this little tidbit from March: it suddenly got a bit easier to get a divorce in Virginia.

In popular culture, divorces always seem to happen in a courtroom setting. A courtroom divorce is an easy setting for drama, whether it be an episode of Dynasty or a long-running TV show featuring a judge addressed by her first name. In real life, divorces are messy and time-consuming, and if the parties can avoid court, they are often advised to do so. To help facilitate this, in March Virginia's legislature passed and Gov. Robert F. McDonnell signed House Bill 126, which allows uncontested divorce by affidavit and standardizes the required testimony of the moving party and his/her witness. Circuit courts in several counties and cities had already had this measure in place, but this law makes it uniform throughout the Commonwealth. If there are absolutely no remaining issues left to be hashed out, the party seeking the divorce may present his/her evidence by sworn affidavit rather than seeking an ore tenus hearing, thus eliminating the need to go and testify in open court, which can be brutal on people's schedules, especially if they don't reside in the city or county of jurisdiction. And there is more potential to streamline a no-fault divorce by a matter of months since there is less need to wait on the court bureaucracy to get your paperwork through the process.