Relocation Issues

In this day and age, when family units break apart and realign regularly, when employment is more transient than permanent, when transportation is affordable and global communication is instantaneous, relocating to another city or state, or even another country, is more common than ever. While the reasons for moving seem countless, a primary residential parent's ability to relocate with the children may be severally limited by the laws in his or her state.

Because of the high mobility of its population, family law courts in the authors' home state of Florida face questions involving relocation on a regular basis. While these cases are numerous, they are hardly routine. Each such case pits the residential parent's desire to establish a new career, or to follow a new spouse, or to live near relatives, against the child's need to maintain a close relationship with the other parent.

To assist the courts with this difficult and highly contentious issue, in 2006, the Florida legislature redefined the standards by which a divorced parent may relocate with a minor child by amending Florida Statute ' 61.13 to create Florida Statute
' 61.13001. Section 61.13001 restricts the primary residential parent's ability to relocate more than 50 miles away from his/her current primary residence without either an agreement between the parties or leave of court. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the enactment of ' 61.13001, the ardent family law practitioner should recognize that the ratification of this statute, and other similar statutes nationally, provides a blue print for structuring Final Judgments and Marital Settlement Agreements so as to help avoid litigating the issue of relocation in a post-dissolution action, or failing that, to navigate relocation litigation successfully.

A Brief History of the Relocation Law in Florida

Mize v. Mize

Recognizing the important impact that relocation issues have on marital and family law, the Florida Supreme Court heard the seminal case Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1993) in order to resolve a split of decisions between the Florida District Courts of Appeal. The facts of Mize are not in themselves significant: Woman and man fall in love, get married, have baby, love dwindles, divorce ensues ' the typical dissolution case. In Mize, the wife was awarded primary residential responsibility of the minor child with liberal visitation granted to the husband. The problem between the parties arose when the wife decided to move out of Florida to California against the wishes of the husband.

According to the wife, there were several reasons for the move: The husband was in arrears in child support; the wife had a job offer that would increase her income and her career prospects; and she would be moving close to her father, who could provide support. To facilitate the husband's contact, the wife was agreeable to arranging for extensive visitation between the minor child and the husband, and to paying for the transportation costs. Mize, 621 So. 2d at 419.

Noting that there was no way to fashion a 'bright-line rule,' the court adopted six factors (previously articulated in Hill v. Hill, 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and therefore known as the Hill factors.) that trial courts were to weigh in considering the relocation of the residential parent. Mize, 621 So. 2d at 420. The six-factors were:

• Whether the move would be likely to improve the general quality of life for both the primary residential spouse and the children;
• Whether the motive for seeking the move is for the express purpose of defeating visitation;
• Whether the custodial parent, once out of the jurisdiction, will be likely to comply with any substitute visitation arrangements;
• Whether the substitute visitation will be adequate to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child or children and the non-custodial parent;
• Whether the cost of transportation is financially affordable by one or both of the parents; and
• Whether the move is in the best interests of the child.

In addition to the above, if the Final Judgment included a prohibition against relocation, the primary residential parent must also show a change in circumstances.

The ruling in this case allowed liberal relocation of the primary residential parent and minor child where the rationale for the move was based on 'well-intentioned reason and founded belief that the relocation is best for the parent's and ' the child's well-being ' ' Mize, 621 So. 2d at 419 (citing Hill v. Hill, 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

The supreme court concluded by expressing its hope that society will continue to move toward alternative means of resolving the difficult issues presented in relocation cases that will serve the parties better than the adversarial system.

Russenberger v. Russenberger

In 1996, the Florida Supreme Court was once again presented with this difficult issue in Russenberger v. Russenberger, 669 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1996). The court clarified that 'upon a demonstration of good faith as described in Mize of a custodial parent seeking to relocate, that parent is entitled to a presumption in favor of his request to relocate with the minor children. However, that presumption is rebuttable, and in considering such a request and any opposition to it, the trial court should weigh the Hill factors on a case-by-case basis.' Id. at 1047.

Ten years after Russenberger, and apparently as a reaction against the presumption in favor of the relocating parent adopted by the Russenberger court, the Legislature enacted Florida Statute ' 61.13001, which sets out requirements for relocation of children in both uncontested and contested circumstances.

In the first instance, when the parties are in agreement, they only need to sign an agreement that sets out visitation rights and transportation details for the non-residential parent's contact with the child in order to comply with the statute.

As one might suspect, things are a bit more complicated in a contested case. First, the parent wishing to relocate must prepare a Notice of Intent to Relocate in conformity with the detailed requirements in the statute. The Notice must then be served on any one else entitled to visitation with the children. If no objection is filed, the move is presumed in the best interest of the child, and the relocation will be allowed, unless good cause is shown why it should not be. If a party objects to the proposed move, he or she must file an Objection within 30 days of the service of the Notice.

If the matter is brought before a judge for either a temporary or final hearing on the relocation issue, '61.13001(7) sets out eleven factors that a court shall evaluate in deciding a proposed temporary or permanent relocation. Those factors are:

• The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the parent proposing to relocate with the child and with the non-relocating parent, other persons, siblings, half-siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life;
• The age and developmental stage of the child, the needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child.
• The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent or other person and the child through substitute arrangements that take into consideration the logistics of contact, access, visitation, and time-sharing, as well as the financial circumstances of the parties;
• Whether those factors are sufficient to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the non-relocating parent or other person; and the likelihood of compliance with the substitute arrangements by the relocating parent once he or she is out of the jurisdiction of the court;
• The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child;
• Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the parent seeking the relocation and the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefits or educational opportunities;
• The reasons of each parent or other person for seeking or opposing the relocation;
• The current employment and economic circumstances of each parent or other person and whether or not the proposed relocation is necessary to improve the economic circumstances of the parent or other person seeking relocation of the child;
• That the relocation is sought in good faith and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligations to the parent or other person seeking relocation, including child support, spousal support, and marital property and marital debt obligations;
• The career and other opportunities available to the objecting parent or objecting other person if the relocation occurs;
• A history of substance abuse or domestic violence as defined in ' 741.28 or which meets the criteria of ' 39.806(1)(d) by either parent, including a consideration of the severity of such conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation; and
• Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in ' 61.13.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Florida Statute ' 61.13001(7) removes the presumption in favor of the residential parent's move that the Russenberger court had articulated.

National Treatment of Relocation

While many states have a more stable population than Florida, all states have faced relocation issues in some form or another. Each state of course has developed its own method of resolving the issue, but in general, courts across the country do not require that the relocating child have the same contact with the non-custodial parent post-relocation as pre-relocation. Rather, courts look to the new contact schedule and determine whether there is enough time for the non-custodial parent to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child.

The various states do differ as to whether there is a presumption in favor of, or against, the relocation request. Alabama, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming all recognize a presumption in favor of the parent requesting to move with the children (though some of these states may require that the relocating parent provide a 'good- faith' reason for the move), thereby placing the burden on the other parent to show why the move should not be allowed. See: Ex parte Murphy, 670 So. 2d 51 (1995); Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 481 N.E.2d 1153 (1985); Silbaugh v. Silbaugh, 543 N.W. 2d 639 (1996; Bell v. Bell, 572 So. 2d 841; Lorenz v. Lorenz, 788 P.2d 328 (1990); Harder v. Harder, 524 N.W. 2d 325 (1994); Trent v. Trent, 890 P. 2d 1309 (1995); Holder v. Polanski, 544 A. 2d 852 (1988); Cooper v. Cooper, 491 A. 2d 606 (1984); McDonough v. Murphy, 539 N.W. 2d 313 (N.D. 1995); Fossum v. Fossum, 545 N.W. 2d 828 (1996); Lane v. Schenck, 851 P.2d 1283 (1993).

Other states allow for a weighing of the best interest of the child with no presumption for or against, as under the Florida statute. On the other hand, at least one state ' Illinois ' has recognized a presumption against moving, therefore placing the burden of proof on the custodial parent requesting to move with the child. See In re Marriage of Smith, 665 N.E. 2d 1209 (Ill.1996); see also In re Marriage of Eckert, 518 N.E. 2d 1041 (Ill.1988).

Interestingly enough however, very few states have enacted statutes that directly address the issue. Furthermore, Florida is the only state that has enacted legislation that directly sets out the standards by which courts are to determine whether a request for relocation will be granted.

Practitioners' Points

An attorney representing a primary residential parent who may plan to relocate, or who wants to have the option to relocate, should consider the following:

• First and foremost, discuss the issue with your client to determine the likelihood that relocation will be an issue for him or her in the future. Preparing for such an event will help all parties if it should indeed come to pass.
• When composing a marital settlement agreement, include the possibility of relocation as part of the agreement. For instance, a practitioner may find it helpful to include the following language in their agreement:

It is recognized that because of many factors, including financial matters, the primary residential parent might move within or without the State of X with the parties' child/ren. The non-custodial parent agrees that s/he shall not oppose said move as long as it is not clearly against the best interests of the child/ren.

• Any agreement allowing relocation should set out the visitation rights of the non-custodial parent, including a detailed substitute visitation schedule.
• Such an agreement should also clearly explain the transportation arrangements, including the allocation of costs, related to the visitation.
• Do not forget to define the visitation rights of any other person that may be entitled to contact with the child.

An attorney faced with representing a client who opposes the relocation of his or her former spouse and minor child should consider the following:

• Again, discussing the issue in advance with your client could prevent extensive, costly, and disruptive litigation in the future.
• When drafting a marital settlement agreement, the practitioner should include some or all of the following language if possible:
• The primary residential parent agrees not to remove or aid, encourage or initiate the permanent removal of the child/ren beyond the boundaries of the (State or County) of X without first obtaining the written permission of the other party or order of a court after a full evidentiary hearing.
• If the primary residential parent intends to move outside of the (State or County) of X, he or she shall give the other at least thirty (30) days notification in advance of the prospective move in order to allow the non-custodial parent to enforce these provisions if required or to seek modification of the contact provisions contained herein.
• If the primary residential parent moves out of the (State or County) of X without the written agreement of the other party or a court order, the primary residential responsibility of the child shall automatically switch to the non-custodial parent.
• The child/ren may, on a temporary, non-permanent basis, travel outside of the State of X, within or outside the United States, with either parent. The parent wishing to travel with the child/ren shall notify the other parent of the child/ren's travel plans, including length of travel and contact information, at least two weeks prior to the travel. However, each party agrees not to remove the minor child/ren from the State of X for any continuous period in excess of twenty-one (21) days without the written consent of the other party or an order of a court.
• If the non-residential parent agrees, or a court allows, the relocation of the child with the primary residential parent, the non-residential parent shall have substitute visitation with the children as set forth in the attached exhibit.
• If the non-residential parent agrees, or a court allows, the relocation of the child with the primary residential parent, the primary residential parent agrees to pay for all transportation costs associated with the non-residential parent's substitute visitation.

Conclusion

All family law issues have the potential for having a huge impact on the life of your client. The issue of relocation can be especially burdensome ' for the primary residential parent, the non-custodial parent, and the child involved. A well-drafted settlement agreement may ease the burdens faced by all parties. Your best bet is to be explicit. The parties and their children will all benefit if faced with this issue in the future.

Richard D. West, a founding partner of West, Green & Associates, PL in Orlando, FL and a member of this newsletter's Editorial Board, has been in private practice for more than 20 years and is board certified in marital and family law by the Florida Bar. He has extensive experience in cases dealing with complex financial matters, including the valuation of closely held corporations, professional practices and incentive stock options. Andrea L. Cain has practiced marital and family law in A.V. rated firms for over 20 years. Annabelle Pratt is a legal intern, Senior Associate Editor of Law Review, and will receive her J.D. in May 2008.

In this day and age, when family units break apart and realign regularly, when employment is more transient than permanent, when transportation is affordable and global communication is instantaneous, relocating to another city or state, or even another country, is more common than ever. While the reasons for moving seem countless, a primary residential parent's ability to relocate with the children may be severally limited by the laws in his or her state.

Because of the high mobility of its population, family law courts in the authors' home state of Florida face questions involving relocation on a regular basis. While these cases are numerous, they are hardly routine. Each such case pits the residential parent's desire to establish a new career, or to follow a new spouse, or to live near relatives, against the child's need to maintain a close relationship with the other parent.

To assist the courts with this difficult and highly contentious issue, in 2006, the Florida legislature redefined the standards by which a divorced parent may relocate with a minor child by amending Florida Statute ' 61.13 to create Florida Statute
' 61.13001. Section 61.13001 restricts the primary residential parent's ability to relocate more than 50 miles away from his/her current primary residence without either an agreement between the parties or leave of court. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the enactment of ' 61.13001, the ardent family law practitioner should recognize that the ratification of this statute, and other similar statutes nationally, provides a blue print for structuring Final Judgments and Marital Settlement Agreements so as to help avoid litigating the issue of relocation in a post-dissolution action, or failing that, to navigate relocation litigation successfully.

A Brief History of the Relocation Law in Florida

Mize v. Mize

Recognizing the important impact that relocation issues have on marital and family law, the Florida Supreme Court heard the seminal case Mize v. Mize , 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1993) in order to resolve a split of decisions between the Florida District Courts of Appeal. The facts of Mize are not in themselves significant: Woman and man fall in love, get married, have baby, love dwindles, divorce ensues ' the typical dissolution case. In Mize, the wife was awarded primary residential responsibility of the minor child with liberal visitation granted to the husband. The problem between the parties arose when the wife decided to move out of Florida to California against the wishes of the husband.

According to the wife, there were several reasons for the move: The husband was in arrears in child support; the wife had a job offer that would increase her income and her career prospects; and she would be moving close to her father, who could provide support. To facilitate the husband's contact, the wife was agreeable to arranging for extensive visitation between the minor child and the husband, and to paying for the transportation costs. Mize, 621 So. 2d at 419.

Noting that there was no way to fashion a 'bright-line rule,' the court adopted six factors (previously articulated in Hill v. Hill , 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and therefore known as the Hill factors.) that trial courts were to weigh in considering the relocation of the residential parent. Mize, 621 So. 2d at 420. The six-factors were:

• Whether the move would be likely to improve the general quality of life for both the primary residential spouse and the children;
• Whether the motive for seeking the move is for the express purpose of defeating visitation;
• Whether the custodial parent, once out of the jurisdiction, will be likely to comply with any substitute visitation arrangements;
• Whether the substitute visitation will be adequate to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child or children and the non-custodial parent;
• Whether the cost of transportation is financially affordable by one or both of the parents; and
• Whether the move is in the best interests of the child.

In addition to the above, if the Final Judgment included a prohibition against relocation, the primary residential parent must also show a change in circumstances.

The ruling in this case allowed liberal relocation of the primary residential parent and minor child where the rationale for the move was based on 'well-intentioned reason and founded belief that the relocation is best for the parent's and ' the child's well-being ' ' Mize , 621 So. 2d at 419 (citing Hill v. Hill , 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

The supreme court concluded by expressing its hope that society will continue to move toward alternative means of resolving the difficult issues presented in relocation cases that will serve the parties better than the adversarial system.

Russenberger v. Russenberger

In 1996, the Florida Supreme Court was once again presented with this difficult issue in Russenberger v. Russenberger , 669 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1996). The court clarified that 'upon a demonstration of good faith as described in Mize of a custodial parent seeking to relocate, that parent is entitled to a presumption in favor of his request to relocate with the minor children. However, that presumption is rebuttable, and in considering such a request and any opposition to it, the trial court should weigh the Hill factors on a case-by-case basis.' Id. at 1047.

Ten years after Russenberger, and apparently as a reaction against the presumption in favor of the relocating parent adopted by the Russenberger court, the Legislature enacted Florida Statute ' 61.13001, which sets out requirements for relocation of children in both uncontested and contested circumstances.

In the first instance, when the parties are in agreement, they only need to sign an agreement that sets out visitation rights and transportation details for the non-residential parent's contact with the child in order to comply with the statute.

As one might suspect, things are a bit more complicated in a contested case. First, the parent wishing to relocate must prepare a Notice of Intent to Relocate in conformity with the detailed requirements in the statute. The Notice must then be served on any one else entitled to visitation with the children. If no objection is filed, the move is presumed in the best interest of the child, and the relocation will be allowed, unless good cause is shown why it should not be. If a party objects to the proposed move, he or she must file an Objection within 30 days of the service of the Notice.

If the matter is brought before a judge for either a temporary or final hearing on the relocation issue, '61.13001(7) sets out eleven factors that a court shall evaluate in deciding a proposed temporary or permanent relocation. Those factors are:

• The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the parent proposing to relocate with the child and with the non-relocating parent, other persons, siblings, half-siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life;
• The age and developmental stage of the child, the needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child.
• The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent or other person and the child through substitute arrangements that take into consideration the logistics of contact, access, visitation, and time-sharing, as well as the financial circumstances of the parties;
• Whether those factors are sufficient to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the non-relocating parent or other person; and the likelihood of compliance with the substitute arrangements by the relocating parent once he or she is out of the jurisdiction of the court;
• The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child;
• Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the parent seeking the relocation and the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefits or educational opportunities;
• The reasons of each parent or other person for seeking or opposing the relocation;
• The current employment and economic circumstances of each parent or other person and whether or not the proposed relocation is necessary to improve the economic circumstances of the parent or other person seeking relocation of the child;
• That the relocation is sought in good faith and the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligations to the parent or other person seeking relocation, including child support, spousal support, and marital property and marital debt obligations;
• The career and other opportunities available to the objecting parent or objecting other person if the relocation occurs;
• A history of substance abuse or domestic violence as defined in ' 741.28 or which meets the criteria of ' 39.806(1)(d) by either parent, including a consideration of the severity of such conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation; and
• Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child or as set forth in ' 61.13.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Florida Statute ' 61.13001(7) removes the presumption in favor of the residential parent's move that the Russenberger court had articulated.

National Treatment of Relocation

While many states have a more stable population than Florida, all states have faced relocation issues in some form or another. Each state of course has developed its own method of resolving the issue, but in general, courts across the country do not require that the relocating child have the same contact with the non-custodial parent post-relocation as pre-relocation. Rather, courts look to the new contact schedule and determine whether there is enough time for the non-custodial parent to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child.

The various states do differ as to whether there is a presumption in favor of, or against, the relocation request. Alabama, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming all recognize a presumption in favor of the parent requesting to move with the children (though some of these states may require that the relocating parent provide a 'good- faith' reason for the move), thereby placing the burden on the other parent to show why the move should not be allowed. See: Ex parte Murphy, 670 So. 2d 51 (1995); Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas , 481 N.E.2d 1153 (1985); Silbaugh v. Silbaugh , 543 N.W. 2d 639 (1996; Bell v. Bell , 572 So. 2d 841; Lorenz v. Lorenz , 788 P.2d 328 (1990); Harder v. Harder , 524 N.W. 2d 325 (1994); Trent v. Trent , 890 P. 2d 1309 (1995); Holder v. Polanski , 544 A. 2d 852 (1988); Cooper v. Cooper , 491 A. 2d 606 (1984); McDonough v. Murphy , 539 N.W. 2d 313 (N.D. 1995); Fossum v. Fossum , 545 N.W. 2d 828 (1996); Lane v. Schenck , 851 P.2d 1283 (1993).

Other states allow for a weighing of the best interest of the child with no presumption for or against, as under the Florida statute. On the other hand, at least one state ' Illinois ' has recognized a presumption against moving, therefore placing the burden of proof on the custodial parent requesting to move with the child. See In re Marriage of Smith, 665 N.E. 2d 1209 (Ill.1996); see also In re Marriage of Eckert, 518 N.E. 2d 1041 (Ill.1988).

Interestingly enough however, very few states have enacted statutes that directly address the issue. Furthermore, Florida is the only state that has enacted legislation that directly sets out the standards by which courts are to determine whether a request for relocation will be granted.

Practitioners' Points

An attorney representing a primary residential parent who may plan to relocate, or who wants to have the option to relocate, should consider the following:

• First and foremost, discuss the issue with your client to determine the likelihood that relocation will be an issue for him or her in the future. Preparing for such an event will help all parties if it should indeed come to pass.
• When composing a marital settlement agreement, include the possibility of relocation as part of the agreement. For instance, a practitioner may find it helpful to include the following language in their agreement:

It is recognized that because of many factors, including financial matters, the primary residential parent might move within or without the State of X with the parties' child/ren. The non-custodial parent agrees that s/he shall not oppose said move as long as it is not clearly against the best interests of the child/ren.

• Any agreement allowing relocation should set out the visitation rights of the non-custodial parent, including a detailed substitute visitation schedule.
• Such an agreement should also clearly explain the transportation arrangements, including the allocation of costs, related to the visitation.
• Do not forget to define the visitation rights of any other person that may be entitled to contact with the child.

An attorney faced with representing a client who opposes the relocation of his or her former spouse and minor child should consider the following:

• Again, discussing the issue in advance with your client could prevent extensive, costly, and disruptive litigation in the future.
• When drafting a marital settlement agreement, the practitioner should include some or all of the following language if possible:
• The primary residential parent agrees not to remove or aid, encourage or initiate the permanent removal of the child/ren beyond the boundaries of the (State or County) of X without first obtaining the written permission of the other party or order of a court after a full evidentiary hearing.
• If the primary residential parent intends to move outside of the (State or County) of X, he or she shall give the other at least thirty (30) days notification in advance of the prospective move in order to allow the non-custodial parent to enforce these provisions if required or to seek modification of the contact provisions contained herein.
• If the primary residential parent moves out of the (State or County) of X without the written agreement of the other party or a court order, the primary residential responsibility of the child shall automatically switch to the non-custodial parent.
• The child/ren may, on a temporary, non-permanent basis, travel outside of the State of X, within or outside the United States, with either parent. The parent wishing to travel with the child/ren shall notify the other parent of the child/ren's travel plans, including length of travel and contact information, at least two weeks prior to the travel. However, each party agrees not to remove the minor child/ren from the State of X for any continuous period in excess of twenty-one (21) days without the written consent of the other party or an order of a court.
• If the non-residential parent agrees, or a court allows, the relocation of the child with the primary residential parent, the non-residential parent shall have substitute visitation with the children as set forth in the attached exhibit.
• If the non-residential parent agrees, or a court allows, the relocation of the child with the primary residential parent, the primary residential parent agrees to pay for all transportation costs associated with the non-residential parent's substitute visitation.

Conclusion

All family law issues have the potential for having a huge impact on the life of your client. The issue of relocation can be especially burdensome ' for the primary residential parent, the non-custodial parent, and the child involved. A well-drafted settlement agreement may ease the burdens faced by all parties. Your best bet is to be explicit. The parties and their children will all benefit if faced with this issue in the future.

Richard D. West, a founding partner of West, Green & Associates, PL in Orlando, FL and a member of this newsletter's Editorial Board, has been in private practice for more than 20 years and is board certified in marital and family law by the Florida Bar. He has extensive experience in cases dealing with complex financial matters, including the valuation of closely held corporations, professional practices and incentive stock options. Andrea L. Cain has practiced marital and family law in A.V. rated firms for over 20 years. Annabelle Pratt is a legal intern, Senior Associate Editor of Law Review, and will receive her J.D. in May 2008.