<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Domestic Diversions &#187; Procedures/Rules</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/category/proceduresrules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domesticdiversions.com</link>
	<description>1.  Good counsel on matters of relationships, families and family law.  2.  The efforts of good people working together to advance the mind, arouse the heart, and amuse the spirit.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:16:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Conflicting perceptions and, yet, collaboration</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/conflicting-perceptions-and-yet-collaboration/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/conflicting-perceptions-and-yet-collaboration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:29:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Collaborative Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentler Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation/ADR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domesticdiversions.com/?p=923</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“Everything you can imagine is real.”–Pablo Picasso
You’ve heard the saying: Perception is reality. So how can we collaborate through divorce negotiations to a fair resolution when you and your spouse start with such vastly different sets of perceptions?
As strange as it seems, the collaborative divorce process actually moves you through perceptions by promoting fairness in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/conflicting-perceptions-and-yet-collaboration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Footnoting button pushing, wedding gifts, infidelity gene, Hell&#8217;s Angels, a finger, jackass, emails, &#8220;stupid person&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/footnoting-button-pushing-wedding-gifts-infidelity-gene-hells-angels-a-finger-jackass-emails-stupid-person/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/footnoting-button-pushing-wedding-gifts-infidelity-gene-hells-angels-a-finger-jackass-emails-stupid-person/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law: Cases/Statutes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Something Different]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domesticdiversions.com/?p=902</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court Justice J.W. Quinn wrote some interesting footnotes to his decision in Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (COURT FILE NO.: 384/07; November 29, 2010):
[2]               At one point in the trial, I asked Catherine: “If you could push a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/footnoting-button-pushing-wedding-gifts-infidelity-gene-hells-angels-a-finger-jackass-emails-stupid-person/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kent County&#8217;s Parenting Pilot Program: &#8220;Expedited Process in the Resolution of the Low Conflict Docket of the Family Division&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-countys-parenting-pilot-program-expedited-process-in-the-resolution-of-the-low-conflict-docket-of-the-family-division/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-countys-parenting-pilot-program-expedited-process-in-the-resolution-of-the-low-conflict-docket-of-the-family-division/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:58:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mediation/ADR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-countys-parenting-pilot-program-expedited-process-in-the-resolution-of-the-low-conflict-docket-of-the-family-division/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Domestic Diversions previously announced our new parenting pilot project.  Now,
The Grand Rapids Press covered the new Kent County Parenting Plan, a pilot project approved by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Theresa D. Mcclellan writes (excerpt):
The hope is that by judicially redirecting the focus onto the children in divorce proceedings, parents will remember what&#8217;s at stake, which [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-countys-parenting-pilot-program-expedited-process-in-the-resolution-of-the-low-conflict-docket-of-the-family-division/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Rule 502: Inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client privilege and work product materials</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/new-rule-502-inadvertent-disclosure-of-attorney-client-privilege-and-work-product-materials/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/new-rule-502-inadvertent-disclosure-of-attorney-client-privilege-and-work-product-materials/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:31:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law: Cases/Statutes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/new-rule-502-inadvertent-disclosure-of-attorney-client-privilege-and-work-product-materials/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Rules of Evidence will see a new rule addressing the disclosure of attorney-client and work-product information. New Rule 502 helps in those case where there are tremendous efforts to review voluminous documents and where inadvertent disclosure often occur. There is no change in the substantive law of privileges.
AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/new-rule-502-inadvertent-disclosure-of-attorney-client-privilege-and-work-product-materials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kent County&#8217;s Pilot Project: Grand Rapids divorce attorneys to use nicer labels, parenting plan proposals, more ADR</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-countys-pilot-project-grand-rapids-divorce-attorneys-to-use-nicer-labels-parenting-plan-proposals-more-adr/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-countys-pilot-project-grand-rapids-divorce-attorneys-to-use-nicer-labels-parenting-plan-proposals-more-adr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-countys-pilot-project-grand-rapids-divorce-attorneys-to-use-nicer-labels-parenting-plan-proposals-more-adr/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Michigan Supreme Court has issued Administrative Order No. 2008-1 (Pilot Project No. 1), 17th Judicial Circuit Court, (Expedited Process in the
Resolution of the Low Conflict Docket of the Family Division), for Kent County divorces.  &#8220;The pilot project will study the effectiveness of the use of pleadings that contain nonadversarial language, and the requirement [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-countys-pilot-project-grand-rapids-divorce-attorneys-to-use-nicer-labels-parenting-plan-proposals-more-adr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opting in with Direct Deposit</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/opting-in-with-direct-deposit/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/opting-in-with-direct-deposit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:22:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domesticdiversions.com/?p=616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Though not posted on its website, Kent County Circuit Court adopted an administrative order &#8220;opting in&#8221; anyone who tries direct pay without &#8220;opting out.&#8221;  The order reads:
IN RE: INTERPRETATION OF UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY:
CHILD SUPPORT ORDERED/NO. 2006-01
FOC SERVICES WHEN NO ORDER EXEMPTING CASE FROM FOC           [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/opting-in-with-direct-deposit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kent County Child Support: Direct Deposit/Debit Cards</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-county-child-support-direct-depositdebit-cards/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-county-child-support-direct-depositdebit-cards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 May 2006 16:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domesticdiversions.com/?p=614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kent County&#8217;s Friend of the Court is planning to move to direct deposit/debit card in June 2006.  After that date, checks would no longer be issued for Kent County payments.
The Kent County FOC is recommending that clients sign up for direct deposit of the child support payments because of the fees associated with the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/kent-county-child-support-direct-depositdebit-cards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;If I can&#8217;t have you . . . &#8220;</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/if-i-cant-have-you/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/if-i-cant-have-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:28:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Project Peace published the Judicial Checklist prepared by the Judicial Subcommittee of the American Bar Association&#8217;s Commission on Domestic Violence, including the following &#8220;Red Flags to Judges&#8221; (excerpt):
    *suicidal and/or homicidal ideation, threats or attempts
    *escalation in frequency and severity of violent episodes
    *weapons owned by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/if-i-cant-have-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Giving notice to parties in default</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/giving-notice-to-parties-in-default/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/giving-notice-to-parties-in-default/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By ADM File No. 2004-09 the Michigan Supreme Court has amended MRC 2.603 (default and default judgment), effective January 1, 2005.  The stated intent was to clarify &#8220;some ambiguities created by the former rule&#8217;s inconsistent usage of &#8216;default,&#8217; &#8216;default judgment,&#8217; and some related terms.  See, e.g., ISB Sales v Dave&#8217;s Cakes, 258 Mich [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/giving-notice-to-parties-in-default/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Declining modification of prior bad acts rule</title>
		<link>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/declining-modification-of-prior-bad-acts-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/declining-modification-of-prior-bad-acts-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David C. Sarnacki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedures/Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Justices action on 2001-51 &#8211; Proposed Amendment of Rule 404 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence provides an interesting diversity in approaches to the problem of domestic violence prosecutions, including wedges between usual allies.
Excerpts:
Kelly: I am unwilling to modify MRE 404 for only one class of crime victims.
Taylor: The rules at issue often are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php/declining-modification-of-prior-bad-acts-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

