This is a re-post of an article by Zoe Greenberg, originally published on March 21, 2025, via the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The decision in Glover v. Junior was seen as a win for LGBTQ families and those using assisted reproductive technology.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on Thursday that established a new pathway to legal parenthood in the state.

The High Court ruled that in situations where aspiring parents use assisted reproductive technology, like IVF, with the intent to conceive and co-parent a child together, they have effectively proven that they are parents. They do not need to sign a formal contract or share genetics with the child to establish their legal parenthood.

“We believe the time has come for our law to embrace a fifth pathway to parentage,” the justices wrote in the majority opinion. “It is apparent that in some ways, parents who conceive using [assisted reproductive technology] essentially demonstrate their stability and dedication to a child by going through a more rigorous, time-consuming, and expensive process to conceive a child than do many parents who conceive through sexual intercourse.”

Pennsylvania does not have any statutes defining parentage, so it has largely been left to the courts to decide. The decision was heralded by LGBTQ groups and family law advocates as a major victory.

“We’re elated,” said Helen Casale, an attorney who co-authored the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers amicus brief in the case. “It protects all families in Pennsylvania that need to use assisted reproductive technology to start their families.”

The decision marked the likely end of a bruising three-year legal battle.

The case centered on Chanel Glover and Nicole Junior, a married lesbian couple who decided to conceive using IVF. They determined that Glover would become pregnant, and chose a sperm donor who shared traits with Junior. They went through the long, expensive fertility process together.

But the couple’s marriage deteriorated before their baby was born. In April 2022, Glover filed for divorce. Junior filed a petition asking the court to recognize her as a parent to their unborn child.

Soon after, a family court judge ruled in Junior’s favor, deciding that she was a legal parent to the child. Glover appealed to the Superior Court, which eventually agreed to hear the case en banc—a rare kind of session reserved for especially significant and complex cases, where nine judges are present.

In December 2023, the Superior Court ruled that Junior was indeed a legal parent for multiple reasons, including “intent-based parentage.” The ruling set a precedent, and meant that courts would take into account the intentions and actions of parents before, during, and after conception to determine legal parenthood.

Glover appealed again. On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s decision, rejecting the idea that couples using assisted reproduction should have to sign a formal contract.

“The decision made within a loving couple to have a baby is generally not a quid pro quo,” the Court wrote. “We prefer to recognize a more dignified means to establish parentage.”

“It’s pretty incredible,” said Megan Watson, an attorney at BKW Family Law who represented Junior. “It’s a decision that supports families.”

Watson said she aimed to return to Family Court as soon as possible to figure out a custody arrangement.

At the center of the precedent are Glover and Junior and a little boy who is almost three years old. Glover did not respond to requests for comment, though her attorney, Barbara Schneider, said in an interview they were considering their options.

Schneider expressed concern that the new legal framework would require courts to decide intent case by case, muddying the issue rather than clarifying it.

“I just think it’s an issue that should be properly left for the legislature,” Schneider said.

A bill to define parentage in Pennsylvania died in a Senate committee last year, though lawmakers plan to reintroduce it this year.

More than that, Schneider said, she felt her client’s voice was lost in what became a politically charged case about LGBTQ rights.

Junior was wrestling with her own reaction to her victory. On the one hand, she was overwhelmed with joy, thinking about the other people who would not have to go through what she did to prove she was a parent.

But she was also still grieving. The only time she has seen her son was in a grainy sonogram photo from before he was born.

“Despite this big win on behalf of families, if I can just be honest, I am also reminded of the three years — three years — our son has been denied my love, care, and stability,” she said.

Her grandmother died in January, without ever getting to meet him. Though Junior longs to hold her son, read to him, cook for him, tuck him in at night, she has no illusions that it will be easy to erase the last three bitter years.

Still, her eyes were now on the future.

“For me,” she said, “the next step is seeing my son.”

With case backlogs, judge shortages, and mandatory time limitations, it is challenging to have pendente lite matters heard. As a result, discovery disputes, temporary support motions, and custody issues are often delayed in favor of ongoing trials. Many of these issues can and should be addressed in private arbitration. Hear from experienced arbitrators on how they have been able to hear and resolve pre-judgment disputes through the arbitration process.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

March 25
12 – 1 p.m. (Central Time) – 1 Hour CLE
$50 (Fellows) – Login Required | $75 (Non-Fellows)

Speakers

Paul Tusch
Cacace Tusch Santagata

Richard Diamond
Diamond & Diamond P.A.

Inquiries: office@aaml.org

HB 1210 was signed into law on November 18, 2024, becoming Act 146 of 2024. The Act amends 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6108 to give judges in PFA actions the authority to grant temporary ownership rights to a pet (referred to as a “companion animal” in the bill). It also allows judges to direct a defendant to refrain from possessing, contacting, attempting to contact, transferring, or relocating the animal, as well as from contacting or entering the property of any person sheltering the animal.

The Act goes into effect on Friday, January 17, 2025.

The text of the Act will be available soon at the following link: Act 146 of 2024. A copy of the bill is also accessible at the same link.

by Amy J. Amundsen and Carolyn Moran Zack

Introduction

In the 1989 classic film “Field of Dreams,” Iowa corn farmer Ray Kinsella envisions a baseball diamond in his cornfield with baseball legend “Shoeless” Joe Jackson standing in the middle and then hears a voice whispering, “If you build it, he will come.” After Ray and his wife Annie plow under their corn crop to build a baseball field, they risk financial hardship, but with the support of some imaginary and real-life characters, they persevere. In addition to reconnecting with his father, Ray finds economic success and personal fulfillment as hundreds of people arrive and pay to watch the National Pastime.

The phrase “If you build it …” has become a metaphor for the law of attraction, which suggests that using long-term goals to make specific, concrete changes in the present will help you to achieve those goals. Achieving resolution of family law disputes privately, more quickly, more cheaply, and with less adversarial posturing, are goals shared by family lawyers and their clients. Family law arbitration, which is the process by which parties voluntarily submit their claims for adjudication to a third-party neutral, allows parties to effectuate these goals.1 By recognizing the benefits of family law arbitration and encouraging clients to use this process routinely, family lawyers can shift away from the litigation forum into a trend-setting confidential forum of arbitration. With more family lawyers striving to reap the myriad benefits resulting from family law arbitration, trying it out in their cases, and working together to improve the applicable laws and rules, this method of resolving disputes may become the new field of dreams.

This article will help family lawyers guide clients who are trying to decide whether arbitration is appropriate for their case. Part I discusses what lawyers need to know to propose arbitration to their clients and opposing lawyers, including trends and research in favor of arbitration, the laws applicable to arbitration, the cases or issues that are appropriate for arbitration, and its advantages and disadvantages. Part II addresses the essential components of an arbitration agreement, including considerations for child-related awards, and distinguishes private judging. Part III gives an overview of the arbitration process. Part IV discusses techniques that can be used, including final-offer arbitration, mediation-arbitration, singleissue arbitration, and a panel of arbitrators. Finally, Part V argues in favor of the need for family law-specific legislation or rules to provide more reliability in the process and to protect the interests of family law participants. 

View the full article here, beginning on page 65.

AAML Pennsylvania Chapter Fellows Robb Bunde and Carolyn Zack attended the ceremonial signing of the Pennsylvania Family Law Arbitration Act by Governor Josh Shapiro on October 22, 2024. Also pictured are Anna King (Director of Legislative Affairs for the PBA); Representative Melissa Shusterman (prime sponsor of the bill); David Vitali; Tim Clawges (House Judiciary Committee Executive Director); Representative Liz Hanbidge; Representative Kate Klunk; and Representative Tina Davis. Robb and Carolyn led a four-year effort by the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Family Law Section to promote family law-specific arbitration legislation to improve the arbitration process for family law participants. On March 14, 2024, the AAML Board of Governors adopted a resolution to, among other things, encourage each state’s AAML chapter to work with their legislature to introduce the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act (“UFLAA”), with modifications as appropriate to codify or incorporate any established family law arbitration caselaw, statutes, policies or procedures, and with the goal of helping family law litigants resolve their matters expeditiously, competently, cost efficiently, and confidentially in this alternative dispute forum. Pennsylvania is the latest state to adopt the UFLAA.

By Gregory Kohr, Partner, Marcum LLP and Noel Capuano, Director, Marcum LLP | AAML Pennsylvania Platinum Partner

Imagine you and your client have spent countless hours attempting to negotiate a settlement in their matrimonial matter, and FINALLY, a resolution has been reached. Now is a chance to breathe since the hard part is over, right? Unfortunately, that may be far from the case. 

While it may seem that the preparation of the Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) is a straightforward process memorializing the terms that the parties agreed to, the fact is “the devil is in the details.” Choice of terminology, references to specific calculations/methods (or omission of same), and a variety of potential pitfalls can, and have, caused misunderstandings and misinterpretations, landing the parties back to where they started - in litigation. Cases with complex financial issues frequently utilize a forensic accounting expert to bring clarity to the process. In almost all of these cases, leveraging the services of a financial expert is an invaluable but often underutilized resource when preparing the MSA.

The following are sections of the MSA, but certainly not all, where vague or missing language may lead to unforeseen complications down the road:

Business Valuation

When one spouse owns an interest in a business, all or part of the business is considered part of the marital estate and may be subject to equitable distribution. In almost all of these instances, a business valuation, whether formal or informal, is necessary for several reasons. First and foremost, while the owner spouse will likely retain the business, the non-recipient spouse needs an understanding of what their equitable "share" of the business is worth to understand what they will receive. The MSA should reference the business value and the value of the asset(s) the non-recipient spouse will receive

in lieu of the business interest. The terms should be explicitly referenced in the agreement in order to preclude the parties from having "selective memory" years down the road.

It should also be noted that some businesses have no value; they provide a job for the owner and nothing more. This does not mean the business should not be referenced in the MSA; instead, it should be noted that 1) the business was considered, but 2) it was determined to have no value and was therefore not considered in determining the marital estate.

Alimony/Income Determination

Careful consideration should be taken when defining "income" for purposes of calculating alimony, and each component should be clearly laid out in the MSA. If one or both parties are W-2 wage earners, determining alimony should be relatively straightforward. The challenge comes when a spouse is self-employed or has a more complex compensation structure. 

If a spouse is self-employed, their income may be derived in the form of various expenses paid through the business, such as auto, personal credit cards, life insurance, etc. (known as perquisites). They may also own the building from which the company operates, giving rise to rental income. All of these economic benefits need to be considered for alimony purposes. Additionally, recognition needs to be given to the fact that the business owner can potentially manipulate their income in the process of what is commonly referred to as "divorce planning." An example would be a sudden decline in revenue that the owner attributes to external factors (competition, economy, etc.) when, in reality, they are simply working less. An accountant is frequently engaged in these cases to determine the business owners’ true economic benefit. 

Equity-Based Compensation

This issue comes up so frequently that it deserves further discussion. It is imperative to understand the type of equity-based compensation, how it is awarded/granted, how/when it vests, and how it is ultimately received. We have seen instances where equity-based compensation was defined incorrectly in the MSA, leading to complications when facilitating equitable distribution. Further, it should be noted that the existence of a grant/award of stock options or RSUs does not guarantee receipt of the same, as these forms of equity-based compensation can be subject to both vesting schedules and forfeitures. If the recipient spouse’s employment is terminated prior to vesting, they cannot monetize the awards, and alimony or equitable distribution could be impacted. The MSA should include language that explicitly addresses these potential situations to avoid surprises in the years to come.

Tax True-up Calculation

There are instances where one spouse has an asset that cannot be easily liquidated or divided for equitable distribution. In those cases, the non-asset-owning spouse will likely have to "ride along" until the asset is disposed of. When this occurs, there is often a tax consequence due to the owner spouse reporting pass-through taxable income. This gives rise to an inequity in that the asset-owning spouse will be responsible for 100% of the tax obligation for an asset that was to be divided as part of equitable distribution. Language is necessary in the MSA to lay out how a tax true-up will be calculated. The language should be detailed and specific to avoid misinterpretation, and the non-asset-owning spouse's personal tax preparer can verify the calculations are correct. Utilizing your financial expert will make this process easier for counsel and the parties to understand.

While accountants are often involved in determining business value and income, their experience and familiarity with the case can be a valuable resource when drafting the MSA and minimizing the potential for post-judgment disputes in the future.

AAML Pennsylvania recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief for Glover v. Junior, urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to issue a ruling protecting a lesbian mother’s parental status. This brief was cited in an article recently published by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

Read the full article here.

THE AAML ERIC D. TURNER AWARD is sponsored by the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. A $1,000 cash award is given to one third year law student from each of Pennsylvania’s law schools who, in the opinion of the Law School’s faculty, best demonstrates the positive attributes of a matrimonial lawyer: academic excellence; competence as practitioner; commitment to the practice and development of family law, including assisting the indigent and improving the quality of the administration of justice in the field of family law; and meeting the highest standards for ethical behavior.

This Award was created to honor and remember Eric D. Turner, a highly respected and beloved Fellow of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Since its inception in 2000, following Eric’s untimely passing, the Pennsylvania Chapter of the AAML has awarded over $80,000 in scholarships to third year law students attending schools in Pennsylvania.

Our purpose in creating and maintaining this award is to encourage law students to enter the field of family law. Many of our award recipients have in fact obtained employment with prestigious family law firms and have successful careers in family law.

The award is administered by Fellows Stephanie H. Winegrad of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel and Colleen M. Neary, Esquire, of Media, PA. Ms. Neary has been a Fellow of the American Academy since 2003 and practices primarily in Delaware County, PA. Ms. Winegrad has been a Fellow of the American Academy since 2013 and practices family law in Montgomery County, PA.

By Syndey Weber, Marcum LLP | AAML Pennsylvania Platinum Partner

Normalization adjustments are an essential component of any business valuation. They are necessary to ensure that the operational results and financial position as reflected on the subject company’s financial statements or tax returns accurately indicate the anticipated profit or loss on a going-forward basis. Valuation experts make normalization adjustments to the income statement to eliminate expenses that are non-recurring or unrelated to the business, as well as to properly account for expenses such as rent or officer compensation that may not be accurately reflected. Adjustments may also be made to the balance sheet in order to remove non-operating assets or adjust assets to fair market value. This article focuses on adjustments commonly made to the income statement. 

The first step in normalizing the income statement is to determine the unadjusted Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization, or EBITDA, a key indicator of the profitability of a business. To do so, all interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization expenses are added back to the business’s reported net income. Once these preliminary adjustments are complete, the normalization adjustments are made to reach normalized EBITDA. 

Following are some of the more common income statement normalization adjustments:

1. Reasonable Compensation: In closely-held businesses, the owner typically draws a salary that may be considered “discretionary”. If the business is a sole proprietorship, the owner does not receive a salary at all. To ensure the business’s normalized EBITDA is accurately represented, it is necessary to make an adjustment reflecting the market rate that would be paid to a non-owner providing the same services. In this adjustment, the officer’s compensation reported on the income statement is added back to net income, and the reasonable compensation determined by the valuation expert through industry research is deducted. This adjustment removes the impact caused by a business owner receiving profits as a salary. It ensures EBITDA is not overstated by reflecting the appropriate market rate of compensation for the owner’s services.

2. Discretionary Expenses: Adjustments need to be made for expenses paid through the business that are not essential to its operations. Generally, any expense that would not be necessary for a potential buyer to incur to maintain the business’s operations should be added back to the reported net income. The types of discretionary disbursements that are adjusted can vary depending on the nature of the business. They may include all or a portion of travel and auto, meals, entertainment, club dues, and credit card charges. Following discussions with the business owner, expenses may be deemed partially discretionary in certain circumstances. In this case, a percentage is often applied. Additionally, discretionary expenses that may not be immediately apparent to the valuation expert can usually be identified through discussions with the business owner. It is important to note that an expense that may be deductible for tax purposes could still be classified as discretionary for valuation purposes.

3. Rent Expense: When the real estate from which the business operates is owned by the business owner personally or through a related entity, the rent charged to the business may not be representative of the fair market, meaning the business is paying either more or less than would be paid to an independent third party. A real estate appraiser generally determines fair market rent. If the business pays an amount over fair market rent, the excess would be added back to net income. Conversely, the differential would reduce net income if the amount paid is below fair market rent.

4. Non-Recurring Income and Expenses: Any reported income or expenses that are not expected to recur in the future can skew EBITDA and should be adjusted. The adjustment for a non-recurring income or expense item would decrease or increase net income, respectively. Examples of non-recurring income and expenses include settlement fees for legal actions, one-time expenses for repairs or maintenance, income or loss from discontinued operations, and gains or losses on sales of assets or other investments.

Income statement normalization adjustments play a vital role in determining a business’s expected ongoing operational performance. These adjustments help ensure the conclusion of value is both reasonable and adequately supported.

American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) Issues Resolution: Endorses Family Law Arbitration as Vital Alternative to Traditional Litigation

CHICAGO, April 17, 2024 ― The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) has issued a resolution reaffirming its support for the use of arbitration in divorce and family law matters. The endorsement comes as part of a resolution adopted by the AAML Board of Governors on March 14, 2024.

Founded in 1962, AAML has been a leader in the field of family law, committed to promoting professionalism and excellence. President J. Benjamin Stevens emphasizes, "Arbitration offers families a quicker, more cost-effective and flexible alternative to traditional litigation. It empowers them to resolve disputes with greater efficiency and privacy."

The resolution underscores AAML’s commitment to advocating for legislation that addresses the unique needs of vulnerable family law participants. President Stevens noted, "Our endorsement of the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act highlights our dedication to ensuring that arbitration processes safeguard the rights of all parties involved."

AAML’s resolution encourages states without family law-specific arbitration statutes to consider adopting the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act. "We urge states to align their legislation with established caselaw and procedures to provide families with fair and efficient avenues for resolving their legal matters," said President Stevens.

AAML calls upon the judiciary across the nation to support and encourage the use of arbitration in family law cases. "By embracing arbitration, we can expedite proceedings and minimize the emotional toll on families involved," added President Stevens.

The AAML's endorsement of family law arbitration reflects its ongoing commitment to advancing the practice of family law and ensuring access to justice for all families. The full AAML resolution can be found here on the AAML website.

About the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

Founded in 1962, the mission of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) is to provide leadership that promotes the highest degree of professionalism and excellence in the practice of family law. Comprised of the top 1,200+ matrimonial attorneys throughout the nation, members are recognized experts in the specialized areas of matrimonial law, including divorce, prenuptial agreements, legal separation, annulment, custody, property valuation and division, support and the rights of unmarried couples. For more information, visit www.aaml.org.