When Divorce Hurts: Understanding the Stages of Grief

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

Change in life can be painful, especially after losing someone who is or was once dear to your heart. In moments like these, grief can feel overwhelming, but understanding it is often the first step toward healing. Divorce, in particular, often carries a sense of loss comparable to the death or serious illness of a family member. Recognizing that grief and learning to process it are vital steps to moving forward.

Years ago, a psychological framework was developed to help explain the emotional responses of individuals facing terminal illness or death. Known as the Kübler-Ross model, this framework has been widely applied to experiences of personal grief and loss. The model describes five primary emotional stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Though these stages are not necessarily linear and may recur over time, they offer a helpful framework for understanding emotional responses to loss, including grief that can accompany divorce.

The Winds of Change Move Quickly

Change is inevitable, regardless of the stage of life we find ourselves in. Unlike the death of a loved one, grief after a divorce often unfolds in quieter, more complex ways. Although the marriage has ended, the person we have lost often remains with us, not only in our memories, but sometimes woven into everyday moments. This lingering presence can create uncertainty and complex emotions, often requiring patience and resilience as individuals learn to navigate a new reality.. However, when continued interaction is necessary, particularly when children are involved, the emotional weight can deepen, stretching grief over time rather than allowing it a clear ending. Denial is often the first response, and one that can come surprisingly easily. Although life undergoes significant transitions, divorce represents a deliberate decision that can alter an individual’s self-perception, identity, and self-worth. The impact of such changes differs from person to person and may occur in unforeseen ways. These shifts are often most apparent in relationships with friends and family, as well as in the daily social adjustments required in this new chapter of life.

Read more on our website.

Parental Alienation in Divorce: Judicial Insights

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum, Judge Richard A. Dollinger*, and Deepti Shenoy* ●

New York Law Journal, April 23, 2026 —

Parental alienation has been characterized by the appellate courts as an act so—alien—to a child’s best interests as to render a parent presumptively unfit to have custody of the child. Given the ubiquity of claims of parental alienation in custody litigation, and the significance of findings of alienation on the outcome of custody decisions, it bears inquiring: what, in fact, is parental alienation? How does it affect a child’s best interests? And in what circumstances should it play a determinative role in a custody decision?

Last month, these authors presented an online CLE titled “Parental Alienation: A Primer”. In that CLE, we addressed Justice Richard Dollinger’s (Ret.) decision in J.F. v. D.F., 2018 NY Slip Op 51829(U) (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cty., 2018). J.F. stands out as arguably the most comprehensive effort in New York caselaw to drill down on these questions and explore the concept of parental alienation in depth.

In J.F., Justice Dollinger wrote that “The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress

consists of four elements: (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress…Simple word substitution—‘parental alienation’ for ‘emotional distress’—creates an equivalence between this tort designed to protect an individual’s emotional status and the family law concept to protect and preserve a parent’s relationship with their children. If the substitution works, then parental alienation consists of four elements: (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe alienation of any parent from a child; (iii) a causal connection between the alienating conduct and the child’s rejection of a parent; and (iv) severe parental alienation.”

We spoke with Judge Dollinger in an effort to solicit his view as to the state of the discourse on parental alienation and what remains for practitioners, courts, and interested parties to consider as we continue to explore the concept of parental alienation and the role it should play in custody matters. What followed was an illuminating discussion—a view from the bench—which we present in Q&A form below:

1. In J.F., you wrote that parental alienation is an “undefined concept” in New York family law. How is it that a concept which is at stake in so many contested custody disputes remains undefined?
Judge Dollinger: The concept is undefined because of the complex factors at play in intra-family squabbles that come to the courts. Trying to isolate and prioritize facts, when contested by fathers, mothers, and often children, and to then evaluate those facts in complicated family relationships that are aggravated by separation, defies easy definition. 

Read more on our website.

*Richard A. Dollinger is a retired member of the Court of Claims and served as an acting Supreme Court Justice in the 7th Judicial District where he supervised matrimonial cases. Deepti Shenoy is senior counsel at Aronson Mayefsky and Sloan.

Groundbreaking Decision on Authentication of Video Evidence

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum and Brett S. Ward ●

New York Law Journal, March 19, 2026 —

The Court of Appeals’ decision in ‘Matter of M.S.’ marks a significant development in the law governing the authentication of video evidence in Family Court proceedings.

If, as an attorney, your practice in any way shape or form involves hearings, trials, arbitrations, etc. where you are called upon to lay a foundation to authenticate videographic evidence, it is imperative that you read the Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Matter of M.S., 2026 NY Slip Op 00825.

The facts of M.S. are deeply disturbing. The Family Court (Erie County) found that the mother (M.H.) abused her daughter (M.S.) and derivatively abused her son (G.H). This finding was based upon three videos from May, June, and July 2019 that, according to the majority opinion, “appeared to show M.H.’s former live-in boyfriend, D.K., sexually abusing M.S.” “In one of the videos, M.H. can be seen leaving the room a few minutes before D.K. is shown touching and caressing M.S.”

The videos were not discovered in the family home or on any camera or computer belonging to the mother or her boyfriend. In the course of an FBI investigation into persons suspected of trading child pornography, agents executed a search warrant on B.W.

During questioning by FBI agent Martin Baranski, B.W., in an unsworn statement said (according to Agent Baranski) he had been “hack[ing] into security web cameras for the past few years,” had “watched a lot of security camera footage” of the house where M.H. lived, and “hacked” into a video in 2019 showing what he thought was an adult male sexually abusing his 15-year old stepdaughter.

M.H. (the mother) told police that screenshots of two people taken from the videos depicted D.K. and her daughter, M.S.

The majority opinion writes that the daughter, M.S., “denied that she had any sexual contact with D.K.” and claimed she was “conflicted” and “confused” by the allegations and description of the video.

Justice Shirley Troutman’s dissent places particular weight on the Child Advocacy Center (CAC) interview, emphasizing that while the child made no express disclosures, her demeanor and responses were consistent with fear and trauma rather than fabrication.

In the words of Justice Troutman: “Nothing about this interview supported the argument that [the daughter] honestly denied being abused. On the contrary, she presented as an abused child who was afraid to speak honestly.”

On motion by Erie County, the children were removed from their mother, a stay-away order was issued directing D.K. to have no contact with the children, and the children were ultimately placed into a foster home. While the case was pending, M.S. turned 18 and aged out of foster care, and the son (now 16), remains in foster care.

At the hearing, neither the mother nor her boyfriend testified. The mother joined her boyfriend’s objection to admitting the videos obtained from B.W. Erie County tried to lay the foundation for the videos through testimony of Agent Baranski and Gary Mahoney, one of the state police officers who searched the mother’s home. Agent Baranski testified about how he found the videos, and Investigator Mahoney noted that the living room at the house “matched the living room in the video” and noted he observed cameras in the house and “there were sex toys of the kind depicted in the videos.”

Read more on our website.

In the News

Posted on by

Below is a roundup of Blank Rome Matrimonial and Family Law Partners’ recent awards, recognitions, media, and other accomplishments from around the country.

Postnuptial Agreements as Risk Management Tools for Executives and Entrepreneurs
January 26, 2026 – Blank Rome partner Jackie Combs authored this National Law Review article discussing how a postnuptial agreement is both a personal and strategic business tool for executives and entrepreneurs.

What Is Alienation of Affection? Attorney Breaks Down Rare Legal Concept That Cost a Tiktoker $1.75 Million
January 26, 2026 – Blank Rome partner Brett Ward was featured in this PEOPLE article discussing how social media can play a role in civil cases surrounding alienation of affection.

STI Transmission & Divorce: A Form of Domestic Violence
January 22, 2026 – Blank Rome partner Alan R. Feigenbaum authored this New York Law Journal article discussing how domestic violence includes non-physical harm such as the reckless transmission of STIs.

Attorney Jackie Combs on National Divorce Month
January 21, 2026 – Blank Rome partner Jackie Combs was featured in this PIX11 News’ New York City Living article discussing why January is often known as “National Divorce Month.” 

Continue reading →

Equitable Distribution Agreements Are Final Agreements

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, February 19, 2026 —

Among the many terms of art you may hear on a golf course is the word “mulligan”, i.e., a request for a “do-over” or second chance to hit the ball from the tee.

In many respects, life gives us second chances, whether with respect to something as silly as requesting a mulligan because you didn’t like your tee shot, changing careers, starting a new chapter post-divorce, and more. When you enter into a divorce agreement, however, you should expect that generally speaking, finality will trump any request for a second chance.

That brings us to Justice James L. Hyer’s recent decision in M.G. v. D.G., 2025 NY Slip Op 52020(U) (Westchester Cty., 2025). In M.G., the plaintiff-husband filed a motion to, inter alia, (a) stay the enforcement of the marital home buyout provisions in the parties’ judgment of divorce, which required the husband to pay the wife $156,762.91, and (b) grant to the husband an equitable credit and/or offset or otherwise adjust the enforcement of the buyout provision in light of a newly obtained refinance appraisal that valued the marital residence at $490,000 versus $625,000.

Without me writing another word, you have likely already figured out what happened in M.G.—the marital home was appraised during the divorce action as having a certain value, which formed the basis of a buyout computation in a settlement agreement.

Then, after the parties’ settlement agreement was signed, one party (the payor in the buyout scenario) got a subsequent appraisal that, if applied in place of the value used in the settlement agreement, would significantly reduce the buyout payment. Which appraisal do you think controls for equitable distribution purposes?

Read more on our website.

Attorney Spotlight: Ali Fishbein—New York

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

With this edition of Attorney Spotlight, I am pleased to feature one of our esteemed New York colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law group—Ali Fishbein.

Ali L. Fishbein
Partner

With over a decade of legal experience, Ali is a valued and indispensable member of our Matrimonial & Family Law team. A graduate of the George Washington University Law School, Ali has successfully represented clients in a wide range of high‑stakes cases involving substantial marital assets. Her experience, dedication, and keen understanding of family law make her exceptionally equipped to handle even the most complex legal challenges.

I have had the privilege of knowing Ali since she was about five years old. I have worked with her father for many years, and it has been my pleasure to watch Ali grow both as a lawyer and a person. Back when Ali was pursuing her legal degree, she got involved with the family justice clinic in her third year at law school and fell in love with the practice of family law.

Read more on our website.

The Road to Change: How We Shape the Approach to Divorce

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

The decision to divorce, and the legal process that follows, can be a deeply personal and often overwhelming experience for anyone. Divorce can stem from an intense period of conflict or simply from gradually drifting apart. All the same, this kind of life change can bring out emotions and stress, which are natural responses to the fear and uncertainty of major transitions. 

Throughout the divorce process, a range of emotions, personalities, and possible pathways can emerge. Each path reflects a different way of responding to the challenges that arise. Over the course of my career in family law, I have encountered countless perspectives, concerns, and uncertainties from the clients I serve. The key is recognizing, and, more importantly, choosing the path that supports the healthiest and most constructive way forward.

The Apprehensive vs. Aggressive Path

A client is typically best served by a lawyer whose personality type and style align with their needs; that does not mean matches for similarity, rather a type that is compatible and one who can adapt to a complementary approach. Sometimes clients need their lawyers to help them navigate reactions or impulses that could work against their best interests. Others may feel overwhelmed or fearful and require steady guidance and reassurance that a good family lawyer can provide.

Read more on our website.

STI Transmission & Divorce: A Form of Domestic Violence

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, January 22, 2026 —

This author has written before, and will write again, that domestic violence takes many forms that go beyond the proverbial black eye.

Infidelity and sexually transmitted infections (“STI”) are two topics that are not foreign to the annals of marital discord. These topics confront divorce lawyers on a recurring basis. How these issues can interact with the Equitable Distribution Law is addressed in the recent decision of Justice Edmund M. Dane in N.S. v. T.S., 2025 NY Slip Op 51897(U) (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.).

Justice Dane’s decision in N.S. holds that the transmission of an STI by one spouse to another spouse constitutes a form of domestic violence.

In N.S., the parties were married in 2019, and have one child together, also born in 2019. The husband is currently serving a term of incarceration at Mohawk Correctional Facility in Rome, New York.

There are many facets of the N.S. case, however this article will focus exclusively on the issue of the husband’s transmission of an STI to the wife, and how that can impact equitable distribution.

Read more on our website.

In the News

Posted on by

Below is a roundup of Blank Rome Matrimonial and Family Law Partners’ recent awards, recognitions, media, and other accomplishments from around the country.


Second Season of “Stacy Phillips & Friends” Launched
November 18, 2025 – Blank Rome partner Stacy D. Phillips has launched the second season of her lifestyle podcast “Stacy Phillips & Friends.” This podcast engages in insightful conversations with remarkable businesswomen, philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders, inspiring and empowering women to transform their lives and careers

Letters to Let Go: The Healing Power of Expressive Writing
November 13, 2025 – Blank Rome partner Lois J. Liberman’s Look Ahead series is designed to bring our community together to help tackle today’s most complex relationship and divorce issues.

This Celebrity Attorney’s Client List Is Getting Younger—but There Is One Thing She Says Gen Z Is Doing Right in Relationships
October 30, 2025 – Blank Rome partner Jackie Combs was featured in this CNBC article discussing the importance of communication within relationships.

‘Real Housewives’ Divorce Bombshell — Bravo Star Could Be ‘Individually Charged and Prosecuted in Criminal Court’ If She Walks Away from Marriage
October 29, 2025 – Blank Rome partner Ernestine J. Mings was featured in this Radar Online article discussing potential criminal charges surrounding Real Housewives star Wendy Osefo’s divorce. 

Cardi B’s Divorce: Money Moves and Legal Lessons
October 28, 2025 – Blank Rome partner Morgan F. Mouchette authored this Forbes article discussing complications surrounding rap music star Cardi B’s divorce

Continue reading →

Divorce Law and Civil Procedure: The Dynamic Duo

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, December 11, 2025 —

For the lawyers out there, when you graduated law school, did you know what the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” meant? I did not.

I do recall reading cases on “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel” in Civil Procedure class; however, both concepts were taught in such an amorphous manner it was hard to understand what they meant, in practice.

The Honorable Aaron D. Maslow’s recent decision in M.H. v. S.A., 2025 NY Slip Op 51713(U) (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty. 2025) explains all of these concepts in a manner that provides clarity. The decision also addresses New York City’s Gender-Motivated Violence Act (GMVA), which to my mind is relevant to the practice of divorce law.

In M.H., the parties started a romantic relationship in 2008. They began living together in 2010 and registered as domestic partners. They share one child born in 2013.

The plaintiff-mother alleged that the defendant-father engaged in “escalating controlling and abusive behavior” including “yelling, blocking her movements, and physically restraining her.” In one instance, the mother alleged that the father “screamed at her until she lost consciousness” and that he “monitored her communications” and “accused her of ‘whoring around’ when she was with her male friends.”

After their child was born, the parties relocated from New York to Massachusetts where they both worked for MIT. There, the mother alleged that the father “controlled their joint finances, threatened her about losing her job, and later defunded her position.”

The decision recounts several other alleged incidents of abuse, in multiple states, including one incident where the father allegedly “dragged their child by the hood of a jacket” in March 2016, followed by pushing the mother onto a bed and choking her in December 2016, and then another incident in June 2018 when the father allegedly confronted the mother “about a custody agreement and physically restrained her when she refused to sign it.”

Read more on our website.