A Canadian Judge has ruled that a 24-year-old Canadian man is not allowed to have a girlfriend for the next three years. The ruling came after Steven Cranley pleaded guilty on Tuesday to several charges stemming from an assault on a former girlfriend. Cranely tried to prevent his girlfriend from phoning the police by cutting her phone cord and punched and kicked her. He finally stabbed himself with a butcher knife when police did arrive, puncturing his aorta.
Doctors say Cranley has difficulty coping with rejection and runs a high risk to re-offend if he becomes involved in another intimate relationship. Justice Rhys Morgan said Cranley ''cannot form a romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person." citing this punisment as the only way to protect the public until Cranely seeks counseling.
In my experience, Iowa Judges have yet to hand down similar decision. However, who you date and his/her past can certainly impact your divorce, paternity, modification or other family law case when the children's custody or well-being is an issue.
The entire article is located at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-No-Girlfriend.html?ex=1182484800&en=6ecf36e95a19ae50&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Veterans' Disability Education Benefits: Who Should Get the Credit?
The Iowa Court of Appeals in In Re Marriage of Turner http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20070523/7-234.pdf recently addressed the issue of how Veteran's Disability Education Benefits should be applied to parents' post-secondary education responsibility. In Iowa, and depending on the circumstances, each parent may be liable for up to 33.33% of a child's post-secondary education expenses (using in-state tuition as a basis).
In Turner, the father, who received the Education Benefits as a result of his military service argued that the trial court erred because it treated the benefit as the child's resource without crediting it against his proprotionate share of his daughter's college expenses. The Court of Appeals had a different interpretation that was nonetheless to the father's benefit.
The Court of Appeals compared it to Social Security Disability or retirement benefits paid directly to a child but are counted as parental income and credited against the parent's child support obligation. The Court determined that the same approach should be applied in this case and the benefits should be counted as income to the father and credited against his share of his daughter's post-secondary education expenses.
This is an important issue because if your child is entitled to receive governmental benefits you may be entitled to a credit against your child support or other support obligation. Speak to an Iowa family law attorney to discuss what benefits these laws may provide you.
In Turner, the father, who received the Education Benefits as a result of his military service argued that the trial court erred because it treated the benefit as the child's resource without crediting it against his proprotionate share of his daughter's college expenses. The Court of Appeals had a different interpretation that was nonetheless to the father's benefit.
The Court of Appeals compared it to Social Security Disability or retirement benefits paid directly to a child but are counted as parental income and credited against the parent's child support obligation. The Court determined that the same approach should be applied in this case and the benefits should be counted as income to the father and credited against his share of his daughter's post-secondary education expenses.
This is an important issue because if your child is entitled to receive governmental benefits you may be entitled to a credit against your child support or other support obligation. Speak to an Iowa family law attorney to discuss what benefits these laws may provide you.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Vegan Couple Gets Life in Prison
A vegan couple were sentenced Wednesday to life in prison for the death of their malnourished 6-week-old baby boy who weighed approximately 3.5 pounds. The couple fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice to their son claiming that they followed this diet to avoid animal products.
After seven hours of deliberation the ury found the couple guilty of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children. See story at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18574603/?GT1=9951
In Iowa, there are several options in helping children in similar situations such as contacting Department of Human Services, claiming exigent circumstances and having an already existing decree modified, or filing a new action and requesting a temporary matters hearing. Other options such as injunctions may exist as well and can be explored by contacting a family law attorney with experience in this area.
After seven hours of deliberation the ury found the couple guilty of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children. See story at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18574603/?GT1=9951
In Iowa, there are several options in helping children in similar situations such as contacting Department of Human Services, claiming exigent circumstances and having an already existing decree modified, or filing a new action and requesting a temporary matters hearing. Other options such as injunctions may exist as well and can be explored by contacting a family law attorney with experience in this area.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Desperate Housewives Lesson
While I don't watch a lot of television I often indulge in sporadic episodes of Desperate Housewives. Interestingly, one of the key turning points centered around an older neighbor's uncommon and somewhat sinister reasons for disposing of her late husband's body into the abyss of a deep freezer. While this may not, on its face, seem to be applicable to divorce and family law issues, the reason she offered reminds us that proper post-divorce estate planning and change of beneficiaries is essential to protecting the ones you love.
In last night's espisode, the neighbor stated that despite being married to her husband (who she allegedly discovered dead in his easy chair with a tv remote in his hand) for 34 years, he failed to change the beneficiary of his pension plan from his ex-wife, to whom he was married for 4 years, to his current wife. His ex-wife would have received his pension benefits had his current wife disclosed his death.
Immediately prior to finalizing your divorce or other family law issues, including establishment of paternity, each client should review his or her assets and determine how s/he would like them distributed upon death. Your intent should then be finalized in a revised (or new) Last Will and Testament and/or a Trust.
In last night's espisode, the neighbor stated that despite being married to her husband (who she allegedly discovered dead in his easy chair with a tv remote in his hand) for 34 years, he failed to change the beneficiary of his pension plan from his ex-wife, to whom he was married for 4 years, to his current wife. His ex-wife would have received his pension benefits had his current wife disclosed his death.
Immediately prior to finalizing your divorce or other family law issues, including establishment of paternity, each client should review his or her assets and determine how s/he would like them distributed upon death. Your intent should then be finalized in a revised (or new) Last Will and Testament and/or a Trust.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Week to Week Better?
The Iowa Court of Appeal recently handed down a decision in a divorce case entitled In Re Marriage of Munger affirming a trial court's finding that a week-to-week rotation in a joint physical custody situation is best agreeing that it is predictable and avoids mid-week juggling of children and school work. See
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20070411/7-157.pdf
This arrangement tends to work best for older school-aged children but not necessarily children within the "tender years" parameter, typically age five and under.
The Iowa Court also affirmed the use of a "special expense" account where both parties would deposit a certain amount each month to be used for the children's expenses in light of their inability to communicate regarding the same.
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20070411/7-157.pdf
This arrangement tends to work best for older school-aged children but not necessarily children within the "tender years" parameter, typically age five and under.
The Iowa Court also affirmed the use of a "special expense" account where both parties would deposit a certain amount each month to be used for the children's expenses in light of their inability to communicate regarding the same.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Iowa Courts and Dividing Propert During a Divorce
The state of Iowa recognizes that each marriage partner has an equitable interest in all marital property acquired during the course of the marriage. Unlike states with community property laws, which typically entitles each spouse to 50%, in an equitable distribution state the equitable interest does not appear until a divorce is filed.
The Iowa Code provides several factors the Court considers in making an equitable distribution. It can range from observing what sacrifices a spouse made during the marriage, assets brought into the marriage, inherited property, age disparities, health issues, earning capacity, and the number of minor children or dependents. This is not an exhaustive list.
The general rule is that all property acquired by either party during the course of the marriage using marital assets, regardless of title or source of payment, is marital property, subject to equitable division.
An exception to the general rule would be that an asset acquired by one party during the marriage by inheritance is not a marital asset or a gift acquired would be exempt. However, the Iowa Courts have lately been deviating from this usually tightly interpreted rule.
Once a court determines which property is actually marital property, and subject to equitable division, then it must determine how that property is to be divided. Unlike community property states, the courts in Iowa are not bound by any predetermined rules or formulas. A divorce court is a court of equity, and the court has complete discretion in awarding each spouse any particular marital property, and in any proportion that the court finds is fair under all circumstances.
Each case is unique and not all factors apply. To determine what you may be entitled to contact an Iowa lawyer well-versed in divorce and other domestic relation issues.
The Iowa Code provides several factors the Court considers in making an equitable distribution. It can range from observing what sacrifices a spouse made during the marriage, assets brought into the marriage, inherited property, age disparities, health issues, earning capacity, and the number of minor children or dependents. This is not an exhaustive list.
The general rule is that all property acquired by either party during the course of the marriage using marital assets, regardless of title or source of payment, is marital property, subject to equitable division.
An exception to the general rule would be that an asset acquired by one party during the marriage by inheritance is not a marital asset or a gift acquired would be exempt. However, the Iowa Courts have lately been deviating from this usually tightly interpreted rule.
Once a court determines which property is actually marital property, and subject to equitable division, then it must determine how that property is to be divided. Unlike community property states, the courts in Iowa are not bound by any predetermined rules or formulas. A divorce court is a court of equity, and the court has complete discretion in awarding each spouse any particular marital property, and in any proportion that the court finds is fair under all circumstances.
Each case is unique and not all factors apply. To determine what you may be entitled to contact an Iowa lawyer well-versed in divorce and other domestic relation issues.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Iowa Attorneys Can Offer Unbundled Legal Services
The Iowa Supreme Court recently amended rules allowing attorneys to provide "unbundled" legal services to assist pro se litigants in filing and defending cases. This is particularly important in the family law and divorce setting because it allows individuals with limited financial resources to still obtain legal assistance in handling portions of the case whether it be drafting a decree or appearing at a contempt hearing.
While this concept is new to Iowa attorneys, it has been implemented by many other states for a number of years.
Please contact me if for more information about unbundled legal services that Sullivan & Ward, P.C. can provide.
While this concept is new to Iowa attorneys, it has been implemented by many other states for a number of years.
Please contact me if for more information about unbundled legal services that Sullivan & Ward, P.C. can provide.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Attempt to Murder Doesn't Waive Alimony
The Missouri Supreme Court recently affirmed the dismissal of an ex-husband's petition to terminate alimony based on his allegations that wife had sought to have him murdered. The couple had agreed to a non-modifiable maintenance term in their divorce decree. The Supreme Court noted that Missouri statutes provide that such an agreement, when found conscionable and incorporated into a divorce decree, binds the court. The Court reasoned:
"A non-modification provision can cut both ways. No one can know which party will need more or deserve less as time passes. As with all contract terms, a non-modification provision is an agreed allocation of future risk, bargained for and for which consideration is exchanged. The Missouri legislature has seen fit to allow such a clause to be elevated from contractual to judicial status by incorporation into the dissolution decree. We are bound to respect the statute and to enforce these documents as agreed to and ordered."
The Court rejected the husband's argument that a court may reconsider the conscionability of the agreement based on later events. It likewise found that waiver was inapplicable as the attempt to murder husband would not establish a "clear and unequivocal attempt to relinquish her contractual right to maintenance so long as [husband] is living." Finally, the court rejected the application of the public policy doctrine which prohibits an individual from receiving death benefits when they have murdered their spouse. Reasoning that wife would not benefit from the successful murder of husband, the court found these cases inapplicable.
"A non-modification provision can cut both ways. No one can know which party will need more or deserve less as time passes. As with all contract terms, a non-modification provision is an agreed allocation of future risk, bargained for and for which consideration is exchanged. The Missouri legislature has seen fit to allow such a clause to be elevated from contractual to judicial status by incorporation into the dissolution decree. We are bound to respect the statute and to enforce these documents as agreed to and ordered."
The Court rejected the husband's argument that a court may reconsider the conscionability of the agreement based on later events. It likewise found that waiver was inapplicable as the attempt to murder husband would not establish a "clear and unequivocal attempt to relinquish her contractual right to maintenance so long as [husband] is living." Finally, the court rejected the application of the public policy doctrine which prohibits an individual from receiving death benefits when they have murdered their spouse. Reasoning that wife would not benefit from the successful murder of husband, the court found these cases inapplicable.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Ones Left Behind
Imagine toddlers stranded at daycare centers. Children left at schools. Siblings suddenly left in charge of younger brothers and sisters. Children being handed over to ill-equipped relatives. This is what occurs to the youth of our country when illegal-immigrant parents are swept up in home and work-place raids resulting in children being left behind. This is a complication that underscores the difficulty in effectively enforcing immigration laws against families that have already established themselves and begun raising families in the United States.
Three million American-born children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant; one in 10 American families has mixed immigration status, meaning at least one member is an illegal immirant. This is an issue that affects our country whether or not you are for or against immigrant reform. These are the children your kids and/or grandchildren go to school with. To read about some of the real-effects see http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Divided-Families.html?ex=1174363200&en=b96c2616c791a283&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Three million American-born children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant; one in 10 American families has mixed immigration status, meaning at least one member is an illegal immirant. This is an issue that affects our country whether or not you are for or against immigrant reform. These are the children your kids and/or grandchildren go to school with. To read about some of the real-effects see http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Divided-Families.html?ex=1174363200&en=b96c2616c791a283&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Iowa Court Backs Off On Definition of Legal Custody
Recently, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion in In re Marriage of Hynick which may influence how a non-custodial parent is treated as a decision-maker. The Court insinuated that the non-custodial parent has an apparently inferior role by stating as follows:
When joint physical care is not warranted, the court must choose one parent to be the primary caretaker, awarding the other parent visitation rights. See generally Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a), (5). Under this arrangement, the parent with primary physical care has the responsibility to maintain a residence for the child and has the sole right to make decisions concerning the child’s routine care. See generally id. § 598.1(7). The noncaretaker parent is relegated to the role of hosting the child for visits on a schedule determined by the court to be in the best interest of the child. Visitation time varies widely and can even approach an amount almost equal to the time spent with the caretaker parent. See generally Iowa Ct. R. 9.9 (setting forth graduated credits against child support obligation for extraordinary visitation including a twenty-five percent credit for “167 or more [visitation days] but less than equally shared physical care”). Thus, the main distinction between joint physical care and primary physical care with liberal visitation rights is the joint decision making on routine matters required when parents share physical care.
It remains to be seen whether this decision is the start of a retreat from the principle of equal decision-making by joint legal custodians . On the one hand, the decision refers solely to decisions involving the child's "routine" care; on the other hand, the stark language of the non-custodial parent being "relegated to the role of hosting the child" calls to mind the image of the non-custodial parent as a mere baby-sitter.
When joint physical care is not warranted, the court must choose one parent to be the primary caretaker, awarding the other parent visitation rights. See generally Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a), (5). Under this arrangement, the parent with primary physical care has the responsibility to maintain a residence for the child and has the sole right to make decisions concerning the child’s routine care. See generally id. § 598.1(7). The noncaretaker parent is relegated to the role of hosting the child for visits on a schedule determined by the court to be in the best interest of the child. Visitation time varies widely and can even approach an amount almost equal to the time spent with the caretaker parent. See generally Iowa Ct. R. 9.9 (setting forth graduated credits against child support obligation for extraordinary visitation including a twenty-five percent credit for “167 or more [visitation days] but less than equally shared physical care”). Thus, the main distinction between joint physical care and primary physical care with liberal visitation rights is the joint decision making on routine matters required when parents share physical care.
It remains to be seen whether this decision is the start of a retreat from the principle of equal decision-making by joint legal custodians . On the one hand, the decision refers solely to decisions involving the child's "routine" care; on the other hand, the stark language of the non-custodial parent being "relegated to the role of hosting the child" calls to mind the image of the non-custodial parent as a mere baby-sitter.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Legislation to Ban Children's Exposure to Second-hand Smoke
Connecticut legislators have introduced a bill that would ban smoking in cars when a minor child is present. The legislation has been proposed by a 9 year-old boy from East Hartford.
While I am in support of children being excluded from second-hand smoke exposure it may leave the door open to other legislation severely limiting an adult's behavior. If passed it means that there will be no stopping to what may be banned around children in the future. Heavy perfume because it might induce allergies or an asthma attack? Chocolate milk and candy because it is lending to obesity in children and juvenile diabetes?
Whoever has responsibility for a minor child should take it upon themselves to communicate with whoever the child is around and discuss these issues. Is legislation needed for common sense items?
While I am in support of children being excluded from second-hand smoke exposure it may leave the door open to other legislation severely limiting an adult's behavior. If passed it means that there will be no stopping to what may be banned around children in the future. Heavy perfume because it might induce allergies or an asthma attack? Chocolate milk and candy because it is lending to obesity in children and juvenile diabetes?
Whoever has responsibility for a minor child should take it upon themselves to communicate with whoever the child is around and discuss these issues. Is legislation needed for common sense items?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Judge Allows House to Be Divided--Literally
Recently a New York divorce Judge ruled that a bickering New York couple may have a dividing wall constructed inside their home as part of an acrimonious divorce. Chana and Simon Taub, both 57, have endured two years of divorce negotiations, but neither is prepared to give up their Brooklyn home. Both feel they are entitled to live in the home and neither are willing to give it up. Despite owning another home two blocks away. Eventually, after negotiations led nowhere, a New York Judge ordered that the partition wall be built inside the house.
The wall divides the ground floor of the house, and keeps husband and wife penned into separate sections on different floors.
One door linking the rival sections of the house is barricaded shut to prevent any accidental contact between the pair.
While this situation is extremely unusual it appears to work, for the time being, for this particular couple. In Iowa a couple may request that real property, usually farm land or other undeveloped parcels of land, to be partitioned as part of a divorce settlement; however, I have yet to find any Iowa authority supporting the New York Judge's decision.
The wall divides the ground floor of the house, and keeps husband and wife penned into separate sections on different floors.
One door linking the rival sections of the house is barricaded shut to prevent any accidental contact between the pair.
While this situation is extremely unusual it appears to work, for the time being, for this particular couple. In Iowa a couple may request that real property, usually farm land or other undeveloped parcels of land, to be partitioned as part of a divorce settlement; however, I have yet to find any Iowa authority supporting the New York Judge's decision.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Ontario Court Rules Child Has 3 Parents
Last week, a 5 year-old Ontario, Canada boy became a son to three parents: a father and two mothers. The boy has been raised by his biological mother and her partner but his father has been involved in his upbringing since birth. The partner was given parental status by the Ontario Court of Appeals last week.
The mother's partner said the ruling eliminated the possibility that she could lose any legal relationship to the boy if her partner died suddenly. This case is the latest of a series of legal actions expanding the rights of same-sex couples on Canada.
The Court found that Ontario's family legislation, which dates to 1990, does not reflect current social or reproductive realities and they used the court's general power to act as guardian for minors to grant her request. For the full article click http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/americas/12canada.html?ex=1169701200&en=c35e3a1bf9eacb23&ei=5070&emc=eta1
The mother's partner said the ruling eliminated the possibility that she could lose any legal relationship to the boy if her partner died suddenly. This case is the latest of a series of legal actions expanding the rights of same-sex couples on Canada.
The Court found that Ontario's family legislation, which dates to 1990, does not reflect current social or reproductive realities and they used the court's general power to act as guardian for minors to grant her request. For the full article click http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/americas/12canada.html?ex=1169701200&en=c35e3a1bf9eacb23&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
International Adoption Mayhem
"During the two weeks that Marino and Debbie Prozzo welcomed a Ukrainian orphan in their home, they fell head over heels for a 7-year-old child they may never be able to adopt. While the Prozzos were giving Alona Malyovana her first bubble bath, teaching her to use the remote control, and buying her a pink velvet dress trimmed in bunny fur, the chaotic system of adoption in Ukraine was growing more chaotic. The director of Ukraine’s new Department for Adoptions resigned, leaving the fate of the nation’s 90,000 orphans in limbo. A new application process required foreign families to quickly update security clearances and other time-sensitive information. Prospective parents anxiously scanned the State Department’s Web site and bulletins from the embassy in Kiev for clarification of rules and rumors.
Hosting programs, like the one that brought Alona to an American family this Christmas, showcase older children, generally from orphanages in former Soviet bloc nations. The programs have long been hailed as an effective marketing tool by adoption experts, who say 8 of 10 families would not adopt these children without a trial run. In the largely unregulated world of international adoptions, these programs often lead to happily-ever-after, but sometimes end painfully. Ukraine and Russia place formidable obstacles in the path of parents, among them inaccurate information about children’s availability and health status. Multiple families can wind up competing for the same child. And children themselves know they are auditioning for what the industry calls their “forever families.” Then there is an entrenched system of favors — requests for cash or gifts from facilitators, translators, judges and others who handle the mechanics of adoption overseas.
Conditions in both countries have grown so unsettled, some agencies have suspended hosting programs, and the debate is growing about the ratio of risk to reward leaving adoptive parents saying "Now what?" To read the entire article click http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/us/13orphan.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Hosting programs, like the one that brought Alona to an American family this Christmas, showcase older children, generally from orphanages in former Soviet bloc nations. The programs have long been hailed as an effective marketing tool by adoption experts, who say 8 of 10 families would not adopt these children without a trial run. In the largely unregulated world of international adoptions, these programs often lead to happily-ever-after, but sometimes end painfully. Ukraine and Russia place formidable obstacles in the path of parents, among them inaccurate information about children’s availability and health status. Multiple families can wind up competing for the same child. And children themselves know they are auditioning for what the industry calls their “forever families.” Then there is an entrenched system of favors — requests for cash or gifts from facilitators, translators, judges and others who handle the mechanics of adoption overseas.
Conditions in both countries have grown so unsettled, some agencies have suspended hosting programs, and the debate is growing about the ratio of risk to reward leaving adoptive parents saying "Now what?" To read the entire article click http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/us/13orphan.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Monday, January 08, 2007
A Good Settlement-Give up 60%
A good settlement is where each side gives up 60%.
The parties in a divorce case should always strive for some form of settlement. It is a rare occasion when a client wins everything s/he wants and is overjoyed that s/he took their case to trial. Especially when kids are involved.
The Courts in central Iowa requires that the parties submit to mediation. And for good reason: Children almost always come out better from a settlement and you avoid seeing one side, or sometimes both sides, devastated by a ruling from a Judge who more than likely doesn't know you. Mediation allows the parties to maintain control over their case and makes the outcome more acceptable and liveable for the parties. Even if the court your case is pending in does not have mandatory mediation the Court will often entertain and grant an application for an Order to Mediate.
If you don't or won't come to an agreement, the judge will for you. And chances are, neither side is going to be happy with the order of the court. Work with your lawyer and your soon-to-be ex-spouse and make every possible effort to settle your case.
The parties in a divorce case should always strive for some form of settlement. It is a rare occasion when a client wins everything s/he wants and is overjoyed that s/he took their case to trial. Especially when kids are involved.
The Courts in central Iowa requires that the parties submit to mediation. And for good reason: Children almost always come out better from a settlement and you avoid seeing one side, or sometimes both sides, devastated by a ruling from a Judge who more than likely doesn't know you. Mediation allows the parties to maintain control over their case and makes the outcome more acceptable and liveable for the parties. Even if the court your case is pending in does not have mandatory mediation the Court will often entertain and grant an application for an Order to Mediate.
If you don't or won't come to an agreement, the judge will for you. And chances are, neither side is going to be happy with the order of the court. Work with your lawyer and your soon-to-be ex-spouse and make every possible effort to settle your case.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Lawyers for James Brown Question Marital State
The late soul singer James Brown's lawyer said Tuesday the fact that the woman who'd been described as the late singer's wife was locked out of his South Carolina home after his death is "not a reflection on her as an individual." Instead, the lawyer said that Brown and Tomi Rae Hynie were in fact not legally married and that she was locked out for estate legal reasons.
Brown's attorney contends that Hynie was already married to another man in 2001 when she married Brown, making her marriage to Brown null. He said she later annulled the previous marriage, but she and Brown never remarried. However, Hynie told The Associated Press on Tuesday that she believes Brown's representatives are trying to discredit her so Brown's estate doesn't have to be shared with her. Link to article http://www.theindychannel.com/entertainment/10611217/detail.html
Brown's attorney contends that Hynie was already married to another man in 2001 when she married Brown, making her marriage to Brown null. He said she later annulled the previous marriage, but she and Brown never remarried. However, Hynie told The Associated Press on Tuesday that she believes Brown's representatives are trying to discredit her so Brown's estate doesn't have to be shared with her. Link to article http://www.theindychannel.com/entertainment/10611217/detail.html
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Court Says Christmas Card is Enough
An Ohio Court of Appeals held this past week that, even though a father's sole contact with his child during the year was a Christmas card and a gift card, this was sufficient contact to require the father's consent to the child's step-father's petition to adopt the child.
For the full opinion see http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/12/2006/2006-ohio-6705.pdf
For the full opinion see http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/12/2006/2006-ohio-6705.pdf
Friday, December 22, 2006
China Tightens Adoption Rules
China is planning to issue new, tighter restrictions on foreign adoptions of Chinese children. The restrictions prohibit adoptions by parents who are unmarried, obese or who are older than 50.
The new regulations are to take effect May 1, 2007 and are anticipated to slow the rapid rise in applications by foreign parents to adopt Chinese babies. Chinese officials report that applications had begun to exceed the number of available babies, and that the new rules were partly intended to address that imbalance.
The new regulations are to take effect May 1, 2007 and are anticipated to slow the rapid rise in applications by foreign parents to adopt Chinese babies. Chinese officials report that applications had begun to exceed the number of available babies, and that the new rules were partly intended to address that imbalance.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Few Aiding Children in Deportation Proceedings
The New York Times published an article late last week that takes a startling look at children in deportation proceedings. Often, these children are here without a mother, father or other relative who can act as their guardian. They have little English skills and little information as to whether they want to fight deportation or even what deportation is. Most don't have attorneys.
A look at America's immigration courts show a system where many children lack legal representation, where judges find themselves having to explain the law to a 12 year-old through a translator, and where the government itself has no real measure of the problem.
There is a larger issue. Advocates worry about child trafficking, smuggling and abuse because these children do not know how to ask for help or know what resources are available to them to address these problems. This is a growing problem that needs to be addressed to ensure that children, whether here legally or not, have their interests represented.
To see the complete article visit
A look at America's immigration courts show a system where many children lack legal representation, where judges find themselves having to explain the law to a 12 year-old through a translator, and where the government itself has no real measure of the problem.
There is a larger issue. Advocates worry about child trafficking, smuggling and abuse because these children do not know how to ask for help or know what resources are available to them to address these problems. This is a growing problem that needs to be addressed to ensure that children, whether here legally or not, have their interests represented.
To see the complete article visit
Few Aiding Children in Deportation Proceedings
The New York Times published an article late last week that takes a startling look at children in deportation proceedings. Often, these children are here without a mother, father or other relative who can act as their guardian. They have little English skills and little information as to whether they want to fight deportation or even what deportation is. Most don't have attorneys.
A look at America's immigration courts show a system where many children lack legal representation, where judges find themselves having to explain the law to a 12 year-old through a translator, and where the government itself has no real measure of the problem.
There is a larger issue. Advocates worry about child trafficking, smuggling and abuse because these children do not know how to ask for help or know what resources are available to them to address these problems. This is a growing problem that needs to be addressed to ensure that children, whether here legally or not, have their interests represented.
To see the complete article visit
A look at America's immigration courts show a system where many children lack legal representation, where judges find themselves having to explain the law to a 12 year-old through a translator, and where the government itself has no real measure of the problem.
There is a larger issue. Advocates worry about child trafficking, smuggling and abuse because these children do not know how to ask for help or know what resources are available to them to address these problems. This is a growing problem that needs to be addressed to ensure that children, whether here legally or not, have their interests represented.
To see the complete article visit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
