USA Today editorial opposing creating enforceable rights of grandparent visitation. A supporter writes a counter-editorial. (Both via Bashman.) We explored the problems Aug. 30, 2004 and Oct. 21, 2002.
Posts Tagged ‘family law’
Lawyer-ad Hall of Fame: DivorceEZ.com
Florida divorce lawyer Steve Miller wants your business if “you and your spouse hate each other like poison”. Just a few easy steps, and “you’re on the way to getting rid of that vermin you call a spouse.” His YouTube video is discussed by Carolyn Elefant (Aug. 30), Greedy Trial Lawyer (Sept. 2), and Jacobson Attorneys in South Africa (Aug. 31) which contributes a Flickr photo documenting a marketing effort by divorce attorneys in that country (“Cheating Bastard!”). Miller’s site is here.
Cincinnati foster care case, cont’d
More on the Marcus Fiesel/Donna Trevino case, as noted here Sept. 11: “The birth mother who sued Butler County for $5 million over her son’s death in foster care had no intention of reuniting with the boy, according to court records The Enquirer obtained Monday. In addition, the attorney who stands to gain millions in the civil case if the case is successful knew that.” (Sheila McLaughlin, “Birth mom didn’t want Marcus”, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 26)(hat tip: reader D.B.).
U.K.: “Hair salons offered a cut of solicitors’ fees”
In Salisbury, England, a “firm of solicitors is offering hairdressers cash to refer customers who reveal that they have marital problems. But one hairdresser has criticised the idea as unethical and refuses to help.” The law firm of Trethowans says there is nothing in violation of Law Society rules in its offer of £75 to salon stylists who steer distraught spouses its way, the fee “payable when the courts grant a decree nisi or upon the agreement of a separation deed.” The law firm’s director describes the payments as “just a different sort of advertising” and says he has heard of firms in other geographic areas doing the same thing. (The Times (U.K.), Sept. 1). Alex Wade comments (“‘Short back and sides? How’s your marriage, by the way?'”, The Times (U.K.), Sept. 15).
Thumbs down on Va. marriage amendment
As in earlier rounds (May 31 and Nov. 2, 2004, etc.), some proponents are advancing the view that despite its sweeping and ambiguous language, the amendment wouldn’t really endanger any existing legal rights of unmarried persons in Virginia. The Roanoke Times editorially rejects that view: “The legal views conflict sharply. This can mean just one thing: years of litigation under every facet of law that touches upon human interactions. In the antagonistic court arena, the relationships of families and friends will be ripped apart. … Voters should reject this unfair amendment, which has the potential for so many unintended consequences.” (“The anti-family amendment” (editorial), Roanoke Times, Sept. 19). See also Mar. 20, 2005 (sequence of events in Michigan).
Jailed for 11 years — so far — in divorce
Is H. Beatty Chadwick concealing major assets, as his ex-wife’s lawyers contend and as a court has agreed? Or is Chadwick right in his story about not being able to lay hands on the money? And is Chadwick stubborn enough to have stuck with a false story through 11 years — so far — of imprisonment for contempt of court? (“A divorce case’s singular result: 11 years in jail … and counting”, AP/Baltimore Sun, Sept. 17).
Update: Vt.-Va. lesbian custody battle
The Vermont Supreme Court has rejected (opinion, Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, Aug. 4) a Virginia court’s attempt to invalidate a pre-existing Vermont order giving Janet Miller-Jenkins rights to visit the child that she and former partner Lisa Miller-Jenkins raised before their breakup. Eugene Volokh (Aug. 4, see also second post of that date) explains why the Virginia court is on shaky ground:
First, despite how Lisa’s lawyers (Liberty Counsel) are characterizing the case, this is not primarily a case about civil unions. Child custody cases often arise in divorces (or, where civil unions are available, in civil union dissolutions), but they can arise even if the parties aren’t married. The relevant federal statute, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (which the Vermont court calls, in a possibly amusing mistake, the Parental Kidnapping Protection Act), requires courts to adhere to preexisting custody awards generally, not just ones that follow the dissolution of a marriage. The Act requires each state to “enforce according to its terms” out-of-state custody orders if, among other things:
(1) [the original] court has jurisdiction under the law of [the court’s] State; and
(2) … (A) such State
(i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or
(ii) had been the child’s home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State;And if this provision protects the original Vermont judgment (which I think it does), then the later Virginia judgment is invalid (see subdivision (g), “A court of a State [here, Virginia] shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody or visitation determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State [here, Vermont] where such court of that other State is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section to make a custody or visitation determination”).
Volokh rejects the position — advanced by some readers in the comments thread — that the federal Defense of Marriage Act should be construed as overriding the PKPA in this case. It is rather remarkable how many social-conservative commentators fail even to mention the PKPA in discussing the dispute. Earlier coverage of the case: Aug. 15 and Dec. 16, 2004.
“Teen Sues Mother for ID of Father”
“In a case that family law experts fear could set a dangerous precedent, a Michigan teenager is suing his mother to learn the identity of his father. Family law attorneys say the issue of compelling a mother to reveal the identity of the biological father is a new area of law. And depending on how the Michigan judge rules in the case, they say, courts nationally could see a new flood of lawsuits of children suing their parents.” (Tresa Baldas, National Law Journal, Aug. 11).
Kill a Judge, Sue a Lawyer
It’s all in a day for notorious white supremacist and convicted felon Matthew Hale, who, once convicted of attempting to arrange for the murder of a federal judge, then did what any ordinary American convict would do — sued his lawyer for malpractice.
Oz: “Boarder in the spare room wins A$450,000”
Peculiar case from Australia: “It barely raises an eyebrow when a spurned daughter, former de facto or homosexual lover challenges a deceased person’s will, asking for a share of the estate. But when the boarder in the spare room challenges – and the Supreme Court awards him nearly $450,000 – seemingly innocuous domestic relationships are revealed as financial minefields.” Frances Lan Fong Fung allowed Michael Ye to live rent free and paid some of his tuition fees; in return he helped with household chores and some of her personal care needs, like insulin injection. Her will left her estate to her siblings and nothing to him, but a judge accepted Ye’s argument that she had wrongfully failed to recognize a relationship akin to that of aunt and devoted nephew. An elder care lawyer “said elderly people either had to have a paid contract with their live-in boarder, or go to the expense of an application to the Supreme Court for the person to rescind their right to make a claim against the estate…. Ms Fung’s brother, Keith, said his family wished to maintain their privacy but said it had been an important lesson for people not to take anybody into their home.” (Leonie Lamont, Sydney Morning Herald, Jul. 8).