Law Blog

In my opinion (IMO, to you all people who can’t pry yourself away from the interwebz) a person goes through a number of stages in their life: childhood, adolescence, young adult, middle-aged, then old dude or dudette.  That’s generally how most people see life, too.  But within these stages, there are a bunch of sub-stages that occur, most interestingly between young adult to middle-aged.  I’m in an odd/interesting/sad stage right now.  I’m right around the age where everyone is starting to get married, but also I’m getting closer to the age where I’m starting to know people who are getting divorced.  It’s weird – whatever happened to the stage where we’d all play around in the sandbox and make mudpies?  Oh, childhood, why did we have to leave you?

Anyway… recently, I ran into an old friend, Joey, from high school and we ended up talking about his life since I last saw him.  Joey was a pretty popular kid when we were in school together.  Despite the fact that our school didn’t have very strong sports teams, Joey was a star-player on our school’s basketball team nonetheless, which is why he was also popular among a lot of the female students.  And in our senior year, Joey hooked up with Deborah, a shy, yet nice girl from our school.  Everyone thought they were the cutest couple and that they were headed to good successful places.  So when Joey told me that he was getting divorced, I was shocked.  Even more surprising was when he told me how things between he and Deborah had soured to the point where they were no longer talking and that he was locked in a bitter custody battle with her.

I was shocked, even more shocked than when I discovered the drying power of ShamWow!

Joey wanted to have primary custody of the children.  He told me how other divorced guys he knew all either lost complete custody of their children or were limited only to visitations rights.  Joey didn’t want to keep Deborah from seeing their children.  In fact, he wanted her to be a very active part in their lives.  But what he didn’t want was to become like all the other divorced dads he knew.  He didn’t want to be limited to only visiting his children because he was worried that it’d make his children distant.  He wanted to know what his options were.

Well, I didn’t know what to tell him since anyone in or heading toward a career in lawyering knows that the answer to every legal question is that “it all depends.”  Laws can be ambiguous and outcomes vary all the time and are dependent on a number of things as facts can always be distinguished to appear different from other cases tried before it.

Generally, in California and most states, courts usually award custody to the primary caregiver, meaning the person who spends the most time with the child.  Usually that translates to the person who doesn’t hold paid employment and raises the child, but when both parents work, like in Joey’s case, it comes down to fitness and a calculation of time spent with the child.

Joey isn’t alone in his predicament.  A vast majority of family law cases received by LegalMatch are about child custody battles.

The best advice I could give to my friend was to seek the counsel of a qualified family law lawyer.  Because regardless of the legal situation, case outcomes are not always predictable.

Few people object to the existence of government agencies charged with protecting children from abuse and neglect, nor do they oppose giving these agencies the power to remove children from abusive environments, at least as a last resort.

However, this post from the Wall Street Journal Law Blog shows what can happen when the legitimate mission of state Child Protective Services agencies can become sidetracked by puritanical hysteria.

According to the post, parents took innocent pictures of their children in the bathtub. When they went to a local Wal-Mart to have the pictures printed, an employee decided that these pictures constituted child pornography, and turned them over to the police.

The parents were arrested, and their daughters were taken away from them for over a year. During that time, they were required to register as sex offenders. The couple spent $75,000 in legal fees, and the mother was suspended from her job. According to recent interviews with the parents, it took a long time before they were comfortable taking any pictures of their children again, regardless of the setting.

In the end, they were cleared of all wrongdoing, the charges were dropped, and their children were returned after a year living away from their parents.

All sane people recognize that sexual exploitation of children is one of the most evil and disgusting things that human beings are capable of. I don’t know exactly how pervasive the problem is, but one instance of it is one too many. I also don’t know what has happened to our society that people would consider innocent pictures of children, the type which the vast majority of parents take, could be construed as child pornography by any person capable of obtaining employment (even if it is a job at Wal-Mart’s photo department) as child pornography.

Furthermore, this case used up limited resources that could have been used to investigate and prosecute actual instances of child sexual abuse. An argument could be made that, because of the actions of this employee, and the decision of the police and CPS to pursue this frivolous investigation for so long, real cases of abuse went unpunished, and children suffered as a result.

According to recent LegalMatch statistics from the last 12 months, reports of child abuse continue to be common. In most of the cases, the alleged abuser was a parent or someone else who had a confidential relationship with the child, such as a teacher or coach. This demonstrates the need for a robust system that protects children from abuse, and that any frivolous allegations should be dismissed, after being sufficiently investigated, lest real cases of child abuse go unpunished.

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting what appears to be a sad case of religious conflict within a family ending with one of the worst possible outcomes. A 17-year-old girl, who, along with her parents, is a native of Sri Lanka, has fled her home in Ohio, and ended up in Florida. She claimed that her father threatened to kill her because she converted from Islam to Christianity.  She is now in a Florida court, which is trying to decide whether or not to return her to her family.

This case raises quite a few interesting legal issues, not the least of which being whether a Florida court even has the jurisdiction to rule on the parental rights of a family in Ohio.

However, it also raises other legal and practical issues: there does not appear to be much evidence supporting this girl’s claims. On the other hand, the allegations are extremely serious. What weight should be given to such allegations? In cases such as this, should there be some sort of sliding scale that decreases the standard of proof as the severity of the harm alleged increases? This may make logical sense, but raises many practical issues, as well.

This girl is 17 years old, meaning she will be 18 in less than a year, at which point she’ll be legally able to sever any relationship she has with her parents. Whatever the merits of her allegations (again, there does not appear to be any concrete evidence supporting them at this point), it is clear that her relationship with her parents is less than perfect. Would anybody’s interests be served if she were forced to return to her family, when she could legally move out in a matter of months? Given what we currently know about the facts of this case (not much, at this point), it seems that, whatever her reasons, she will probably choose to leave her family when she is legally free to do so.

On the other hand, if her testimony lacks any credibility, and she cannot articulate any other reasons that a court should terminate her parents’ custody over her, a court might reasonably conclude that this is simply a case of teenage angst taken to extremes.

If this girl is telling the truth, the sad fact is that her story would not be a new one, though the particular facts are unique. According to LegalMatch case data, the majority of recent cases with issues of child abuse involved alleged abuse by a parent or stepparent. While we don’t know if this girl’s allegations are true, if they do turn out to be true, it wouldn’t be the first nor the last time, unfortunately.

Autism is a bad thing. Most people agree on that. For parents of children with autism, the fact that its causes are not fully understood can add frustration to an already difficult situation.

The highest court in Maryland recently ruled that expert testimony suggesting a link between vaccines and autism cannot be admitted under the relevant legal standard because (1) the witnesses were not qualified to testify as experts on epidemiology, and (2) the principles that the experts relied upon are not widely accepted in the relevant scientific field.

This follows 3 rulings earlier this year by a special federal court set up specifically to handle lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. In all 3 of those cases, the court found that the plaintiffs, even with a very relaxed standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence – essentially requiring only a showing that the evidence favors the plaintiffs by an iota), failed to demonstrate any link between vaccines and autism.

While the causes of autism are not well-understood, multiple studies have ruled out some proposed causes. Most notably, the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence favors a conclusion that vaccines do not, in any way, cause autism. This has not stopped some individuals from repeating claims about the supposed link between vaccines and autism.

While the causes of autism are the subject of ongoing scientific debate, the benefits of vaccines are not: without question, vaccines have benefited the public health more than almost any other medical invention or discovery. Diseases such as measles, mumps, and polio, which once killed thousands of people (mostly children) per year, are now a distant memory for most of the developed world. Smallpox, which ravaged human populations for thousands of years, has been completely eradicated. Because of the smallpox vaccine, and a well-coordinated, worldwide effort, there has not been a confirmed case of smallpox anywhere in the world since 1978.

This can all change, however, even if a relatively small number of parents, no matter how well-intentioned, decide to stop vaccinating their children. Besides the obvious risks to which they’ve exposed their own children, they are endangering other children, as well.

You see, there are a small percentage of children in every population who cannot be vaccinated, either because they are too young, or they have an allergy to the vaccine. They rely on the immunity of those around them to keep them from being infected. This is a principle called “herd immunity” – in short, if a large percentage of individuals in a population are immune to an infectious disease, those few who are not immune also enjoy some measure of protection, because the disease is unlikely to gain a foothold in the population, reducing the risk that susceptible individuals will be exposed to it. As the rate of immunization decreases, the risk to everyone increases.

There are signs, however, that the anti-vaccination movement represents only a vocal minority. According to LegalMatch case statistics, of all the prospective clients seeking redress for injuries caused by defective drugs or medical devices, none of them has recently claimed autism as their injury.

This is a good sign – frivolous lawsuits linking vaccines to autism (like all frivolous lawsuits), devalue legitimate claims. And there are occasions, rare as they may be, when vaccines do cause injuries – the particular batch could have been defectively manufactured, or the doctor could administer it negligently, causing an infection or other injuries. These injuries deserve redress, but the risks of such injuries do not outweigh the benefits of vaccination.

It is no surprise that the economy is having a major impact on family life, and more specifically on divorce-related issues.  Child support has been one of the more unfortunate areas to feel the impact of parental job loss and changes in a parent’s financial stability.  One in four divorced Americans is supposed to receive child support payments every month, according to the U.S. Census Bureau in a study conducted in 2007.  However there is becoming an increasing discrepancy between what is supposed to happen and what is happening as it relates to child support

Within the past 12 months thousands of clients have come to LegalMatch with child support-related issues.  The top concern among the requests: increased payment, decreased payment, and issues relating to enforcement.  Hundreds of these requests specifically involved people unable to pay due to job loss or changes in financial circumstances.

Courts face a tough process when it comes to these child support modification hearings because, in most cases, the money (and the paying job) is no longer there.  In those instances, the judge is looking for a solution to a problem that will probably persist for a while.

The typical recourse for a non-paying parent is garnishment of wages or jail time.  The problem with these two options, especially in such an economically volatile time like this, is that the first is rarely an option and the latter will produce little if any payments and will likely further prolong the lack of payment problem.  These reductions in payments have forced many families to apply for welfare for the first time, risk eviction, and drastically change the circumstances relating to the family’s living situation.

A recent article about Going to Court for Child Support discussed the top 5 tips to help collect child support:

1.) Find out why the support is not being paid.

2.) Don’t delay the problem

3.) Mediate your child support

4.) Move quickly to get to a courtroom

5.) Get additional help

The one solution on either side of the divide is communication and cooperation with the system that is in place to benefit children.