Law Blog

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.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2030, about 20% of the U.S. population will be age 65 or older and by 2050, this aging segment of the U.S. will represent 88.5 Million people versus the 38.7 Million in 2008. (See U.S. Census Bureau) The increasing age of the Baby Boomer population comes with a significant transfer of wealth either through wills, trusts or through state mandated intestacy laws.  And, it raises an issue concerning how prepared Americans are in developing their estate plans, whether their estate is valued in the millions or in the thousands.

Contributing to this significant transfer of assets is an increase in the number of will contests being brought today, particularly as it relates to step-families.  Children of these families are rapidly learning that the second (or third) spouse often has significant if not greater rights than the children; intestacy shares can range from 1/3^rd to as much as ½ of the decedent’s estate when there is no will.  (Before Your Parent’s Say ‘I Do’ Again)

Even when there is a will, sometimes a new spouse will change not only the family dynamics but also the dynamics of the will or family trust.  Most Americans are familiar with Anna Nicole Smith’s short-lived marriage and protracted court battles that continue even after her death. (Daughter to Inherit Mother’s Estate ).  Anna’s litigation, however, is not atypical although most people’s estate assets are significantly less than the Marshall fortune.

In fact, some children are proactively approaching their parents about their estate plans before their parents die.  SmartMoney.com profiles Neil Finkel whose 80+ year-old father placed a large percent of his multi-million dollar estate into a trust for his son.  However, Finkel’s Dad married a woman 30 years his junior. Amy, the new spouse, and Neil subsequently waged a 2-year court battle over the father’s dwindling assets which were being eroded by the spending habits of the new wife.  Although the case was settled, it’s unlikely that the rift in the family will be healed and it could erupt again after Dad Finkel’s death.  (Before Your Parent’s Say ‘I Do’ Again)

During the past five years, tens of thousands of people have used LegalMatch to find an attorney to represent them in filing a lawsuit to contest a will or to defend the estate against a will contest.  Not surprisingly, many of the most popular states for will contests have a high concentration of residents age 65+.  Plus, this top 10 state list comprises over 55% of LegalMatch’s will contest customers: 

Your will or trust will have lasting implications on your heirs after your death, particularly in those families where there are step-children or multiple spouses.  Probate litigation is generally protracted and can tear families asunder.  Developing a proactive estate plan, even if your estate assets are small, should help to reduce family tension after your death.  However your estate plan is crafted, you will be communicating a strong message to your family. The properly drafted will can stand the tests of probate court and ensure that your intent is followed after death.

Within the past 5 years, tens of thousands of clients have come to LegalMatch.com seeking attorneys in sexual harassment matters. According to LegalMatch.com statistics compiled within the last 5 years, the following jobs had the most reported sexual harassment cases: 

Retail: 28%
Manufacturing: 16%
Government: 12%
Transportation: 9%
Professional (law, accounting, architecture, etc.): 9%
Education: 8%
Construction: 8%
High technology: 6%

Approximately 61% of these respondents reported their sexual harassment to their superiors. Federal whistleblower protections are meant to protect these people from retaliation. With these rules in place, why are almost 40% of employees not reporting sexual harassment?

For one, litigating a claim in federal court is intimidating. Federal Whistleblower cases are costly and complicated. The burden of losing a job often outweighs the small consolation of possible redemption years down the road.

Additionally, whistleblower protections may not have applied to a large portion of sexual harassment victims until recently. The recent Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, finally applied federal whistleblower laws to in-house employer investigations. Prior to this ruling, an employee could be retaliated against for answering an employer’s questions about sexual harassment in a private employer investigation. Lower courts stated that such investigations did not come under the ambit of federal protections, creating the absurd situation where employees reporting discrimination on their own initiative were protected, but employees reporting the same discrimination in the same words when their boss asked a question could be fired.

Such an obvious ruling should have come a lot sooner. How many sexual harassment cases flew under the radar while lower courts created and followed this absurd precedent?

A recent case out of Wisconsin has given cheerleaders something more to cheer about. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has ruled that cheerleaders, as participants in a contact sport, are immune from civil liability for accidental injuries caused during cheerleading related activities. The case reversed a lower court’s decision to hold a local cheerleader liable for failing to catch his 16 year old teammate during a routine. She fell backward off her teammate’s shoulders, seriously injuring her head and neck.

The state’s highest court applied a state law shielding participants in “contact sports” from most personal injury lawsuits. The law is well known and common throughout every state. Reckless or intentional injuries are still actionable, such as hitting an opponent in the face with your hockey stick. Injuries resulting from tackling the quarterback or knocking over a forward on a pick and roll, however, won’t end up in court, and for good reason. Almost every sport in the country would probably be buried in an avalanche of lawsuits.

What makes this case interesting is characterizing cheerleading as a “contact sport” under Wisconsin law. The relevant statutory language describes a contact sport as any recreational activity involving physical contact between persons in a sport involving teams. Well, there is at least one “team.” And they definitely come into contact with each other. But a contact sport? The lower court didn’t think so, citing that normal usage of the term meant opposing teams must come into contact with one another.  

In this blogger’s cynical opinion, what motivated this reversal was not an appeal to clear statutory interpretation, but the same pragmatic considerations for immunizing participants that come into play for other sports. In other words: policy. Almost 1/3rd of all catastrophic injuries to high school female athletes in the United States occur during cheerleading. Even though it may not be the biggest draw on ESPN, cheerleading is a popular activity. (Or sport, or whatever you want to call it). Ensuring that cheerleading has an affordable future free of multi-million dollar insurance contracts for participants is certainly an important consideration.

Although a case about cheerleading may not jump out as the most obvious foil for a debate on judicial decision making, this case has all the elements. A statutory interpretation that could go either way, along with policy considerations that are not clear in the statute but undoubtedly under consideration by the judges. Interestingly however, both a textualist and a pragmatist can find common ground with this decision. The law was written ambiguously enough that cheerleading could plausibly be considered a “contact sport” under the law of Wisconsin. And, important policy considerations for ensuring the continued survival of cheerleading are recognized and supported, even though they are not clearly spelled out in the law.

Perhaps we all therefore have something to cheer about?