Law Blog

We often hear that victims of violent crime are more likely to know their attackers than to be the victim of a random act of violence. LegalMatch case data, covering intake reports from all 50 states over the past 12 months, appears to bear this out.

According to our case data, the most common responses prospective clients gave when asked about the identity of their attacker was “someone I know” or “a family member”.

This runs contrary to the image that many members of the public have with respect to violent crime; a crazed stranger jumps out of the bushes, assaults their victim, and runs off. While random acts of violence certainly occur, they are comparatively rare, and it seems that many people spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about them, given how unlikely they are to occur to a given person.

This is not to say that people shouldn’t take common-sense precautions to reduce the risk of violent crime committed by strangers. These include minimizing time spent alone, outside, at night. Other measures, such as traveling in groups, and sticking to well-lit areas, are also advisable. It might also be helpful, if you are comfortable doing so, to carry some kind of non-lethal defensive weapon, such as pepper spray (but be sure to check your local laws on this).

However, what might be overlooked are conditions that could lead to the more likely scenario: violent crime committed by acquaintances or family members of the victim. The ways to minimize these risks are not nearly as simple as the ones discussed above.

There aren’t many clear-cut ways to avoid violent crime by acquaintances, unless you want to become a hermit. Since that isn’t an option for most people, the situation is complicated.

Not being in a position to give relationship advice, this should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems that things such as relationship counseling and getting out of abusive relationships (easier said than done) would be helpful in reducing such incidents. Eliminating violent crime altogether is not possible, but any reduction is a good thing.

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.

The hallmark of any good relationship is communication.  Home is where the heart is.  Of all the things in the world that can go wrong, the one thing that you should always be able to rely on is your family.  You can always trust the ones you love.

All great sentiments, truly, they really are.  They’re clichéd, but nice nonetheless.  Sucks though that they don’t always hold up to the reality of life.  Even though none of this applies to me, as my family and life as a blogger are both perfect.  There’s a reason why half of all marriages end in divorce and why every time most people hear of the prospect of having to endure another annual family reunion at Bennigan’s causes them to hightail it to the corner store to pick up a case of Jack.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure everyone loves their family, in theory.  But there are just so many things that can cause a person to want to break off all ties with them.  Forgetting to pick up groceries, annoying grooming habits, obnoxious personalities, not shutting your bedroom door at night after coming in when you’ve specifically told them that the noise from the outside will keep you up and you have to get up early the next day…

Anyway, not all disputes end with a broken home, most are trivial matters that are usually resolved with a simple conversation or, at most, a jagged bread knife.  However, if I were a betting man (which according to the judge, I’m no longer allowed to be) I’d put my lifesavings on money being the main culprit in tearing families apart.  And in no situation is this truism more apparent then when it comes to wills.

Recent statistics from LegalMatch show approximately a third of all disputes involving wills come from clients asserting claims that they should’ve been a recipient in a person’s will.  Half of the cases involve heirs attempting to protect their interests against another party trying to take their interests away.  The values in these cases vary widely from a few thousand dollars to sometimes a few million dollars.

But what makes these cases difficult to resolve is that in nearly 40 percent of them no formal will was ever written, leaving the family to squabble over their loved one’s estate amongst themselves.  However, even though written wills exist in the majority of these disputes, the same issues still arise.

Sounds pretty grim, huh?  What’s a person to do, especially if you are the one who’s will such a future conflict may be concerning?  The most obvious solution is to try and talk everything out among the people involved.  Whether it’s your will or not, it’s always good to clear things up between those you love.  Because chances are unless your last name is Cleaver, your family probably isn’t perfect and there’s a lot of things that fester because they go unsaid – usually resulting in a beautifully tragic emotional explosion.

The other thing you can do is hire a good estate lawyer to write a tight and clear will.  Though it’s true in this day and age it seems like anyone can sue for anything regardless of how frivolous, a clean unambiguously written document still holds a lot of sway with the courts.  This means a well-written will not only ensures that the person leaving behind his estate gets the security of knowing his last wishes will be carried out to his liking, but that there would be less chance for those looking to modify those wishes to be successful at it.

Either that or you can just do what you want with your money now and leave those money-grubbing descendents weeping.

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.

In the past 12 months LegalMatch.com has received tens of thousands of customers seeking child custody attorneys. I was curious how the majority of these customers were related to the children involved in these custody disputes. After looking into our database, this is what I found:

• 48% were the child’s mother 
• 44% were their father
• 5% were grandparents
• 2% listed themselves as “other”
• Less than 1% were step-parents

Not too much of a surprise there: the vast majority of these people are the child’s parents.

These statistics also closely match a Census data footnote reporting that as of 2007, more than 6% of children were living with their grandparents. Hopefully the courts hearing these child custody cases from grandparents are not unfairly giving them less benefit of the doubt due to preconceptions of what a family is “supposed” to be. The rise in “grandfamilies” and grandparents contesting child custody may be based on the modern realities of single parent households according to the Wall Street Journal.

But wait a minute… are the WSJ’s terribly lit pictures and ominous statistics supposed to indicate that grandparents raising kids is some kind of bad development? (Not necessarily; the point instead seems to be bemoaning the economic hardships facing senior parents.) I would welcome more involvement of grandparents in child rearing. Half of my family is one generation removed from a non-western social model where this kind of family was the norm. The household was mom, dad, their mom and dad, maybe even their mom and dad, and the kids.

In my view it is unfortunate that the American nuclear family is a one generation family.  Will times like this make Americans reevaluate our own social engineering? Probably not, but it can’t hurt to establish a dialogue about it. Although the nuclear family encourages mobility and individualism, (and thus buying more stuff) creating cohesive family units and support structures may be more important now than it has been in a while. I’m not peddling some cryptically hidden “family values” social agenda, but if you’re a young professional or a young newly married couple thinking of making the big move away from mom and dad, give it a second thought. Extended family networks, rather than things like day care and babysitters, could come in handy.