Articles Posted in Uncategorized

The question must be asked as in all move away cases is the reason for the move away a motive separate than other reasons given for the move away request.  Often the move away if fought with anterior motives and seems to be almost always done so based on my experience.  Although parties in the move away process claim, family, jobs, friends are the sole motivating forces generating the move.  But are they?  I truly believe in most case the move away is done to alienate the other parent from their children.  I have not had a case where it did not come up that the moving party was in a very contentious custody dispute and the other party just got up and left the state. Dont tell me this was to find a better job and to go live with mommy and daddy in another state because things were better there.  I dont believe it at all.  This is where I really disagree with most court rulings with move away orders given by superior court judges who always seem to side the with he primary custodian of the children. Although the argument that child needs stability and has bonded with one parent already and the courts do not want to disrupt this stable status quo relationship they in effect has left behind a parent without any connnection to their child so that one parent can go on with their life and leave the other parent helpless and without child. This cannot happen anymore and needs to be addressed seriously by the superior court family law bench of all united states.

In one case in particuar case Bruce v Jennifer an Alaskan superior court case involving Domestic violence and child custody move away issues brings to a forefront the anterior motives of a party while trying to hoodwink the court to get what they want which is full custody of the child and to escape dodge with the kid and tearing the bond from the other parent in half as a result of Courts blessings.

The appellant in the Michigan move away case alleged on appeal that Jennifer had committed domestic violence in a prior relationship which would assist Bruce the father in alleging giving her sole physical custody was not in the best interest of the child. The court stated, in full:Regarding the accusation that [Jennifer] hit her boyfriend, there is no time frame associated with this alleged incident

A Michigan judge has reduced the child custody rights of a woman who was jailed for five days for not following through on an agreement to vaccinate her 9-year-old son. The family law issues are  twofold here.  violation of a court order and whether vaccination of the children is lawful and a parental decision without the  court involvement. Often the right to vaccinate your child can be a decision left to the parents individually.  However, if the court deems the safety of the children are at risk the Judge can step in  and order a vaccination.  The Family court judges top priority is the health safety and welfare of the children. Ultimately, the determination is the best interest standard of review for the family law court judge. So when the Michigan court judge ordered vaccination to be given the child against the mother’s wishes the Judge must have considered the pros and cons about the vaccination and determined that the health of the child outweighed any religious views the mother might have held
Oakland County Judge Karen McDonald ruled Wednesday that Rebecca Bredow will no longer have primary custody of the boy, but will have joint custody with her ex-husband, James Horne. Since the mother violated the Judges court order the judge probably held her in contempt of Court.  As a result the judge can penalize the mother in many different ways.  One of the ways is by taking her custodial  time away.  In this case the famiy law court judge decided  that  it was in the best interest to limit the amount of custodial time the mother  would recieve.
Horne wanted the boy vaccinated and Bredow agreed to do so last November but didn’t. She says vaccinations go against her religious beliefs. Religious beliefs cannot overtake the health safety and welfare of the child’s interest.  The best interest are always at the top of the Judges agenda when making any ruling regarding custody. When determining the best interest of the child the court must assess the health safety and welfare of the child first before looking at other issues that might lead to where the child should reside primarily.

Just days after Harvey Weinstein said his wife, Marchesa fashion designer Georgina Chapman, was standing by him, Chapman now says she has chosen to divorce her husband.

Chapman said in a statement to tabloids, “My heart breaks for all the women who have suffered tremendous pain because of these unforgivable actions. I have chosen to leave my husband. Caring for my young children is my first priority and I ask the media for privacy at this time.” Therefore child custody and visitation will be an issue in Harvey’s case.  However, it will be interesting how the allegations turn out.  Because if the mere lechery of Harvey is all that sticks his visitation rights may not be impaired.  But if rape allegations an forceful sex are proven in court his custodial rights will definitely be limited and a fight will ensue that will be rather difficult for Harvey.  The couple have two young children 7 and 4 which will need a stable environment to thrive.  It is unclear if that can be achieved under these conditions Harvey finds himself in.  A bond has definitely been established and it is still very important for young children’s growth to have frequent contact with both parents.

Weinstein said he supported Chapman’s decision to leave him, in a statement quoted in Page Six. “​I support her decision, I am in counseling and perhaps, when I am better, we can rebuild. Over the last week, there has been a lot of pain for my family that I take responsibility for,” Weinstein said. All these things said are great for public sentiment.

A couple in Canada who decided to divorce after 35 years of marriage had to go to court to settle one of the more important aspects of their separation: Who gets their Edmonton Oilers season tickets? Often during the divorce there are issues regarding the division of property.  Usually the house is the main issue.  In others people have to divide personal property such as jewelry, cars, dogs and cats and other belongings people acquire over there long term marriage.

Often people have to deal with other financial issues such as spousal support and in long term marriages that can be a huge issue.

Beverly and Donald McLeod separated in 2015, with Donald agreeing to pay Beverly $15,000 per month in spousal support. But they needed a court order to decide what to do with the hockey tickets they had shared for the past 11 years.

Tyrese Gibson is now under the microscope of the L.A. County Dept. of Children and Family Services over claims by his ex-wife and baby mama that he spanked his 10-year-old daughter so hard she couldn’t sit. Spanking by itself is not necessarily abuse because some family use spanking as a form of discipline.  However, times have changed and spanking your child repeatedly or too hard can be considered a form of child abuse.  Gone are the old days when a parent could physically punish their child freely and without any consequence to their actions.  Nowadays a spanking can be reported to child protective services.  They will immediately start and investigation into these actions.  The first people that are investigated or interviewed are of course the child.  In Juvenile Court the child has tremendous weight in determining how to proceed with the prosecution of any abuse.  The social workers doing the interview are highly sensitive all the children who are interviewed.  The parents then are interviewed and are secondarily important to the whether charges are filed in juvenile or criminal court.

Tyrese and Norma Gibson are in a court battle … Norma’s trying to get a permanent restraining order prohibiting him from physically disciplining their kid. Norma is trying to seek a domestic violence restraining order which she can get in family law superior court.  This is not the same as a juvenile court order nor is it a criminal restraining order.  It has lessor implications than juvenile court and criminal court.   However, if Norma succeeds in getting a restraining order for her child Tyrese will have to follow it.  Any violation of a restraining order can cause Tyrese to be arrested and charged with a crime, violation of a court order.

She also wants full physical and legal custody. She’s worried Tyrese will take their daughter to Dubai, where he has business ties, and not come back. She also wants Tyrese to take domestic violence courses. Again, filing for fully custody or a modification of the prior custody order will take place out of juvenile court and land the parties in family law court.  Normally the judge will have to decide the case based on the best interest of the child standard. There are many cases where one parent is fearful of the other parent kidnapping the child by leaving the country and not coming back. Often to avoid problems the Court can make a restriction on the travel of the child outside the country. But in more and more case because of the Hague Convention and the international kidnapping laws awareness Court will allow a parent to leave the country.  This happens quite often if a parent wants to visit relatives in foreign countries.

Terrence Howard‘s taking an “L” in his longstanding spousal support war with his ex-wife … who just won in appeals court. This divorce case of Terrence Howard has been going on for years.  This shows how a case in the Family law court system can last as it seems forever.  A case such as Howard’s should make a person involved in a divorce reflect is it really worth it to drag a case out for years to achieve exactly what? To lose money? Im sure Terrence lost thousands paying his family law attorneys and his appellate lawyers to drag a case out for spite and contempt of heart.  Noone wins in cases that drag out over years to fight and fight and win absolutely nothing but lose thousands to the Family Court system.

In Terrence Howard’s case he chose to fight a payment of spousal support to his ex wife.  Often the appellate process can take years because of the nature of the appellate process in the Superior Court system. Often the Trial Court family law judges are permitted what is called broad discretion to handle their family law cases such as spousal support. Since the appellate three judge panel is permitted broad discretion to rule on spousal support matters that makes it difficult for an appellate court to overturn cases that the trial judge ruled on.

According to court docs, Michelle Ghent Howard got a ruling on their spousal support overturned. Two years ago, Terrence convinced the court he’d been forced to sign their marital settlement under duress. He claimed she was threatening to go public with naked photos and videos. Interestingly, Terrence claimed the threat of putting nude photos of himself on the web was enough to coerce him into signing a contract.  Often when once thinks of duress they think of someone facing physical or severe emotional harm. Terrence claims duress was fear of nude photos of himself leaked.  Often the defense to a signing of any contract in the State of California would be duress or coercion.  In addition, if a party claims they did not sign a contract without their consent it could be a plausible defense to signing the contract.

Can A Gay man use the IRS deductions for medical expenses and deduct for his in vitro fertilization procedure and its costs? In a short answer no.  A Homosexual man in Florida attempted to deduct all his costs for housing and caring for a lady who held his baby as a surrogate.  The complicated litigation that followed in the appellate Courts is quite unique and involves heavy use of the IRC.  Mr. Morrissey the sperm donor argued that the IRS had special deductions for him and that all expenses related to the in vitro fertilization process should be deductible.  Mr. Morrisey speant thousands of dollars on the whole process.  He basically took care of the egg donor and the surrogate during the times of the pregnancy.  He claimed that a man cannot house the baby therefore he had to spend all this money and it related the medical care costs. Mr. Morrisey in order to get the tax deduction on the caring for the surrogate argued that he himself suffered through the health care needs during the pregnancy process as he was the sperm donor and therefore was somehow apart of the reproductive process and thus should be permitted a huge deduction from the IRS.

The IRC section 213 states that if Mr. Morriseys body was effected by the in vitro fertilization process he could claim a deduction of the $55,000 he paid to get the process of finding a lady and transferring his sperm to her and the process of her getting the egg to inseminate.

The circuit Court of Florida found Mr. Morriseys argument specious and without real merit because his involvement in the in vitro fertilization process was limited at best.  The Court argued that he was like every other male a donor of sperm and had limited biological contribution to the production of the baby.   The male reproductive position in creating a baby was really a donor sperm and not more than that.  The female had to do a lot more on her end as far as creating the baby.  They had to hold the egg and then pass the egg to the uterous and house the baby for 9 months which the male counterpart did not.  Thust the application of IRC 213 did not apply.

Eighteen Oklahoma social workers embroiled in a civil rights action brought by a group of foster kids took the fight to the 10th Circuit on Tuesday, arguing the judge hearing the lawsuit unfairly denied them the shield of qualified immunity. In Juvenile Dependency matter social workers are the crux of the case.  They determine if neglect has occurred through investigation.  They can obtain orders from the Judge if need be to extricate the children from an abusive home.  Here it is alleged they did not take the children from an abusive home and left them with the foster parents who abused them.

Rachel Matthews and several foster children claim their civil rights were violated by 18 employees of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services who failed to intervene and protect the children from their guardians, Deidre and Jerry Matthews.

Over the course of a decade, the social workers dismissed at least 17 reports of abuse filed against the Matthews household in Jay, Oklahoma, including one report that said, “Deidre Matthews was collecting kids like stray animals.” Meanwhile, the Department of Human Services honored the Matthews with its “adoptive parents of the year” award.

Jesse Williams is opening his wallet wide for his estranged wife, to the tune of $160,000. That means that Williams was earning a significant amount more that Aryn his wife.  Spousal support in California is determined by numerous factors according to the family law code.  It takes into account the length of marriage and the incomes of the parties and there capacity to earn a living.

Jesse’s estranged wife, Aryn Drake-Lee, just filed legal docs which disclose a temporary settlement, in which Jesse agrees to give her $100k for spousal and child support and $60k to cover her lawyer’s fees and other costs.  Attorney fees are dealt with on an as need basis.

He has to pay her in 3 installments from his first 3 “Grey’s Anatomy” paychecks.

ASHLAND, Ky. (CN) – Two lawsuits against Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis – who refused to marry same-sex couples after the historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage – will proceed, but only against Davis in her individual capacity, a federal judge ruled.  That measns that the federal that passed will allow same sex couples the same rights concerning divorce as other not same sex couples.

Davis, clerk of Rowan County, Ky., spent five days in jail in 2015 after she was held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. She claimed her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian prevented her from sanctioning the unions.

In a pair of 21-page rulings issued Friday, U.S. District Court Judge David L. Bunning disagreed with Davis’ assertion that her policy created a “mere inconvenience” to gay couples – whom she said could have traveled to another county to obtain licenses – and refused to dismiss personal-capacity claims against her.