Regent Law Family Restoration

Lawyers Protect Women's Health in Clinic Closing

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Tue, 22 May 2012 20:49:00 +0000

Several lawyers worked for nearly two years to protect women from the poor health care offered at a Birmingham abortion clinic. Nicholas Beckham (Regent 2007) was one of those attorneys whose perseverance has made a tremendous difference for liberty and the protection of women's health.

Women are the heart of families and their restoration, and protection of women's health care is foundational to that fact. See the story below from Life Legal Defense Foundation:

"For almost two years, LLDF attorneys Katie Short and Allison Aranda worked with local Birmingham attorneys Trenton Garmon, Nicholas Beckham and Philip Jauregui to make it possible for pro-life advocates to counsel women with a crisis pregnancy at the New Woman, All Woman (NWAW) abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. Because pro-life advocates were able to remain on the public sidewalk adjacent to NWAW they were also able to observe activities that demonstrated this was an unsafe place for women to seek "medical treatment." The resulting reports by pro-life advocates to the Alabama Department of Public Health resulted in the revocation of NWAW's license and LLDF is delighted to report that the clinic is officially closed.

Life Legal Defense Foundation will continue to communicate with Father Terry Gensemer of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, the Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, Operation Rescue and others to monitor any plans to reopen an abortion clinic at the former location of NWAW. Due to the efforts of the organizations and individuals mentioned above one application for licensure has already been denied. More."

For more information visit http://www.realestateforlife.org/lifelegal.

Michelle Bachmann Addresses Regent Graduates as America's Hope for Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Wed, 09 May 2012 15:29:00 +0000

Saturday's graduation ceremonies at Regent University was highlighted by an inspiring speech by Minnesota Congresswoman and past Presidential Candidate Michelle Bachmann. A member of the last graduating class of the Coburn School of Law—originally housed at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Okla., and moved to Regent Law School—Bachmann is well acquainted with the heritage of the university, holding a Regent University Juris Doctor diploma herself. She conveyed that these graduates are the hope for restoring America.

Recounting the faith history of Virginia, the faith founding of America, all linked with the faith of graduates and the myriad prayers of their family members and friends who supported them in their degree completion, Representative Bachmann weaved a beautiful tapestry of the historical moment in each graduate's life. "My purpose today is to remind you that none of this would have been possible without the generations who have come before you," she said. "Everything you see here is a result of faith and prayer."

"Facebook and Twitter feeds swelled with congratulatory comments and declarations of freedom this weekend as 1,226 Regent University graduates closed one chapter of their lives to begin another at Commencement on Saturday, May 5. More than 5,500 friends and family members attended the event to celebrate as graduates from all eight of the university's schools crossed a sunbaked stage on the Library Plaza at Regent's campus in Virginia Beach, Va." See the full article here.

Restoration is desperately needed, on a personal basis, and a national basis. Bachmann warned of the "urgent, perilous times" the graduates are entering. Bachmann responded to a call to law school, and understands what it means to enter the arena of conflict toward authentic hope, change and restoration.

"Bachmann said the 'eternal truths' she learned in law school guided her career and would guide those of the graduates, too. 'As believers, we cannot shy away from political problems, and we shouldn't. There's a move to tell Christians to get out of politics. Don't listen to it.' It's the spiritual problems she witnessed that caused her to run for president, she said. Bachmann withdrew from the Republican presidential nomination race in January, and she endorsed Mitt Romney on Thursday when they visited Portsmouth. 'In the political world that I have been called to, I certainly cannot escape from the seriousness of the hour we live in,' Bachmann said. 'I do believe these are urgent, perilous times. And I think it's directly tied to the fact that for too long, our nation has neglected a fidelity to the truth of God's word.' Regent graduates have been entrusted with an important role in society, she said: 'We are all called to minister somewhere in some way. You have been called, each one of you'." See the full article here at the Virginian-Pilot.

Representative Bachmann has visited Regent's Family Law classes in the past to discuss family restoration for children who desperately need families. Restoration happens one child at a time finding a family; one person at a time reconciling to peace with God; one marital reconciliation at a time; one family restoration at a time; and one graduate at a time - investing his or her life for hope and restoration for a world in need.

North Carolina Supports Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Wed, 09 May 2012 12:43:00 +0000

North Carolina joined 40 other states in cementing marriage as the basis of society, and the foundation of family law with a vote of 61% in favor of marriage, and 39% voting against the amendment, favoring marriage expansion instead.

This constitutional amendment holds judicial restraint on marriage from any recognition of a marriage-like relationship that does not meet the now-North Carolina definition, and orders that those relationships valid in other jurisdictions not be recognized in the State. See the MSNBC story on the constitutional referendum at
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11584860-backers-of-north-carolina-gay-marriage-ban-state-no-longer-vulnerable. See the New York Times article on it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/north-carolina-voters-pass-same-sex-marriage-ban.html?partner=rss&emc=rss.

I have written on this topic widely, from the collateral effects of marriage expansion, to the importance of marriage to children and States generally, and the effects of marriage on wealth and business. Those articles can be accessed through my scholarship posted on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at http://ssrn.com/author=183817 . This scholarship affords a more in depth analysis of marriage from a family law foundation toward family restoration.

Marriage is now supported by more than 80% of the United States. The move toward marriage expansion and away from the solid foundation of one man and one woman is once again resoundingly declined. If not obvious to the media and legal elite, marriage and its meaning is most obvious to the general public as a foundation for society, the family, and the best chance for the thriving stability of children.

Murder, Money, Mommy's Boyfriend, and the Need for Marriage to Protect Children

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:56:00 +0000

Las Vegas recently commended a new child welfare campaign to confront "[t]he maddening, tragic trend of children being murdered by the abusive boyfriends of their single mothers has the full attention of valley law enforcement, social workers and researchers. On Wednesday, as part of National Child Abuse Prevention Month, a coalition led by UNLV's Nevada Institute for Children's Research and Policy launched the "Choose Your Partner Carefully" campaign. The drive, which already is under way in other communities across the country, attempts to educate parents about qualities in a partner/caregiver that officials say can put a child at risk for abuse." Glenn Cook's article, A New Child Welfare Campaign, can be found at the Las Vegas Review-Journal in its April 4, 2012 edition.

"The state-funded campaign will place posters at bus stop shelters and fliers and brochures at community centers, medical offices, schools, child care providers, domestic violence shelters and government offices." (You can download the posters and literature at the Internet links listed with this column. [pdf])

Cook first wrote about this issue in January 2011 in a column headlined "Single moms, boyfriends and dead kids." He states, "Las Vegas police reviewed child abuse and neglect homicides between 2005 and 2010 for me and found they were most often carried out by the mother's boyfriend, with 11 such cases in those six years in Metro's jurisdiction. I also learned that the FBI's national homicide data list 17 categories for a homicide victim's relationship to the killer, and "mother's boyfriend" isn't one of them. It's a crime in need of deeper examination."

Last week the Nevada Institute for Children's Research and Policy reported that "in almost half of abuse and neglect homicides reported by all Clark County jurisdictions over the past two years, the perpetrator or suspect charged in the crime was the mother's boyfriend."

The "Choose Your Partner Carefully" campaign, however, has an overall message that's good advice to anyone on the dating scene, regardless of whether they have kids. Its literature is long-winded with an occasional lecturing tone, covering not only undesirable personality traits, but infant-care basics and phone numbers to report child abuse. Some of the campaign's targets might not be able to read. Previous successful child welfare campaigns have had far simpler messages that were relevant to far more parents. For example, installing child safety seats in cars; telling parents not to leave their children alone in a vehicle; locking access points to swimming pools and never letting kids swim alone to prevent drownings. Elected officials created laws mandating car seat usage, establishing penalties for leaving a child alone in a car and, in some cases, mandating the installation of alarms and special gates to create protective barriers to swimming pools. ... Phebus noted that agencies involved in the campaign have seen untold numbers of cases in which a child has survived the severe abuse of mom's boyfriend -- cases that don't usually make the news."

This issue of indiscriminate choices in child welfare was taken up by a Regent Law student in a Juvenile Law class this spring. In his article, For Richer, Not Poorer: A Marriage Proposal Through the Welfare System, Justin M. Coretti, J.D. Candidate 2012 presents a solution for states to consider in reducing the harm to children of cohabitation, but he focuses on state economic welfare costs.

Coretti notes, "A 2010 study by the Citizens Budget Commission, an objective and independent leader in “advocating for government reform,” strongly recommended New York State cut $20 billion from its budget in order to help decrease the state’s outstanding $120 billion debt. Andrew Cuomo, New York’s governor, laid out an emergency budget plan which should reduce the $9 billion budget gap during the 2012 fiscal year. Cuomo acknowledged the dire need for the State of New York to modify its budget quickly while refraining from raising the tax rates in one of the highest taxed states in the country; additionally, the brunt of the problem, as Cuomo explained it, is simply that New York spends too much money."

The article examines whether the current state of New York’s welfare laws encourages non-marital births to families on state social assistance, fostering further family fragmentation and generating greater costs to the New York taxpayers. Section I briefly discusses the cost of the welfare program to the State of New York, offering an overview of the rules and regulations of New York’s welfare program. Section II examines how two states, Oklahoma and Florida, have strengthened families through state-wide marriage promotion and preservation programs, including through the use of state assistance programs for those below the poverty level. Then section III presents possible measures which the State of New York could implement to better serve the welfare beneficiaries, their families, and family and financial strength throughout the State of New York.

His article offers solutions for New York State to encourage marriage in fostering family strength, thus providing for the best interests of children in any state social assistance program, protecting the child with marriage that fosters personal responsibility, and protecting the state taxpayer with fiscal responsibility. The complete article can be viewed here.

Family restoration requires protection of children by their parents, and state economic responsibility that fosters that family strength with the stability afforded by marriage. Mommie's boyfriend will have no place or opportunity to harm the children when marriage is encouraged, and cohabitation is not subsidized.

Should Christians stop adoption/foster care if required to work with same sex couples?

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:55:00 +0000

Click here to read the full version of this article from Christianity Today regarding same-sex couples and adoption, featuring Professor Kohm as she urges foster care agencies to fight unconstitutional mandates and uphold what is in the best interest of the child.

Safe and Fair Access? Or Dangerous and Risky Exposure? California's Consideration of Expansion of Abortion Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:16:00 +0000

The California Legislature is currently considering SB 1338, a bill aimed at increasing safe and fair access to abortions for those living in areas without easy access to an abortion clinic. The bill would change the California Health and Safety Code to allow midwives, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to perform aspiration abortions. Currently, California law only allows licensed physicians or surgeons to perform these procedures. Christine Kehoe a Democrat Representative from San Diego has said that the purpose of the bill is to "solve a pressing health access problem by helping women in need to obtain safe, early abortion care services... The longer women are forced to wait, the more complicated the procedure can become." The bill would allow an estimated 24,000 nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants currently in the state to legally provide nonsurgical first-trimester abortions in outpatient clinics and a doctor's office. The bill does require that they would have to complete a specialized training program in order to be allowed to perform the procedures. Read the ACLU reporting on this bill here at http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/sb_1338--now_more_than_ever_california_moves_to_expand_reproductive_health_care.shtml.

Representative Kehoe points out the purpose of the bill is to help women obtain safe abortion services; decreasing the standards as to who can perform these abortions, however, does not ensure safety for California women. There are several potential complications during a first trimester abortion, including uterine perforation, hemorrhaging, failed or incomplete abortion, and cervical injury. California is one of the least restrictive states when it comes to abortion regulations. The text of Kehoe's legislative proposal to expand abortion providers can be found at http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SB_1338/20112012/.

While this bill is being supported and applauded by Planned Parenthood and NARAL as expanding safe access for women (see some of their promotional material at https://secure3.convio.net/ppac/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=183), the reality is it would put women’s lives in jeopardy. In particular, it would put poor and minority women in targeted danger because the bill is focused on those women who do not have easy access to a physician who can perform an abortion. This profiling is inappropriate for women's health care. What does it say about California's commitment to protecting the poor and minorities if the "solution" to their alleged lack of easy access to abortion services is to allow them to have services from less qualified non-doctors with little regard to their safety? If California really wants to protect its women it would offer help to women in a vulnerable position by offering more safe and healthy options like adoption and counseling instead of offering a quick and dangerous way to terminate a pregnancy. If expanding access to healthcare for women is the goal, the solution for lack of access should not be lowering standards for their care.

When abortion was first legalized and recognized as a fundamental right forty years ago with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade and subsequent reaffirming that right in Planned Parenthood v. Casey one of the most influential arguments then was that legalized abortion was necessary to keep women safe from the horrific and dangerous back alley abortions that placed women's lives in jeopardy. This proposed bill seems to completely ignore that argument; instead of logically determining that to keep women safe it is necessary to have trained and qualified physicians performing these procedures, a supposed high standard, California's lawmakers are rather claiming that, in the name of increasing access to abortion, California should decrease these standards and essentially allow for non-doctors to perform the abortion. This kind of legislation is a very real attack on the safety and welfare of women.

At a time when many states are introducing legislation to protect women by regulating those who can perform an abortion and the necessary procedures and counseling requirements before obtaining an abortion, California is looking to move in the opposite direction. Instead of protecting women, California appears willing to place them in increasingly dangerous situations with huge potential risks to their health.

An approach that ensures a woman’s total safety would require physicians or surgeons to do the procedure as the best way to protect a woman's health. If an abortion procedure is necessary, it should be safer, in line with the goals of legalizing abortion originally. These types of legislative proposals lead the general public to inquire whether legal abortion is really safe at all.

Furthermore, while abortion is legal the California Legislature would be wise to consider the total consequences of an abortion to a woman, such as the psychological and emotional effects after an abortion which can be traumatic. A legislative proposal to make post-abortion counseling easy and accessible would be more in line with standards designed to protect women's health. A bill that required abortion facilities to provide counseling to women, along with options including adoption before an abortion is performed would keep a woman's health care as paramount. These approaches would serve to protect vulnerable women and promote family restoration.

Thanks to guest bloggers and California residents Alana Martinez, Regent J.D. Candidate 2012, and Rachel Toberty, Regent J.D. Candidate 2013, for this thoughtful and provocative blog post.

Defense of Marriage Challenges

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:29:00 +0000

Marriage is being vigorously challenged on the federal level, not simply based on California legislation, but the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is under federal litigation challenges right now from several angles.

"The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, is being challenged in two cases before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The law also prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

In arguments to the court, Paul Clement, a lawyer for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, defended the law, saying Congress had a rational basis for passing the law known as DOMA in 1996, when it appeared Hawaii would become the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages [based on full faith and credit requirements of the United State Constitution]. Clement said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage. He also argued that Congress has the power to define the terms used in federal statutes to distribute federal benefits."

Read the entire article at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcTcwv3FBPVifLVYzqAIPbEBIbwA?docId=8bb7de4d33014c328db31c420058d8cf. Federal rulings on marriage law prevail over state laws under the supremacy doctrine, but states generally have authority to determine their own domestic relations law being on the most local level to families. This is why DOMA has worked well, despite previous challenges, allowing each state to order its own marriage law without federal intervention.

Another lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York considers whether a foreign-born partner may obtain immigration rights and a pathway to citizenship in a same sex union with a U.S. citizen. The lawsuit alleges that under DOMA, the federal government will not grant the foreign-born partner the same path to citizenship that a heterosexual foreign national would receive, amounting to unconstitutional discrimination. The petition of Blesch v. Holder states:

In each couple [in the lawsuit], one spouse is an American citizen and the other spouse a foreign national. If they were different-sex couples, the federal government would recognize the American spouse to petition for an immigrant visa for the foreign spouse and place the foreign spouse on the path to lawful permanent residence and citizenship. Solely because of DOMA and its unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples, however, these Plaintiffs are being denied the immigration rights afforded to other similarly situated bi-national couples.

It is unclear when this case will be heard. Read the entire article from the Jurist here at
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/04/bi-national-same-sex-couples-file-suit-against-doma.php.

DOMA has been a subject of great controversy recently. Last week, the Jurist reported that the Obama administration sought expedited review from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for two test cases challenging DOMA's constitutionality. In February, the Jurist reported that a group of US lawmakers planned to appeal the trial court ruling that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex couples. In November, the Senate Judiciary Committee reportedly voted to repeal DOMA, marking the first time a Congressional group has voted to repeal the law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Another Congressional group seeks to defend DOMA.

Veterans Affairs has been a targeted context for marriage as well. In October, a disabled Navy veteran filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for denying her partner a share of her disability benefits under DOMA. The Department of Veterans Affairs allegedly told the veteran she could not receive benefits because her spouse was a woman, presenting a defect in the legal marriage of the two women.

You can read the en banc petition made by the Obama Administration submitted in the Ninth Circuit here, arguing that DOMA's legislative history reveals that its provision recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman "was motivated in part by animus towards gay and lesbian people."

Marriage is under serious attack from several angles on the federal level, and how these challenges play out will have an effect on the meaning and definition of marriage not only for the nation, but for every state's domestic relations law as well.

Hoarders Hinder Their Own Family Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:11:00 +0000

Hoarding can be a problem faced by numerous individuals, many of them elderly, and has been highlighted by reality television shows recently. Julie Maxey, J.D. 2012 Candidate and Associate Member of the Regent Alternative Dispute Resolution Board plans to practice law in Texas and has written an excellent article dealing with this problem of hoarding. She writes:

"With the elderly population in Texas growing rapidly as Baby Boomers age, the risk of elder abuse also grows. Elder abuse encases multiple types of abuse including physical and mental abuse, fraud and financial exploitation, neglect, and self-neglect. For many years, self-neglect was not considered a form of elder abuse because of the unique character of the abuse. With self-neglect, the elderly person is not only the victim but also the abuser. Because there is not another party involved in the abuse in self-neglect it was rejected as a form of elder abuse for years. In the last couple of decades, the issue of elder self-neglect has gained more attention as a legitimate form of elder abuse across the United States."

Hoarding is a recognized form of self-neglect, and really harms individuals, often isolating them from their families. A&E's Hoarders, as well as TLC's Hoarding: Buried Alive, are television shows that have begun to expose the extreme issue of hoarding. Several of the hoarders featured on these television shows are elderly - an indicator that something must be done to address this problem of elder self-neglect that is plaguing America's growing elderly population.

Julie's article examines whether Texas State Law regarding elderly self-neglect is sufficient when there will be an explosion of the elderly population in the next several years likely yielding a statistical rise in elder self-neglect. Section I discusses the background of the issue of elderly self-neglect. Section II will examine the procedure that is in place now to address the issue of elder self-neglect. Section III analyzes the statutes, procedures, and statistics dealing with elderly self-neglect in the state of Texas. Section IV then presents possible solutions and remedies to this growing problem. Read the entire article here.

Families may need assistance to know how to help their elderly family member from self neglect brought on by hoarding. The law can be a part of that restoration by protection elders from self abuse.

Day of Dialogue Prepares Teens for Sensitive Advocacy

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:13:00 +0000

Christian parents generally want kids to live a life modeled after Jesus Christ. He never held back from pouring out His love for hurting people, while simultaneously sharing life truths. That can happen today, on the Day of Dialogue.

Bullying, homosexuality and identity have become hot topics these days—not only in public schools, but also in the culture at large. So how's a Christian teen to respond? First Timothy 4:12 says, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." To equip teens to live out that principle, Focus on the Family annually sponsors a national event—Day of Dialogue®—that enables students to express their Biblical viewpoint in a loving and redemptive way.

The Day of Dialogue—happening today April 19, 2012—challenges students to reflect the true model presented by Jesus Christ in the Bible—who didn't back away from speaking truth, but neither held back in pouring out His incredible, compassionate love for hurting and vulnerable people. On the website, students will find several helpful resources, including "Conversation Cards" and poster and t-shirt designs to help raise awareness.

Parents and teens together can make a world of difference.

"Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary use words." Saint Francis of Assisi

The Empty Throne at Canterbury: Questions of Succession, Marriage and the Family at Stake

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:50:00 +0000

Thanks to Paul Morin, Regent J.D. Candidate 2013, and current Family Law student, for this excellent blog post.

The Most Reverend Dr. Rowan Douglas Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and senior bishop of the worldwide Anglican Communion, recently announced his intention to resign from high ecclesiastical office in favor of accepting a position as Master of Magdalene College at Cambridge University, a role he is anticipated to assume sometime in January of 2013. Archbishop Williams' resignation comes at a critical time for both the Anglican Communion and the United Kingdom.

Plagued by ongoing ecumenical discord – not the least of which was triggered in 2003 by the ordination of The Right Reverend Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay and non-celibate Episcopal bishop – the worldwide Anglican Communion has struggled to maintain its identity during the past decade as localized schisms and overarching diocese-based realignments have called into question, inter alia, the Communion's position on homosexuality and marriage. Likewise, the issue of marriage expansionism has come to a head in the United Kingdom; the government recently "launched a 12-week consultation on allowing gay couples in England and Wales to marry," and Prime Minister David Cameron, a member of the UK Conservative Party and leader of the now governing Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition, openly voices support for expanding marriage to encompass same-sex couples.

While questions linger as to who will next ascend the archbishop's throne at Canterbury, the fate of marriage as practiced in both the Anglican Communion and the United Kingdom remains uncertain. Will the next Archbishop of Canterbury protect and defend marriage? Can a candidate be found who will promise to maintain the sound principles of Anglican orthodoxy and orthopraxy with respect to the family? Might a champion come forth who will openly encourage the governing UK Coalition to preserve the essence of marriage from destructive expansionism? In fact, it would appear that one such candidate has emerged! His name: The Most Reverend and Right Honorable Dr. John Tucker Mugabi Sentamu, Archbishop of York.

Archbishop Sentamu, a lawyer, judge and priest, celebrated as the UK's first black archbishop, was elevated to his present post in 2005. Since his appointment as Archbishop of York, Sentamu has served the Church of England as its second most senior clergyman, and now, he stands as the favored successor to the throne at Canterbury.

The sixth of thirteen children, Archbishop Sentamu was born into Uganda's Buffalo clan in 1949. Following his legal education at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, Sentamu became "an Advocate of the High Court of Uganda", going on to practice law "both at the Bar and at the Bench." Incidentally, it was during Sentamu's tenure as a Ugandan judge that the "murderous regime" of dictator Idi Amin came to power. Sentamu is credited with having "stood up to the dictator in small matters and large." In fact, while Sentamu was presiding over the criminal trial of a man related to Idi Amin, it is said that the dictator "himself rang the court and ordered Sentamu not to convict." Sentamu refused to comply: "I'm sorry, your [E]xcellency, the facts are very clear. We cannot manufacture evidence." Shortly thereafter, Sentamu "was arrested, beaten, kicked (causing injuries that stayed with him for years) and, from his cell, heard people being tortured to death. He believed he was next in line when the chief justice intervened." Following months of house arrest, friends of Sentamu organized enough funds to provide a scholarship for him to read theology at Cambridge University’s Selwyn College, the same academic institute where Sentamu would eventually earn a Masters Degree and a Doctorate. Sentamu and his wife left Uganda "with what they could carry" and traveled to the UK in 1974. It was Sentamu's hope to return to Uganda, but, "when that became clearly impossible, he took holy orders, worked as a college and prison chaplain, a curate, and then [as] a parish priest in south London." (A full and detailed account of Archbishop Sentamu's biography concerning his life and achievements in the UK, detailing his eventual rise to the position of Archbishop of York, can be found here).

Married with two grown children of his own, Archbishop Sentamu looks to marriage as a "clear social structure that has been in existence for a very long time," one that cannot be redefined at the mere whim of the State because "it is not the role of the State to define what marriage is." According to Sentamu, marriage is "a relationship between a man and a woman" and, although having supported the UK's sanctioning of "civil partnerships" in the House of Lords, he denies that the government has the power to include civil partnerships within the definition of marriage. Sentamu explains: "If you genuinely would like the registration of civil partnerships to happen in a more general way, most people will say they can see the drift. But if you begin to call those 'marriage,' you're trying to change the English language." (For a short video of Archbishop Sentamu’s comments on marriage and for more quotes, visit this page).

Yet, notwithstanding his views on marriage, Archbishop Sentamu has stressed that one should not confuse anti-marriage expansionist efforts with the condemning and persecution of homosexuals. By holding to a traditional definition of marriage,“[t]hat does not mean you diminish, condemn, criticise [sic], patronise [sic] any same-sex relationships because that is not what the debate is about.” Indeed, in 2009, Sentamu condemned (from afar) the introduction of a Ugandan law that proposed to punish homosexual behavior with life imprisonment, calling the bill "victimizing." As reported by the BBC, Sentamu asserted that "the Anglican [C]ommunion [is] committed to recognizing that gay people [are] valued by God." As such, the proposed Ugandan law seemed to be "a diminishment of the individuals concerned." Thus, for Sentamu, while marriage expansionism must be resisted, such resistance should not be viewed (or wielded) as a weapon whereby the inherent ontological dignity of those who support marriage expansionism is sacrificed or demeaned.

Archbishop Sentamu's views on family and the importance of inter-family relationships came to the forefront in 2007 during his address to the House of Lords concerning a proposed "Human Fertilisation [sic] and Embryology Bill." Sentamu critiqued various provisions of the proposed legislation on the basis that, taken as a whole, it "[c]reate[s] a false dichotomy which seeks to place 'the welfare and needs of the child' against a child's need for a father." Attacking what he perceived to be "an unhealthy seam of rampant individualism," Sentamu warned against government action that would, in effect, give way to "a right[s]-based mentality" which looked to a "presumed . . . right for people to have a child 'by any means necessary'," thereby taking "precedence over the welfare of the child."

Unsatisfied with the all-but disingenuous touting of parental rights that served as a thin-veneer for the legislation's consumerist motives, Archbishop Sentamu mused that the "competing individualist arias of 'I, I, I' and 'me, me, me' provide the mood music for an individualism that posits the right of a wannabe parent over the welfare of a child." However, the greatest threat raised by the legislation, as perceived by Archbishop Sentamu, had to do with its perverse incentive against the family structure: "There is all the difference in the world between a child who finds himself in a single parent family through bereavement or breakdown of parental relationship, and those who find themselves in this situation by design. And this is precisely what the Government proposes in this bill: the removal, by design, of the father of the child."

While there is no way to know for sure whether Archbishop Sentamu will be the next clergyman to occupy the archbishop’s throne at Canterbury, his ardent support for marriage and his dedication to sound family principles make him one of the more appealing candidates. However, the fate of marriage within the Anglican Communion and the United Kingdom remains to be seen; there can be no denying that Archbishop Sentamu's ascension may only serve to galvanize the tensions already at play in these religious and cultural struggles. And yet, the mere possibility that a true, unabashed champion of marriage might actually become the symbolic leader and unifying head of over 80 million people across the world is not only encouraging news, but sufficient impetus to dare to hope that we may soon find ourselves at the turning of a great cultural tide toward family restoration in the Anglican church.

The War on Women is a War on Family

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:18:00 +0000

When Ann Romney became the target of Democratic Strategist Hilary Rosen for "not working a day in her life" the war on women began in earnest, sparking a firestorm on not only women, but their families as well. See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/12/democrat-defends-ann-romney-comments-amid-firestorm/?hpt=hp_t2.

As a key voting block, women are imporant to the upcoming November 2012 Presidential election, and political strategists generally know that. See http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html?hpt=hp_t2. Now an apology has been issued by Rosen, understanding the potentially deep divide those remarks have created. See http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html?npt=NP1.

Ann Romney represents women who have placed a high value on parenting and family. To be derided for that is to target the entire institution of the family. See remarks about this on CBN Newswatch on Thursday, April 12:

The real "war on women" is a war on marriage, family, parenting priorities, and gender equality in the context of a struggling economy and a divisive political landscape. Women's voices in November could make all the difference to the future of America, and to the future of family strength.

Unintended Consequences of Unmarried Cohabitation

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:01:00 +0000

According to statistics put together by the Alternatives to Marriage Project, there are 12 million unmarried partners in the United States, creating a little over 6 million unmarried "households." This number has increased over time with cohabitating partners increasing in number by 88% from 1990-2007. While a little over half of those in cohabitation relationships marry within 5 years, the other half either breaks up or continues to live together without marrying (about 10% continue to live together without marrying). While supporters of Alternatives to Marriage tout these as encouraging numbers, such an arrangement produces significant legal issues when unmarried cohabitants decide to split up. (http://www.unmarried.org/statistics.html#living-together).

Unlike a marital relationship, under law, there is no "cohabitation property," like there is marital property in a marriage. Therefore, the usual remedies of splitting property through either community or equitable division are not applicable.

In Tennessee, a recent trend has emerged that has attempted to merge ideas of implied partnerships in business law and connect them to cohabitation relationships in order to divide property. The three keystone cases on point are Story v. Lanier, 166 S.W.3d 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Montgomery v. Montgomery, 181 S.W.3d 720, 724 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); Via v. Oehlert, 347 S.W.3d 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010), appeal denied (Apr. 12, 2011).

The first important case is Montgomery v. Montgomery. This case was so contested and massive the appeals court took time to list that, "The pleadings in the record comprise five volumes and 745 pages. It took several days to complete the trial and the transcript alone is over 1200 pages, excluding the 341 exhibits marked for identification of which 124 were admitted at trial." Furthermore, the case was first filed in May of 1999, and was not finally resolved until March of 2005.

In the Montgomery case, the couple had lived together for 29 years, starting in 1969 and had a child in 1970. During the course of their cohabitation, the couple amassed a large amount of wealth and owned several businesses, including a masonry business, an insurance business, a marina, a mini-mall, an apartment complex known as Eastland Apartments, and two Nautilus gyms.

Because there was no marriage or a written agreement forming a partnership, the court applied the law concerning an implied partnership under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act. Because the couple was unmarried, the court did not consider things like retirement benefits, homemaking contributions, or other matters that emanated from the domestic relationship. If the couple had been married, then these considerations would come into play, but the court focused solely on the business relationship aspect of the couple. Once it reached this area, the court analyzed the case strictly as a business relationship. The court specifically went out of its way to say that statutes that normally apply to the dividing of marital property do not apply to these cases. Further, the court refused to use any law within the domestic relations statutes (Title 36) because they did not apply to these cases.

The Via case is about an unmarried couple with a dispute over who owned a house the two had lived in. The house was titled in the defendant’s, Oehlert, name. After Oehlert and Via rekindled their relationship, Via sold her mobile home and moved in with Oehlert. Via lived with Oehlert for about 5-6 years. During that period of time the two of them improved the property and Via estimated she put $20,000 in improvements into the property while living there. During one period, while Oehlert worked overseas, Oehlert paid the house payments and Via lived in the house and paid utility bills. After breaking up, Via continued to live in the house while Oehlert moved out. While living there Via received an offer to sell the house for $100,000-$125,000, but Oehlert refused to sell.

Because the couple had not married, the court relied upon the laws of partnership. The court evaluated the couple on the basis of a joint venture. Further, because there wasn't any writing to create the partnership, as would likely exist in a normal partnership, the court looked at the couple as a possible implied joint venture (the burden of proof for doing this is through clear and convincing evidence). The court ruled against Via because previous cases had been able to use a joint business between the two couples as evidence of a joint venture. It refused to grant an implied joint venture in this case because "to hold that the parties entered into a joint venture for profit solely because they lived together and jointly contributed to the appreciation of real property would pull the theory of implied partnership/joint venture too far from its moorings."

Prior to these two cases, the court in Story v. Lanier imposed a constructive trust on an unmarried couple to avoid "unjust enrichment" by one of the parties over the other. Courts, at least in Tennessee, try to accomplish equity in unmarried break ups, but that is not always possible, or required, as it is in marriage.

Any couple considering cohabitation, however, should be wary of entering into such a relationship. Cohabitation may provide an "alternative to marriage" but it provides none of the legal protection that marriage provides. In a marriage, a homemaker receives equal legal standing as the main breadwinner and even has the option of spousal support after a divorce. In a cohabitation setting, none of these protections would be awarded, and property is not necessarily deemed joint between the parties. Courts seem highly unwilling to stretch partnership law to protect cohabitating couples. Couples that decide to enter into a cohabitation relationship do so at their own peril as they receive little to no protection under law.

Thanks to guest blogger Daniel Vaughan, Regent J.D. Candidate 2013, and current Family Law student for this provocative piece on the implications of cohabitation for family restoration.

Adoption is a Key to Family Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:45:00 +0000

Regent Students for Life recently hosted an event focused on International Adoption. The purpose of the event was to highlight the Christian mission underlying adoption, as well as to underscore some of the legal difficulties that have developed in this field. The speakers emphasized the importance of the fact that we have all been adopted into Christ. As such, God calls us to the orphan to provide a family in a similar fashion. Staggeringly enough, if every church focused on just one orphan, the worldwide orphan crisis would cease. Unfortunately, some real-world difficulties arise in fulfilling this mission.

In the past few years, the number of international adoptions has dropped dramatically. The speakers suggested that this drop is due in part to difficulties associated with a treaty referred to as the Hague Convention for Adoption. The purpose of the agreement is to create greater transparency in international adoptions to safeguard against hazards like child trafficking or improper family placements. Countries who sign the Convention must have a central authority that acts as a point of contact for all international adoptions and must meet specific legal standards. Every aspect of the agreement was drafted to serve the best interest of the child. The United States signed the Convention in 1994 and gave it full effect in 2008.

Unfortunately, some countries that have signed the Hague Convention with the intention of protecting their children have had difficulty meeting the stringent standards. For example, since the United States has given full effect to the Convention in 2008, it has had to cut off all adoptions with Guatemala. Guatemala has signed the Convention but has had difficulty establishing a central authority of contact, as well as problems implementing some of the other requirements for a Hague country. Residents of the United States can still adopt from non-Hague countries, but once a country has signed on to the treaty, it must meet the full standards or else adoptions will not be possible. In some ways, it is contradictory that countries that are trying to protect the best interests of their children but are unable to meet all of the rigorous standards are given lower adoption preference to countries who have not adopted this Convention at all. Although the Hague Convention is a wonderful step toward ending the horrors like child trafficking that can arise from international adoptions, it seems like there are still some improvements that need to be made to accomplish authentic family restoration for all adopted children.

This excellent informative blog post was authored by Amy Pyecha, Regent Law 2012 J.D. Candidate.

Religious Liberty, Family, & Authentic Promises

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 06:07:00 +0000

A Lawyer Priest, Fr. Sammie L. Maletta, Jr. is pastor of Saint John the Evangelist R.C. Parish, Saint John, Indiana. Passionate about his love for the Lord Jesus, Fr. Maletta has felt betrayal by current government administrators in their promises of protected faith and conscience concerns.

Religious liberty is eroded by government health care requirements on reproductive services that terminate life. Below is a sermon that Fr. Maletta preached on February 5, 2012 that tackles this very real problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltTd81XpDnc.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews [Catholics], but I was not a Jew [Catholic] so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

More than two thousand years ago, Jesus proclaimed victory over the grave to give eternal life for all who believe in him. In John 5:24 he promises that "Whoever hears My Word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

It is finished.

How the Louisiana Code Protects the Best Interests of In Vitro Fertilized Human Ovum

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:30:00 +0000

Family Law students at Regent University School of Law research state codes on myriad topics, among which is current statutes on assisted reproductive technology. The Louisiana Code Section entitled "Human Embryos" codified in part at LSA-R.S. 9:131 requires that all outcomes for embryos be resolved in their "best interests."

The Tennessee case of Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 590 n.1 (Tenn. 1992) cites to this Louisiana code to determine the most appropriate outcome for the fate of seven frozen embryos of a divorcing couple. ("At the time of trial, only one state had enacted pertinent legislation. A Louisiana statute entitled 'Human Embryos,' among other things, forbids the intentional destruction of a cryopreserved IVF embryo and declares that disputes between parties should be resolved in the “best interest” of the embryo. 1986 La.Acts R.S. 9:121 et seq. Under the Louisiana statute, unwanted embryos must be made available for 'adoptive implantation.'")

Louisiana, through these statutory provisions, affords an incredible amount of legal power to, and protection over, the in vitro fertilized human ovum. Additional sections of that state's code protect embryos:

LSA-R.S. 9:123 ("An in vitro fertilized human ovum exists as a juridical person . . . .").

LSA-R.S. 9:124 ("As a juridical person, the in vitro fertilized human ovum shall be given an identification by the medical facility for use within the medical facility which entitles such ovum to sue or be sued. The confidentiality of the in vitro fertilization patient shall be maintained.").

LSA-R.S. 9:126 ("A court in the parish where the in vitro fertilized ovum is located may appoint a curator, upon motion of the in vitro fertilization patients, their heirs, or physicians who caused in vitro fertilization to be performed, to protect the in vitro fertilized human ovum's rights.").

LSA-R.S. 9:131 ("In disputes arising between any parties regarding the in vitro fertilized ovum, the judicial standard for resolving such disputes is to be in the best interest of the in vitro fertilized ovum.").

What Louisiana has done through these statutes is significant because it shows that states can enforce greater legal protection for the in vitro fertilized human ovum than can be afforded for the gestating unborn child under the landmark Supreme Court cases on abortion, Roe and Casey. This is cruelly ironic, because the ability to afford varying levels of legal protection for the unborn child (from in vitro fertilized human ovums to viable gestating unborn children) is grossly disproportionate to biological development. In effect, greater protection can be afforded for the in vitro fertilized human ovum than can be afforded to the gestating human child (at least prior to "viability").

Louisiana has further moved to foster "embryo adoption."

When states move to statutorily protect human embryos, they do so in the best interests of the child, the legal standard which protects all children, a major key to family restoration. Irony in that application, however, is only available in an abortion context. Louisiana sets the example for how states can legally protect children's best interests from fertilization.

Thanks to current Family Law student Paul Morin, Regent J.D. Candidate 2013 for this excellent post.

Health Care Fix for Families

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:27:00 +0000

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was the focus of Supreme Court Arguments last week. Whether such a federal law can require health insurance participation of all Americans was a large focus. Recognizing this and other concerns, Garrett Stevenson, Candidate for Juris Doctor, 2012, and Staff Editor, Regent University Law Review has written a piece for Elder Law about PPACA and how to fix it.

His article examines whether a federal law allowing individuals to purchase health
Americans by giving more choice of coverage and lower costs. Section I discusses the history of health care in the United States, including the policies that have led to higher costs for some individuals and proposed state legislation to counteract this trend. Section II examines and analyzes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) as it relates to where individuals may purchase health insurance, and a statistical analysis of the legislation. Section III then presents and examines the alternative option of amending PPACA to allow individuals to purchase health insurance premiums from any state they choose and why opponents’ fears of allowing this freedom are unfounded.

Amending the federal law by allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines would decrease the number of uninsured Americans, lower costs for both individuals and the federal government, and create more efficiency for families generally by providing the right amount of health insurance to meet each individual’s needs. Read the entire article here.

Vaccines, Parent's Rights and HPV

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:04:00 +0000

When Lisa Kneen's son Caleb was five, his father took him to the emergency room at Spruce Pine Hospital to be treated for an injury he received while riding his bicycle. After he and his father returned to their home in Bakersville, N.C., a lady from the Department of Social Services knocked on their door. Something about the visit did not feel right to Kneen. "I didn’t want to let her in," Kneen said, "but she said she had the right." So she let her in.

A nurse at the ER had noticed that Caleb had not received all of his shots and notified social services.

The Kneen family is one of many families across the United States who opt their children out from getting certain shots like the measles-mumps-rubella-vaccine, or the human papilloma virus [HPV] vaccine. Some families reject vaccinations for health concerns, others have religious reasons.

Currently, families in Virginia who share similar views with that of the Kneen family are forced to go through a lengthy process to opt their children out of receiving the HPV vaccine. Virginia law requires girls to receive the HPV vaccine before the sixth grade to prevent cervical cancer. House Bill 1121, recently introduced by Delegate Kathy J. Byron to the Virginia General Assembly, would have repealed the mandatory HPV vaccine in Virginia. However, CBS reports that it was tabled yesterday until next year’s General Assembly Session by the Senate.

Mandatory vaccinations are a controversial issue, especially among state legislatures. The National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL] reports that since 2007, Washington, D.C. and at least 41 states have proposed legislation regarding the HPV vaccine. Some legislation required mandatory school vaccinations. However, the NCSL also reports that as of 2011, 20 states have some type of philosophical exemption law that allows people to opt-out.

That philosophical exemption law, or an opt-out of the mandatory vaccination, is often used when families are skeptical of the ingredients and preservatives in vaccines and when they believe there might be a possible connection between vaccines and autism.

Donna Clearman, an independent dietary consultant from Anoka, Minn., said that she does have some health concerns about vaccinations for young infants. "Infants who are breast-fed have an automatic immunity conferred to them through the breast milk and are not in need of vaccinations for at least six months," she said. "The additives and preservatives in vaccination are foreign substances that stress the infant’s immature system."

Clearman believes that individuals should have the right to decide what is best for themselves and their children. "I think breast-fed infants of healthy mothers should be exempt from vaccinations," she said.

Vicki Goodwin, a home-schooling mother from Flagstaff, Arizona, also has concerns about vaccinating her children. After her oldest daughter Kristin had an adverse skin reaction and started screaming upon getting her second polio vaccination, Goodwin did not continue with the other vaccinations. "After this, I decided I wasn’t going to do this again," she said. "I didn’t know how it would affect my future children."

Instead, Goodwin began to research other options and used homeopathic medicines to attempt to build up her daughters’ immune systems. Vaccination ingredients like mercury also caused Goodwin to question its use. She does not believe the government should mandate vaccines. "I think it should be a parental choice," she said. "It should be a family matter."

Many families have concerns about vaccines, but previous concerns about a connection with autism may not be accurate, according to an article published in the Science Insider. Recent consensus in the scientific community shows that there may not be a connection between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism.

Gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, formerly working at a hospital in the United Kingdom, published an article in 2008 linking the vaccine with autism and bowel disease. However, in 2012, the British General Medical Council convicted Wakefield of four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts of endangering children.

Dr. Kim Vore, a Family Practitioner from Washington, Pa., said there is a lot of misinformation about the risk of vaccine. "Vaccines have reduced the number of incidents of disease," she said. "There’s a decrease in the number of people dying and serious side effects…a lot of people are not aware about improved vaccines."

Vore thinks that if there is a public health menace, then some vaccines should be mandatory. However, there should be exceptions if someone had a previous allergic reaction to certain components within the vaccine.

Vore does have some concern about the state passing the laws that would mandate vaccines. Because the vaccines are constantly being looked at, she said, there needs to be some flexibility if science says the vaccine is no longer necessary. "Laws are not always flexible," she said.

Dr. Alan Morrison, an infectious disease physician leader at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Virginia, said that there is a stronger chance that infants are developing autism because women are having babies later on life, rather than getting it from vaccines. "Biology is not as forgiving," he said.

Morrison said there are no vaccines that have zero risk, but incidences of complications are extremely rare. He said in metropolitan areas, where there are some cases of unusual infectious diseases when foreign born residents come to live or visit, the "Instances are great reminders why we’re doing what we’re doing."

Health concerns about vaccines are prevalent among parents who opt-out of the mandatory vaccines, but they have other concerns as well. Professor Lynne Marie Kohm, Professor of Family Law at Regent University said, "Some vaccines are clearly wise and wanted by parents, such as those that have protected children from life-threatening contagious diseases."

She said, however, that when those requests become mandates that assume "self-destructive behavior like drug use and child sexual activity…the government is presuming that parents are no longer wise enough to provide for their children’s best interest."

"My position has always been that this vaccine is overreach on state action into private family matters constitutionally protecting the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children," Kohm said.

Sheri Craft, from San Antonio, Texas and a mother of 11, said that the government has no authority to force anyone to get vaccinated. "One might argue that they have the duty to protect us from making a ‘bad’ choice and getting a disease if we don’t get vaccinated," she said. "But, that is going beyond the scope of their responsibility. That choice is up to each one of us."

This thoughtful post is from guest blogger Kaitlyn Speer, who is an intern at World Virginia, and a student at Patrick Henry College.

Best Interests of the Child When Parent is a Medical Marijuana Patient?

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:17:00 +0000

California estimates the state has 750,000-1,125,000 medical marijuana users residing within its jurisdiction. According to the California Judicial Report in 2011 there were 452,671 family law filings and 383,547 family law dispositions in that state. How does the use of marijuana medicinally, a legal prescription drug in California, affect a parent's ability to act in the best interests of his or her child?

This is not just an issue for California. Estimates based on a Colorado registry reveal that about 1-3% of the population are registered medical marijuana users. Currently 16 states hold favorable laws for medical marijuana, and 18 states have proposals for similar programs. Marijuana is still illegal according to the federal government, but its usage by parents in states that have nonetheless legalized its usage is becoming a concern in custody dispositions.

Rachel Toberty, Regent Law J.D. Candidate 2013, provided a detailed review of this area of law to Family Law students last week. In noting California's statutory code setting forth the factors for determination of the best interests of a child

California Family Law Code Section 3011 is clear:

In making a determination of the best interest of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant, consider all of the following:

(a) the health, safety, and welfare of the child.
(b) any history of abuse by one parent or any other person seeking custody against any of the following…
(c) the nature and amount of contact with both parents, except as provided in Section 3046.
(d) the habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either parent. Before considering these allegations, the court may first require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports from law enforcement agencies, courts, probation departments, social welfare agencies, medical facilities, rehabilitation facilities, or other public agencies or nonprofit organizations providing drug and alcohol abuse services…

As a controlled substance, medical marijuana falls within the language in italics above that would protect the best interests of children when their parents might be medical marijuana patients. In an age of parental autonomy, discerning what is best for the child can be easily overshadowed by how an adult/parent may wish to live his or her life.

Children are afforded protection by the law, particularly in custody disputes, when parents have requested judicial intervention into the family in a situation of breakdown. When parents place their liberty interests above the best interests of their child, a judge will intervene to reorder the parenting plan to provide for the child's best as a paramount objective.

Family restoration is well served by parents who understand that providing for their child's best interests may often be in direct conflict to their own self interest, though worth the sacrifice. But when the child's well being is clearly at stake, courts will always act to protect the child, even when a parent chooses his own way, rather than what is best for the child.

Rx for Florida Medicaid in light of PPACA

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:28:00 +0000

As states struggle with the growing costs of Medicaid as well as the uncertainty surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"), they are working to manage the costs of Medicaid while at the same time maintaining adequate healthcare for their citizens. PPACA will challenge families' financial health, and bring new economic burdens to states.

Florida Governor Rick Scott recently pledged, "In light of the threat of ObamaCare's rapid growth of Florida's Medicaid population, we must ensure Floridians have the doctors they need to receive quality care, while also protecting taxpayers from out-of-control Medicaid costs."[i][i]

Is there a way to ensure that Medicaid has enough funds without Floridians incurring additional taxes? Whitnae Hallbauer, Regent Law J.D. 2012, has written an article which considers whether the Florida intestate succession statutes, which allow for a decedent's children only to take part of the intestate estate with the surviving spouse should be altered to allow for the elderly parents of the decedent to take part of the intestate estate as well when the parents rely on Medicaid. She writes, "In order to help alleviate the problems that the Medicaid program in Florida will be facing in the future, especially since the elder generation population will continue to grow in the upcoming years, Florida may need to temporarily change the intestacy statutes as one option to relieve the burden of Medicaid." Read her article here.

New health care laws will challenge states and families economically, and may even carry with them new concerns for family deconstruction.

________________________________________

[i][i] Governor Scott Signs Legislation Reinforcing Florida’s Health Care Safety Net, THE OFFICE OF THE 45TH GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA RICK SCOTT (July 1, 2011), http://www.flgov.com/2011/07/01/governor-scott-signs-legislation-reinforcing-florida%E2%80%99s-health-care-safety-net/.

Movies, Life, Lies and Lawsuits

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:24:00 +0000

October Baby opened in theaters March 23rd - a movie about a college student named Hannah Lawson who learns that she was adopted into her family after a difficult birth that was essentially a failed abortion attempt. This story of Hannah is her journey in discovering who she is and the intrinsic value of life. See a trailer of this incredible film here.

The movie allows for healing and hope for those affected by abortion, while shedding a positive and reaffirming light on adoption as a positive alternative to the injustice of abortion. Click here for a list of theaters in Virginia that will be showing the movie. Groups and individuals may sponsor a screening as well by clicking here. October Baby's producers will be donating 10% of their profits to the Every Life is Beautiful Fund which gives money to organizations helping women facing unplanned pregnancies, providing adoption and orphan care.

While culture reflects on the value of life, politics and law are consumed with reproductive health that really seems to deny life potential.

In fact, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that sterilzation must be given free of charge to anyone. See http://cnsnews.com/news/article/free-sterilizations-must-be-offered-all-college-women-says-hhs. And a UK abortion provider investigation has exposed doctors filmed agreeing to perform illegal abortions wtih "no questions asked." Read about this investigation in the UK Telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9099511/Abortion-investigation-doctors-filmed-agreeing-illegal-abortions-no-questions-asked.html. These events are more ominous when considered in light of forced abortions on Chinese women. A litigation attorney exposes the practice in her new video which you can view here at http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=34.

Finally, a major lawsuit by a former Planned Parenthood employee reveals the nefarious practices that surround that organizations work. Read the article Federal Court Unseals Planned Parenthood Lawsuit by Karla Dial where she writes, "A federal judge today unsealed a lawsuit a former Planned Parenthood employee filed nearly three years ago. The suit claims that the abortion seller engages in a pernicious and persistent pattern of Medicaid fraud. Abby Johnson, the former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in the Bryan/College Station area, states in the lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) that Planned Parenthood knowingly sought improper reimbursements from the Texas Women's Health Program from 2007 to 2009. According to court documents, Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas filed at least 87,075 fraudulent claims. As a result, according to Johnson, Planned Parenthood allegedly received more than $5.7 million from Medicaid for services the program doesn't cover or which were never performed in the first place."

Matters of life are in the forefront of law and culture, and point to clear evidence that families are not restored by reproductive health that dismantles life, but by protecting life itself.

Contraceptive Mandate and Rights of Conscience Drive a Political Wedge that Harms Families

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:26:00 +0000

The Regent University Federalist Society hosted Professor Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington and Lee University School of Law on Monday, March 19 for a special event to discuss "The Contraceptive Mandate and Rights of Conscience." Professor Wilson is the Class of 1958 Law Alumni Professor of Law, and has been focusing her recent scholarship on providing accommodations for religious organizations on social issues that seem publicly divisive, but about which reasonable people, particularly people of faith, may have valid objections.

As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act citizens and employers in the United States will be forced to pay to make contraceptives available free of charge to any consumers who wish to use them. Being made to participate in the reproductive health care of others is not something Americans expected in health care reform. In light of discussions on this matter over the past two weeks, this issue is most controversial for those of faith, but it is not unreasonable to think that some Americans may have objections to such provisions not necessarily based on faith, but simply based on liberty. See the rise of the Catholic Church on this issue at The Daily Caller, and USA Today's recent discussion of government sponsored accommodations for religious objectors.

Professor Wilson argued that being made to participate in the reproductive health of others appears to be a neutral rule with a disproportionate effect on religious institutions and organizations, and therefore argues for carving out accommodations that honor religious objectives yet still comply with the law. She also discussed the concerns over contraceptives and sterilization generally, as well as concerns over contragestives (often labeled as contraceptives) particularly, noting their abortive qualities. Responses were offered by Regent Law Professors David Wagner, Lynne Marie Kohm, and Thomas Folsom for a lively discussion. The Federalist Society sponsored a vibrant, sprite, timely and well received event on this important issue.

Forced payment of contraception not only harms religious employers, but it drives a political wedge into the fabric of American liberty. That liberty generally protects individuals and families to make their own reproductive health care choices, rather than being coerced to be a funding party to anyone else's sexual choices. Contraceptive mandates violate rights of conscience for individuals, families, religious employers, and many other Americans, and in no way foster family restoration.

University of Virginia Lacrosse Murder Trial Highlights College Drinking, Gender Issues, and Families

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:04:00 +0000

Guest Blogger David Vitto, Regent Juris Doctor Candidate 2013, B.A. University of Virginia 2005, Masters in Education University of Virginia 2007, and current blogger at http://www.regentdavid.blogspot.com:

On Feb. 22, jurors in Charlottesville, Virginia recommended a 26 year sentence to George Huguely, a former University of Virginia lacrosse player found guilty of second degree murder and grand larceny in the death of ex-girlfriend and women's lacrosse player Yeardley Love. In May 2010, a drunken Huguely entered Love's apartment and maliciously attacked her, banging her head against a wall and leaving her after stealing her laptop computer. Love died of her injuries a short time later and was found by her roommate. A timeline of events in the trial can be found here: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/23/the-murder-of-yeardley-love-and-trial-of-george-huguely-v-a-timeline/ (courtesy of Time online). The trial brought up numerous issues of the college drinking culture, most telling in the fact that Huguely had been arrested for assaulting a female police officer a few years prior to Love's murder. The assault of the police officer went unreported to University of Virginia officials as well as the lacrosse team. Information of that nature is normally not reported unless the student self-reports himself, something that Huguely did not do.

College drinking is not a new issue. It has been around for many years and continues to be an issue of high priority for colleges. High rates of drinking normally include high rates of violence. In 2009, 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 were assaulted by another student who had been drinking. (courtesy of http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/statssummaries/snapshot.aspx). As staggering as that number is, the real number may be even larger because many issues of violence that occur due to drinking go unreported.

With the drinking age at 21, it is imperative that parents and families discuss the issue of alcohol before their children leave to go to college. Education is an absolute necessity because many college students will have their first drink while they are away at college and not be fully aware of the consequences and repercussions of drinking. The day of Love's murder, George Huguely apparently consumed over 20 alcoholic drinks. He began drinking at a father-son golf tournament early in the morning and continued to drink over the course of the day. Huguely continued to drink even after getting into a fight with his father over how many drinks he had consumed that day. This is not to blame Huguely's parents for the events surrounding Love's death; it is merely an observation that parents must take an affirmative stance in discussing alcohol and its dangers with their children before their children develop any problems with alcohol. According to some of Huguely's teammates, an intervention was being planned for Huguely at the end of the lacrosse season. Huguely's drinking had become destructive to his life, something he himself acknowledged in a letter he wrote to Love apologizing for his behavior in their relationship. That letter was written because Huguely had put Love in a choke hold at a lacrosse party which was broken up by another trial witness. This incident was not reported to any authorities, as Huguely apologized and swore to never harm Love again.

A secondary issue in this case revolves around the issue of gender. Since the integration of male and female students in collegiate communities, unique issues surrounding the interaction between the two genders living in community have developed. Females in collegiate communities are generally more vulnerable than their male counterparts, especially when it comes to relationship or domestic violence. Many times, female students do not have a support system around themselves to protect against aggression from a boyfriend or an ex-boyfriend, and in the world of university life, isolated incidents of abuse can occur that signify a very real, and significant problem. When these isolated incidents go unreported, a cycle of abuse begins that can result in more and more harm and abuse. Collegiate females are sometimes more prone to this cycle of abuse because many relationships in college are of the on-again, off-again nature. If an episode of abuse occurs, but no action is taken, it may be that the victim will simply stop seeing that boyfriend minimally to get away from him and exit an abusive relationship. The "hook-up" culture that exists in colleges today can allow abusers to remain undetected because they do not remain with one girl for a long period of time.

The "hook-up" culture exists in all colleges and universities because young people are in a fresh environment where they wish to have fun, meet people, and experience a variety or relationships. What is required of parents and collegiate officials is education on advice for women and men to implement at the first sign of any abuse or aggressive nature.

Parents need to speak to their children and have an open and honest conversation about the potential dangers of dating and ways to be self-protective. Also, any time an incident of violence is brought to parents, they must contact the police and the university involved so that actions can be taken to prevent any future violence.

Universities can offer education and assistance to avoid relational violence, but families make a tremendous difference in averting violence of all kinds in social relationships. Violence and substance abuse are harmful in an individual context, but mixing the two in any relationship will never end well for anyone without intervention.

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:23:00 +0000

14-year-old Sarah Crank testified before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on January 31st. She urged the committee to vote in favor of marriage and decline to endorse same sex unions. She stated: "I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids think it's fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on. I don't want more kids to get confused about what's right and okay. I really don't want to grow up in a world where marriage isn't such a special thing anymore." Click here to listen to Sarah's complete 60-second testimony.

When government loses perspective on the importance of marriage, its inherent qualities and characteristics are often still apparent to children. Often, however, the long arm of the government may attempt to reach into family’s homes and control what parents teach their own children in their own homes about religion, sexuality, and morality. Homeschooling families may become targets of a government that is not friendly to homeschooling or to parental freedom. Under Alberta, Canada’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk. "Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences," Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications, told LifeSiteNews last month. "You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction," she added. Reacting to the remarks, Paul Faris of the Home School Legal Defense Association said the Ministry of Education is "clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to violate the private conversations families have in their own homes." See LifeSiteNews for the full story.

In the United States public schools are going a different direction – for now. California has recently received federal funds to support a mail order condom program for their public schools. See the report at Fox News.

This program uses tax dollars to provide condoms to kids. Acceptance of a social policy void of moral or personal responsibility does not necessarily make early sexuality safe. Furthermore, it is counterproductive at best to use government funds to foster recreational sex among students when non-marital births form the largest foundation of government welfare programs. Such federal funds could clearly be put to better use, possibly to encourage parents to teach their children about sexual conduct that esteems personal responsibility and marriage for a lifetime to raise a healthy family. The most comical aspect of the California condoms program is that the schools did choose to limit the distribution to 10 condoms a month.

Marriage, new research reveals, is still the best path to personal and societal strength. This recent report below from the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy reveals that marriage is now the best path for upward financial mobility as well. Even children understand that marriage is critical to their future – maybe adults need to take a cue from kids.

Is Kirk Cameron Right on Marriage?

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:31:00 +0000

This week actor Kirk Cameron's comments on marriage have been the subject of much virtual discussion. His response is simple and significant. Expanding marriage is indeed “detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” Read his pro-marriage remarks, and the response of others as reported by the Wall Street Journal. You can read more about his discussion at the Huffington Post, which lays out more of the back-and-forth that has occurred between GLAAD, fellow performers, as well as Kirk's response to his critics.

When marriage is redefined and expanded, it has many correlative effects. People do things in their relationships to stretch the understanding of marriage law, and the attempts to expand marriage are nothing new. In our Family Law course, students research their State's codes or rules on matters pertaining to domestic relationships to discern the law in that State, and the future trends in family law there as well. A quick look at the law in Alaska reveals the conundrum presented when lines between marriage and other relationships are blurred.

Marriage in Alaska is defined as between one man and one woman, and its nature is codified in that State's Defense of Marriage Act, and these laws protect the people and the property in the marriage. Some relationships function like marriage, but do not meet these standards. For example, Alaska does not currently have any statutes on unmarried cohabitation, however the controlling law for the division of property when dealing with unmarried cohabitants is Wood v. Collins 812 P.2d 951 at 956. The Court there held that "courts, when dealing with the property disputes of a man and a woman who have been living together in a nonmarital domestic relationship, should distribute property based upon the express or implied intent of those parties." In sum the courts in Alaska have decided to follow the California decision as set out in Marvin v. Marvin, equating cohabitation with marriage-like relationship in quantum meruit. This decision is concerning, however, because by allowing for the distribution of property for those who have been living together in a non-marital relationship laws are extending the rights granted through a marriage to those who have consciously decided not to get married, thereby diluting the states supposed state interest in protecting marriage and the institution itself. This further frustrates the couple's intent in their relationship, and the State's objective of protecting marriage and its time-tested definition.

When couples who believe in good faith that they are married they are protected under the putative spouse doctrine. Alaska Statute 25.05.051 Effect of Existing Former Marriage (considered the putative spouse doctrine in Alaska) sets out the rules concerning how a marriage is treated if one party is still married at the time the marriage occurred. It requires that one of the parties to the subsequent marriage believe in good faith that the former husband or wife is either dead or the former marriage was dissolved either through divorce or annulment. If so and the parties hold themselves out as married, curing the defect, they will in fact be deemed married.

Additionally if there is good faith not only at the time of the marriage but also throughout the marriage then the putative marriage doctrine applies and the innocent spouse is entitled to relief upon death or dissolution. Batey v. Batey 933 P.2d 551 at 553 states that the putative spouse doctrine has been codified in Alaska at AS 25.05.051.

Common law marriage, where parties are not married with the benefit of a ceremony but are deemed so in equity by a family court, is not recognized in most jurisdictions. Alaska Statute 25.05.011 Civil Contract (n. 3) states that common law marriages are not valid in Alaska. The court stated in Burgess Construction Co. v. Lindley 504 P.2d 1023 at 1024 that common law marriages in Alaska are not valid because in order to have a valid marriage the couple must obtain a license and the marriage must be solemnized.

All these rules are to protect couples with marriage, and to strengthen society with strong families. Marriage expansion does not mean equality. Rather, that activism is intended to alter normative standards of family foundations at the core. Kirk Cameron merely said it more simply.

(Thanks to Sandra Wilson and Robin Kunikis, current Family Law students, for the information contained in this post.)

Protecting Children Then and Now for Family Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:33:00 +0000

During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an ulterior motive.

Irena smuggled Jewish infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried. She also carried a burlap sack in the back of her truck, for larger kids.

Irena kept a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers, of course, wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 children.

Ultimately, she was caught, however, and the Nazi's broke both of her legs and arms and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she had smuggled out, in a glass jar that she buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived and tried to reunite the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.

In 2007 Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize. She was not selected, but was overshadowed by the winner, Al Gore, for his work on Global Warming. Later another politician, Barack Hussein Obama, won for his work as a community organizer for ACORN.

In MEMORIAM - 65 YEARS since the Second World War in Europe ended, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 2 million Poles, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated!

Protecting children then, may Irena’s example encourage more to be courageous now.