LegalMatch: Family Law

Tiger Woods Should Go To Jail in New Hampshire

2010-01-08T15:30:06-08:00

So from the title of my blog, you are probably thinking I will be writing all about the “transgressions” of Tiger Woods. Although I love to keep up with pop culture and celebrity gossip, even I am sick of all the exposure his personal life has gotten in recent times! The media just loves to cover famous cheaters!

I will say that Tiger is lucky that he wasn't living in New Hampshire. New Hampshire still makes it a crime to commit adultery and although the wrongdoer won't face jail time, it is classified as a misdemeanor and carries a $1,200 fine. If you think that seems steep, when the law was first enacted, the adulterer was forced to stand on the gallows for an hour with a noose around his or her neck, received up to 39 lashes, and could spend up to a year in jail or a fine of 100 pounds!

Although the New Hampshire law, and other states that still criminalize adultery (including South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia) are rarely if ever enforced, some lawmakers think it is important to keep laws like this on the books in order to send a message of the inappropriateness of adultery. By repealing the law, there is the notion that society has somehow taken a different stance on the issue or diluting the importance of marriage.

Those opposed to the adultery law say that laws should not be regulating sex, love, and marriage laws. Although laws have always regulated such things, the recent passage of gay marriage in New Hampshire (the sixth state to do so) is cited as a reason that love and marriage can take on many forms and we should have laws that allow it rather than limit it.

A recent LegalMatch study revealed an interest in adultery-related divorces. Those states that require a showing of "fault" for a divorce all too frequently list "adultery" as a reason. Additionally, the presence of adultery in a marriage is also a factor many state courts consider when determining alimony / spousal support, meaning the cheater will pay for his past mistakes in a big way!

I am in total unison with the lawmakers and think adultery is and always will be a bad thing. I also believe that it is an intensely private and personal matter that should be dealt with in the home, and not a matter of an individual lawsuit. When the issue does arise, it is best handled in divorce court when determining settlements, alimony, and other related issues.

Significant Number of Grandparents Seeking Visitation Rights for Grandchildren

2009-11-24T15:46:51-08:00

It should be obvious that most child custody and visitation disputes are between the parents of the child or children at the heart of the dispute.

This makes perfect sense, as biological or adoptive parents have the strongest interest in being able to visit their children, and it is usually assumed that it is generally (though certainly not always) in the best interests of the children to have both of their parents involved in their lives, regardless of the marital problems that the parents are going through.

However, according to recent LegalMatch case data, there are also a significant number of grandparents fighting for the right to visit their grandchildren. The law on this subject is fairly complex, and varies from state to state. The first, and most important, consideration is consistent, however: before granting child visitation rights to anybody, including grandparents, a court must determine that it would serve the best interests of the child to do so.

In making this determination, courts will consider a number of factors, such as the nature of the relationship between the grandparent and grandchild, whether the grandparent has assumed certain roles normally taken on by parents, whether both parents are currently involved in the child’s life, and several other factors.

The fact that a relatively large number of grandparents are seeking visitation rights raises some interesting questions about society’s concept of family, especially when we let the law define a term which means so many different things to different people.

Do grandparents have some inherent right to visit their children? I would say probably not, or at least not as strong a right as parents have.

On the other hand, grandparents often serve very important roles in the family, which go way beyond spoiling their grandkids at Christmas. After all, older people obviously tend to have more life experience than younger people – this is valuable to children and their parents. Grandparents, who, by definition, have raised children before, can often impart some wisdom onto their children, who can in turn use that to better raise the grandchildren.

Of course, this is not always the case, and every family is different. It seems that if the parents of a child decide, for whatever reason, that a grandparent is not a positive influence in the child’s life, their decision should be granted substantial weight by the courts. However, as mentioned earlier, the ultimate consideration in such decisions should be the best interests of the child.

In the end, the decision to grant someone a right to visit the child against the wishes of the child’s parents is not one to be made lightly. It is well settled that parents have a fundamental right to control how their children are raised. However, this right is not absolute – hence laws against child abuse and neglect. The needs of a child can sometimes outweigh the rights of the parents. This holds true when it comes to visitation – if a grandparent has become an essential figure in a child’s life, they should be allowed to visit the child, the preferences of the parents notwithstanding. Whatever reasons the parents have for opposing visitation should be worked out between the parents and grandparents. After all, every responsible parent sometimes does things they don’t like for the sake of their children (thanks for taking me to see the Power Rangers movie when I was 9, Mom).

Men's Rights Activists Want To Be On The RADAR

2009-11-10T12:05:28-08:00

Ok so there is a reason that radar is spelled in all caps on the title. RADAR actually stands for Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting. Men’s rights activist groups like RADAR have made quite the stir in headlines lately.

RADAR recently rallied on the steps of congress to encourage their elected representative to look at the problems with domestic violence. Specifically, they claim that, “false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women’s shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give cover to cagey mail-order brides seeking Green Cards, and finally, that men are victims of an unrecognized epidemic of violence at the hands of abusive wives.” These men are angry and want legislative action on their behalf similar to the laws that have been effectuated to protect their female counterparts.

One article notes the reason for the recent success of male rights activist groups- they have worked hard to clean up their image from angry ex-husbands forced to pay child support to potential victims of domestic violence.

In my opinion, their focus should be more on ensuring proper protection for men that are abused rather than on bringing attention to any discrepancies in protection there are between male and female victims.

Unfortunately, the movement had a major setback when Men’s rights activist George Sodini opened fire in a Pittsburgh gym, killing three and injuring nine others. The purpose of the rampage was chronicled in his online journal in which he wrote about his lifelong rejection by women.

A recent study conducted by LegalMatch found an increase in male inquires in all areas dealing with domestic abuse, disputes, and sexual harassment. I recently blogged about the increase in male sexual harassment cases at work here. This figure is not surprising as the more socially acceptable it becomes to report these problems, the more men will report them. I also think that this type of increased visibility of the victims of these crimes and false accusations will serve as a catalyst for increased protection. I think that this is a really interesting aspect of society to follow both from a legal standpoint and from a political one.

Gay Marriage In The News Again - Is Anyone Dropping Their Jaw In Shock?

2009-11-04T13:55:45-08:00

We’re in the midst of autumn. It’s a beautiful time of the year. Birds are chirping, farmers across the country are eagerly anticipating the year’s harvest, leaves are falling off trees like nobody’s business (probably because they’re infested with ladybugs), and of course, same-sex marriage is under attack. Yep, you just can’t call it autumn without an argument over gay marriage.

Alright, maybe making the connection between autumn and the fact that California’s Proposition 8, which passed last November and effectively prohibits marriage between same-sex couples in that state, is back in the news again was a little tenuous. But hey, I’m complicated, like opening a banana monkey-style.

Anyway, the debate whether to allow gay marriage in California seems to rage on with no end. The federal district court is set to hear a challenge to the controversial proposition this January, but it appears that supporters of Prop 8 are trying to cut the courts off before then by bring a motion to dismiss the case all together. What grounds are they employing you ask? Why the same ones that every person against gay marriage has been using since this whole debate began: that there is no violation of a person’s constitutional rights because marriage has traditionally always been between a man and a woman. We’ve all heard it before, however this time they’re also throwing in some case precedent from Minnesota that upholds the constitutionality of Prop 8.

Now just to recap for you guys not following this mess of a situation, California itself has had a sorted history with same-sex marriage. First the mayor of San Francisco allows it to be performed and recognized in San Francisco. Shortly afterward, the rest of California catches on to him and shuts it down. Then the California Supreme Court allows it, resulting in gay marriages across the yin yang. Then Prop 8 cans it again and upon doing so, has a lawsuit brought against it in federal court. Bringing us back to the seemingly never-ending question, “Should gay marriage be allowed?”

And the answer is: Yes.

Why yes? Without trying to get too tangled up in the politics of such an answer (which is near impossible, I know) from a purely legal perspective it should be allowed simply because of equal protection and the inalienable right of every citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as allotted by our country’s constitution. Right now, California is an odd state with three classes of people when it comes to marriage. Heterosexual people who are allowed to get married, homosexual people whose marriages are recognized as legal since they became married while it was still legal in that state, and finally homosexuals who cannot get married. I don’t know about you, but on its face that seems like a violation of equal protection. Three classes of people, really? There aren’t supposed to be any classes since wear all supposed to be equal right? Because, I mean, if these classes are okay, why not just call them separate, but equal, too?

I was trying to not get political, but like I said, near impossible…

Lawyer Accused of Running Adoption Ponzi Scheme

2009-09-30T10:50:02-07:00

Times are tough for everyone, including lawyers. Some new lawyers, realizing that they’ve gone into six-figure debt on the promise of an enormous starting salary at Big Fancy Law Firm™ that never materialized, have become quite bitter.

Rather than writing bitter blog posts, or lobbying Congress for some kind of student loan relief, at least one lawyer has dealt with these tough economic times another way: running an “adoption Ponzi scheme.”

According to the ABA Journal, this attorney bilked families out of thousands of dollars, on the promise that he would help them adopt children who didn’t exist. Allegedly, this paragon of virtue and professional ethics knew that some of his “clients” couldn’t afford his fees, and sat back while they took out loans to pay for his non-existent services, digging themselves tens of thousands of dollars into debt.

Part of his sales pitch included forged documents and sonogram images. I really can’t say enough bad things about this guy if the allegations are true. Playing with a family’s emotions for the sake of defrauding them out of their hard-earned money is one of the lowest things a person can do, especially considering that prospective adoptive parents may be far more prone to emotional manipulation that the average client. After all, they’re about to bring a child into their lives, and trust their attorney to ensure that the process goes as smoothly as possible.

As we’ve said before, you should always check the credentials of your attorney before you hire them. This case provides a particularly egregious example of what can happen if you don’t.

Fortunately, according to LegalMatch statistics, attorney malpractice is not a common claim that clients bring, and reports of outright fraud by attorneys against their clients are even rarer. It should provide some comfort that most attorneys are far more ethical than this one.