LegalMatch: Family Law

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.

Leona Helmsley's $12 Million Dollar Dog.

2008-07-31T14:33:49-07:00

Leona Helmsley made news last year when the contents of her Last Will and Testament were made public. While billions of dollars made it into the hands of a charitable trust, a substantial sum-- $12 million—was set aside specifically for her 9 year-old Maltese dog, “Trouble.”

The public was incensed. Many death threats were aimed at Trouble, and while the public had no legal bearing on Helmsley’s post-mortem gift-giving, her family soon contested the will. The document was under judicial scrutiny for nearly a year before Judge Reena Roth ruled that Helmsley was mentally incompetent when she drafted the will. The $12 million reserved for Trouble was cut down to $2 million, with the remaining $10 million being distributed between two previously-excluded grandchildren and a charity.

Leona Helmsley was the wife of real estate mogul Harry Helmsley, who managed large properties throughout New York City. She is succeeded by her brother and four grandchildren.

"My Ex Won't Let Me See My Kids!"

2008-06-10T13:14:48-07:00

Not all child custody arrangements work out the way we want them to. Visitation hours are too rigid, we don’t see our kids enough, rescheduling becomes a laborious chore… But even these frustrations become minor annoyances in the nightmarish light of a stubborn ex-spouse.

An uncooperative ex can spell heartbreak for even the most determined parent. You arrive to pick up the kids and your ex isn’t home. You arrange to drive your son to his soccer game and your once-spouse has packed him off in a neighborhood carpool. You call to wish your daughter a Happy Birthday, and your ex slams the phone into the receiver.

The court has granted you visitation rights under child custody laws, and your ex-wife or ex-husband has done everything in their power to violate them. And all you want to do is see your kids.

When Your Ex Won’t Cooperate

Difficult exes are one thing, but an ex who denies your child visitation rights is on the fast path to becoming a criminal. No matter what state you’re in, where you’re living, or how far away your spouse is living, you are guaranteed the visitation rights that were granted to you by the court.

Unfortunately, the enforcement of those rights isn’t as simple as placing a phone call, and a bull-headed ex can make your life a living hell. In this case, your strongest option is sheer determination. If you want to make a case that holds up in court, you’re going to need to make the following a regular routine:

REGISTER your Visitation Order with the State you live in, especially if it is not the state that issued the order.
DOCUMENT all instances in which your ex violates your Visitation Order with the police, and keep copies of your police reports on hand.
FILE collected police reports with the court and ask for a Contempt Violation, then repeat your previous documentation if your ex continues to give you trouble.

Once you have one or more Contempt Violations issued against your ex, you can ask the court to rule for modified custody or, in the case of repeated violations, to rule against your ex as an unfit parent. Either way, the court is very likely to rule in your favor and may even grant you primary custody. In some cases, parents have also been successful in suing an ex for withholding child visitation.

Talking To Your Ex About Child Custody Laws

If you feel like your ex might be responsive to a civil conversation, you can also discuss with them the legal implications of their continued Visitation Order violations. Some individuals don’t realize that their actions are criminal, and that they are putting themselves at risk of losing their own custody.

However, you should also be careful to avoid threatening your ex-spouse, especially if you are afraid that they might flee the State. While it is illegal for them to move without first consulting the court (and such an action is a felony in 38 states!), the reality of the situation is that it can be difficult to track an ex who has fled the State. As such, it is always best to try to keep a civil relationship with your ex—even if they’re the one acting like a child.

Find a Child Visitation Rights Lawyer

For up-to-date and accurate information on child custody and visitation laws, please visit the LegalMatch Law Library. Access is open to everyone.

You may also use our free legal matching tool to find a family law lawyer in your area.