When it comes to laws, they are usually rules enacted to maintain peace and proper conduct. When a law is broken, it is my job to represent clients who have broken the law or been a victim of someone who has broken the law. However, in this case, the state of Mississippi has passed a bill that will bring beneficial assistance for missing elderly people
The Silver Alert will become law on July 1st of this year after Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi signed a bill on Wednesday, March 24th. This new law will set up a system very similar to the Amber Alert, which will alert the public and law enforcement of when an elderly person is reported missing, This law will also allow for people with dementia or other health impairment to be reported missing.
The Silver Alert law will be very beneficial to Mississippi’s elderly citizens, ill citizens, and the friends and families of elderly and ill people. This law gives hope and reassurance to all of Mississippi’s residents. I hope more states will follow Mississippi’s footprints into the right direction to protect their residents.
In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Judge Kevin Dougherty is not messing around when it comes to sentencing juvenile criminals.
With a vast knowledge of the inner-workings of teenagers and the mischief they often cause, Dougherty gives sentences to these troubled teens the way he sees fit - if you deserve a year or three years in the juvenile system, then you’re getting it.
With a number of teens participating in flash mobs (organized gatherings of kids in public areas where they fight and break everything in sight), Dougherty is doing everything in his power to prevent young criminals from becoming adult criminals. He often warns them that for every lie they tell, they would get a year in the juvenile system. And he keeps his word; one troubled teen left with a sentence of three years.
As Philadelphia has a large number of troublesome teens, Dougherty is making sure these troublemakers don’t get away with their crimes. If they do the crime, then they’re most definitely doing the time. I see Philadelphia’s punk teens learning their lessons and becoming civilized adults in the future, especially when they learn of the tough Judge Dougherty in the court room.
As many of you have heard the latest scandalous gossip about his cheating ways, the husband of Oscar-winning Sandra Bullock, Jesse James is facing not only marital issues, but issues with his custody of his only daughter.
The ex-wife of James, Janine Lindemulder, has begun legal procedures to gain custody of their daughter after he was found to have cheated on his wife. Lindemulder's family law attorney, Lisa Helfend Meyer, recently told Fox News, "This definitely raises concerns about Jesse and how all of this could impact his parenting, whether he was spending enough time with his daughter and gives Janine a foot in the door to fight for custody..." As you can probably tell from the juicy details, tension is already beginning to appear.
Lindemulder lost visitation rights earlier this year, with James gaining full custody of their daughter. However, James' dilemma leaves him in a position where he will not only face the possibility of divorce, but also losing his only daughter. Cheating while married to someone always leads to messy situations, but I predict a messier custody battle between James and his ex-wife. It is never a good idea to cheat, as we have learned in the past, i.e. Tiger Woods.
A proposed bill in Tennessee is stirring up trouble between divorced and unmarried parents attempting to work out custody arrangements over their children. The bill being proposed would evenly split child custody between both parents, and is already creating friction between mothers and fathers.
On one hand, women, some judges, and even the Tennessee Bar Association argue that the bill would make divorces more difficult to settle and give abusive ex-husbands/partners control they should not have in the first place. They also argue that spending half the time with each parent will place unreasonable schedules on the children.
On the other hand, men, who want full relationships with their children, argue they are being deprived of quality time, and say courts disregard custody decisions to be based in the best interest of children and overrate the mother-and-child bond but ignore the father-and- child bond.
Representative Mike Bell, the bill's key sponsor, introduced the bill after hearing complaints from his constituents. He hopes it will push parents to reassess divorce in the best interest of the children.
However, it is undeniable that maintaining proper relationships with both parents is vital to children's overall health, whether the parents are together or not. When parents are unable to come to an agreement, significant stress can be placed on children. Separation and divorce is never easy on the children.
Two $1 million grants provided by the Halle Foundation, the AVON Foundation for Women, and the College of Law at Arizona State University will go towards the establishment of the Diane Halle Center for Family Justice and the NextCare Urgent Care Family Violence Legal Clinic. These two organizations will focus on domestic law issues, with the Diane Halle Center for Family Justice offering legal aid to disadvantaged families and victims of family violence, and with the NextCare Urgent Care Family Violence Clinic offering shelters for victims of family crimes.
These two new organizations will be established by the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at ASU and will help educate law students of today and tomorrow about family law, with emphasis on child abuse, spousal abuse, protective orders, and more. Not only will they educate current and upcoming generations of lawyers, but will benefit their clients, who are merely helpless victims of family violence.
With these two new organizations, domestic law issues will be taken out of the shadows and thrown into the light, where families will be protected from violence, abuse, and neglect, and where lawyers will learn the importance of serving family clients.
A good criminal defense attorney, the best in Los Angeles
I keep hearing people calling and saying:
Give me a good criminal defense attorney, the best in Los Angeles California.
But then they have problems paying for the service. Of course my rates aren't cheap, you are getting an attorney with many years of experience that truly knows what he is doing; do you want to win the case or not? How important is custody to you? Not going to jail for a DUI? A divorce settlement?
I have the experience to make your case win, why would you risk your future or the future of your loved ones on an unsafe bet? Sure there are many other lawyers in Southern California, do you want to go with a cheaper option that doesn't have the experience you need to win? Do you not care about the outcome of the trial?
So many things in life are free, having an attorney that knows what he is doing and can help you in your situation is not one of them.
Here I am again on CBS with the story of the boy shot by police in the back, sad story. Not that the occurrence doesn't happen everyday, we all have heard the stories about unnecessary violence on the streets. You would just hope the story wouldn't a kid this young that was just playing around. Parents really should be much more vigilant about the safety and whereabouts of their children, I would know I have two of my own and I understand it's not easy.
Maryland can't define "child neglect" like rest of country. Problems ensue.
This may come as a surprise to some of you, but there's actually a state out there that has not yet been able to come up with a clearly defined law regarding child neglect...and that state is Maryland.
Maryland has child abuse laws. But not child neglect laws. Take for instance the case of a child who swallowed and entire bottle of Tylenol and the parents waited several days before seeking medical attention. Miraculously, the child survived with no harm done, but because of that, the parents were not prosecuted with anything. Child abuse laws in Maryland state that a child must be harmed in order for prosecution to take place. That means it's perfectly acceptable for heroine-addicted Mommy to go out partying late at night, leaving the kids to their lonesome. Sort of.
Right now, the CINA (Child In Need of Assistance) family law code allows the state to remove children from a pattern of neglect, and leave the parents with a misdemeanor. A pair of bills are headed before the General Assembly to make child neglect a felony. Apparently, Maryland has more rigorous and punishable animal neglect laws than it does child neglect laws.
There is some discrepancy as to whether the bill to make child neglect a felony is a good or a bad move. A previous bill didn't make it through the assembly because child-welfare advocates were concerned that neglect due to circumstances out of a parent's control, like not having the financial resources available to care for their children. The new bill, would take into account poverty and religious beliefs. However, Julie Drake, division chief of the felony family violence division of the Baltimore City State's Attorneys Office, isn't so hyped about the new bill. She was the prosecutor in a case where a one year old child was withheld food and water because he refused to say "amen." That's second degree murder down to the "t". But this new bill would have given that family an easy defense.
Child Welfare advocates want to be able to help families, not tear them apart with felonies. For instance, if neglectful parents are that way due to substance addictions, rehabilitation would be a better route than throwing the guardian in jail. Unfortunately, at the moment, in Maryland you can get thrown in jail for neglecting your dog, but not your child.
I know the video resolution looks awful, but the case was truly an ordeal to work on. Criminal cases in different states have different laws and regulations, but with time I've covered many people with different problems. As I've mentioned earlier, you hire me and you are truly hiring me, not an assistant or another family lawyer on my roster.
A lot of people tend to believe and follow exactly what the media portrays. Even if a lot of it is bull, and we even know it's bull, we still tend to look at life through this tunnel-vision of celebrities and news. What they show us on television and the internet must be what life is actually like.
Clearly, it's not. But when it comes to Prenuptial Agreements, it seems the fad is growing, no thanks the ever-volatile hollywood romance.
Hollywood celebrities are notorious for having quick, passionate, and often entertaining (for those watching) relationships that end in a financial disaster for one party. The term "Gold-Digger" comes to mind. Most of these celebrities have tons of money and estates that they were looking to keep, no matter how much they "love" their current fling, and that's why they sign prenuptial agreements.
You also see a lot of this in movies.
The truth of the matter is, in 2002, a mere 1% of marriages begin with a prenuptial agreement, even though currently 50% of marriages currently end in divorce. However, and while this may not seem like a significant rise, now 3% of marriages begin with the agreement. Between the disheartening divorce rate, and the images protrayed by promiscuous celebrities, of course it seems like a great idea to protect your assets.
If you have assets to protect.
A prenup can be a difficult thing to talk about when you're in the throes of love. Couples want to savor the bliss, not worry about the potential of a breakup one year, five years, or ten years down the line. Truly though, a prenup is only necessary if there are excessive inheritances, funds, or estates to be concerned about. Most normal couples happen to have an excess of debt, not money to be split up.
So before jumping on the bandwagon, and having a potentially mood-killing wedding-planning conversation, consider what exactly it is you are protecting from your spouse before you go telling them you don't want them in on it.
Nobody likes going to court. It's rigorous, it's scary, there is protocol to be followed. Say or do the wrong thing and it can be held against you. It's kind of like going to the dentist.
Even if you don't have a whole lot to do with the trial, for instance, you're there for jury duty, it can be a tense and overwhelming experience. The halls are quiet, the air is stiff...there isn't a whole lot of smiling going on. Law, by nature, is not fun, and when something's not fun, it is often stressful.
The Sonoma County Hall of Justice in California has a solution to rectify this problem, and they come in the form of Volunteer Aides. Whether they are senior citizens with a vast array of experience in the field and are just looking to lend a helping hand, or they're law students looking to get their foot in the door and learn with some hands on experience, the court finds these volunteers absolutely invaluable.
People from all backgrounds with all sorts of cases come through the court, most of which have never step foot there before, so this is a rather great way to ease people into a process that can be so overwhelming that it makes the process even harder. When you've got a sweet old lady smiling at you and politely giving you the information you need, your more inclined to be relaxed and go along with what needs to be done.
While I'm sure Sonoma is the only Hall of Justice that takes advantage of the help of community volunteers, it's a notion that should be considered by local court systems.
'Til death do us part. By Law. Unless you really screw up.
There's something called a "No Fault" divorce. This basically means what it sounds like. A married couple can have a dissolution of the marriage without any particular evidence of wrongdoing by any party.
No adultery, no beatings, no child abuse...sometimes things just don't work. Understandable, right?
State Senate Michelle McManus of Michigan wants to put an end to No Fault divorce in Michigan. She explains that it's hurting the economy, because only couples can generate enough income to start their own businesses (there's no citation or sources to what she's saying, so who knows if that's true), and that it would have a positive impact on marriages to come. She claims the current laws allows people to be irresponsible, and cause situations where fathers get their rights to see their children revoked merely because the mother fears physical abuse when no physical abuse is apparent.
Obviously, there is an exception for every rule, but I, for one, am an advocate of the "No Fault" divorce. And here's my reasoning for it:
If a couple is going to get married, and there are going to be extremely strict rules regarding what makes them eligible for a divorce (which, according to McManus are as follows: "specific problems such as adultery, physical abuse, imprisonment, physical incompetence at time of marriage, or that a spouse had sex with an animal or dead human body.") then shouldn't there be extremely strict rules regarding marriage itself?
How do you go about testing whether someone is responsible enough or not for marriage? It's not a driver's test. Driving is the same from the beginning to the end. Cars and the rules of the road don't change throughout the course of your life (not to an extent that a person would). People, on the other hand, change. Things happen that we can't predict. Therefore, there is no way to test if two people who absolutely love each other and are devoted to one another at this point, and also happen to be extremely responsible human beings, aren't going to change or experience hardship down the line and decide this marriage isn't right for them.
Then what's the guy got to do to get out of it? Beat his wife or copulate with a horse?
Marriage and divorce are big decisions. I know this. And yes, marriage is sacred and divorce is horrible, so we want to preserve it. But life's tough. The laws governing both these actions should work for the couples, not against them.
In previous posts I've mentioned mothers who have been beaten by their own sons and still had to pay the court costs. I've mentioned the process of mediation and how it's a process separate from that of a family lawyer. Today's topic brings the two together in a fashion that may help a lot of families that are struggling with domestic violence. The reason I bring these two previous posts up is because The Chief Justice of the Family Court wants to go into current regulations, play with the pipes a little, and make sure there is little to no chance of them exploding when a deteriorating family is brought to court due to violence.
Lots of things can go wrong when a marriage goes sour. There are discrepancies over money, over children, over time and possessions, there are intense emotions to be dealt with, but when violence gets involved, those cases tend to take precedence. Marriage is sacred, yes, but so is the value of a human life, and no separation should result, or should be the result of, violence.
The process is as follows: When families see mediators, they are often trying to settle the divorce without the presence of the courts. But when the mediators fail, the court is their only resort. The problem is, what's said within mediation is confidential. This creates problems and it creates solutions. The solutions it creates allows families to be more open and honest, knowing that whatever they say is confidential, and this honesty can lead to an easier solved dissolution. However, the problems are created when the mediation fails and they must go to court...all the information that was presented in mediation is now confidential and unavailable to the courts.
And people are a lot less likely to say exactly what's on their mind or exactly what went down when they're standing in front of a judge.
The Chief Justice of the family court seeks to end the confidentiality among mediators in order to make court cases run a little bit smoother, and to protect partners and children who have been the victims of abuse, or may be potential victims.
