If you have parenting or custody issues connected with medical treatment of your child, GSLO has experience in addressing these disputes promptly, sensitively, and discreetly.
Acknowledgment for the pointer, as usual, to Eugene Volokh.
Showing posts with label California child custody. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California child custody. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Vaccination and Parents' Rights: Who Decides?
If you have parenting or custody issues connected with medical treatment of your child, GSLO has experience in addressing these disputes promptly, sensitively, and discreetly.
Acknowledgment for the pointer, as usual, to Eugene Volokh.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Child Custody And Religion (Again): What Should Happen When One Parent Converts?
We've got another child custody and religion case from New York, about, at least ostensibly, what should happen when one parent, but not the other, decides to "change horses mid-stream" in terms of the child's religious upbringing.
A closer reading of the facts suggests that other facts played a much greater role in the decision than the religion issue did, and that the judge may have used the religion issue as a tie-breaker as between two fairly horrendous-sounding parents, to decide who was the "least bad" parent.
The interesting question, when the hard facts are stripped away, however, is the extent to which a general presumption that "stability" is good for kids, (and good for kids of divorcing parents, and good for kids of high-conflict divorcing parents) should weigh against the right of parents, under the First Amendment, to change religions, if they want, as frequently as they change their socks.
A (waterproof) hat tip to Doc Volokh at UCLA, with hopes that they get the campus dried back out before Fall Semester.
P.S.: ...and this just in from Florida, again by way of Volokh:
a trial judge who restrained a Jehovah's Witness non-custodial father from doing "...anything in front of the children or around the children...” that “...conflicts with the Catholic religion...." (practiced by custodial mom) was reversed, the appeals court noting: "While the mother’s concern that exposure to two different religions could confuse the children may be reasonable, neither that concern nor the evidence presented below established the requisite showing of harm to grant the mother ultimate religious decision-making authority for the children and to restrict the father..."
A closer reading of the facts suggests that other facts played a much greater role in the decision than the religion issue did, and that the judge may have used the religion issue as a tie-breaker as between two fairly horrendous-sounding parents, to decide who was the "least bad" parent.
The interesting question, when the hard facts are stripped away, however, is the extent to which a general presumption that "stability" is good for kids, (and good for kids of divorcing parents, and good for kids of high-conflict divorcing parents) should weigh against the right of parents, under the First Amendment, to change religions, if they want, as frequently as they change their socks.
A (waterproof) hat tip to Doc Volokh at UCLA, with hopes that they get the campus dried back out before Fall Semester.
P.S.: ...and this just in from Florida, again by way of Volokh:
a trial judge who restrained a Jehovah's Witness non-custodial father from doing "...anything in front of the children or around the children...” that “...conflicts with the Catholic religion...." (practiced by custodial mom) was reversed, the appeals court noting: "While the mother’s concern that exposure to two different religions could confuse the children may be reasonable, neither that concern nor the evidence presented below established the requisite showing of harm to grant the mother ultimate religious decision-making authority for the children and to restrict the father..."
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Grandparent Custodial Rights
Interesting read regarding grandparent rights. The Court of Appeals upheld a Dependency Court order granting a grandmother visitation rights. It’s a case right here in Los Angeles County involving DCFS.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2014/visitation080814.htm
Grandparent rights come up relatively regularly, but I don't believe that this case will necessarily significantly broaden the law that currently exist. In the absence of DCFS involvement or a Dependency Court case (such as in this case), or the consent of the parents, grandparents typically have limited, if any custodial rights to their grandchildren.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2014/visitation080814.htm
Grandparent rights come up relatively regularly, but I don't believe that this case will necessarily significantly broaden the law that currently exist. In the absence of DCFS involvement or a Dependency Court case (such as in this case), or the consent of the parents, grandparents typically have limited, if any custodial rights to their grandchildren.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Should a Very Young Child Give Preference Testimony?
Professional basketball player, Chris Bosh, has been in a custody battle over his young year old daughter with the child’s mother, Allison Mathis. Apparently Mathis is requesting that their daughter, Trinity, (either four or five years old), testify in court.
http://cocoafab.com/uh-oh-chris-boshs-baby-mother-seeks-to-have-their-child-testify-in-custody-battle/
http://madamenoire.com/444759/5-year-old-to-testify-in-chris-bosh-child-custody-trial/
Calling a child to be a witness as to their custodial preferences is always a risk. Judges, at least in Los Angeles County, disfavor it. It’s the Judges discretion whether to allow it, but there would generally need to be a fairly compelling reason if the child is under the age of 14. Judges are not mental health professionals. Since there are a number of different methods of obtaining a child’s preferences or input which does not involve his/her direct testimony in court, such as a custody evaluation, a parenting plan assessment (in Los Angeles County), or minor’s counsel, judges are typically reluctant to meet with children. The younger the child, the more unlikely it will be that the judge will want to speak with her/him.
It is unclear with Mathis wanted her four/five year daughter to testify to and I don’t know the rules as to minor’s testimony in Florida. In California, at least in Los Angeles County, I would be surprised if a judge would want to speak to a four/five year old directly. Also, I would caution against even making this request for a child that is this age unless there are extenuating circumstances because it may reflect poorly to a judge who’s primary objective is to determine the child’s best interest.
http://cocoafab.com/uh-oh-chris-boshs-baby-mother-seeks-to-have-their-child-testify-in-custody-battle/
http://madamenoire.com/444759/5-year-old-to-testify-in-chris-bosh-child-custody-trial/
Calling a child to be a witness as to their custodial preferences is always a risk. Judges, at least in Los Angeles County, disfavor it. It’s the Judges discretion whether to allow it, but there would generally need to be a fairly compelling reason if the child is under the age of 14. Judges are not mental health professionals. Since there are a number of different methods of obtaining a child’s preferences or input which does not involve his/her direct testimony in court, such as a custody evaluation, a parenting plan assessment (in Los Angeles County), or minor’s counsel, judges are typically reluctant to meet with children. The younger the child, the more unlikely it will be that the judge will want to speak with her/him.
It is unclear with Mathis wanted her four/five year daughter to testify to and I don’t know the rules as to minor’s testimony in Florida. In California, at least in Los Angeles County, I would be surprised if a judge would want to speak to a four/five year old directly. Also, I would caution against even making this request for a child that is this age unless there are extenuating circumstances because it may reflect poorly to a judge who’s primary objective is to determine the child’s best interest.
Monday, March 31, 2014
"Domestic Violence" and "Disturbing The Peace": How Should They Be Defined?
California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“the DVPA”) was intended to streamline and simplify the process of protecting victims, including children, from familial abuse. Two recent cases have blurred the definition of “domestic violence” to a point where it is now difficult even for experienced lawyers to predict, in a given case, whether particular conduct rises to the level at which a particular judge, on a particular day, will issue a permanent restraining order. Since DVPA restraining orders have serious long-term consequences to the rights of the person at the “business end” *, particularly in any case involving children, this is a far from trivial concern.
The problems start with a circular legal definition: California Family Code (“FC”) Section 6203 defines “abuse” as:
(1) "... causing or attempting to cause bodily injury";
(2) sexual assault,
(3) "placing a person in ... ...apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury..."
or
(4) (and here’s the problem) engaging in “...in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined pursuant to FC 6320".
FC 6320, in turn, allows the court to "enjoin" any of the following: molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, (including, but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls) ... ...destroying personal property, contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party, and ... ... of other named family or household members” and may “include in a protective order a grant of the exclusive ... ...possession... ...of any animal .... The court may order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal.”
So if a judge finds that the person to be (but not yet) restrained did any of those things which the court could have restrained, then it appears that the judge may be required to issue the both he temporary and permanent restraining order.
The recent Court of Appeal opinion in Burquet/Brumbaugh**, echoing the earlier opinion in Marriage of Nadkarni***, expands the applied definition of “disturb the peace” . In Nadkarni, the appellate court said:
We believe that the Legislature intended that the DVPA be broadly construed in order to accomplish the purpose of the DVPA. Therefore, the plain meaning of the phrase "disturbing the peace" ... ... may include... ... a former husband's alleged conduct in destroying the mental or emotional calm of his former wife by accessing, reading and publicly disclosing her confidential e-mails. .... Datta's conduct included accessing, reading, and • publicly disclosing the content of Darshana's confidential e-mails, and that his conduct caused her to suffer "shock" and "embarrassment," to fear the destruction of her "business relationships," and to fear for her safety. In other words, Datta's conduct with respect to Darshana's e-mail account, as stated in her declaration, allegedly caused the destruction of her mental or emotional calm...
The court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s refusal to grant a restraining order.
In Burquet, the appellate court affirmed trial court’s granting of a permanent restraining order, on a showing that “defendant, because of his inability to accept that his romantic relationship with the plaintiff was over, and despite plaintiff’s numerous requests that he not contact her, was engaging in a course of conduct of contacting plaintiff by phone, email, and text, which messages contained inappropriate sexual innuendos, and arriving at her residence unannounced and uninvited, and then refusing to leave and making a scene, when she refused to see him for the purpose of causing her to renew their romantic relationship.” **** There was no showing that Brumbaugh had ever threatened anyone, or attempted to enter Ms. Burquet’s residence over her objection (in fact, he left the scene voluntarily).
What is problematic about these cases is the reliance on the parties’ past emotional history in determining what does or doesn’t constitute “abuse” which results in the issuance of a restraining order; effectively, the past emotional relationship of the parties may convert otherwise “non-abusive” conduct into conduct upon which a court can base a permanent restraining order.
When a legal process requires judges to perform this sort of psychoanalysis, in a short hearing between (generally) unrepresented litigants, on a crowded calendar, while attempting to prevent recurrence of true domestic abuse and violence, we have a problem.
* These consequences can include a permanent, “un-expungible” record of the issuance of a temporary order, even if the court later finds that there is no basis for issuing a permanent order, which record will affect any sort of application which requires a background check or disclosure; a presumption that the restrained person should not be awarded sole or joint custody of any child, deprivation of the right to possess a firearm, even in the course of one’s job, and other serious, long-term consequences. See Shebby, D. “Hey Joe, Where You Going With That Gun: Do The Automatic Firearms Restrictions In California DVPA Orders Conflict With The Second Amendment”, ACFLS Family Law Specialist 2013:3 p. 1.
**B248031 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BQ039688 Filed 1/14/14; pub. order 2/11/14.
***IRMO Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483
**** ”“He knocked on the door and plaintiff opened it but did not invite him inside. After a short conversation she told him to respect her wishes and to leave. ‘He got angry. He started saying very—in a loud voice “I love you, I don’t know, I’m sorry.’” She was afraid of what he was going to do, and said ‘Please leave, I’m scared. I will call the police.’ ‘And that’s when he shouted at me through my door window, I want to see you do that.’ Defendant still did not leave, he paced around her porch for about 10 minutes. After about ten minutes he called her from his cell phone and told her he was leaving. He asked her not to be scared, but she was scared because he was angry. On two prior occasions during their relationship when he had gotten angry he became physical with her. He left before the police arrived.”
The problems start with a circular legal definition: California Family Code (“FC”) Section 6203 defines “abuse” as:
(1) "... causing or attempting to cause bodily injury";
(2) sexual assault,
(3) "placing a person in ... ...apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury..."
or
(4) (and here’s the problem) engaging in “...in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined pursuant to FC 6320".
FC 6320, in turn, allows the court to "enjoin" any of the following: molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, (including, but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls) ... ...destroying personal property, contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party, and ... ... of other named family or household members” and may “include in a protective order a grant of the exclusive ... ...possession... ...of any animal .... The court may order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal.”
So if a judge finds that the person to be (but not yet) restrained did any of those things which the court could have restrained, then it appears that the judge may be required to issue the both he temporary and permanent restraining order.
The recent Court of Appeal opinion in Burquet/Brumbaugh**, echoing the earlier opinion in Marriage of Nadkarni***, expands the applied definition of “disturb the peace” . In Nadkarni, the appellate court said:
We believe that the Legislature intended that the DVPA be broadly construed in order to accomplish the purpose of the DVPA. Therefore, the plain meaning of the phrase "disturbing the peace" ... ... may include... ... a former husband's alleged conduct in destroying the mental or emotional calm of his former wife by accessing, reading and publicly disclosing her confidential e-mails. .... Datta's conduct included accessing, reading, and • publicly disclosing the content of Darshana's confidential e-mails, and that his conduct caused her to suffer "shock" and "embarrassment," to fear the destruction of her "business relationships," and to fear for her safety. In other words, Datta's conduct with respect to Darshana's e-mail account, as stated in her declaration, allegedly caused the destruction of her mental or emotional calm...
The court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s refusal to grant a restraining order.
In Burquet, the appellate court affirmed trial court’s granting of a permanent restraining order, on a showing that “defendant, because of his inability to accept that his romantic relationship with the plaintiff was over, and despite plaintiff’s numerous requests that he not contact her, was engaging in a course of conduct of contacting plaintiff by phone, email, and text, which messages contained inappropriate sexual innuendos, and arriving at her residence unannounced and uninvited, and then refusing to leave and making a scene, when she refused to see him for the purpose of causing her to renew their romantic relationship.” **** There was no showing that Brumbaugh had ever threatened anyone, or attempted to enter Ms. Burquet’s residence over her objection (in fact, he left the scene voluntarily).
What is problematic about these cases is the reliance on the parties’ past emotional history in determining what does or doesn’t constitute “abuse” which results in the issuance of a restraining order; effectively, the past emotional relationship of the parties may convert otherwise “non-abusive” conduct into conduct upon which a court can base a permanent restraining order.
When a legal process requires judges to perform this sort of psychoanalysis, in a short hearing between (generally) unrepresented litigants, on a crowded calendar, while attempting to prevent recurrence of true domestic abuse and violence, we have a problem.
* These consequences can include a permanent, “un-expungible” record of the issuance of a temporary order, even if the court later finds that there is no basis for issuing a permanent order, which record will affect any sort of application which requires a background check or disclosure; a presumption that the restrained person should not be awarded sole or joint custody of any child, deprivation of the right to possess a firearm, even in the course of one’s job, and other serious, long-term consequences. See Shebby, D. “Hey Joe, Where You Going With That Gun: Do The Automatic Firearms Restrictions In California DVPA Orders Conflict With The Second Amendment”, ACFLS Family Law Specialist 2013:3 p. 1.
**B248031 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BQ039688 Filed 1/14/14; pub. order 2/11/14.
***IRMO Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483
**** ”“He knocked on the door and plaintiff opened it but did not invite him inside. After a short conversation she told him to respect her wishes and to leave. ‘He got angry. He started saying very—in a loud voice “I love you, I don’t know, I’m sorry.’” She was afraid of what he was going to do, and said ‘Please leave, I’m scared. I will call the police.’ ‘And that’s when he shouted at me through my door window, I want to see you do that.’ Defendant still did not leave, he paced around her porch for about 10 minutes. After about ten minutes he called her from his cell phone and told her he was leaving. He asked her not to be scared, but she was scared because he was angry. On two prior occasions during their relationship when he had gotten angry he became physical with her. He left before the police arrived.”
Monday, March 17, 2014
Demographics of Reported Cases of Child Maltreatment
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released statistics and demographic data regarding the victims and perpetrators of child maltreatment. It appears that most of the data was obtained and processed through information that was provided by state child protective services agencies, so this might be only data of reported child maltreatment cases.
Of the victims, 79% were the victims of neglect, 18% of physical abuse, 9% of sexual abuse and 10% of other maltreatment such as threatened abuse, parent’s drug/alcohol abuse or lack of supervision. In 2011, 35% of the victims were younger than 3 and children younger than 1 have the highest rate of victimization (21.2 per 1,000 children). In 2011, 80.8% of the abuse was by a parent, 5.9% was by relatives other than parents, 4.4% by unmarried partners of parents and 2.9% by other unrelated adults. Again, in 2011, 45.1% of perpetrators were men and 53.6% were women.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cm-data-sheet--2013.pdf
Of the victims, 79% were the victims of neglect, 18% of physical abuse, 9% of sexual abuse and 10% of other maltreatment such as threatened abuse, parent’s drug/alcohol abuse or lack of supervision. In 2011, 35% of the victims were younger than 3 and children younger than 1 have the highest rate of victimization (21.2 per 1,000 children). In 2011, 80.8% of the abuse was by a parent, 5.9% was by relatives other than parents, 4.4% by unmarried partners of parents and 2.9% by other unrelated adults. Again, in 2011, 45.1% of perpetrators were men and 53.6% were women.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cm-data-sheet--2013.pdf
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Family Law Goes To The Movies
There’s a “Winter RomCom” which bears on family law this season: Vince Vaughn’s comedy of assisted-reproductive-technology, “Delivery Man” (short non-spoiler synopsis: he’s been a artificial insemination donor, and discovers that, due to a paperwork snafu, he’s the father of 500+ children). Haven’t seen it yet, but I’m hoping it has a bit more of legal reality infused in it than past “family law” movies, comic or serious, including “Mrs. Doubtfire”, “Kramer v. Kramer”, “Intolerable Cruelty” (a prenup comedy) and “Next Best Thing”, a fairly dismally received film (Rotten Tomato-meter: 19%) on which, I must admit, I received a screen credit (I and my partner are right there, between the caterer and Madonna’s yoga consultant), but couldn’t manage to get director to make the courtroom scenes quite right.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Medical Marijuana and Custody
With medical marijuana becoming more common, both in growing and in prescriptions, it has raised the issue of the effect of medical marijuana and child custody. The general rule in California is the best interest of the child(ren). Despite having a valid prescription/license, there are an increasing number of custody disputes involving medical marijuana. This does not appear to be state specific and is becoming an issue in many states.
For example:
In Michigan, after deeming their home unsafe for a child because both parents are medical marijuana patients and marijuana growers, the state removed six month old Brielle from her parents' custody.
http://www.wlns.com/story/23486257/state-takes-medical-marijuana-caregivers-child-away
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2013/09/lansing_marijuana_caregiver_fi.html
In San Diego County, California, two children were removed from the home of Michael Lewis and Lauren Taylor. Lewis, a Gulf war veteran was exposed to chemicals that cause debilitating migraines has a prescription for medical marijuana. Taylor tested negative in every drug test given and there was no evidence of neglect or abuse.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/12/60182.htm
In Colorado, a couple claims that were denied custody and were not allowed to adopt their ten month old great-granddaughter because both are medical marijuana patients. The child lived with them for five months before being removed by her mother. The state intervened and placed the child in foster care.
http://www.koaa.com/news/couple-claims-they-were-denied-custody-because-of-medical-marijuana-use/#_
Since this is a relatively new change, even though there is a steadily increasing number of medical marijuana patients and growers, there isn’t a law in California that addresses medical marijuana specifically. While there is no set definition of "best interest of the child", a court uses a set of factors to make this determination, as well as any other information it deems relevant. One of the factors used in deciding the best interest of the child(ren) is the "habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances, the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol, or the habitual or continual abuse of prescribed controlled substances by either parent" (Family Code 3011(d)). For now, it’s best to treat medical marijuana use like any other prescription medication. The general "rules" for prescription medication apply here, such as do not smoke in front of the children, keep it in a safe place out of reach of the children, do not ingest so much that you will be unable to properly care for the children, do not drive the children while under the influence, and so on.
For example:
In Michigan, after deeming their home unsafe for a child because both parents are medical marijuana patients and marijuana growers, the state removed six month old Brielle from her parents' custody.
http://www.wlns.com/story/23486257/state-takes-medical-marijuana-caregivers-child-away
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2013/09/lansing_marijuana_caregiver_fi.html
In San Diego County, California, two children were removed from the home of Michael Lewis and Lauren Taylor. Lewis, a Gulf war veteran was exposed to chemicals that cause debilitating migraines has a prescription for medical marijuana. Taylor tested negative in every drug test given and there was no evidence of neglect or abuse.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/12/60182.htm
In Colorado, a couple claims that were denied custody and were not allowed to adopt their ten month old great-granddaughter because both are medical marijuana patients. The child lived with them for five months before being removed by her mother. The state intervened and placed the child in foster care.
http://www.koaa.com/news/couple-claims-they-were-denied-custody-because-of-medical-marijuana-use/#_
Since this is a relatively new change, even though there is a steadily increasing number of medical marijuana patients and growers, there isn’t a law in California that addresses medical marijuana specifically. While there is no set definition of "best interest of the child", a court uses a set of factors to make this determination, as well as any other information it deems relevant. One of the factors used in deciding the best interest of the child(ren) is the "habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances, the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol, or the habitual or continual abuse of prescribed controlled substances by either parent" (Family Code 3011(d)). For now, it’s best to treat medical marijuana use like any other prescription medication. The general "rules" for prescription medication apply here, such as do not smoke in front of the children, keep it in a safe place out of reach of the children, do not ingest so much that you will be unable to properly care for the children, do not drive the children while under the influence, and so on.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Visitation Rights with Children Conceived by Rape
In Massachusetts, a rape victim became pregnant from the rape and gave birth a child in 2009. She was 14 years old at the time, the father, Jamie Melendez, was 20 at the time she got pregnant. Melendez was convicted of rape in 2011 and sentenced to 16 years of probation. One of the conditions of his probation was that he had to initiate proceedings in family court and comply with the court orders until the child becomes an adult. One of the orders made by the court was that Melendez pay $110 per week in child support.
Once he was ordered to pay child support, Melendez requested visitation rights with the child. He offered to withdraw the request for child support if he did not have to pay the support.
Massachusetts, along with 30 other states currently have no laws preventing fathers being given parental rights to children they fathered through a rape. California is not one of the 31 states and has a specific statute that restricts the visitation rights of pedophiles, convicted rapists, and also denies visitation rights to people convicted of rape with any children conceived from that rape. Federal legislation, the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, was introduced in July 2013, encourages the states to adopt a judicial mechanism to terminate specific parental rights of fathers with their children conceived through rape.
Once he was ordered to pay child support, Melendez requested visitation rights with the child. He offered to withdraw the request for child support if he did not have to pay the support.
Massachusetts, along with 30 other states currently have no laws preventing fathers being given parental rights to children they fathered through a rape. California is not one of the 31 states and has a specific statute that restricts the visitation rights of pedophiles, convicted rapists, and also denies visitation rights to people convicted of rape with any children conceived from that rape. Federal legislation, the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, was introduced in July 2013, encourages the states to adopt a judicial mechanism to terminate specific parental rights of fathers with their children conceived through rape.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Child Abduction in Custody Disputes
The number of child abduction cases that involve a child custody dispute has increased from 9% in 2009 to 50% in 2012. The cases included in these statistics are those where a non-custodial parent takes a child(ren) from the custodial parent against the will of the child(ren) or custodial parent. Sometimes the motivation might be to retaliate against the custodial parent, sometimes it’s an effort to reconcile. Apparently, children under the age of three are at the greatest risk of being taken by a non-custodial parent against their or the custodial parent's will.
Early reporting of an abduction to the proper authorities will minimize the likelihood of harm to the child. If there is a history or domestic violence or threats of taking the child(ren), perhaps restraining orders or restricted and/or monitored visitation is appropriate. There are additional steps to reduce the chance of custodial issues or potential abduction or harm to the child(ren) such as always keeping a copy of the entered order at all times, dropping a copy of it off at all the schools, the local police station, and the day care or any other place the children spend time.
Early reporting of an abduction to the proper authorities will minimize the likelihood of harm to the child. If there is a history or domestic violence or threats of taking the child(ren), perhaps restraining orders or restricted and/or monitored visitation is appropriate. There are additional steps to reduce the chance of custodial issues or potential abduction or harm to the child(ren) such as always keeping a copy of the entered order at all times, dropping a copy of it off at all the schools, the local police station, and the day care or any other place the children spend time.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Hot Mid-Summer Action! (or something like it)
Custody and Dollars
In a somewhat troubling decision, the Illinois Appellate Court has reversed a trial court and ordered that a "move-away" be permitted, where the finding that re-location was in the child's best interest was built on the economic benefit Mom (the moving parent) would receive when she married her fiance.
L.C. has two parents who are too poor to support him. His mother, a part-time waitress, receives child support in the amount of $67 bimonthly from his father, who, it appears, lives in a basement room of his mother’s and stepfather’s house. We hasten to add that there is no correlation between money and human worth and that we do not intend the least denigration of either parent. Nevertheless, such economic hardship is not to be taken lightly. Poverty can be grim and corrosive, and social mobility in the United States is not what it used to be. We do not mean to subscribe to an iron-clad determinism, but the opportunities L.C. has during his childhood probably will determine the opportunities he has for the rest of his life.
.....
All in all, it strikes us as unfair to L.C. to jeopardize his good fortune by diminishing the means by which [would-be step-father] can help him materially.
Since Illinois applies a substantially higher threshold requirement in out-of-state relocation cases for the "moving away" parent than California applies, it's not clear that the result would have ultimately have been different in California. The "economic realities" of the case were such, however, as to demand that the court disclaim doing exactly what they were, ultimately, doing, which was tying the court's custody decision to the as-yet-unrealized marriageability of Mom.
Same-Sex Marriage Dust-Up Continues
Meanwhile, the dust on same-sex marriage continues to swirl around local courthouses, and city halls (or wherever they issue marriage licenses these days). An Ohio Federal court seems poised to determine that whether or not Ohio is required to provide same-sex marriage, it cannot refuse to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in states in which such marriages are authorized, and in Kentucky Federal court, a suit has now been filed by a pair of same-sex spouses and adoptive parents, challenging that state's refusal to recognize the marriage, and to permit the Kentucky adoption to proceed as an adoption by a married couple.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Child Custody and Religion, Pre-Holiday Edition
Can you be held in contempt for baptizing your child, when you've previously agreed with your divorced spouse that you won't make "major religious decisions" for your children without agreement? Maybe.
Thanks and a tip of the pre-Good Friday/Passover hat to Religion Clause.
Thanks and a tip of the pre-Good Friday/Passover hat to Religion Clause.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Some Additional Ideas About Maximizing Your Success In Custody Cases
From Joseph Cordell on HuffPo
Very similar to, although not as detailed, as my California-specific advice:
WHAT SHOULD I DO TO “MAXIMIZE” MY PARENTING?
1. Exercise all your time, plus more
If you go to court for a review of your custodial situation, the Court will be more interested in what the parents actually are doing, than in what any prior court orders say they should or must be doing. Use all your custodial time that you are financially, physically, and logistically able to use. If you can accommodate the other parent's scheduling by offering to have the child(ren) with you, more than the order says you “must”, do so. This is not “baby-sitting”, it is spending time with your kid(s), i.e., parenting. Some of the time may not necessarily be spent going to Disneyland.
2. Exercise your rights (and responsibilities) beyond the custodial time-share.
Parenting is different from running a dormitory. There is more to parenting than whose house your child sleeps, on which nights of the week:
A. Education: Request scheduling information about all your child's pre-school/ school functions, and attend them whenever possible. Whether or not the other parent provides you with copies, take independent steps to arrange with your children's schools to receive scheduling information, report cards, etc. If you get any of this information, and have any reason to think the other parent did not, send a copy.
Know your kids’ teachers. Make sure that your kids' teachers, and school personnel, know you.
Make sure you are on all parental notification, and emergency notification cards. Keep your notification information on those records absolutely current.
If your child is having any sort of trouble in school, find out from the school (not just from your child or the other parent) what is going on, why it is happening, and what can, or must, be done to fix it.
The days (in California) when you could deliver your child to a public school, starting in September, do nothing besides going to two parent-teacher conferences during the year, and expect to have your child pop out in June with another year’s worth of education, are long gone. Both public and private schools are now hands-on efforts for parents.
The more time you spend volunteering in your child’s classroom, fund-raising for your child’s school, running computer cables through the walls at your kid’s school, coaching soccer or helping to build sets for the school play, the better the education your child will get, and the more you will know about what kind of education she is getting, and how. Incidentally, your community will also be better off.
B. Health care: When (not if) your child needs health care, find out what is going on, whether it is a regular dental check up or physical exam, the treatment of a cold or earache, or an ongoing course of treatment for a serious chronic condition. There is no better way to stay informed than to take your child to the doctor yourself. If you can’t, ask the other parent regularly for information. Again, if you get any of this information, and have any reason to think the other parent did not, send a copy.
If you have any questions or concerns, discuss them directly with the health care provider. Medical school studies reveal that the doctors’ advice that patients hear and understand is significantly different from what doctors think they have said. The other parent is not your best source of this information; the child is an even poorer one.
"Health care" does not just mean your child’s pediatrician. It includes the dentist, the orthodontist, the chiropractor, and any psychotherapist or counselor.
Know who is paying for health care, who’s carrying the insurance, and who is entitled to reimbursement. Keep records.
REMEMBER: Even if you do not have joint legal custody, under California law you are entitled to information about your child's education and health. As a joint legal custodian, you have both a right and a responsibility to keep informed and to be involved in decision-making. If you don’t participate in decision-making, the Court may conclude that you have no further interest in having a hand in decision-making.
3. Behave, in all of your transactions with the other parent, as if everyone was watching you; ultimately, they are.
Assume that at some point in the future the Court, and any Court evaluator, will consider both the content and tone of all your communications with the other parent, and the other parent’s new spouse or significant other.
So:
Be appropriate. Not only shouldn’t you use your child as a telephone (“Tell your mother you can’t spend the whole weekend next weekend....”) you shouldn’t use your child as a mail-carrier, or send messages to the other parent via your child’s e-mail, or telephone.
Be polite. Send and say nothing to the other parent you wouldn't want the judge in your case to read now. Send nothing to the other parent that you wouldn't want your children to read, twenty years from now. Even if the other parent is acting like a jerk, don’t act that way.
If scheduling changes need to be made, give more notice than the minimum amount required, whenever it is possible. If you are running late, even a little bit, call.
If you need to make logistic arrangements (different clothing, school books and materials, sports gear, etc.) communicate with the other parent the need for those arrangements.
Confirm your conversations with the other parent by short, polite notes, or the electronic equivalent. Do not include in any such note any discussion of the other issues of the case, discussion as to why the relationship or marriage failed, blame for any events which have happened in the past, etc. Like a telegram for which you are charged by the word, these notes should be the bare minimum number of words necessary to convey the information, plus "Please", "Thank you", and "You're welcome". Even if the other parent is acting like a jerk, don’t act that way.
4. Your children are not the parents/litigants, you are; don't treat them as if this is THEIR case
It is appropriate to discuss resolving your case with the other parent, or between the attorneys. Children, however, are not litigants: they have no obligation to settle their parents’ cases.
Children should not be burdened with any discussion of the financial aspects of the case, ever. Your financial responsibility to your kids is yours; it is not dependent upon the other parent’s, or how well the other parent meets that responsibility.
Your children have no obligation to tell you, or discuss with you, their preferences regarding custodial arrangements. They do not even have an obligation to have such a preference. Your children should never be obliged or expected to decide their own custody arrangements, although you should consider their wishes.
5. Remember: this is your custody case, not everyone else's.
Unless there is no other appropriate way to communicate directly with the other parent, don't use anyone else as a messenger. (Except in an emergency, this will almost never be the case.) Your relatives, your new spouse or significant other, the other parent's relatives, your friends (mutual or otherwise) and your child's friends are not obliged to take sides, or act as tie-breakers. Don't ask them to. Don't expect them to.
Very similar to, although not as detailed, as my California-specific advice:
WHAT SHOULD I DO TO “MAXIMIZE” MY PARENTING?
1. Exercise all your time, plus more
If you go to court for a review of your custodial situation, the Court will be more interested in what the parents actually are doing, than in what any prior court orders say they should or must be doing. Use all your custodial time that you are financially, physically, and logistically able to use. If you can accommodate the other parent's scheduling by offering to have the child(ren) with you, more than the order says you “must”, do so. This is not “baby-sitting”, it is spending time with your kid(s), i.e., parenting. Some of the time may not necessarily be spent going to Disneyland.
2. Exercise your rights (and responsibilities) beyond the custodial time-share.
Parenting is different from running a dormitory. There is more to parenting than whose house your child sleeps, on which nights of the week:
A. Education: Request scheduling information about all your child's pre-school/ school functions, and attend them whenever possible. Whether or not the other parent provides you with copies, take independent steps to arrange with your children's schools to receive scheduling information, report cards, etc. If you get any of this information, and have any reason to think the other parent did not, send a copy.
Know your kids’ teachers. Make sure that your kids' teachers, and school personnel, know you.
Make sure you are on all parental notification, and emergency notification cards. Keep your notification information on those records absolutely current.
If your child is having any sort of trouble in school, find out from the school (not just from your child or the other parent) what is going on, why it is happening, and what can, or must, be done to fix it.
The days (in California) when you could deliver your child to a public school, starting in September, do nothing besides going to two parent-teacher conferences during the year, and expect to have your child pop out in June with another year’s worth of education, are long gone. Both public and private schools are now hands-on efforts for parents.
The more time you spend volunteering in your child’s classroom, fund-raising for your child’s school, running computer cables through the walls at your kid’s school, coaching soccer or helping to build sets for the school play, the better the education your child will get, and the more you will know about what kind of education she is getting, and how. Incidentally, your community will also be better off.
B. Health care: When (not if) your child needs health care, find out what is going on, whether it is a regular dental check up or physical exam, the treatment of a cold or earache, or an ongoing course of treatment for a serious chronic condition. There is no better way to stay informed than to take your child to the doctor yourself. If you can’t, ask the other parent regularly for information. Again, if you get any of this information, and have any reason to think the other parent did not, send a copy.
If you have any questions or concerns, discuss them directly with the health care provider. Medical school studies reveal that the doctors’ advice that patients hear and understand is significantly different from what doctors think they have said. The other parent is not your best source of this information; the child is an even poorer one.
"Health care" does not just mean your child’s pediatrician. It includes the dentist, the orthodontist, the chiropractor, and any psychotherapist or counselor.
Know who is paying for health care, who’s carrying the insurance, and who is entitled to reimbursement. Keep records.
REMEMBER: Even if you do not have joint legal custody, under California law you are entitled to information about your child's education and health. As a joint legal custodian, you have both a right and a responsibility to keep informed and to be involved in decision-making. If you don’t participate in decision-making, the Court may conclude that you have no further interest in having a hand in decision-making.
3. Behave, in all of your transactions with the other parent, as if everyone was watching you; ultimately, they are.
Assume that at some point in the future the Court, and any Court evaluator, will consider both the content and tone of all your communications with the other parent, and the other parent’s new spouse or significant other.
So:
Be appropriate. Not only shouldn’t you use your child as a telephone (“Tell your mother you can’t spend the whole weekend next weekend....”) you shouldn’t use your child as a mail-carrier, or send messages to the other parent via your child’s e-mail, or telephone.
Be polite. Send and say nothing to the other parent you wouldn't want the judge in your case to read now. Send nothing to the other parent that you wouldn't want your children to read, twenty years from now. Even if the other parent is acting like a jerk, don’t act that way.
If scheduling changes need to be made, give more notice than the minimum amount required, whenever it is possible. If you are running late, even a little bit, call.
If you need to make logistic arrangements (different clothing, school books and materials, sports gear, etc.) communicate with the other parent the need for those arrangements.
Confirm your conversations with the other parent by short, polite notes, or the electronic equivalent. Do not include in any such note any discussion of the other issues of the case, discussion as to why the relationship or marriage failed, blame for any events which have happened in the past, etc. Like a telegram for which you are charged by the word, these notes should be the bare minimum number of words necessary to convey the information, plus "Please", "Thank you", and "You're welcome". Even if the other parent is acting like a jerk, don’t act that way.
4. Your children are not the parents/litigants, you are; don't treat them as if this is THEIR case
It is appropriate to discuss resolving your case with the other parent, or between the attorneys. Children, however, are not litigants: they have no obligation to settle their parents’ cases.
Children should not be burdened with any discussion of the financial aspects of the case, ever. Your financial responsibility to your kids is yours; it is not dependent upon the other parent’s, or how well the other parent meets that responsibility.
Your children have no obligation to tell you, or discuss with you, their preferences regarding custodial arrangements. They do not even have an obligation to have such a preference. Your children should never be obliged or expected to decide their own custody arrangements, although you should consider their wishes.
5. Remember: this is your custody case, not everyone else's.
Unless there is no other appropriate way to communicate directly with the other parent, don't use anyone else as a messenger. (Except in an emergency, this will almost never be the case.) Your relatives, your new spouse or significant other, the other parent's relatives, your friends (mutual or otherwise) and your child's friends are not obliged to take sides, or act as tie-breakers. Don't ask them to. Don't expect them to.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Parenting, Custody and Realistic Risk Assessment
Which is more risky for a nine-year old: letting the child wait alone at a bus stop for ten minutes, in mid-day, or letting the same child ride a bicycle for a half hour near his house? How about letting the same child visit a friend who has a swimming pool? A friend whose parent owns firearms and keeps them in the house? (See Dubner and Levitt's Freakonomics for that dyad.) Which are most parents likely to think are acceptable and appropriate? Which are judges likely to think demonstrate responsible or irresponsible parenting?
Should parents or judges make these calls based on their "gut sense" or "intuition", or should real EVIDENCE be required before the court injects itself into this sort of decision?
Should parents or judges make these calls based on their "gut sense" or "intuition", or should real EVIDENCE be required before the court injects itself into this sort of decision?
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Zero to Three: Parenting Issues and Parenting Plans For Young Children My ABA Teleseminar materials for 7/21/11 with Aaron Robb
Zero to Three: Parenting Issues and Parenting Plans For Young Children
We open with three disclaimers:
We will not address the evidentiary adequacy of child custody evaluations, research bearing on custody issues performed by mental health professionals, or the adequacy of the social science underlying them.[1]
We are also will not address, in other than a general way, the efficacy of custody/time-share orders as a cost-effective way of managing risk in parenting.[2]
Finally, throughout this topic we are going to be speaking about generally healthy families. The vast majority of cases that attorneys will encounter will transition from their pre-divorce lives into their post-divorce co-parenting roles with minimal disruption. Serious consideration needs to be given to more restrictive parent-child contact in cases with violence, substance abuse and untreated serious mental illness.[3]
Friday, March 4, 2011
California Child Custody: What's Going On? Is It Broken? How?
"Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear. "*
Last week, a Northern California newspaper published an extended piece, asserting, yet again, that the family law system is (quoting the cover headline) "helping pedophiles, batterers get child
custody".
While buried in the body of the piece was an acknowledgment that " it is impossible to say how common such cases are", that isn't exactly the same impression conveyed by the headline.
The same week, the Los Angeles Times ran a story regarding a psychiatrist/child custody evaluator in Los Angeles**. While that story was less obviously agenda-driven than the Northern California piece, it seemed short on well-verified facts, and long on "it is alleged, in documents filed with the court". Again, those authors implied that the problems that they referenced were systemic and pervasive. They offered no evidence for that implication.
There's little to offer.
The "studies" and "research" on the issues of the adequacy of the child custody/family court system in protecting children and victims of domestic violence, including those cited by outlets as reputable as Newsweek, are, if cited in support of any generalization about the system, are thin soup, perilously close to scientific junk.***
It may be that these problems are grossly under-reported, and systemic; my thirty-two years of practice makes me think otherwise, and leads me to conclude that the California system is actually quite child-centered, and victim-protective. I'm certainly unconvinced by the "studies", and by the information in the two articles. While I've railed about the lack of real objective information for nearly a decade, since the last such "scandal' erupted, the quality of the information has not yet noticeably improved.
The problems with the family law system are not, as far as I can tell, mostly the result of some system-wide bias or agenda; they're mostly from (a) the lack of adequate financial resources for the system to address these issues, and (b) the gross mis-allocation of resources within the judicial system. As I've said before, nobody ever successfully ran for statewide office in California on the platform: "I promise to spend more of your tax money on divorce court!"
* Ben Franklin, or E.A. Poe, or Marvin Gaye.
** Note that I have not provided links to the pieces above; they're here: "Helping" "Evaluator"
*** "That's not 'thin soup'. It's rat pee." Prof. Michael Shapiro.
"The plural of 'anecdotes' isn't 'data.' " Frank Kotsonis.
Last week, a Northern California newspaper published an extended piece, asserting, yet again, that the family law system is (quoting the cover headline) "helping pedophiles, batterers get child
custody".
While buried in the body of the piece was an acknowledgment that " it is impossible to say how common such cases are", that isn't exactly the same impression conveyed by the headline.
The same week, the Los Angeles Times ran a story regarding a psychiatrist/child custody evaluator in Los Angeles**. While that story was less obviously agenda-driven than the Northern California piece, it seemed short on well-verified facts, and long on "it is alleged, in documents filed with the court". Again, those authors implied that the problems that they referenced were systemic and pervasive. They offered no evidence for that implication.
There's little to offer.
The "studies" and "research" on the issues of the adequacy of the child custody/family court system in protecting children and victims of domestic violence, including those cited by outlets as reputable as Newsweek, are, if cited in support of any generalization about the system, are thin soup, perilously close to scientific junk.***
It may be that these problems are grossly under-reported, and systemic; my thirty-two years of practice makes me think otherwise, and leads me to conclude that the California system is actually quite child-centered, and victim-protective. I'm certainly unconvinced by the "studies", and by the information in the two articles. While I've railed about the lack of real objective information for nearly a decade, since the last such "scandal' erupted, the quality of the information has not yet noticeably improved.
The problems with the family law system are not, as far as I can tell, mostly the result of some system-wide bias or agenda; they're mostly from (a) the lack of adequate financial resources for the system to address these issues, and (b) the gross mis-allocation of resources within the judicial system. As I've said before, nobody ever successfully ran for statewide office in California on the platform: "I promise to spend more of your tax money on divorce court!"
* Ben Franklin, or E.A. Poe, or Marvin Gaye.
** Note that I have not provided links to the pieces above; they're here: "Helping" "Evaluator"
*** "That's not 'thin soup'. It's rat pee." Prof. Michael Shapiro.
"The plural of 'anecdotes' isn't 'data.' " Frank Kotsonis.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Another Child Custody and Religion Case
...in which nobody seemed to raise the Constitutional issues. This time, it's Georgia; by agreement, Mom was to have the authority to make decisions about child's religious training and upbringing. Mom wanted to give child Jewish religious training and practice, and Dad had, it appears, originally agreed. Then, it appears, Dad changed his mind, and (as is sometimes the case in these sorts of cases) also began acting like sort of, well, a jerk.
The Court warned Dad that he risked being found in contempt, and provided the following admonition as to how to "purge" the contempt, from which one might reasonably infer additional details of Dad's behavior:
(a) Mr. Greene may not indoctrinate the child in a manner which promotes the child's alienation from Judaism.
(b) Mr. Greene shall not take the child to church (whether to church services or Sunday School or church education programs); nor engage the child in prayer or Bible study if it promotes rejection rather than acceptance, of the child's . . . Jewish self-identity.
(c) Mr. Greene shall not share his religious beliefs with the child if those beliefs cause the child emotional distress or worry about the child's mother or the child herself. Thus, for example, Mr. Greene may have pictures of Jesus Christ hanging on the walls of his residence. But, Mr. Greene may not take the child to religious services where they receive the message that adults or children who do not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are destined to burn in hell. Further, he may not pray Christian prayers with the child, play Christian songs with the child present, read the Bible to the child or in any way attempt to indoctrinate the child into the Christian Faith.
(d) Neither party is to talk negatively or derogatory about the other party's religion in the presence of the child, and there shall be no derogatory comments that could be construed as anti-Semitic of any nature, meaning Mr. Greene shall no longer refer to Ms. Greene's parents, who are Jewish, by any numbers or anything similar to that.
Mr. Greene shall ensure that these rules are followed by persons whom he allows the child to be in the presence of or have contact with. No secondary person shall teach or read the Bible to the child, or pray any Christian prayers, or otherwise attempt to indoctrinate the child into the Christian faith.
Even assuming that Dad was doing the obnoxious stuff we can infer from the details, why didn't making any of this order trouble the judge?
The Court warned Dad that he risked being found in contempt, and provided the following admonition as to how to "purge" the contempt, from which one might reasonably infer additional details of Dad's behavior:
(a) Mr. Greene may not indoctrinate the child in a manner which promotes the child's alienation from Judaism.
(b) Mr. Greene shall not take the child to church (whether to church services or Sunday School or church education programs); nor engage the child in prayer or Bible study if it promotes rejection rather than acceptance, of the child's . . . Jewish self-identity.
(c) Mr. Greene shall not share his religious beliefs with the child if those beliefs cause the child emotional distress or worry about the child's mother or the child herself. Thus, for example, Mr. Greene may have pictures of Jesus Christ hanging on the walls of his residence. But, Mr. Greene may not take the child to religious services where they receive the message that adults or children who do not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are destined to burn in hell. Further, he may not pray Christian prayers with the child, play Christian songs with the child present, read the Bible to the child or in any way attempt to indoctrinate the child into the Christian Faith.
(d) Neither party is to talk negatively or derogatory about the other party's religion in the presence of the child, and there shall be no derogatory comments that could be construed as anti-Semitic of any nature, meaning Mr. Greene shall no longer refer to Ms. Greene's parents, who are Jewish, by any numbers or anything similar to that.
Mr. Greene shall ensure that these rules are followed by persons whom he allows the child to be in the presence of or have contact with. No secondary person shall teach or read the Bible to the child, or pray any Christian prayers, or otherwise attempt to indoctrinate the child into the Christian faith.
Even assuming that Dad was doing the obnoxious stuff we can infer from the details, why didn't making any of this order trouble the judge?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Parents and Pot: Michigan
It seems that under Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act, a parent may not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with the act [i.e., possessing pot with a properly issued "registry identification card"] unless his or her behavior is such that it creates an "unreasonable danger to the minor which can be clearly articulated and substantiated".
The Michigan Court of Appeal, in addressing other issues under the MMMA, opined that their Act was "inartfully" [polite for "terribly"] drafted.
Given the vast proliferation of "medical marijuana clinics" "dispensaries", and "cooperatives" in California, I'll be extremely interested to see what California, which also has a MMA, will do with the issue in the context of child custody litigation.
A post-Labor Day [felt] fedora tip to Jeanne M. Hannah for the pointer.
The Michigan Court of Appeal, in addressing other issues under the MMMA, opined that their Act was "inartfully" [polite for "terribly"] drafted.
Given the vast proliferation of "medical marijuana clinics" "dispensaries", and "cooperatives" in California, I'll be extremely interested to see what California, which also has a MMA, will do with the issue in the context of child custody litigation.
A post-Labor Day [felt] fedora tip to Jeanne M. Hannah for the pointer.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Custody and Religion Part 4: Something in the Water in Chicago?
I won't really get incensed (pun intended) until I read a clearer and more definitive description of the facts and order in the underlying case, but a recent report suggests that Chicago judges are willing to make intrusive orders not only against divorced parents, but against new step-parents, in regard to issues of religious upbringing, seemingly pretty much ignoring that stuff about "establishment of religion" it mentions in my pocket Constitution.
. . .and another hat tip (diamond-crown two-tone straw) to Howard Friedman at Religion Clause for the pointer.
. . .and another hat tip (diamond-crown two-tone straw) to Howard Friedman at Religion Clause for the pointer.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Custody and Religion, Part 3
An Illinois trial judge has modified the earlier order noted below and decided that, although Dad in the case appears to have engaged in fairly self-centered and obnoxious behavior in regard to parenting issues, (see pages 7 and 8 of the decision) Dad's taking his daughter to church during his custodial time is within his Constitutional rights, in the absence of some showing of true detriment to his child.
A tip of the brown teardrop-crown (Meyer the Hatter, New Orleans) to Religion Clause for the pointer.
A tip of the brown teardrop-crown (Meyer the Hatter, New Orleans) to Religion Clause for the pointer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)