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.
Showing posts with label Los Angeles family law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Los Angeles family law. Show all posts
Friday, October 11, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Excitement On The Home Front
Some of you may have noticed a recent subtle change in the blog profile. Here's why.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Divorce, Italian Style?
The New York Times reports Italy's first "divorce trade show". I guess "Divorce, Italian Style" no longer carries quite the significance it once did.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Year's Most Interesting Custody Cases Wind Up!
Sean Goldman has been returned to the United States, after many months, and many tens of thousands of dollars, of litigation by his father to get him back from Brazil. His Brazilian "step-father"* was able to delay the return to the United States seemingly required by the Hague Convention, and a last-minute review by the Brazilian Supreme Court threatened to delay the final order being carried out until well into 2010. Others, including some on my blogroll** have discussed both the unwillingness of the Brazilian authorities to meet their obligations under the Convention, and the media sideshow which followed the final order, at length.
The willingness or unwillingness of countries to "sign on" to the Hague Convention and, once on, to comply with its terms, does not seem to correlate in a clear way with the degree of "modernity" of the country and government in question; the Japanese legislature is still vigorously debating whether Japan will sign on at all, and some western European signers are notably uncooperative in returning children.
Rifqa Barry is in foster care in Ohio; the Ohio court is attempting to facilitate some kind of dialogue between her and her parents, while the clock ticks by to her 18th birthday, at which time the law says she's an adult, and can go live with whomever she pleases. Based on the facts as I know them, it seems far less likely that her father will hunt her down for an "honor killing" than that she's easily swayed and influenced by others generally, and may find others who are all too willing, for good or ill, to make decisions for her.
Parents: Cherish your children. Children: cherish your parents.
Have a happy, and maybe even more prosperous, new year.
*There now seems to be at least some question as to whether deceased Mom was divorced from Sean's father at the date she remarried, and thus the quotes.
** In particular, Family Law News Blog and
The willingness or unwillingness of countries to "sign on" to the Hague Convention and, once on, to comply with its terms, does not seem to correlate in a clear way with the degree of "modernity" of the country and government in question; the Japanese legislature is still vigorously debating whether Japan will sign on at all, and some western European signers are notably uncooperative in returning children.
Rifqa Barry is in foster care in Ohio; the Ohio court is attempting to facilitate some kind of dialogue between her and her parents, while the clock ticks by to her 18th birthday, at which time the law says she's an adult, and can go live with whomever she pleases. Based on the facts as I know them, it seems far less likely that her father will hunt her down for an "honor killing" than that she's easily swayed and influenced by others generally, and may find others who are all too willing, for good or ill, to make decisions for her.
Parents: Cherish your children. Children: cherish your parents.
Have a happy, and maybe even more prosperous, new year.
*There now seems to be at least some question as to whether deceased Mom was divorced from Sean's father at the date she remarried, and thus the quotes.
** In particular, Family Law News Blog and
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Just In Time for The Holidays: When Is That Porsche With The Big Red Bow NOT A Gift?
Ms. Buie was married to Mr. Neighbors. Ms. Buie had previously sold a piece of real estate, and had some money in the bank, so shortly before Mr. Neighbors' birthday, she allowed him to take $60,000 of that money and buy himself a Porsche. . . . . . or so he thought.
As a California court has already observed, ". . . divorce unsettles many of the parties' significant plans and assumptions, no matter how carefully crafted. . ."*
There was, you see, apparently no writing from Buie to Neighbors saying something like "Here is my gift to you!", or if there was, nobody could find it by the time Buie and Neighbors got to court.
California law requires that there be a writing for such a "transmutation" of community property to separate property, except as to a
". . . gift between the spouses of clothing, wearing apparel, jewelry, or other tangible articles of a personal nature that is used solely or principally by the spouse to whom the gift is made and that is not substantial in value taking into account the circumstances of the marriage." **
The trial court said "Gift!", perhaps reasoning that a Porsche was, for a middle-aged husband in Southern California, of a "personal nature", the way clothing or wearing apparel or jewelry is for a middle-aged wife. He would, after all, no more expect her to drive his Porsche than he'd expect her to let him wear her fur coat and diamond earrings.
Not so fast, said the Court of Appeal. The legislative comments to the 1984 enactment of F.C. 852 were fairly explicit that an automobile isn't "a tangible article of a personal nature". In the absence of a writing, there's no gift transmutation of the car from community to Mr. Neighbor's separate property. Even more dismaying for him, since the money used was traceable to Ms. Buie's separate property house proceeds, and she also had never made a written waiver of her right of reimbursement, she was entitled to be reimbursed for her contribution, up to the remaining equity in the car. The car was in essence, all hers, not all his.
If you find a car in your driveway this month, with a card from your spouse on it, save, treasure and keep that card!
* Marriage of Destein (2001)
**California Family Code Sec. 852
As a California court has already observed, ". . . divorce unsettles many of the parties' significant plans and assumptions, no matter how carefully crafted. . ."*
There was, you see, apparently no writing from Buie to Neighbors saying something like "Here is my gift to you!", or if there was, nobody could find it by the time Buie and Neighbors got to court.
California law requires that there be a writing for such a "transmutation" of community property to separate property, except as to a
". . . gift between the spouses of clothing, wearing apparel, jewelry, or other tangible articles of a personal nature that is used solely or principally by the spouse to whom the gift is made and that is not substantial in value taking into account the circumstances of the marriage." **
The trial court said "Gift!", perhaps reasoning that a Porsche was, for a middle-aged husband in Southern California, of a "personal nature", the way clothing or wearing apparel or jewelry is for a middle-aged wife. He would, after all, no more expect her to drive his Porsche than he'd expect her to let him wear her fur coat and diamond earrings.
Not so fast, said the Court of Appeal. The legislative comments to the 1984 enactment of F.C. 852 were fairly explicit that an automobile isn't "a tangible article of a personal nature". In the absence of a writing, there's no gift transmutation of the car from community to Mr. Neighbor's separate property. Even more dismaying for him, since the money used was traceable to Ms. Buie's separate property house proceeds, and she also had never made a written waiver of her right of reimbursement, she was entitled to be reimbursed for her contribution, up to the remaining equity in the car. The car was in essence, all hers, not all his.
If you find a car in your driveway this month, with a card from your spouse on it, save, treasure and keep that card!
* Marriage of Destein (2001)
**California Family Code Sec. 852
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
McCourts: Minding (And Dividing) The Family Store
Jamie McCourt has now filed her action for dissolution, along with a request for somewhere between $300,000 and $500,000 per month in spousal support (depending on whether she immediately gets back all her perks of being a Dodgers co-owner) and about two and a half million dollars in attorney fees and litigation costs.
What's interesting about this case, beyond the usual tabloid stuff, is that it involves almost all of the issues any married couple in business together faces when the marriage goes bad.
The questions aren't that different from those which have to be answered if the McCourts together had purchased and operated, let's say, a sandwich franchise, except that there's a much longer string of zeros after all the numbers, which makes it worthwhile to take a long hard look at the issues, rather than just sort of "washing them out". If either of them wants to air the dirt, as it appears that both may be in the process of doing, their employees, and their business competitors, are of course watching from the sidelines.
To the extent that either airs dirt, and the business suffers, there then will arise the equally interesting question of who it is (to mix metaphors) who killed the golden-egg-laying goose. Since California spouses have an ongoing fiduciary duty to their spouses, and to the community, NOT to kill the golden goose, if each takes a drumstick and pulls hard, it'll take a lot of sorting out to find the cause of goosey's death.
What's interesting about this case, beyond the usual tabloid stuff, is that it involves almost all of the issues any married couple in business together faces when the marriage goes bad.
The questions aren't that different from those which have to be answered if the McCourts together had purchased and operated, let's say, a sandwich franchise, except that there's a much longer string of zeros after all the numbers, which makes it worthwhile to take a long hard look at the issues, rather than just sort of "washing them out". If either of them wants to air the dirt, as it appears that both may be in the process of doing, their employees, and their business competitors, are of course watching from the sidelines.
To the extent that either airs dirt, and the business suffers, there then will arise the equally interesting question of who it is (to mix metaphors) who killed the golden-egg-laying goose. Since California spouses have an ongoing fiduciary duty to their spouses, and to the community, NOT to kill the golden goose, if each takes a drumstick and pulls hard, it'll take a lot of sorting out to find the cause of goosey's death.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
We're saying the same thing; we're just saying it differently
My learned colleague Mark Chinn** from Jackson, MS, posted a deliberately provocative title to his blog this week: said Mark: "If you get a prenuptial agreement in the days before the marriage, don’t sign it!"
My thought was: "If your fiance hands you a prenuptial agreement at the church door, stop the music, and postpone the wedding! You've just learned something very valuable about your fiance, before you've married him!"
Mark's point, as we kicked it around on Facebook afterwards, was: "If you are going to sign a life time contract, you better have counsel and some time to think about it."
Mine was: "That INCLUDES that big contract you sign on when you say "I do!"
** Mark's a great guy, and a wonderful lawyer, but he's about as different from me as someone who would fit my superficial police description (6'2"+; 200 lb. + white male, brown hair, glasses, over 40, lawyer, married, parent) could be: he's perpetually cheerful when I'm saturnine; he's relaxed and Southern and small-towny where I'm a perpetual pent-up Northern cosmopole, etc.
My thought was: "If your fiance hands you a prenuptial agreement at the church door, stop the music, and postpone the wedding! You've just learned something very valuable about your fiance, before you've married him!"
Mark's point, as we kicked it around on Facebook afterwards, was: "If you are going to sign a life time contract, you better have counsel and some time to think about it."
Mine was: "That INCLUDES that big contract you sign on when you say "I do!"
** Mark's a great guy, and a wonderful lawyer, but he's about as different from me as someone who would fit my superficial police description (6'2"+; 200 lb. + white male, brown hair, glasses, over 40, lawyer, married, parent) could be: he's perpetually cheerful when I'm saturnine; he's relaxed and Southern and small-towny where I'm a perpetual pent-up Northern cosmopole, etc.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Divorce, Tabloid News, and the First Amendment
The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that once someone with a "celebrity divorce" signs an agreement that gives away the right to blab about the divorce to the media, in exchange for money from her ex, that agreement will be enforced, and isn't an improper violation of the would-be-blabber's First Amendment rights.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Child Support in California: Never "Locked In"
A California appeals court has now come a step closer to saying that parents simply can't ever make a binding agreement to "lock in" an amount of child support, regardless of changes in parents' fortunes. As long as everyone agrees that an amount of support is correct, there's no problem, but as soon as someone has a change of heart an agreement that child support can never be modified downward is of no more effect than an agreement to cap its modification upward.
This wasn't as comforting to the paying Dad requesting the modification as it might have been, since the same court also affirmed the trial court's considering a continuous stream of cash "gift" or "loan" payments from his mother, (some of which Dad then paid back to his mother as rent) in setting the new amount of support Dad was to pay.
This decision bookends neatly with a series of California decisions which seem to suggest that once there's been a court order for the payment of child support, that money remains due and payable, and the parties likewise can't make a binding agreement waiving any payment, or accepting a reduced amount, for any payment due.
Marriage of Alter 2/26/09
This wasn't as comforting to the paying Dad requesting the modification as it might have been, since the same court also affirmed the trial court's considering a continuous stream of cash "gift" or "loan" payments from his mother, (some of which Dad then paid back to his mother as rent) in setting the new amount of support Dad was to pay.
This decision bookends neatly with a series of California decisions which seem to suggest that once there's been a court order for the payment of child support, that money remains due and payable, and the parties likewise can't make a binding agreement waiving any payment, or accepting a reduced amount, for any payment due.
Marriage of Alter 2/26/09
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Off and Running (at the mouth)
Herewith will begin all the news, thoughts, rumination and ranting about:
that you choose to read.
Some of the axes which will be ground, and idees about which I may be fixe * will likely include:
rfgs
*The version of the posting tool I'm using doesn't seem to feature multinational fonting, so I can make that look appropriately Francophone.
- California family law,
- family law, and why we have it;
- law in general in this man's United States, and
- pretty much anything else which crosses my radar
that you choose to read.
Some of the axes which will be ground, and idees about which I may be fixe * will likely include:
- Why do people get married? Why do they think they're getting married? Why should the state (both in the poli sci sense, and specifically the Golden State) be involved?
- Should it be harder to get married, and easier to get divorced?
- More people in California "go to court" about their family issues than for anything else besides traffic tickets. The California family court system, once the model for the rest of the country, is slowly being reduced to complete gridlock/system crash/meltdown. How do we make the family court system work better than it does? Why has no politician in recent memory won elective office on the campaign promise: "I'll make the family law courts work better, even if we have to spend money to do it!"?
- Why do we let folks who can't keep themselves out of jail, support themselves, or get and maintain a driver's license, raise kids, even their own? If we, as a society, think this is OK, how do we keep these folks from messing up their kids? Should we?
- Is raising a child to be a good citizen more important than raising him/her to be a good Christian/Muslim/Jew/Buddhist? Is it more important that children be happy, or successful? Is any of that the government's business?
rfgs
*The version of the posting tool I'm using doesn't seem to feature multinational fonting, so I can make that look appropriately Francophone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)