A recent article in the Los Angeles Times discusses the unexpected to-do that surrounds determination of pet custody. An increasing amount of money, time and resources is being spent to decide the fate of household pets, and the process can be as complicated as a child custody battle.
We are now on Twitter! Follow us for updates on blog posts and articles on Borderline Personality Disorder and other informative Family Law issues!
Click here to follow us!
or search @ClarkeYoungLaw
Virtual visitation is the latest custody-related family law fad. California family law courts are issuing virtual visitation orders in lieu of face-to-face visitations where face-to-face visitations are feasible, albeit inconvenient. This is not good. Virtual visitation orders should only be issued where in-person child visitations are not possible.
Admittedly, virtual visitation helps people like deployed military personnel who have no control over their deployments and work locations keep in touch with their families back home. In some cases it is the only medium through which a very young child is able to know the removed parent at all. In such cases, virtual visitation orders allow non-custodial parents and children to have a “virtual relationship”, which is better than none at all.
Proposed federal legislation would require state family law judges, including California's, to automatically re-establish, upon a servicemember's return from deployment, the custody and visitation schedule in effect at the time the servicemember was deployed. Under current law, many servicemembers lose custody and visitation time when deployed because they cannot be present to defend against requests modifying child custody and visitation orders.
According to this March 19, 2012 "Washington Post" article, if, during specific qualifying types of deployment, custody is temporarily granted to another person, upon the servicemember's return, the court would be required to re-establish the custody arrangement as it was prior to deployment. Essentially, the court could not consider the servicemember's deployment in determining what custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child.
Qualifying deployments would include such deployments as those that prohibit the accompaniment of family members (e.g., combat assignments)l Also, deployments must be between 60 days and 180 months in duration.
As the "Washington Post" article points out, similar bills have passed the House six times since 2008, but none has passed the Senate.
If enacted, this bill will modify the The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
A five year-old kindergartener’s hands and feet were hand-cuffed with zip ties by a Stockton, California police officer who then arrested the five year-old ADHD sufferer for battery on an officer for kicking the officer in the knee. Lieutenant Frank Gordo was apparently victimized by five year-old Michael Davis. As an American, it is embarrassing to read articles like this November 2011 KCRA news article http://www.kcra.com/r/29847063/detail.html. As is unfortunately typical of articles like this, this article only hints at the real story and raises more questions than it answers.
Why were the five year-old’s parents not told for two weeks that their son was handcuffed with zip ties?
Why weren't the parents called as soon as the decision to transport this child to a psychiatric hospital was made? In 2012, do American parents retain any rights to act on behalf of their children or can the State take a minor child into custody at will in much the same way the State can take possession of your dog or cat?
State-sponsored child abuse is epidemic in Los Angeles and throughout the United States as evidenced by law enforcement protocols, family and juvenile court proceedings, adoptions, foster care programs and, increasingly, schools. For example, in November 2011, Hawaii’s Child Protective Services, in cooperation with the Honolulu Police Department, traumatized a three-year old girl by taking her into custody to punish her momentarily distracted parents who forgot to pay $5.00 for two sandwiches at a Safeway. Read this Fox New story and ask yourself these questions:
Isn’t abuse, regardless of who commits it, still abuse? Or do you believe that a law enforcement uniform somehow excuses the wearer from responsible, socially accepted norms of behavior?
Who at Safeway was fired?
Who at CPS was fired and ordered to pay restitution from his or her own savings and assets to these parents (rather than from taxes levied upon innocent taxpayers)?
Who at the Honolulu Police Department was reprimanded and terminated?
What did the government do to ensure that the people responsible at each step in this psychotic process never work with children again?
Why are people who have a sense of human decency, a sense of proportion and balance, and a basic understanding of the difference between guilt and innocence, who possess common sense, normal judgment and compassion, and who have the courage to act on their convictions when confronted with obvious injustice, culled from the ranks of law enforcement in favor of people whose demonstrated stupidity borders on the primitive?
Shouldn't statutes be enacted waiving sovereign immunity so that citizens have standing to sue government employees for what would otherwise be crimes if committed by anyone other than someone wearing a uniform?
Has American law enforcement lost its moral compass and ability to distinguish between innocent and criminal behavior? (At the "scene of the crime" the police knew or should have known that the Leszczynskis lacked the specific intent necessary to prove the crime of theft.)
Why didn’t the Leszczynskis sue Safeway, CPS and the Honolulu Police Department for a million dollars?
The answers to these questions are not pretty.
Above all, ask yourself: “What am I doing to "Protect and Save" my family and this country from the growing tyranny that is inherent in the government's drive to force everyone to conform and comply with its orders–right or wrong?”
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA") governs many international child custody disputes involving California (or any state within the United States) and a foreign country. In addition, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("Hague Convention") as made effective in the United States by the International Child Abduction Prevention Act ("ICARA"), which is a federal law, governs international custody disputes between countries that have both signed the Hague Convention treaty. Whether the foreign country has signed the Hague Convention or not determines how the California court can proceed as a matter of law and this determination in turn
Attorneys who either want to churn fees or who are afraid their client will not do well on a psychological/custody evaluation will oftentimes resort to litigating a psychological/custody evaluation during the evaluation. Their purpose in doing so is to unfairly influence the outcome of the evaluation. Unfortunately, they oftentimes succeed and the family is forced to endure a custody arrangement that is not based on the best interests of the children.
In California, the better practice is to wait until the psychological/custody evaluation is competed and distributed to the respective attorneys and the court and then, if you believe the evaluator’s methodology is problematic, challenge it by either impeaching the evaluator or by hiring another evaluator to perform a “unilateral” evaluation and to critique the first evaluator’s work. (Some states like California allow parties obtain “unilateral” evaluations without a court order; other states require permission from the court.) A “unilateral” evaluator is an evaluator hired by
WARNING: Never attempt to litigate a "move-away" case on your own. As every divorce attorney in California who has filed or defended a "move away" case will tell you, this area of law is fraught with fatal technicalities and a single innocent mistep can cost you your relationship with your children.
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA") is the controlling law. This statute has been adopted, with some minor modifications, in every state. We have litigated a number of "move-away" cases with great success.
One recent case involved a Nigerian couple residing in New Jersey. (Foreign nationals living in the U.S. are subject to the UCCJEA. Custody disputes in which one parent resides in the United States and the other parent resides in foreign country may be covered by the Hague Convention.) They had one young child and Mother decided she wanted to move to California. Father had to stay in New Jersey. Mother moved without Father's consent and Father retained us.
At the hearing on jurisdiction, the New Jersey court and the California court conferred with each other telephonically, which is what the law requires courts to do when determining which state has jurisdiction. We were present in Pasadena and were able to satisfy the court that New Jersey had jurisdiction. Producing this result "tipped" the case in Father's favor and within a month, Father was able to secure substantial custody rights in New Jersey.
We receive calls from all over the United States and Europe and from as far away as India asking for help in dealing with, among other things, Borderline Personality Disorder cases. These inquiries typically fall into one of four categories. First, many callers want to know if we know an attorney in their area who specializes in Borderline Personality Disorder. Unfortunately, with the notable exception of one attorney in San Diego, California, I do not.
Second, because I am a Los Angeles divorce attorney, some callers ask me to talk with their local attorney because she or he "just doesn't understand what is going on." I am happy to accede to these requests and I have never refused an invitation to coach local counsel on what Borderline Personality Disorder is, the typical shenanigans Borderlines engage in, and how a Borderline Personality Disorder case differs from all other family law cases.
Third, some callers want me to associate into their case and appear locally with their local
As a Los Angeles divorce attorney whose practice emphasizes Borderline Personality Disorder, I am frequently asked why is identifying Borderline Personality Disorder so important in divorce and custody cases? Inevitably, this question is posed by someone unfamiliar with Borderlines for if they had ever been in an interpersonal relationship with a Borderline, they would have no need to ask the question. This is not an easy question to answer for the uninitiated within the limits of a blog.
In a word, courts do not care if a parent is afflicted with an otherwise debilitating physical, mental, emotional or psychological condition as long as the condition does not adversely affect that parent's ability to parent. For example, some alcoholics do not drink when they are around their children. In my experience, this self-control is exitsts in many psychological and emotional conditions. Unfortunately, this is not true of most Borderlines for reasons too involved to get into here.
Keeping in mind I see only divorcing couples, in my experience moderately-severe to servere Borderline parents are, essentially, "anti-parents". Their parenting destroys the children they love. Borderlines are ofterntimes models of poor parenting and the results manifest in their children. (Note: I do not mean to include in this damning statement Borderline parents to are actively and successfully seeking professional help to overcome negative parenting patterns and who, therefore, are most likely not divorcing.) Research shows that Borderlines beget Borderline children or children with Attention Deficit Disorder. The reasons for this are debatable, but the statistics bear witness to the reality of the effect.
This first blog is a good opportunity to introduce you to my Los Angeles divorce attorney practice. We handle the usual "bread and butter" family law issues like divorce, paternity and paternity fraud, pre-marital agreements, "move-away" cases, property distribution, custody and support, and interstate jurisdiction. We also do some pre-foreclosure defense cases in which the property owner/borrower has mortgage insurance. Nevertheless, over the years my practice has evolved to emphasize high conflict custody cases in which the other party suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder. This initial blog is limited to discussing how it came to pass that so much of my practice deals with Borderline Personality Disorder cases. Subsequent blogs will deal with specific family law issues, including recent developments in family law.