Legal line offers free advice Tuesday - Indiana

Legal line offers free advice Tuesday

INDIANAPOLIS -- Free legal assistance is available by calling Legal Line, sponsored by the Indianapolis Bar Association (IBA), 6-8 p.m. Tuesday.

Call (317) 269-2000 to speak with a qualified attorney who will answer questions and give advice on legal matters on a variety of topics including divorce, child custody, child support, landlord/tenant issues, bankruptcy, personal injury, employment law and more.

Callers with more complex legal issues should call IBA's Lawyer Referral Service, (317) 269-2222, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday.

ABA

The ABA website has a search engine where you can come by some interesting and helpful info.

Here is a question I stumbled upon:

How many states allow divorcing parents to have joint legal custody of their children? How many states have a presumption in favor of joint legal custody?

All states permit parents to have joint legal custody of their children after a divorce. As of 1996, 43 states and the District of Columbia have statutes that specifically authorize the courts to order joint custody. (In some states, joint custody is referred to as shared custody.) In the 43 states with joint legal custody statutes, 11 states and the District of Columbia declare a presumption in favor of joint custody, which means that courts are supposed to grant joint custody unless there is proof that joint custody is not in the child's best interest. In addition, eight states declare a presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree to it. The remaining 24 states with joint custody statutes make joint custody an explicit option without any presumption for or against joint custody. Seven states do not have joint custody statutes, but courts in those states can use their equitable powers to order joint custody in appropriate circumstances. Joint custody usually is considered appropriate when the parents appear willing to cooperate in raising their children.

And this links to a chart by state

No Breaks for Servicemen

Over the weekend this site received the story a of recently home from Iraq soldier. While he was deployed his wife moved out of state. You can see his post here under comments.

I don't have any good answers for this - it is truly a deplorable act to try to take advantage of the fact that your spouse is out of the country FIGHTING A WAR to get the upper hand in your divorce. As always, my first advice would be to find a good attorney and retain them. Martindale.com can be a good starting point or contact your local chapter of the ABA and ask for a lawyer referral. In my country, if you are referred from the ABA the attorney will give you a free introductory (usually around 30 mins) session. Take advantage of these referrals to find an attorney you are truly comfortable with without having to pay just to meet them.

For currently deployed members of the military, the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act provides some relief from civil proceedings. Info here and here.

Here is a *similar* story out of Pittsburgh - except in this case the father is/was still deployed.

This case isn't the same scenario - the father lost custody prior to his deployment and because of his deployment. However, as I said in the post about deployed moms, I do think this is appropriate. Obviously the deployed soldier cannot act as primary custodial parent while deployed, the proper alternative (unless there are some mitigating circumstances that prevent this from being a safe alternative for the child) should be the other parent.

The Marines offer a support website: http://www.mccsonesource.com/ for families of deployed servicemembers.

This is an opinion article: Separated dads miss so much at Christmas

Why I Hate the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers released a press release on Nov 10th saying:

1) BE IT RESOLVED that the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers supports the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples and the extension to same-sex couples who marry and their children of all of the legal rights and obligations of spouses and children of spouses.
2) BE IT RESOLVED that the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers encourages the United States Congress and the legislatures of all states to achieve the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples and the extension to same-sex couples who marry and their children of all of the legal rights and obligations of spouses and children of spouses.

Hmm, they support more marriage which will inevitably mean more divorce... How mind blowing.

AND:

"We believe this is a fundamental issue of equality, that the U.S. Constitution protects one's legal right to marry as a fundamental right and that there is no reason to deny same-sex families the legal rights and obligations arising from marriage," said Richard F. Barry of San Rafael, Ca.,who served as the Academy's president the past year and who presided over the group's policy-making Board of Governors, which approved the resolution.

Of course we are not, however, in support of the Constitution protecting your rights to parent your child. That would result in LESS litigation and we simply cannot have that!

Just so you know:

The Academy was formed . . . "To encourage the study, improve the practice, elevate the standards and advance the cause of matrimonial law to the end that the welfare of the family and society be preserved."

The welfare of the FAMILY, did you get that? All I can say is - Are you kidding me!? Divorce lawyers working for the "welfare of the family"- right.

Read the entire press release here.

I have covered almost the exact same rant in this post. The Bar Associations response to the Iowa joint custody law is always a fun read!

ACFC Analysis of Press Coverage about Custody Lawsuits

I got this from an email and I am copying it verbatim:

ACFC ANALYSIS - Parents Seek Custody Law Reform

Thanks to the Associated Press and CNN for coverage of one
of the most critical social issues facing America today with
their story below on the nationwide class-action lawsuits
seeking a rebuttable presumption of 50-50 shared parenting.

Seeking journalistic balance on both sides of the story, the
AP included a few comments from former American Bar
Association (ABA) Family Law Section Chair Lynne Gold-
Bikin, including this little gem, to which the rest of our
analysis below is devoted:

"And why do they want 50-50 (custody)? Some people
want it because they know they can reduce the support
they pay to their wives."

Did we miss something here? We thought child support
was supposed to be for children. What's this about "pay to
their wives .."? Are they still married? If so, why are they
paying child support? And aren't "some people" married to
husbands? Is child support a one-way street that is only
paid to "wives"? Just on the surface, there appears to be
something quite bizarre about the way the former Chair of
the ABA Family Law Section conceptualizes child support.
But the more you think about it, the worse it gets.

That statement is a vicious and malicious libel of fathers
without a shred of evidence to back it up, and typical of the
blatant anti-father bias of the ABA. Isn't it just as likely that
some mothers want sole custody precisely in order to get
more child support? Why does she insidiously attack only
the motives of fathers? Why wouldn't fathers resent a legal
system that routinely extorts money from them for children
that ABA members routinely won't lift a finger to help them
even visit occasionally? Isn't it just as likely that fathers
only want to be part of their children's lives, and that some
mothers exploit the vicious anti-father gender bigotry and
ignorance of the ABA? In fact, isn't the ABA constantly
encouraging mothers to sabotage father/child relationships,
precisely in order to get more child support?

Wouldn't the best way to avoid making money the issue,
be to put the best interest of children in a continuing
relationship with both parents first, with 50-50 custody,
instead of setting children up as a pawns in a winner-
take-all struggle over money, as the ABA constantly
does by supporting sole-mother custody with the insidious
social poison of the kind of gender war propaganda that
Lynne Gold-Bikin spews above? Isn't the ABA actually
engaged in psychological child abuse by allowing its
name to be associated with the insidious social poison
of this kind of gender bigotry and ignorance?

Furthermore, why does a former ABA Family Law Chair
assume that only mothers get custody and only fathers
pay child support, when the ABA is composed of persons
who took an oath to uphold and defend a Constitution that
mandates equal protection of law for all persons? Is Gold-
Bikin here confessing to violation of her oath as a lawyer,
as well as to her vicious and malicious anti-father bias?

We report, you decide, as you read the article below.
But our feeling is that the next target for a class-action
lawsuit might be people like Lynne Gold-Bikin, who are
ripe for a class-action lawsuit by all persons viciously
and maliciously libeled by the sociopathic gender bigotry
and ignorance so evident in her comment above. This
kind of thinking is exactly why America so desperately
needs immediate reform of family law, as explained
below.

ACFChttp://www.acfc.org/

Lawyers Support Same Sex Marriage

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers released a statement in support of same sex marriage.

"More than 90 percent of Academy members said the children of same-sex couples should have the same protections as children of man/woman marriages. These include the rights of children to maintain their relationship with both parties to a same-sex couple relationship and the rights to support, inheritance and Social Security benefits. Similarly both parties to the same-sex couple relationship should share all rights and obligations with respect to raising children."

Of course they do, same sex marriage will inevitably lead to same sex divorce and contentious and protracted custody battles. Same sex marriage could be a potential windfall for divorce lawyers.

The full press release can be viewed here: American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Supports Same-Sex Marriages, Rights of Same-Sex Couples

Contrast this view with this letter by the President of the Iowa State Bar Association, Kevin H. Collins, to Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack in response to Iowa Bill HF 22:

IOWA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
Kevin H. Collins, President
115 Third Street, S.E., Suite 500
PO Box 2107
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406-2107
(319) 365-9461
FAX (319) 365-8564
e-mail khc@shuttleworthlaw.com


April 26, 2004

The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Governor of Iowa
State Capitol
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319

RE: HF 22 Joint Physical Care


Dear Governor Vilsack:

On behalf of all Iowans, I respectfully urge you to veto HF 22 - Joint Physical Care.

At its meeting on April 16, 2004, the Family Law Section of the Iowa State Bar Association considered the Act, formerly known as HF 22, which has been passed by both houses and awaits your determination. The Family Law Section voted unanimously, except for one member, to recommend a veto of this legislation. The committee's view is that the Act creates a passive presumption of shared joint physical care and that passive presumption is not consistent with the standards of best interest of a child.

The best interest of a child is essentially a legal question of "what does this child need and how can these parents contribute to this child's needs?" By creating a presumption of joint physical care, there is an implied idea that a child is a calendar. Physical care is in reality an award of the right to maintain a child's primary residence. Certainly a child needs two parents after divorce. Joint physical care does not assure that right in any particular regard. Where parents are able to maintain two primary residences, consistent schedules, shift the quantity of time between homes as a child's needs, activities and stages of development require, shared physical care certainly is a good option for parents who have good communications.

Shared physical care ought to be an option that the courts should approve if reached by agreement between the parents. There was a concern under current judicial practice that judges were rejecting joint physical care even though the parents had agreed. The Family Law Section believes that a parenting plan which provides for joint physical care ought to be approved by the court unless a court finds it contrary to the best interest of a child to order shared physical care.

HF 22 created a passive presumption of joint physical care. This does not allow the court to inquire appropriately into the best interests of a child and make a good determination based on a careful fact review.

The Family Law Section and the ISBA urges a veto of this bill.

You should be aware that the Family Law Section intends to take up a careful review of parenting plans and the appropriateness of joint physical care and, hopefully, make recommendations to the 2005 legislative session.

This legislation is not beneficial to Iowans and I urge your veto.

Very truly yours,


KEVIN H. COLLINS

hc@shuttleworthlaw.com


Can you see the difference between the two? I surely can and it is patently obvious that the only thing these lawyers are concerned about is the continual padding of their bills by parents abused in an inherently contentious and unfair legal system.

Another good source in your search for an attorney: martindale.com. Look for a rating of AV.