Family Man: A Teen Father Tries to Embrace His New Role - washingtonpost.com
Family Man: A Teen Father Tries to Embrace His New Role - washingtonpost.com.
New York’s statute on property division in divorce generally does not make marital fault (i.e., violence, desertion, adultery or “extreme cruelty”) a factor justifying an unequal division of property, but it does have a general provision saying the court can look at “any other factor” that may be “just and proper” to consider when deciding how to divide property. Under the 1984 Blickstein case, fault can only be considered if it is “so egregious or uncivilized as to bespeak of [sic] a blatant disregard of the marital relationship – misconduct that ‘shocks the conscience’ of the court thereby compelling it to invoke its equitable power to do justice between the parties.” The New York appellate division now cites and applies these rules (in Howard S. v. Lillian S., N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 3/17/09) to say that they cannot be used against a woman who had an affair and pretended that the resulting child was her husband’s for several years before the couple finally separated.
Justice Helen E. Freeman points out that the only cases where behavior has affected property division have involved extreme violence, attempted murder, rape, kidnapping or protracted and severe physical abuse. Earlier cases have found adultery, alcoholism, abandonment, verbal harassment and “minor domestic violence” to not be egregious enough to affect property division.
Justice Eugene Nardelli dissents, but his reason is certainly a sign o’ the times: it’s not the cheating or the lying, it’s the wife’s “willingness to play fast and loose with the health of her child by knowingly misleading his health care providers as to his true genetic background, thereby providing a ... false medical history, and then refusing to rectify the situation when asked to do so,” which “contravenes ... paramount social values.” Well, I guess that’s what you call values clarification. The majority opinion counters that there was not any record of the wife actually making any misrepresentations to health care providers. Wife said she did not know that the child was her lover’s and not her husband’s, and the husband claimed she “knew or should have known”, which would seem to indicate that he didn’t have any actual evidence that she knew. Do “paramount social values” require a woman in this situation to get her newborn DNA-tested?
Kenneth R. Harney - What Might Be Hurting Home Values - washingtonpost.com
Family law clients often want to use informal estimates from realtors instead of an appraisal. This article points out the problems with that.
This APA press release has a link to a pdf of the new guidelines but does not describe the substantive changes. The old guidelines were very useful as official professional condemnation of several role-blurring and unprofessional practices that we used to see in family courts.
This is making the rounds on one of my listservs of family lawyers. Although as one of them pointed out, it's probably true that there are some particular food additives that can make things worse for kids who already have ADD, ADHD, hyperactivity etc.
Link: Law Blog - WSJ.com : Marry Goyim, You Get Bupkis; Illinois Court Strikes 'Jewish Clause'.
Illinois dentist Max Feinberg's will said that any of his grandchildren who married non-Jews would get nothing. An Illinois appeals court ruling has nullified that part of the will, saying it's "contrary to public policy".
The great majority of the commenters on the Wall Street Journal's blog post on this are absolutely right: No one has a right to inherit except for a spouse; Mr. Feinberg was free to do whatever he wanted with his money, and while that is usually a merely statutory right, one so time-honored (since the 14th Century) that it is like common law, in this case it is also the free exercise of religion.
As one of the WSJ commenters said, "it is not the public’s money, and therefore has nothing to do with public policy."
Military family law guru Mark Sullivan of Raleigh tipped me off about this. This new form will become the only way to elect military survivor benefit coverage in a divorce. Its use is mandatory after Sept. 30, 2008 but it can be used even before that. The form, like the informal letters that were used for this in the past, is subject to a one-year deadline, which Mark describes as follows:
The application for SBP coverage is governed by two deadlines. If the
member/retiree applies for coverage, the deadline is one year from the date of divorce. If the spouse/former spouse requests coverage, she must send in her court order requiring coverage within one year of the date of the order. The latter is called the "deemed election" process.