Governor approves 11 of 12 bills reforming family law, offers substitute for domestic violence bill

GOVERNOR PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE INSTEAD OF APPROVING:

SUBSTITUTE FOR:

  • HB 2042 Assault and battery against a family or household member; prior conviction; mandatory minimum term of confinement. Provides that upon a conviction for assault and battery against a family or household member, where it is alleged in the warrant, petition, information, or indictment on which a person is convicted, that such person has been previously convicted of an offense that occurred within a period of 20 years of the instant offense against a family or household member of (i) assault and battery against a family or household member, (ii) malicious wounding or unlawful wounding, (iii) aggravated malicious wounding, (iv) malicious bodily injury by means of a substance, (v) strangulation, or (vi) an offense under the law of any other jurisdiction which has the same elements of any of the above offenses is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and the sentence of such person shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of 60 days. Amended, PREVIOUSLY final version in Conference report.

 

APPROVED BY GOVERNOR:

  • HB 1945/SB 1541 No-fault divorce; waiver of service of process may be signed before suit filed. Clarifies that in the case of a no-fault divorce, waivers of service of process may occur within a reasonable time prior to or after the suit is filed, provided that a copy of the complaint is attached to such waiver, or otherwise provided to the defendant, and the final decree of divorce as proposed by the complainant is signed by the defendant. Where a defendant has waived service of process and, where applicable, notice, the bill further permits depositions to be taken, affidavits to be given, and all papers related to the divorce proceeding to be filed contemporaneously. Bill text as passed Senate and House.
  • SB 1144 Guardianship; annual report filed by guardian. Provides that, upon receiving notice from the local department of social services that a guardian has not filed the required annual report within the prescribed time limit, the court may issue a summons or rule to show cause why the guardian has failed to file such report.
  • SB 1307 Uniform Transfers to Minors Act; transfer of property; age 25. Permits a transferor to transfer property under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act to an individual under the age of 21 to be paid, conveyed, or transferred to such individual upon his attaining 25 years of age, unless the minor attaining age 21 years of age delivers a written request therefor to the custodian. Under current law, such property must be paid, conveyed, or transferred upon the individual's attaining 18 years of age, or 21 years of age if specifically requested by the custodian.
  • SB 1186 Financial institution; payment or delivery of small asset by affidavit, check, etc. Provides that a financial institution accepting a small asset that is a check, draft, or other negotiable instrument presented by an affidavit is discharged from all claims for the amount accepted.
  • HB 1979 Assisted conception; amends statute to provide gender-neutral terminology, etc. Allows an unmarried individual to be an intended parent, paralleling the ability of an unmarried individual to adopt under the adoption statutes. Allows for the use of an embryo subject to the legal or contractual custody of an intended parent in a surrogacy arrangement. 
  • HB 1988 Military retirement benefits; marital share. Requires that the determination of military retirement benefits in a divorce be made in accordance with the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (10 U.S.C. 1408 et seq.).
  • HB 2059 Nonpayment of child support; amount of arrearage paid; time period to pay arrearage; repayment schedule; suspension of driver's license. Provides that an individual who is delinquent in child support payments or has failed to comply with a subpoena, summons, or warrant relating to paternity or child support proceedings is entitled to a judicial hearing if he makes a written request within 30 days from service of a notice of intent to suspend or renew his driver's license. Current law provides such an entitlement if such request is made within 10 days from such notice. The bill further allows the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew a driver's license or terminate a license suspension imposed on an individual if such individual has reached an agreement with the Department of Social Services to satisfy the child support payment delinquency within a 10-year period and has made at least one payment of at least five percent of the total delinquency or $600, whichever is less, as opposed to whichever is greater under current law, under such agreement. The bill further provides that, where such a repayment agreement has been entered into and such an individual has failed to comply with such agreement, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall suspend or refuse to renew such individual's driver's license until it has received certification from the Department of Social Services that such individual has entered into a subsequent agreement to pay within a period of seven years and has paid the lesser amount, as opposed to greater amount under current law, of at least one payment of $1,200 or seven percent, as opposed to five percent under current law, of the current delinquency. The bill provides that an individual who fails to comply with such a subsequent agreement may enter into a new agreement if such individual has made a payment in the lesser amount, as opposed to the greater amount under current law, of $1,800 or 10 percent, as opposed to five percent under current law, and agrees to a repayment schedule of not more than seven years, which is consistent with the timeframe provided by the current law. Amended text as passed House and Senate.
  • HB 2317 Custody and visitation orders; exchange of child; history of family abuse; law-enforcement officers. Provides that in custody and visitation cases, at the request of either party, the court may order that the exchange of a child take place at an appropriate meeting place. Amended  text as passed House and Senate.
  • HB 2542 Temporary delegation of parental or legal custodial powers; child-placing agency. Allows a parent or legal custodian of a minor to delegate to another person by a properly executed power of attorney any powers regarding care, custody, or property of the minor for a period not exceeding 180 days. The bill provides that a parent or legal custodian who is a service member, as defined in the bill, may delegate such powers for a period of longer than 180 days while on active duty service, but specifies that such a period is not to exceed such active duty service plus 30 days. The bill provides that any such power of attorney shall be signed by all persons with authority to make decisions concerning the child, the person to whom powers are delegated under the power of attorney, and a representative of a licensed child-placing agency that assists parents and legal guardians with the process of delegating parental and legal custodial powers of their children. The bill specifies that such licensed child-placing agency will be subject to background checks and must develop and implement written policies for certain services and provide staff and provider training. The bill further requires that any person to whom any such powers are delegated shall comply with background check requirements established by regulations of the Board of Social Services or otherwise provided by law.
  • HB 1944/SB 1542 Civil actions; determination of indigency.  In a no-fault divorce proceeding, a person who is a current recipient of a state or federally funded public assistance program for the indigent shall not be subject to fees and costs, and  shall certify to the receipt of such benefits under oath.  House substitute agreed to by Senate.
  • SB 1758 Specific findings of fact; Custody and visitation cases; jurisdiction of court. Allows a circuit or district court in which there is a proceeding related to the custody or visitation of a child, upon the request of any party, to make any finding of fact required by state or federal law to permit such minor to apply for a state or federal benefit. Passed with House subcommittee amendments and substitutesSenate amendments, Conference amendments.

Kentucky enacts 50-50 custody presumption

"There shall be a presumption, rebuttable by a preponderance of evidence, that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If a deviation from equal parenting time is warranted, the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the time each parent or de facto custodian has with the child and is consistent with ensuring the child's welfare." ...

"When determining or modifying a custody order pursuant to Section 1, 2, or 4 of this Act, the court shall consider the safety and well-being of the parties and of the children. If domestic violence and abuse as defined in KRS 403.720 is alleged, and the court finds that it has been committed by one (1) of the parties against another party or a child of the parties within three (3) years immediately preceding the custody hearing in question, the court shall not presume that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child."

HB 528, recently signed by Kentucky's governor. There are other provisions, but those are the wholly new and most important ones.

Full text of bill and amendments

h/t Larry Gaughan, Creative Divorce Network


2018 Va. family law legislation: Alimony, court reporter reform, abuse prevention, child support, inheritance, violence, legalized adultery?

UPDATED APRIL 10, 2018

MODIFICATION BY THE GOVERNOR 

  •  HB 1351 Joint legal or physical child custody; custody and visitation decisions, communication to parties. Governor added: In any case or proceeding involving the custody or visitation of a child, to enable the child to apply for a state or federal benefit and upon the request of any party, the court shall make any finding of fact required by state or federal law in order for the child to receive such benefit. The existing language, which the Governor did not change, is: "The court shall consider and may award joint legal, joint physical, or sole custody, and there shall be no presumption in favor of any form of custody."  The bill's original text, completely replaced as it went through both houses, was, "The consideration of "joint physical custody" means the court shall consider custody and visitation arrangements that are reasonably constructed to maximize a child's time with each parent to the greatest extent possible in the child's best interests." At least the statute still says, "The court shall assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents, when appropriate, and encourage parents to share in the responsibilities of rearing their children." 

ENACTED, SIGNED BY GOVERNOR

KILLED (incl. passed by, stricken, tabled, continued to next year ...)

  • HB 599 Child support; nonpayment, amount of arrearage paid, suspension of driver's license.
  • HB 1223 Erin's Law, having schools educate children to recognize, resist and report molestation
  • HB 661 Assault and battery against a family or household member; enhanced, penalty. [Passed house, passed senate with substitute,  each house insisted on its own version, time ran out for Conference Committee]
  • HB 411 Assisted conception; gender-neutral as to same-sex.
  • HB 998 Parental or legal custodial powers, temporary delegation of; child-placing agency. [Passed House, continued to 2019 in Senate committee]
  • HB 807 Custody and visitation agreements; best interests of the child, violent abuse of other family members
  • HB 412 Marriage-related criminal laws; gender-neutral terms, adultery repeal, penalty.
  • HB 413 Adoption; gender-neutral as to same-sex.
  • HB 414 Same-sex marriage; marriage laws, gender-neutral terms.
  • HB 478 Domestic violence-related misdemeanors; enhanced, penalty.
  • HB 1237 Assault and battery against a family or household member; first offense, enhanced penalty.
  • HB 149 Child support order payee; change in physical custody of child, orders involving DSS.
  • HB 1331 Child support; review of guidelines federal compliance.
  • SB 64 Custody and visitation decisions; communication to parties required in writing.
  • SB 70 Custody and visitation; rights of parents with a disability.
  • SB 178 Parental or legal custodial powers, temporary delegation of; child-placing agency.
  • SB 596 Victims of domestic violence, etc.; firearms safety or training course.
  • SB 603 Same-sex marriage; gender-neutral terms.
  • SB 612 Assisted conception; parentage presumption.
  • SB 727 FOIA; exemptions for courts of record, courts not of records and Office of the Executive Secretary
  • SB 938 Child support; withholding of income, contracts with an independent contractor.
  • HB 216 Guardians, licensed physician, etc.; annual reports to include medical examination.
  • HB 383 Missing-heir search firms; void contracts.
  • HB 406 Guardianship; protects communication between incapacitated persons & others, notification of relatives.
  • HB 406 Guardianship; communication between incapacitated persons & others, notification of relatives.
  • HB 1403 Electronic wills; requirements.
  • HB 1565 Presumption of death; missing person reports.

 Compiled by John Crouch, updated by John Crouch and Sarah Araman


Berkeley thug: Violence OK if they don't obey. Sounds like every wife-beater ever.

(And husband-beater.) I'm a divorce lawyer, so I should know. Masked Berkeley rioter Neil Lawrence makes the all-too-familiar argument that violence is OK when people don't shut up and obey even after you ask nicely:

"But when you consider everything that activists already tried — when mass call-ins, faculty and student objections, letter-writing campaigns, numerous op-eds (including mine), union grievances and peaceful demonstrations don’t work, when the nonviolent tactics have been exhausted — what is left? Of all the objections and cancellation requests presented to the administration, local government and local police, the only one that was listened to was the sound of shattering glass."

 in the Daily Californian, "Black bloc did what campus should have"

 


Why's the military so toxic for marriage AND divorce? The best-expressed and newest insights.

Carl Forsling repeats several often-heard, and quite true, observations about how the military is bad for marriage, plus some insights that are original but intuitively very convincing once he points them out. Which explain why it's also so hard on divorce.

"Divorce — it’s no stranger to those in the military. At the same time, the military is a very tradition-minded institution, so divorce is often treated like the family secret no one talks about. ... some commanders have very black and white attitudes in regards to marriage. ... surprisingly prevalent in an institution where divorce is commonplace. The military attracts strong personalities, and they tend to either be very religious with very traditional views of morality or very not."

Very true. I'm more familiar with the strong personalities who are very non-traditional about marriage -- well, they may be traditional and sentimental about it in some ways, but in ways that get them married five times and divorced four times, if they're lucky. And hopefully with a divorce between each marriage. Or divorced early and married never again. Sometimes getting taken advantage of royally, as they see it, in their first divorce, and then becoming determined that next time, and every next time, they will be the ones in the relationship with the power, the knowledge, the leverage and the manipulation. Whether that's in a divorce or in devoutly unwed cohabitation. 

On the other hand, there are many who are honorable and generous to a fault. Or who want what's best for their kids even if it isn't best for themselves. 

Many, whether honorable or manipulative, are gung-ho and unashamed of whatever course they're pursuing, in divorce, adultery or whatever. If they're war veterans, they usually have a sense of entitlement, understandably. The military rightly tells them that they and their jobs are important, and that the civilian world should accommodate them. They may see divorce and other family breakups as just part of the petty civilian-life BS that the military requires them to take care of, but that could never be compared in importance to their mission or their careers.

And yet again, there's another side of this: Timid careerists who are always looking over their shoulders. Junior officers who are expert at creating paper trails to shift blame and responsibility to others, and who think that will work for them in family court.

I've only recently begun to see the very religious and neo-traditional officers and servicemembers the author talks about, but I know they have been out there for quite a while now.

He has a refreshing point of view on a practice that is widespread, widely advised, encouraged by regulations, but which also can make civilian courts get really mad at spouses and treat them like stalkers who are trying to destroy the careers they have benefited from:

"On top of that, some hurt soon-to-be former spouses have in the past called up commanding officers and sergeants major, and in today’s “pro-family” military, those leaders usually picked up the phone to an earful of often highly exaggerated drama. Sometimes those senior leaders rightfully take it with a grain of salt. Other times, service members get chewed out or worse based on the spouse’s account of events that may or may not have happened as described. ... Many units now have “human factors” or “commander’s safety” councils, wherein members’ personal lives are aired out in the name of “safety.” Guess who gets talked about in those? In today’s environment, where the phrase “perception is reality” is too often said without irony, too many service members end up with their reputations tarred." 

(That's not just "in the past", by the way.)

As for two well-known factors that weaken military families, he describes them freshly and eloquently:

"Service members often marry young. Part of that is the rapid maturation the military forces on people, part of it is undoubtedly bad decisions based on housing allowance rates, and part of it is ironically likely the military’s old-fashioned views on marriage. Whatever the reason, marrying young is not a good indicator of matrimonial success."

"Add in the deployments, long hours, etc., and things don’t bode well for military couples. There are some marriages that thrive despite the challenges — as those in the military are fond of saying, 'What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.' For others, though, what doesn’t kill them severely damages their relationships."

Another factor Forsling doesn't mention: The continuing reluctance to seek mental health treatment for reputation and career reasons. That has been a huge problem in many of my cases.

He concludes: 

The military has made a big push to be more family friendly in recent years. ... As it tries to be better for traditional families, it needs to improve the culture for non-traditional ones, as well."

That's so true. Our society needs to understand that being pro-family means strengthening intact nuclear families, but also honoring all family bonds and strengthening what's left of "broken" families too. 

The Military’s Problem With Marriage

 

Dubious Restraining Orders Hit Both Sexes, Mr. Zipper's Case Shows

Washington, DC and Fairfax, Virginia trial lawyer Trey Mayfield brought this New York Post item to my attention. There may be major facts missing from the article, but it makes it sound like Mr. Zipper filed for a restraining order because he couldn't quit making up with his ex-girlfriend and ending up sleeping with her. He did that as late as September, shortly before filing for the restraining order, and the only allegation that sounds anything like domestic violence is the lady's threat to burn his boat, back in July. On that occasion "she began throwing vases and ashtrays and all kinds of nice stuff in the pool" -- but not at him. (He was running away in his pajamas at the time, so he wasn't in the pool.) 

But there are men -- and women -- every day who get hit with at least temporary restraining orders based on claims like these, which range from at best borderline to downright absurd.

The only truly actionable behavior (the threat to burn his boat, assumably but not expressly with him perhaps on board, although he wasn't on it at the time, because he was running out of the house in his pajamas) was long before the repeated makeup sex, and the filing. That kind of delay does, in my experience, discourage judges from being so alarmed by it that they will grant a permanent restraining order. But they still could and often do. After all, we hear very often, and quite legitimately, about women who are afraid to leave their abusers and only do so long after the actual, and very severe, violence has been temporarily replaced by threats which are bone-chilling even when unspoken.

Too much makeup sex led to millionaire’s restraining order

By Julia MarshNew York Post November 26, 2014