Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Viability: The Beginning of Human Life

  
By John C. Meehling

Viability: The Beginning of Human Life

The legal concept of viability, or exactly when it is that life begins, is a hot topic both in and out of the courtroom.  In August of 2008, the presidential candidates were attending a forum at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, when the moderator and church pastor, Rev. Rick Warren, asked the candidates, "At what point does a baby get human rights?"  You may remember that then Senator Barack Obama replied to Warren by saying that determining when life begins, is "above his pay grade."  Such an "artful dodge" is no longer acceptable in more and more forums, especially in the courtroom, because determining when to grant an unborn fetus human rights can have profound impact on both criminal and civil litigation.

On one end of the scale is thinking similar to that stated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and pro-choice advocates in an article titled, "What's Wrong with Fetal Rights".  In that article, the group stated, "we have serious reservations about legislation designed to protect fetuses, because it can endanger women's rights by reinforcing claims of 'fetal rights' in the law."  On the other end of the scale would be any embryologist or "pro-life" advocate who would hold that life begins at conception or fertilization.

Roe v. Wade established a strict trimester guideline as to when a fetus is granted any rights as a human being.  Later,Planned Parenthood v. Casey created the current "viability" standard which points to the moment that a fetus will be recognized as being a child with rights or as a human being separate from its mother.  (Viability being defined as the ability to live on his/her own if removed from the mother's womb; the ability to exist independently is usually around 24-28 weeks into a pregnancy.)  That is the present standard Ohio courts use to determine fetal rights.

Recently, due to advancements in scientific evidence, a few states have adopted "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts", based upon the fact that we now know a fetus can have physiological and behavioral responses to pain stimuli as early as 20 weeks after gestation.

In September, though, the Alabama Supreme Court created new precedent when it issued a unanimous decision that will expand legal protections for unborn children at any stage of development, not just viability.  In April Mack, as the mother of Baby Mack, v. Thomas Carmack, the Court ruled that the state's wrongful death statute applied to an unborn child at any stage of development, regardless of viability.

April Mack was just 12 weeks pregnant with Baby Mack when she and her fiancĂ© were in a car accident that resulted in the miscarriage of their unborn child.  April Mack sued the other driver for her own injuries as well as for the wrongful death of her unborn child.  The County Court found that the baby was not viable and, therefore, could not enjoy the protection of the wrongful death statute.  The Alabama Supreme Court disagreed.

Alabama's criminal fetal homicide law had already applied to an unborn child from the moment of conception.  With theMack decision, the Alabama Justices merely reasoned that if an unborn child is protected under the state's criminal law to a certain degree, then that child should also be protected under the state's civil law to the same degree.  Now, an offender can be tried both criminally and civilly for the death of an unborn child, regardless of viability.

The Mack decision will undoubtedly please trial attorneys and pro-life advocates because it broadens the legal recognition of the unborn.  It will inspire other states, possibly Ohio, to follow suit and to pass similar legislation.  The case will probably make its way to the United States Supreme Court because it has ramifications for the abortion debate.

We will keep you advised on this extremely important subject!

for more information on these matters please call our office at 305-548-5020

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"


Tuesday, November 29, 2011

iPad vs. Kindle Fire? Scott Bassett Reviews & Recommends


iPad vs. Kindle Fire? Scott Bassett Reviews & Recommends

Today's guest blogger is Michigan family law appellate lawyer Scott Bassett. Scott has many talents, including bass-playing in a jazz band and he is the consummate techie. In fact, I never purchase hardware or software til I have checked with Scott. Scott consults with law firms through Affinity Consulting and writes a blog for them. Today Scott reviews iPad vs Kindle Fire. He says:

"iTablet computers can be useful productivity devices for lawyers - if the hardware and software are up to the task.  From my use of a Kindle Fire over the last week to read and annotate transcripts for an appeal, do legal research, manage email, and edit documents, I must conclude that it isn't up to the task. 

"While it is less than half the price of the cheapest iPad 2, it is clear to me that the iPad is a much more useful device for lawyers and a much better value.  There were few useful apps in the Amazon App Store and the hardware and operating system were sluggish compared to the iPad.  This is not to suggest that the Fire may not become a good device for content consumption (after a few software upgrades). It just isn't well suited to be a laptop replacement for lawyer productivity tasks.

"In checking online to see if my concerns were expressed by others, I found this review that is consistent with my own experience.   It goes into considerable detail. http://www.marco.org/2011/11/17/kindle-fire-review

"In the few months I've used an iPad, I have found it useful in my practice on a daily basis.  Today I found yet another useful app called Notability.  It is on sale for 99 cents currently.  It is designed as a note taking app allowing both typed and handwritten notes plus audio recording.  But the best feature for me is the ability to import PDF files (such as transcripts) and annotate them with highlighting or handwritten notes.  They can then be emailed or synchronized to your computer using Dropbox.

"Overall, if you are looking for a tablet computer to increase the productivity of your practice, avoid the Fire.  The iPad still seems to be the best option.  Things move fast in this market segment, so that could change.  But it will take more than hardware to displace the iPad.  What Android currently lacks in its tablets is the type of unified ecosystem that Apple offers."

for more information on these matters please call our office at 305-548-5020

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"




Monday, November 28, 2011

What is Covered Under Family Law



Two common social institutions are family and marriage. In fact, most countries today have great acknowledgment to these institutions since they are considered to be important in a society. Moreover, you can see some articles everywhere that signify how vital these institutions are and how they should be included in the family law.

It is inevitable that having a family follows after getting married which is why dissolving the marriage or the family should be considered to be legal issues. During these cases, Edmonton family lawyers can assist you since they know a lot of things about the Canadian family law.

Family matters, divorce and marriage – these are some of the factors that Edmonton family lawyers specialize.

For marriage, provincial bodies have jurisdiction over solemnization. Canada has legalized same-sex marriage and therefore, marriage has been defined, since 2005, as contract between two persons of different or same sex. Family lawyers in Edmonton recognize this legality, as well as prohibitions to marriage such as direct blood relationships between two parties or incapacity of one of the two persons.

Family lawyers Edmonton offices handle family law cases according to governing guidelines set by state and province. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce, specifically on the issues of spousal support, child support, custody and access.

There are other issues that can be handled by Edmonton family lawyers as well. They include: adoption, child and spouse support, child protection, custody and even property division. Property division is managed by an Act which can vary from province to province and Edmonton family lawyers are aware of this fact.

There are various issues linked to family law such as: property division, legal separation and contract, annulments and spouse and child support. Any problems seen on these matters can be explained or fixed by Edmonton family lawyers. Each of these factors has its own guidelines as stated by the rules of the federal government.

>From housekeeping, plumbing, edmonton family lawyers and many more. No matter what services you are in search of, absolutely you will get the finest provider here in Canada.

for more information on these matters please call our office at 305-548-5020

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"


Friday, November 25, 2011

Top 5 Things Self Represented Litigants should know about conducting a trial


By familyllb

Top 5 Things Self Represented Litigants should know about conducting a trial

Top 5 Things Self Represented Litigants should know about conducting a trial

 As a self-represented party, you must present your own case at trial. The purpose of this blog is to set out some practical and procedural matters with respect to the trial process in order to assist you in representing yourself.

In providing you with this information, we do not assume any responsibility to provide you with legal advice. Similarly, the judge who will be conducting your trial will not be able to give you legal advice. The judge must not only remain impartial, but must also be seen by all of the other parties to be impartial.

This initial blog cannot possibly cover all the things you need to know about conducting a trial, nor can it begin to replace the advice and assistance that would be available to you if you had legal counsel. Accordingly, you are urged to obtain legal information and legal advice to the extent you are able.

It is important to remember that you are fully responsible for the presentation of your case to the court. You cannot relieve yourself of this responsibility by simply relying on these comments or by relying on the fact that you are not represented by counsel.

If you have questions at any time, you should let the trial judge know.

All references in this blog to Rules are references to the Ontario's Family Law Rules. Similarly, references to Forms, are Forms referred to in the Family Law Rules. Both the Forms and the Rules are available on the Ontario Superior Court Website: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/famct.

So here we go, here's our top 5 things you need to know about conducting your own trial:

1. Burden of Proof

If you are the applicant, the burden of proof will be on you to prove the claims in your Application. If you are the respondent, the burden of proof will be on you to prove any claims in your Answer. All claims must be proven on a balance of probability, i.e. greater than 50%.

 

2. Opening Statements

At the start of the trial, the applicant is entitled to make an opening statement outlining the background to the applicant's claims against the respondent and a summary of the evidence that the applicant intends to call.
After the opening statement of the applicant, the respondent may also make an opening statement, outlining the defence to the applicant's claims, the background to any claims being made against the applicant and a summary of the evidence that the respondent intends to call. A respondent may choose to wait to make an opening statement until after the close of the applicant's case.

You are not required to make an opening statement. The choice of whether to make an opening statement will be solely up to you.

You must not interrupt the other party's opening statement even if you disagree with parts of it.

What is said in the opening statements is not evidence. If what you say in your opening statement is not borne out by the evidence that is subsequently presented, or is contradicted by that evidence, then what you said in your opening statement will be ignored by the trial judge. The sole purpose of an opening statement is to enable the trial judge to better follow the evidence as it is called.

 

3. Procedure for Introducing Evidence

After the opening statements, the parties introduce the evidence that they each rely upon. Evidence may consist of testimony from witnesses or the introduction of documents.

If you are the applicant, you will have the right to testify and call witnesses to give evidence in support of your case first. Once the applicant's case is closed, the respondent has the right to testify and call witnesses to give evidence in support of the respondent's case.

During your evidence and the evidence of any witnesses that you call, you may produce documents that you or your witness are able to identify and those documents may be entered as exhibits in the trial.

The opposing party may cross-examine each witness that you call. You will have the right to re-examine the witness to clarify matters raised by the cross-examination. You may not raise issues during re-examination that were not discussed by the opposing party during cross-examination.

After your last witness has been called, you will close your case.

In calling witnesses in support of your case, the process outlined in the section "Questioning Witnesses" below will be followed. The introduction of documents as exhibits is dealt with in the section "Documents as Evidence" below.

If you decide to testify, it is customary for you to be the first witness called in your case. If you decide not to testify, you may still be called as a witness by the opposing party pursuant to Rule 23(11). You will be cross-examined by counsel for the other party or the party, (if that party is also self-represented). You will be required to answer all relevant questions subject to certain limitations.

Before you testify, you will be asked to swear an oath or to affirm that you will tell the truth. If you deliberately lie under oath, you may be subject to a charge of perjury, which is a separate criminal offence that bears its own separate penalty.

Because there will be no one in front of you asking questions during your examination in chief (see below under "Questioning Witnesses"), you must plan ahead what you will say. You must rely on your memory rather than reading a prepared statement of evidence. If you need to look at a document created at or about the time of the events in question, in order to remember details, you must first ask the trial judge for permission to do so. You will be required to tell the judge what the document is and why you need to look at it so that the judge can determine if it is permissible. If you want to ensure you do not forget to cover everything, a written outline of the topics that you want to testify about can be used, but you will have to show it to the trial judge and the opposing party first.

If you testify you must be very careful to keep in mind the distinction between "evidence" and "submissions" (see section below entitled "Closing Submissions" for more detail). When in the witness box you must restrict what you say to what you personally saw, heard, did, received, et cetera. You cannot make submissions from the witness box. If you testify, once your evidence as a witness has been completed and you have left the witness stand, you can no longer give evidence without permission from the trial judge, unless you are entitled to give Reply evidence, as set out below.

In essence, you will be heard by the trial judge in only two ways: either as a witness giving evidence from the witness box, or as a self represented party making submissions from the counsel table. You cannot combine the two and must at all times maintain this distinction.

If you do not call witnesses and do not testify, then the decision of the trial judge will be based on the evidence introduced by the other party alone. However, the other party will likely ask the trial judge to use the fact you did not call evidence to conclude that the reason you did not testify or call a certain witness is because had you done so, the evidence given would not have been favorable to you.

 

4. Reply Evidence

If the respondent decides to call evidence, after all the respondent's witnesses have been called, the applicant may, in certain limited circumstances, be permitted to lead further evidence to reply to and rebut the evidence that the respondent has introduced. Such evidence is strictly limited to the purpose of replying to evidence of the respondent and may not include evidence that should have initially been part of the applicant's case. If the respondent has made a claim against the applicant, the applicant will be entitled to call evidence to defend the claim in reply.

If the applicant is permitted to call reply evidence, the same procedure will be followed as was used for calling other evidence.

 

5. Closing Submissions

After all the witnesses have been called, both parties will have an opportunity to address the trial judge to make submissions about what the trial judge's decision should be, based on the testimony that the witnesses have given and the contents of the documents that have been marked as exhibits. The applicant proceeds first, followed by the respondent. The applicant will have an opportunity to reply to submissions made by the respondent (this is different from "Reply Evidence"). You make your closing submissions from the counsel table.

It is important to remember that it is not open to you during your closing submissions to refer to matters that have not been referred to in the evidence. The purpose of your submissions is to outline your claim or defence and to review the evidence that supports your claim or defence and to point out the shortcomings in the evidence led by the opposing party.

 

Summary

So that is our top 5 things you should know if conducting your own trial.  We hope this helps.  Also remember to consider whether or not witnesses at your trial should be excluded. 

When the trial begins, if you or the opposing party asks the trial judge for an order excluding witnesses, the judge will likely grant the order. In that case, except for you and the opposing party, all other witnesses will be asked to stay outside the courtroom until they are called to give their evidence. This is done in order to ensure, as much as possible, that a witness does not change his or her testimony in response to hearing the testimony of some other witness.

If such an order is made, you must not discuss any of the evidence given at the trial with any of your witnesses before they are called to testify. You must also ensure that your witnesses are aware of the order and do not discuss their evidence with anyone until after the trial is over.

Remember it is never a good idea to represent yourself.  Try to get some legal advice and assistance before chosing to conduct your own trial.


for more information on these matters please call our office at 305-548-5020


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"


Thursday, November 24, 2011

Family Law, Missing Pages and Judiciary Law 487


By Andrew Lavoott Bluestone

Family Law, Missing Pages and Judiciary Law 487


This was a divorce case, and the couple had a business.  What was the business worth? How was it to be split?  Was there an appraisal?  Strumwasser v Zeiderman ; 2011 NY Slip Op 32971(U); October 18, 2011; Supreme Court, New York County; Docket Number: 113524/10
Judge: Joan A. Madden is a case in which husband settles, and then sues wife's attorney for deceit.The deceit?  Offering a business plan with a missing page in order to set the value of the business. Was this deceit under Judiciary Law 487?  It turns out that the Court thought it was not.

"Plaintiff maintains that it was deceitful for the law firm to represent that the financial projections w e r e anything other  than informational, and bases the allegation of deceit on this representation.
The law firm contends that it was arguing, on behalf of Wife, that the issue of the value of the jointly-held stock in Snow Beverages was an issue for consideration in the distribution of marital assets. The law firm maintains that its presentation of the business plan was to oppose plaintiff's motion to be relieved of the cost of the court-appointed appraisal, and that the presentation of the business plan was to provide evidence to the court that plaintiff had ascribed a value to Snow Beverages' stock. According to the law firm, it is irrelevant whether the business plan was designed for informational or investment purposes; its import was to demonstrate plaintiff's own concept of the value of the stock.

In the complaint, plaintiff also alleges that it was deceitful for the law firm to represent that Snow Beverages was profitable since, at the time of the divorce proceedings, it was losing money. Complaint, 17 59-63. In support of its instant motion, the law firm has attached a copy of the Snow Beverages' website of December 15, 2010, that indicates that the company was still operating as of that date. Motion, Ex. C."

"Plaintiff argues that he may maintain an action against an adversary's expert if the expert is involved in a larger fraudulent scheme, such as he has alleged in his complaint. Further, plaintiff contends that justifiable reliance is a question for a jury and cannot be dismissed by dispositive
motion. In reply, the EisnerAmper defendants assert that the exception to suing an adversary's expert as being part of a larger fraudulent scheme is inapplicable to the case at bar, since plaintiff had every opportunity to refute the Blauatein report and the report was prepared only for a determination of equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding. defendants say that plaintiff has not alleged a fraud for any larger purpose. Moreover, the EisnerAmper defendants point out that the settlement was overseen and approved by the matrimonial The EisnerAmper court, and plaintiff was fully represented in those proceedings. It is noted that plaintiff has not responded to the
EisnerAmper defendants' argument that a cause of action cannot be maintained as against EisnerAmper LLC under the doctrine of respondeat superior. that EisnerAmper LLC negligently supervised Blaustein and McLaughlin."

" A clear reading of the complaint indicates that plaintiff never believed the valuation and never relied upon it. the complaint alleges that plaintiff relied upon the Instead, representation of his own counsel that challenging the valuation would be expensive, and his counsel's advice to settle.
Furthermore, the alleged misrepresentation was not made to plaintiff, according to the complaint, but was made to the court, which never relied upon it because the parties settled. In addition, plaintiff signed the stipulation of settlement in which he affirmatively stated that he was not fraudulently induced to enter into the agreement. Therefore, by his own admission, no
fraud was perpetrated on him."

"Since plaintiff has failed articulate or allege a chronic or extreme pattern of behavior on the part of the law firm , plaintiff's causes of action asserted as against Zeiderman and J&C for violation of the Judiciary Law are dismissed."

for more information on these matters please call our office at 305-548-5020

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"





Wednesday, November 23, 2011

In Defense of Divorce



By Marina Adshade

In Defense of Divorce


Today we will take a few minutes to show a little appreciation for an important right in Western society – the right to divorce. It is important to celebrate this right lest we risk losing it amid all the social ills divorce has evoked. Advocates of covenant marriage believe that stricter marriage contracts are the answer, but the empirical evidence does not support that claim.

In 1969, Ronald Regan, then Governor of California, signed a billing into law giving individuals in that state the right to divorce without the consent of their spouse. By the early 1980s nearly every state of the US had adopted similar no fault divorce laws relieving the unhappily married of the responsibility to prove adultery or infidelity in order to obtain a divorce. 

Economists Justine Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, in a 2006 paper, showed that these legal changes had significant impacts on the quality of life of women. Taking advantage of in state-by-state variations in the time in which these laws were put into place they found that freer access to divorce brought with it an 8 –16% decline in female suicide, a 30% decline in domestic violence and 10% decline in the murder rate of women. 

You may argue that these benefits to unilateral divorce laws come at significant costs – hardship for children and female poverty, just to name two – but that would only be true if the change in divorce laws increased the rate of divorce and that has not been proven. In fact, the best evidence suggests a very small positive effect on divorce rates only in the ten years after divorces became easier to obtain. And even then, that effect was only among those who were married before the laws were put in place. 

The explanation for why easier access to divorce has not increased divorce rates is simple – men and women enter into marriage more cautiously when they know that divorce is easier to obtain. This is because while the laws may have made divorce easier from a legal standpoint, they have not made marital dissolution emotionally or economically painless. 

It is this fact that explains why women marry later in life when it is easier to divorce. 

A second explanation, which also explains the fall in domestic violence and suicide in states that support unilateral divorce, is just knowing that your spouse can divorce you without your consent encourages married individuals to treat each other better. 

So no-fault divorce laws have the power to increase the quality of marriages, even if they don't increase the number of marriages.   

So why, given the benefits that no-fault divorce has wrought, and the lack of evidence that it raises the rate of divorce, would any state in the US allow an individual to sign away a right that was granted to protect them?

I can't answer that question, but thanks to recent empirical research I can say something about how legally enforceable covenant marriages have impacted the marriage markets in the three states that enforce them: Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona. 

Covenant marriages are an opt-in marriage contract in which the two individuals involved can only obtain a divorce only if they can prove adultery, domestic violence, abandonment or if their spouse has been charged with a felony that came with jail time. Anecdotal evidence suggests that even when abuse has been proven judges strictly enforce separation periods of up to two years.

The purpose of a covenant marriage is to increase the cost of divorce, significantly, and as a result give parties an incentive to stay in a failing marriage. If women are lower wage earners than men, or are out of the workforce all together, then the imposition of these costs falls disproportionally on women making it difficult for them to leave a bad marriage.  That part of the arrangement is significant since in the majority of divorces it is the wife who wants the marriage to end.

A recent book that explored covenant marriages finds that they are just over half as likely to end in divorce as a no-fault marriage. They find, however, that if they compare individuals in covenant marriages with similar people in no-fault marriages (i.e. white, better educated than average and more likely to be religious) they find very little difference in divorce rates. Also since covenant marriages only became available between 1998 and 2002, and given the two-year waiting period, there is bound to be a lag in covenant divorces compared to no-fault divorces (the data for the book was all collected before 2006). 

What this says is that covenant marriages are not less likely to end in divorce despite the fact that they make divorce more expensive. 

A new paper looks at covenant marriages and finds that only 1% of couples opt into covenant marriages. A surprising large number of those people are marrying for the second time – 31% of men and 30% of women. Despite the suggestion that the decision to enter a covenant marriage is religious, almost as many covenant marriages are performed in civil ceremonies as no-fault marriages – 56%. 

I understand that some people in religious communities would choose a marriage contract that enforces their beliefs. It isn't clear, though, why the court system should play a role in enforcing those religious beliefs. But perhaps this is something that is simply beyond me given that I live in a country that believes in the separation between church and state (i.e. Canada). 

The more interesting group of people choosing covenant marriage is those who are on their second marriage. The paper I just mentioned tests a theory that covenant marriages plays a role in allowing men and women to screen out any potential marriage partner who is not fully committed to marriage. If I had been married before and my former spouse had been able to get a unilateral divorce despite my desire to stay in the marriage, then I can see why this would be an appealing option for people remarrying. 

That doesn't mean those marriages are any happier and, as I have said, it doesn't mean they are less likely to end in divorce.

While the number of states that allow covenant marriage is few and the number of marriages in those states tiny, there have been calls for covenant marriage options in other states. Divorce is costly, not just for the individuals involved but also for society. Of course we would like to see an end to high divorce rates but a return to at-fault divorce is just throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

for more information on these matters please call our office at 305-548-5020

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"



Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Facebook as a Source of Evidence in Family Law: Part 3


By familyllb

Facebook as a Source of Evidence in Family Law: Part 3


Facebook as a Source of Evidence in Family Law: Part 3 — Even More about Facebook in Family Law Cases

In our previous Blogs Facebook as a Source of Evidence In Family Law: Part 1 andFacebook as a Source of Evidence in Family Law: Part 2 – More About Facebook in Family Cases , we discussed the use of Facebook in family law cases, especially in situations where one ex-partner tries to use the other's Facebook entries and pictures as evidence against them, usually to disparage them in connection with child custody and access disputes.

Now, in a U.S. case, a Connecticut judge has ordered that a divorcing couple exchange passwords for their respecting Facebook accounts, and for any dating websites on which they were active members.

The unusual September 2011 ruling was part of the divorce trial of Stephen and Courtney Gallion, which included a custody dispute over the couple's children.     The husband was asking the court to award him full custody.

The password exchange was ordered by the court after the parties' lawyers argued that mutual unrestricted access could provide evidence which could be used in the parties' custody matter.    The order was framed as part of the customary obligation on litigants to relinquish any "responsive material" to the other, and was extended in this case to encompass access to the social networking sites.   More to the point, the husband hoped that by having access to the wife's Facebook, MySpace, Match.com and EHarmony accounts, he would be able to collect evidence that she was not the appropriate custodial parent for the children.

The judge imposed certain stipulations, specifically that the password exchange should be carried out only by the parties' lawyers, and that neither spouse may post messages to Facebook or the dating sites in the guise of or purporting to be the other spouse.  They were also prohibited from deleting any posts or messages from their own sites.

The judge's order – which does not yet appear to have a counterpart amongst Canadian judgments – raises interesting non-family-law related questions such as:

1) whether it violates the terms of service of social networking sites (which prohibits the sharing of passwords); and

2) whether the order allows for violation of privacy because it gives each spouse unfettered access to private information such as the other's "friends" list.

Nonetheless, it is an interesting development in the ever-expanding realm of family cases that involve Facebook and other social networking sites.

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at  www.RussellAlexander.com

for more information on these matters please call our office at 305-548-5020


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"