Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Advice For Marriage Breakups You Should Follow

Ending a marriage is never an easy thing to go through, in fact it can sometimes be nasty. Whatever caused the breakup does not matter, it can turn your world into a mess. If you are looking for some advice for marriage breakups, you can learn how to make it through the emotional pain and come out the other end stronger from it.

When you divorce or separate from your partner, why do you still feel bad or hurt inside even if you want this divorce. It may be because it is a loss that you hoped would never happen. You had hoped this relationship would do great and grow into something special only now its gone. Maybe you even feel like your friends will think you failed and will think less of you for it.

It is difficult going through a breakup or divorce and all you can do is keep on moving forward. Do not let it stop you from being productive with your life, you must continue with work and the other things you do. Yes it will be painful but do not sit home and think you failed and that you can't go on. You can continue with your life and you may be stronger when it is over.

Go ahead a give yourself time to feel sorry, but quickly move on and start your life anew. The quicker you can get past this the better. Remember you are not the first person to go through what you are experiencing so don't feel alone.

by pennsylvania

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"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com


Tuesday, September 6, 2011

What happens to your Will when another beneficiary is born?

You Will usually says "I leave my estate to my children" or maybe "to my
grandchildren" or "to my children, and if a child isn't living, then to their
children". You will notice that no names are being used. Guest blogger
Stacey C. Maiden, Esq., Of Counsel to our Tax, Trust, Estates and Elder
Law Practice Area, today looks at the question of what happens when
new children or grandchildren are born after the Will is executed.

 

A common question from our estate planning clients, who name children, grandchildren or great-

grandchildren in their Wills, is "what happens if another child, grandchild or great-grandchild is
born or adopted? Do I need to update my Will?"
New Jersey has a statute which addresses the
issue of the after-born or after-adopted child (N.J.S.A. 3B:5-16) and we can draft language to
specifically include any after-born or after-adopted children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren in
the Will. But what if the Will does not contain this sort of language and the beneficiaries are great-
grandchildren?

The New Jersey Appellate Court recently considered these facts in the unpublished case, In the

Matter of the Estate of Francis Marie Ackerson Yetter, Deceased, (A-0971-09, decided December 22,
2010
). In her Will, Mrs. Yetter left certain shares of stock to two named great-grandchildren, who were
her only great-grandchildren at the time. After Mrs. Yetter signed her Will, two more great-
grandchildren joined the family. The after-born great-grandchildren argued that the devise should be
treated as a class gift, entitling them to share equally with the great-grandchildren identified in the
Will.

 

The Court considered the circumstances and overall testamentary scheme, and agreed,

finding that Mrs. Yetter did not intend to omit her after-born great-grandchildren. The Court

applied the doctrine of probable intent, which allows the Court, as far as possible, to ascribe to the

testator "those impulses which are common to human nature," finding that excluding two of her greatgrandchildren from her Will would be against the "common human impulses" of a great-grandmother who otherwise always treated her family fairly and equally. 

By Deirdre Wheatley-Liss 


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"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com


New York Mom of Twins Born Through Surrogate Sues Employer for Denying Maternity Leave

In a case that mixes reproductive technology, family law and employment law, a woman who used a surrogate to give birth to her twins is suing her employer and a senior human resources analyst in a U.S. District Court in Massachusetts for refusing to grant her paid maternity leave.

Kara Krill, a clinical business manager on New York's Long Island, has claimed breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, discrimination on the basis of her disability and gender, and negligent misrepresentation on the part of Cubist Pharmaceuticals, headquartered in Lexington, Mass. She seeks an injunction and compensatory and punitive damages for employment law violations.

Krill, who developed a reproductive disability called Asherman's syndrome after she gave birth to her first child in June 2007, and her husband hired a surrogate mother, or gestational carrier, to carry and deliver their second child. After learning the gestational carrier was pregnant with twins in November 2010, Krill informed her employer that she expected to go on paid maternity leave when the twins were born in May 2011, according to the suit.

Krill and her husband also obtained a prebirth order that "established the legal and genetic parentage of Krill's twins without having to institute adoption proceedings," according to court documents.

When Krill had her first child in June 2007, she received 13 weeks of paid leave under Cubist's maternity leave policy.




But a Cubist human resources analyst informed Krill she would be entitled to five days of paid leave under Cubist's adoption leave policy and not any paid leave under Cubist's maternity leave policy. The company provides adopting parents who work 20 hours or more per week five paid days of leave plus up to $4,000 in expenses for the adoption, according to court documents. The company's paternity leave policy also provides male employees who work 20 hours or more per week five paid days of leave.

In an email to the human resources employee, Krill complained about what she said was discriminatory treatment.

"As we have previously informed you, the children being born are mine and were conceived with my husband. They are only being carried by [a gestational carrier] as a result of my physical disability. ... Cubist's treatment of me differently than other employees having babies is not fair and is placing me in an untenable condition," she wrote, according to court documents. "But for my physical disability, I would be receiving the paid maternity leave offered by Cubist. Accommodating my disability would not require [Cubist] to provide me with any more benefit than other mothers."

The suit also claims that Krill's direct supervisor subjected Krill to "verbal harassment and other adverse treatment," "frequently" patronizing Krill about her disability. Her supervisor "told her pointedly on several different occasions that she should not be entitled to any leave from Cubist for the birth of her children, whether paid or unpaid," according to court documents.

When Krill informed her supervisor she was required to be with her newborn children for a minimum of 12 weeks, her supervisor told Krill that she could "'put [her] twins in daycare,' so she could come back to work sooner.'" Her supervisor also informed Krill she was "changing her sales quota expectations and taking away one of Krill's largest customer accounts and assigning it to another Cubist employee who was not disabled, and not going out on maternity leave."

Francis McLoughlin, director of corporate communications at Cubist, said the company could not comment on ongoing litigation but that Cubist "tries to maintain positive work relations at the company."

The Boston Globe has included Cubist in its annual list of Top Places to Work in Massachusetts for the past three years. The pharmaceutical company ranked 24th among midsize companies and was the highest-ranking public life-sciences company in its category in November 2010.

Charles F. Rodman, Krill's attorney, said she was "anxious" for the federal court to determine her claims.

"Kara Krill unfortunately suffers from Asherman's syndrome, a pregnancy-related medical condition that prevents her from giving birth, and is therefore protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act," Rodman wrote in an email to ABCNews.com. "One who suffers from discrimination on the basis of her sex-including medical conditions related to pregnancy is entitled to relief from such discrimination under federal and state law. Ms. Krill was denied paid maternity leave because she gave birth through a gestational carrier."

June Carbone, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, called this a "tough case."

"I can't see that an employer would be able to provide women with maternity leave for the purpose of bonding with a child, where the woman has not given birth, and not be obligated to provide men with the same benefit," said Carbone. In other words, the company could take the same position with Krill as it does with new fathers -- that she doesn't need physical recovery time.

But, Carbone said, Krill would "clearly" be entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, and harassment for that is "inappropriate."

"She may have a decent case that the employer promised her 13 weeks of paid maternity leave, since she is a legal mother who did not adopt, and that she relied on that promise, though the law generally requires that contract not be interpreted in a way that would make it discriminatory," Carbone said.

Naomi Cahn, a law professor at George Washington University who has written law review articles on family law, feminist jurisprudence and reproductive technology, said, "This is certainly one of the first federal cases involving a claim to benefits for paid leave by a woman who has had children through a surrogate. It raises complex issues about parental leave, assisted reporductive technology and employment discrimination." She believes that cases like Krill's will become more common as surrogate births increase, but the number of surrogate births per year is hard to pin down.

"Not all places that engage in surrogacy report, so they're not going to have complete statistics. It's very hard to collect statistics on this," Cahn said. The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology reported fewer than 300 surrogate births in 2006.

Elena Mauer, site editor of TheBump.com, said surrogate births became more popular after celebrities began having them, including actresses Sarah Jessica Parker and Nicole Kidman.

"Our stance is that this is a new mom, and she deserves maternity leave. You deserve time to bond with your children, and it's a really important time for bonding and for feeling like a family together," she said.

Gaia Bernstein, a law professor at Seton Hall University School of Law in New Jersey, said when surrogacy agreements are enforced the law treats the intended mother as the mother "in all respects.

"The purpose of a maternity leave is not just to enable the mother to recuperate from giving birth but to enable her to bond with the baby," Bernstein said. "This is even more important for a mother who did not bond through pregnancy."

By SUSANNA KIM

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"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com

Bankruptcy | Sports Law | All Criminal Cases | Traffic | DUI Defense | Family Law



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if any, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or attorney-client privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.




Monday, September 5, 2011

The Scourge of Family Law: Parental Child Abduction

In custody disputes there are several "game changers", including parental alienation, false allegations of child abuse and parental child abduction. Each of these ploys will turn run-of-the-mill custody litigation into extreme custody wars. Yet the most destructive of the three is the abduction of a child by one of his or her parents. While the latest statistics say that parental abduction has decreased in Canada, other countries are experiencing a surge in the number of cases where young children are spirited away in the wake of divorce or separation. This summer I handled three parental abduction cases, each time acting for the "left behind" parent. These cases involved six children: one 13-year old girl, taken by her mother to Florida from British Columbia; three-year-old twins accompanied their mother for a vacation in New York and failed to return to their Vancouver home; and three children holidaying outside of their home country of Mexico at summer camps in Toronto and India, were intercepted by their father and taken to Vancouver. What surprises me about these cases is that the abducting parents actually believed they could employ this "self-help" method of obtaining custody of their children. Each found out they were wrong. Parental abduction is the most insidious form of child abuse and while abducting parents often justify their behavior by alleging abuse by the left-behind parent, they cannot escape the criminal and civil recriminations of their conduct. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction is the international treaty that assists parents and governments to seek the return of children who have been wrongfully removed from their home country or state. So far, 86 countries and states have signed on to the Convention with Russia signing on in 2011. The principles of the Convention provide that parents cannot unilaterally remove children from their home jurisdiction where such removal will impede the parenting, custody or access of the other parent. The Convention applies even where there is not a custody or access order and applies both to married and unmarried parents. Most often when a parent abducts a child, the parent and child go "underground" making it difficult for the authorities to find the child. The protocol for the left-behind parent is to complete a Hague Abduction application which is delivered to the Hague Authority in the home jurisdiction, who then contact the Hague authority in the country or state where the child may be residing with the abducting parent. Where there is personal contact between the parents, the first step is to request the voluntary return of the child. Alas, parents who clandestinely take their children away, rarely wish to return without some incentive. In most cases,the left-behind parent applies to the court in the home jurisdiction for an order that the child be returned. The incentive for return is that in the absence of compliance with the return order, the abducting parent stands a good chance of losing custody of their child once the child is located, and even where a parent returns home with a child, may still suffer the consequences including restricted contact with their child, usually supervised access. Parental child abduction is also a criminal offence in Canada, however, frequently the police leave the matter to the civil courts. In the case of the child abducted to Florida, when the child's father contacted the RCMP, they completely ignored him, despite their mandate under the Criminal Code of Canada. However, there are cases where the abducting parent is dealt with criminally as well as civilly. In two previous cases I handled, a mother that fled to Quebec with her infant daughter was arrested and convicted of child abduction. The family court restricted her contact to supervised access for almost one year and the criminal court placed her on two-years probation. Similarly, a mother who hid her children in France for many years was finally arrested and imprisoned in Vancouver, even though she was pregnant. It is unlikely she will ever have normal custodial/access time with her children. In each of my three recent cases the endings were bitter-sweet. In all cases the children were returned, but returning home merely signals the beginning of long, ugly, expensive, custody/access battles where no one wins, and the children lose. Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang Share this: Email Print StumbleUpon Facebook Like this: Be the first to like this post.
 
 
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"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Taking Care of Disabled Heirs

Deciding how to leave your assets to your kids is tricky enough. If your adult child has a chronic disability, the task is much more complicated.

The issue affects many families: According to U.S. Census data, 12% of the population has a severe mental or physical disability. 

Strapped state and local governments are tightening income restrictions for medical benefits and supportive services, which are typically paid for by Social Security and Medicaid. Those services are tough to find—or afford—in the private sector for many adults with disabilities so severe that they can't live alone, parents and advocates say.

As a result, it's increasingly important to structure an inheritance in a way that won't disqualify a child for such benefits down the road.

At the same time, government and nonprofit funding to programs providing group housing isn't keeping up with demand from adults with disabilities, whose life expectancies are increasing. To meet the demand as of two years ago, the U.S. would need to expand the residential-services capacity for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities by 28%, according to a University of Minnesota report.

Making matters worse, two-thirds of parents and caregivers don't have a plan for where the person they support will live when the caregiver gets older, according to a June survey of families and caregivers by Arc, an advocacy group.

Here are some tips on how families can prepare.

Housing. Some families pair up to pool their resources and provide a home for two disabled adults, using a trust to make sure the mortgage and taxes are paid and the house is maintained, says Deidre Wachbrit Braverman, an estate-planning lawyer in Westlake Village, Calif. Other options: creating a housing collective after the parents' deaths somewhere with less restrictive zoning, or leaving the family home to a nonprofit that could turn it into a group home.

Paul Harvey, the father of an adult son with a developmental disability in Orange County, Calif., is brainstorming solutions with a group of other parents. One possibility: a "qualified personal residence trust," or QPRT, which lets homeowners stay in a house for years before transferring ownership to an heir at a discount to the current market value. That way, the families can give their homes to a charity or to another family member to manage for the child's lifetime use, Mr. Harvey says.

Another option: a "special needs" trust—a vehicle in which parents can put assets for the child's benefit without endangering government benefits. That would be a safer bet, says Ms. Braverman, since with a QPRT, changes in state law might cause the house to be counted as an asset for Medicaid purposes, disqualifying the child from benefits.

Families wealthy enough to leave a home to their child should consider a special-needs trust, Ms. Braverman says. Such trusts typically cost $2,500 to $5,000 to set up, says Harry Margolis, a Boston attorney who handles special-needs and elder-care cases.

Because the requirements for government-supported benefits are so exacting, it's important to have your attorney research the specific income and asset requirements when you draft such a trust, Mr. Margolis says. He recommends naming co-trustees: One professional, such as a lawyer or a financial institution, along with one family member.

Long-term care. Special-needs trusts are particularly helpful if a parent needs long-term care and the child is younger than 65, says Mr. Margolis: "The parent can shelter assets and qualify for Medicaid coverage by putting everything in the trust for the child with special needs."

It's an increasingly common situation, he says. Typically, when older adults who need long-term care seek Medicaid to help pay for it, there's what's called a "look back" period, meaning officials count any gifts made by the patient within the previous five years as assets that can be counted when calculating what they can pay for long-term care before Medicaid kicks in.

But assets in a special-needs trust aren't counted as being available to the parent.

Inheritance. To avoid disqualifying an adult child from getting services, some parents simply leave another child all their assets in their will. If there are three children, they might leave two-thirds to the child who lives closest to the one with special needs.

Still, problems could fester. "The local child is going to feel increasingly resentful of the sibling who isn't pitching in," Mr. Margolis says.

What's more, if the caregiver gets divorced or dies, that money could go to the ex-spouse or their children.

One fix: Give each child an equal share, and put the special-needs child's share in a trust. But given the increasingly unpredictable nature of most investments, you could further fund the trust with a permanent life insurance policy, he suggests.

Two websites list lawyers who specialize in working with families with children with disabilities: specialneedsanswers.com and specialneedsalliance.com, which also lists financial-services companies with practices focused on special-needs planning under the "Resources" tab.

By, Kelly Greene
 
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"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com



Friday, September 2, 2011

Divorce delays avoided in San Francisco after court funding deal

The courtroom cuts that could have left San Franciscans waiting for a divorce for up to two years have been avoided under a deal announced Wednesday.

The San Francisco Supervisor Court will save 100 people from losing their jobs and prevent 11 courtroom closures under the agreement announced by Superior Court Judge Katherine Feinstein.

The agreement is the result of negotiations which began last week, and must be approved by the Judicial Council, which is holding a Sept. 9 meeting to vote on it.

Feinstein hailed the agreement as a "true compromise" with the Administrative Office of the Court, a state body overseeing California's state court system, which would "lessen the blow on access to justice."

Cuts to the San Francisco court system were necessary as a result of the state budget. Feinstein had previously warned of delays to legal proceedings, including an additional year for obtaining a divorce, and longer line waits to be able to pay a traffic citation.

The court system was looking at as many as 175 layoffs and closure of 25 courtrooms. Under the agreement layoffs would be reduced to 75 and courtroom closures to 14. The court faces a $6.23 million deficit for the current fiscal year and a total $20.4 million deficit looking out to fiscal year 2013-2014.

Under the agreement, the court would see a $2.5 million infusion of funding, accept a $605,000 grant from the AOC and save $4 million this fiscal year by laying off 75 court employees.

Feinstein praised the agreement but said she is focused on developing a "long-term solution tin inadequate trial court funding." 

By: Joshua Sabatini

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"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com




Thursday, September 1, 2011

2006 Australian Family Law Amendment Resulted in Greater Parenting Time for Dads

Australia's 2006 amendment to its Family Law Act increased parenting time for fathers, new governmental statistics show.  Read about it here (The Australian, 8/31/11).

The data from the Australian Institute of Family Studies show that, although few couples (only 7%) have custody arrangements comprised of equal parenting time, those in which one parent has between 35% and 65% of the parenting time have increased from 9% to 17% of divorced couples with children.  Those increases are apparently directly attributable to the 2006 amendments that encouraged equal custody arrangements.

The proportion of shared care arrangements has been increasing since 2002, but it only gained momentum in 2006 with the Howard government's introduction of a presumption in favour of it to the Family Law Act.

In short, the presumption of equal parenting post-divorce did what it was supposed to do - increase equality in parenting time.  Of course the law is not yet five years old, so most of the existing custody orders were made before the effective date of the 2006 amendments.  As the article makes clear, the trend has been toward greater equality which as a practical matter means greater parenting time for fathers and less sole custody for mothers.

And that of course is why the anti-dad crowd moved immediately to thwart the effects of the 2006 amendment.  They're in the process of doing just that with yet a new amendment that would expand the definition of domestic violence beyond anything the dictionary recognizes as actual violence.  As in many of our states, the mere allegation by a mother of a fearful state of mind would be enough to deprive a child of its father and a father of his child.

If that's not enough, false allegations of domestic violence would receive neither punishment nor judicial sanctions.  So DV allegations would be a free shot for any parent wanting to make them, and, since the great majority of DV claims in custody cases are made by mothers, it's all too clear who will be victimized by the spike in false claims - fathers. 

Not surprisingly, the law's green-lighting of both trivial and false allegations has led some Australian family lawyers to predict a doubling of DV claims in custody cases.   That will swamp courts with allegations for which there is little or no evidence beyond a mother's claim about her own subjective state of mind.

Needless to say, all this - the legislative imprimatur on false claims and the separation of fit, loving fathers from their children - is being done under the banner of "the best interests of the child."  The fact that it would result in the opposite troubles the dogs of the war on fathers not a whit.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland says the government strongly supports shared care arrangements when it's in the best interests of the children. He is trying to amend the 2006 changes to better protect children suffering violence and abuse, so the legislation makes it clear a child's safety comes first.

The only problem with that is that it's transparently false.  Reading it you'd think that the 2006 amendment contained no language about domestic violence or that it in some way gave a pass to violent parents.  But of course it did nothing of the kind.  In fact the law is very clear that courts are to listen to and investigate claims of DV and child abuse and to tailor their orders accordingly.  The notion that any legislator would vote for a custody law that failed to protect mothers and children from domestic violence is absurd.  It's also not factual.  

That in turn makes clear just what the motivations are behind the latest proposed amendment.  Since judges are already empowered to address issues of DV in their custody decisions, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the new amendment is aimed less at protecting children than it is at excluding fathers from their lives. 

The new amendment has yet to pass Parliament, but I suspect it's just a matter of time before it does.  Then we'll see an abrupt halt to the trend toward greater paternal custody of children.  A few years from now we'll see the statistics showing that paternal parenting time has plateaued or fallen.  We'll also likely see Australian family courts stuffed to the gills with parents crying "abuse."

Why should we be surprised?  It's what the anti-dad crowd have wanted all along.

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"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com