State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

This gallery contains 2 photos.


  State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump   (02/06/17) 17-35105 State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump. WD Wash. 2:17-cv-141, Judge Robart. Source / Credit @POTUS United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit … Continue reading

Gallery | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Turkey: Children And Family


Turkey: Children And Family

Source: United Kingdom European Union Membership Referendum, 2016.

High Court refuses to recognise Turkish family court order

Posted in Family Law, Local Authorities, Local Body, News, Parental Rights, Private Law, Public Law | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Banks Have Become A Global Empire Unto Themselves

This gallery contains 7 photos.


Banks Have Become A Global Empire Unto Themselves Source: AGreenRoad Project – A Science Of Sustainable Health/Success: Bankers, CIA, Drug Dealing, HSBC, Vatican Money Laundering For Drug Cartels And Dirty Politics – No Banker Goes To Jail And Nobody Is … Continue reading

Gallery | Tagged , , ,

Council Hires Lawyers To Tell Court: Social Workers Do Not Know It Is Wrong To Lie.


Even more remarkable still, is that this case has been going on for 16 years.

Researching Reform

In what must be one of the most bizarre child protection cases to date, government officials in America are defending a law suit against them which accuses Orange County’s social workers of lying, falsifying records and concealing evidence, all of which led to the unjust removal of two children from their mother.

The line of defense, put together by a law firm specialising in defending police officers in big money cases, goes like this: the social workers involved in the proceedings couldn’t have “clearly” known that dishonesty wasn’t acceptable in court and, even if they did know, they should remain immune from prosecution because they are government employees.

Even more remarkable still, is that this case has been going on for 16 years.

As it’s Friday, we thought we’d share part of the transcript from the case with you:

Exchanges between panel and Pancy Lin, a partner at Lynberg & Watkins, Oct. 7…

View original post 703 more words

Posted in Family Law | Leave a comment

Fathers And Mothers The Feminist Perspective


 

Fathers And Mothers The Feminist Perspective

“The men’s and fathers’ movement needs to make sure it never sees females as the enemy, but only misandry–whether from females or from males.  If not, we’ll become like the bigoted feminists that this movement was formed to oppose.”

Source: Fathers and Mothers

Posted in Family Law | Tagged | Leave a comment

The World Of The Secret Family Court System

This gallery contains 2 photos.


  The World Of The Secret Family Court System The methods of suppressing free speech and the methods of censoring are very different. Suppression of free speech tends to occur through political or legal means. Someone is thrown in jail for criticizing the … Continue reading

Gallery | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

California Family Code § 297.5.


California Family Code § 297.5.

FAMILY CODE – FAM

DIVISION 2.5. DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRATION [297 – 299.6]

  ( Division 2.5 added by Stats. 1999, Ch. 588, Sec. 2. )

 

PART 1. DEFINITIONS [297 – 297.5]

  ( Part 1 added by Stats. 1999, Ch. 588, Sec. 2. )

 

297.5.  

(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.

(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon a widow or a widower.

(d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.

(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as California law.

(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.

(g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part 3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

(h) This act does not preclude any state or local agency from exercising its regulatory authority to implement statutes providing rights to, or imposing responsibilities upon, domestic partners.

(i) This section does not amend or modify any provision of the California Constitution or any provision of any statute that was adopted by initiative.

(j) Where necessary to implement the rights of registered domestic partners under this act, gender-specific terms referring to spouses shall be construed to include domestic partners.

(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits, and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either partner to seek financial support from the other following the dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of registration of a domestic partnership with the state.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for domestic partnerships registered with the state before January 1, 2005, an agreement between the domestic partners that the partners intend to be governed by the requirements set forth in Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive, and which complies with those sections, except for the agreement’s effective date, shall be enforceable as provided by Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive, if that agreement was fully executed and in force as of June 30, 2005.

(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 802, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2007.)

 

A Tort Cause Of Action California Provides Limited Recourse To Project Inheritance From Wrongdoers Source www.carr-mcclellan.com Article by CARR MCCLELLAN P.C. November 2012 In the 2012 elections, …

Source: A Tort Cause Of Action California Provides Limited Recourse To Project Inheritance From Wrongdoers.

 

fdw5houo_reasonably_small1
Related Articles  →
Posted in Family Law, Information, Law, Legal, Private Law | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Tort Cause Of Action California Provides Limited Recourse To Project Inheritance From Wrongdoers


A Tort Cause Of Action California Provides Limited Recourse To Project Inheritance From Wrongdoers

Source www.carr-mcclellan.com

Article by CARR MCCLELLAN P.C.

November 2012

In the 2012 elections, three states (Maine, Maryland, and Washington) legalized gay marriage, and one state (Minnesota) rejected a ballot measure that would have created a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.  This brings the total to nine states which, along with Washington D.C., recognize equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.  California is not on this list.

A recent California Court of Appeal case attempts to remedy one potential injury which could result from this inequality.  Brent Beckwith is the longtime partner of Marc Christian MacGinnis.  Mr. MacGinnis had an estate worth approximately $1,000,000.  Mr. MacGinnis prepared (but did not sign) a will leaving half of his estate to Mr. Beckwith and the remaining half to his sister, Susan Dahl.  Both Mr. Beckwith and Ms. Dahl knew about the draft will.  When Mr. MacGinnis was admitted to the hospital for lung surgery, he asked Mr. Beckwith to bring his will to his hospital room so that he could sign it.  Mr. Beckwith could not find the will, so Mr. MacGinnis asked him to create a new will with the same provisions.  Mr. Beckwith did so, emailing a copy to Ms. Dahl.  Following Mr. Beckwith’s email, Mr. Beckwith and Ms. Dahl spoke on the telephone.  Prior to their conversation, Mr. MacGinnis’ doctors had informed Ms. Dahl that Mr. MacGinnis’ surgery was high-risk and potentially fatal.  Under medical privacy regulations, doctors could not share this information with Mr. Beckwith because California law did not recognize him as Mr. MacGinnis’ family member.  Ms. Dahl also did not inform Mr. Beckwith of the risks that Mr. MacGinnis faced.  Instead, she instructed Mr. Beckwith that a will was not necessary, and told him that she would arrange for attorneys to prepare a living trust for Mr. MacGinnis following his surgery.  However, as doctors feared, Mr. MacGinnis’ surgery was not successful.  Mr. MacGinnis was placed on life support and passed away less than one week later.  Mr. MacGinnis died intestate, i.e., without an executed will or trust in place.  Ms. Dahl then petitioned for the intestate probate of Mr. MacGinnis’ estate asserting that she was Mr. MacGinnis’ sole surviving heir.  Mr. Beckwith, Mr. MacGinnis’ longtime partner and the intended 50% beneficiary of his estate, was to be left empty-handed.

Mr. Beckwith filed a complaint alleging, among other claims, that Ms. Dahl had intentionally interfered with his expected inheritance rights.  The trial court dismissed his claim on the ground that this tort did not exist under California law.  In its recent decision, Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 1039, the California Court of Appeal reversed, for the first time officially recognizing intentional interference with an expected inheritance (“IIEI”) as a tort under California law.  In so doing, California joined 25 other states which recognize the tort.

The new IIEI tort cause of action offers individuals limited protection of expected inheritance rights in specific and narrow circumstances.  To succeed on a claim of IIEI, a plaintiff must establish five elements: (1) the plaintiff had an expectancy of an inheritance; (2) the defendant interfered with plaintiff’s expectancy through independently tortious conduct directed at the testator; (3) the defendant acted with requisite intent; (4) the defendant’s actions caused the testator to exclude the plaintiff from his or her estate plan; and (5) damages.  Id. at 1057.  Additionally, the IIEI tort is not available unless “the plaintiff ha[s] no independent tort action because the underlying tort was directed at the testator [not the plaintiff] and when the plaintiff ha[s] no adequate remedy in probate.”  Id. at 1058

If all of these elements are met, the recognition of IIEI under California law may provide recourse where individuals behave tortiously towards testators or trustors and interfere with their testamentary wishes to the detriment of other intended beneficiaries.  The impact of this decision is not limited to gay and lesbian couples who are not registered as domestic partners, but could also apply to unmarried heterosexual life partners, stepchildren who were raised but not adopted by their stepparents, or other blended but non-blood family members.

[1] Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, was passed by California voters in 2008 by a vote of 52% to 48%.  In 2010, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on more narrow grounds.  Proponents of the marriage ban have filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States; a decision on that petition is expected by November 26, 2012.

 

[2] Although the case does not address it directly, the two were apparently not registered as domestic partners, or were not residing within California, or Mr. MacGinnis’ estate consisted of property outside of California.  Effective January 1, 2005, gay or lesbian couples registered as domestic partners with the California Secretary of State and residing in California have intestate rights as to property located in California.  See California Family Code § 297.5.

 

 

Laws can be made by legislatures through legislation (resulting in statutes), the executive through decrees and regulations, or judges through binding precedents (normally in common law jurisdictions). Private individuals can create legally binding contracts….

Source: Law – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Family Law | Tagged | Leave a comment

Conspiracy Of Silence Decades-long Cover-Up Over Institutionalised Child Abuse

This gallery contains 1 photo.


  Conspiracy Of Silence Decades-long Cover-Up Over Institutionalised Child Abuse An ex-military whistleblower claims there’s been a decades-long cover-up over institutionalised child abuse Former army information officer and whistleblower Colin Wallace has condemned the findings of the Historical Institutional Abuse … Continue reading

Gallery | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Attorney General Of The United States of America

This gallery contains 4 photos.


  Attorney General of the United States of America   Sourced from Wikipedia Seal of the Department of Justice Flag of the Attorney General Incumbent Dana J. Boente since January 30, 2017 Acting United States Department of Justice. Style Mister Attorney … Continue reading

Gallery | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment