Recent Posts in Government Category

If you're filing for divorce in Pasadena, chances are you've found yourself wishing there was one easy form to fill out and the whole mess would be done. In Texas, such a form could very well become a reality. But not everybody in the Lone Star State thinks an easy divorce form is a great idea.

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a letter to Texas State Bar president Bob Black, pushing the idea of simplified divorce forms which could be reviewed by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee. The forms have been in the works for nearly two years and are aimed at helping the millions of Texans who can't afford legal representation.

Proponents of the forms say that too many confused and unqualified Texans are forced to represent themselves in divorce court since there isn't enough legal aid to go around. Forms like the proposed ones in Texas are the norm in all but 12 other states, and champions of the cause say it's high time that Texas made getting a divorce easier. The legal system in Texas is notoriously clogged and backlogged and proponents also are hoping these forms will help alleviate system strain.

Opponents of the forms, on the other hand, argue that average people wouldn't know what they were filling out and something that was supposed to make things easier would complicate the divorce process even further. Judge Judy Warne told The Daily Caller that arrogance, not financial strain, is why people don't hire lawyers and the forms would only encourage folks to try to skate around the system.

"They don't know what to do with them," Warne said. "They think this is the magic form that's going to fix everything."

Other opponents say more manpower in free legal aid is the answer. Still, people in favor of the forms claim that family lawyers are against the forms because of greed and fear that the forms could potentially hurt their profits.

The state Supreme Court is expected to have a ruling on the forms as early as April.

If you're seeking divorce advice in Pasadena, you've probably been warned about the progressive alimony and custody laws in California. California has some of the tougher and more contemporary alimony policies in the United States. Other states, particularly on the East Coast, have had the same alimony laws since the 1950s. But it looks like all of that is beginning to change.

Massachusetts, New Jersey and Florida have undergone alimony law face-lifts which have erased the old school policies that kept the states in the divorce dark ages. The common goal of the states is to get rid of lifetime alimony, a policy which is dated and nearly impossible in today's economic climate. Many of the laws were established when men worked and women stayed at home with the children, meaning costly payouts to ex-wives. These outdated laws force divorcing couples to return to divorce courts whenever circumstances change. Under this arrangement, the legal fees and divorce proceedings are never-ending, even when the marriage has been over for years.

Specifically, proposed Florida Alimony Reform, which limits alimony payments and duration, is similar to newly-passed Massachusetts laws.

"Florida's permanent alimony laws are relics from another century," says state Rep. Ritch Workman. "Too often, lifetime alimony brings payers to bankruptcy, insolvency and foreclosure."

New Jersey Alimony Reform hopes to accomplish much of the same - but neither state will see changes immediately. Massachusetts will be the first state to see the benefits of alimony reform next spring.

Huffington Post blogger Elizabeth Benedict thinks the reform is long over due.

"Citizens in Florida and New Jersey - and Massachusetts, until the new law fully takes effect in March 2012 - deserve better than this, " Benedict writes. "Way better. What happens in family court in these states is a national disgrace. But the Massachusetts Miracle has put wind in everyone's sails. The good weather might just be moving from North to South this time."

Sports fans and divorce lawyers in Pasadena alike have been watching the contentious divorce of Dodgers owners Frank and Jamie McCourt rage on for nearly two years. In that time, we've seen the pair battle relentlessly over the team, which she says she's entitled to half of while he says he's the sole proprietor. After months of back and forth over which one of the spouses will end up with the struggling baseball franchise, it looks like a big time (and big dollar) settlement has finally been reached.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Jamie McCourt will walk away from the Dodgers and relinquish her rights to the team for a payout of $130 million. This agreement is expected to bring about the end of what experts believe is the most expensive divorce in California history. The settlement would dissolve Jamie's relationship with the team and would prohibit her from making any further claims. With Jamie out of the way, Frank can now pursue his publicized plan to retain ownership of the team by selling the highly-profitable television rights in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

According to theTimes, Frank and Jamie McCourt "incurred $20.6 million in legal bills related to the divorce through July" while the battle for the Dodgers alone might have added an estimated $14 million in legal fees to the previous total. Frank isn't off the hook just yet, however. Mr. McCourt now has to face-off with Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig to decide the ultimate fate of the Dodgers. Selig has asked the Bankruptcy Court to force a sale of the Dodgers via court order. MLB officials cite financial mismanagement as the reason why the team should be sold publicly, while lawyers for Frank McCourt believe Selig is using the "enormous negative publicity" from the divorce to help force the sale of the team.

An often-quoted hip hop song might have claimed "more money, more problems." But in the world of divorce, it's the lack of money that seems to cause the most problems. So divorce attorneys in Pasadena weren't surprised last week when a new study showed the correlation between couples on government financial assistance and divorce.

Financially-strapped couples that receive government assistance, such as Medicaid or food stamps, are significantly less satisfied and committed in their marriages, according to a new study from the University of Missouri.

"We found that there's a unique relationship among income level, government assistance and marital satisfaction and commitment," said David Schramm, assistant professor in Human Development and Family Studies in the College of Human Environmental Sciences. "The study confirms that low income does have a negative impact on marital quality, but there are additional factors as well. The relationship between income and marital satisfaction is influenced by other issues, including whether or not the couple receives some form of government assistance."

The study reported that couples with low incomes, under $20,000 per year, scored significantly lower on five of the six dimensions of marital quality. Overall satisfaction, commitment, divorce proneness, feelings of being trapped in a marriage and negative interaction are some of the criteria the couples were scored on. Married couples with low-earning incomes while on government assistance reported significantly lower levels of overall marital satisfaction.

"Economic hardship, the feeling of strain and tension associated with money issues, tends to be a driver for other stressors," Schramm said. "For example, if couples can't pay the bills, then they are likely to be more irritable and stressed about other areas of life. This leads to negative interactions between spouses or individual feelings of being trapped because they can't survive on their own. It's a constant drain on many aspects of marital quality and overall well-being."

Schramm says these finding may help get marital counseling to those in need.

"Now we've identified a specific population to target with marriage and relationship education," Schramm said. "No longer will we reach out to just low-income couples. Specifically, programs will target couples who receive government assistance and provide resources, including healthy relationship and wellness education, employment training and financial planning."

If you're seeking divorce advice in Pasadena, undoubtedly you've been told to act quickly and carefully so you can get on with your life. Jo-Ann DerManouelian of Rhode Island apparently never received that advice. DerManouelian is digging up her 17-year-old divorce; she's asked the court to throw out the 1994 divorce judgment. Now state officials have fired back, saying that DerManouelian's motivation for nullifying the old divorce is purely financial.

A civil complaint filed last Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Providence states Johnston resident DerManouelian only sought to have her divorce voided after officials notified the estate it owed $1.7 million in taxes and $1.1 million in penalties. DerManouelian is the administrator of her ex-husband's estate. Aram DerManouelian, founder of American Foam Corporation, died in 2006. Jo-Ann claims her ex fraudulently obtained the divorce. She contends that her husband initiated divorce proceedings in 1993 strictly because his marriage to her prohibited him from leaving real estate and pension proceeds to his son from a previous marriage. According to court records, couple had no children together.

"When Jo-Ann asked Aram why he was filing for divorce, Aram would only tell Jo-Ann that she should not fight what he was doing and that he, Aram, would pay his lawyers $2.00 for every $1.00 that his lawyers kept from her if she contested the divorce in any way,'' her attorney wrote in official court documents filed last month.

Jo-Ann and Aram, according to her attorney, lived together until the time of his death.

"On January 6, 1994, there were no irreconcilable differences between Aram and Jo-Ann, Aram and Jo-Ann were living together as husband and wife, there was no irremediable breakdown of the marriage between Aram and Jo-Ann and the entry of the (divorce judgment) January 4, 1994, was procured by fraud on the court by Aram,'' he added.

Meanwhile, authorities are accusing Jo-Ann of trying to get her divorce voided in an "improper and collusive attempt" to claim a marital tax deduction from her ex-husband's $17.7 million estate.

Arnold Schwarzenegger might need to seekdivorce advice in Pasadena while looking for a good criminal lawyer, too. New reports say that the former governator is being investigated by the California Attorney General. The state of California is looking into allegations that Schwarzenegger used tax payer dollars to cover up his numerous affairs.

RadarOnline.com is reporting that the Office of the Attorney General is “conducting a preliminary evaluation into the scope of Schwarzenegger’s double life, which allegedly included using his state-funded security details to cover up women being escorted to his hotel room.”

William Taylor, a seasoned hotel security officer at the Sacramento Hyatt Regency, says he saw Schwarzenegger use California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers to transport women to his hotel room.

"On three different occasions after the governor arrived alone at the Hyatt Regency, CHP Dignitary Protection Services arrived in their official vehicles, black Ford Crown Victoria sedans — about one to two hours later with one or two young females. They'd hurriedly escort the women through the service entrance on the second floor parking garage to the elevator that went to the governor's private wing... the women would usually stay for two to four hours and either leave through the hotel's main entrance or be driven away by the CHP in the same official vehicles."

CHP officials deny these claims. Nevertheless, Eric Bauman, Vice Chair of the California Democratic Party, has demanded an official inquiry into Schwarzenegger’s finances to determine if he used campaign funds or state money to support his extra-marital affairs. The Attorney General’s office is refusing to comment at this time about the criminal investigation but multiple department sources have confirmed the decision.

Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger’s estranged wife, Maria Shriver, is said to be moving closer to divorce. Fox is reporting that the former First Lady of California has hired both a divorce attorney and a private eye. Since the news broke about Schwarzenegger’s affairs, complete with fathering a child with a former household employee, speculation has run high about when and if Shriver will file for divorce.

Divorce attorneys in Pasadena will find the divorce laws of the European Union interesting. One of the benefits of the European Union is that it allows people greater freedom of movement. These days, approximately 350,000 cross-border marriages occur each year. Someone from Lithuania might marry a Spaniard, or a British subject could marry a French citizen. Of course, cross-border marriages sometimes require cross-border divorces.

Each year, approximately 40 percent of cross-border marriages fail, requiring divorces to be carried out under a cloud of uncertainty and complication. Previously, cross-border couples had to decide which country’s legal system to use in order to agree to how their assets would be split up, but a new arrangement now is in place. This arrangement allows each person to decide which nation’s laws should be applied. For example, an Italian-Spanish couple living in France can finalize their divorce following Italian, Spanish or French laws. If the couple can’t agree, the laws of the couple’s country of residence will be applied by default.

This new arrangement is intended to put an end to some of the uncertainty of cross-border divorces.

“I do not want people in the EU to be left to manage complicated international divorces alone,” says Vivien Redding, EU Justice Commissioner. “I want them to have clear rules so that they always know where they stand.”

Critics think that the new rules might lead to added bureaucratic complexity. The EU already is not known for its bureaucratic simplicity. Advocates, however, point to several benefits; for example, the practice of “divorce shopping,” where a person tries to gain advantage by looking for the jurisdiction that offers the most favorable terms, will no longer be an issue. Advocates of the new arrangement also hope that marriages may be saved.

“Because so much money is at stake, people rush to proceedings sooner than they would need to, rather than seeking to save their marriage through mediation,” London-based lawyer David Hodson says.

Whether the EU nationals are for or against the new arrangement, it is certain that EU divorce attorneys will continue to see to millions of divorces in years to come. Nothing can make the difficulty of divorce easier, but the new arrangement might ease some of the difficulty of a European union.

As difficult as seeking divorce in Pasadena is, at least divorce is legal here in the United States. In the small country of Malta, divorce is not an option. But as the country’s European influence grows stronger and the its population grows, divorce has become a hot button issue for the Maltese.

Malta for decades has been one of the few places on earth where divorce wasn’t legal. The Catholic influence on the country kept divorce out. As Chapter 1, Article 2 (2) of the Maltese constitution plainly states, “The authorities of the Roman Catholic apostolic church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong." While the country allows religious freedoms, Catholicism is the official state religion of Malta. Annulments and separation can be granted by the Civil Code and Marriage Act.

Yet as neighboring Mediterranean countries like Tunisia and Egypt struggle publicly with civil liberties and democracy issues, Maltese residents are split down the middle on whether the country should allow the practice of divorce. The heated debates and passionate public campaigns are reminiscent of this country’s current battle over gay marriages. Everybody in Malta has an opinion about the topic and this summer the Maltese will take their passions to the polls. For the first time, Maltese citizens will get to voice their opinions on divorce at their local polling place.

Facebook pages for both sides of the issue have been set up, while commercials much like our own political ads are currently airing on TV. Those in favor of divorce argue that Maltese can still believe in God and be good Catholics if they receive a divorce. They call it a “non-issue” and believe Malta’s sensitivity towards it is keeping the country in the dark ages. Traditional Maltese citizens against divorce believe that legalizing it would tear families apart and destroy the country’s longstanding convictions.

If you’re seeking divorce advice in Pasadena, it doesn't matter what sex you are. Male or female, divorce is filled with emotional extremes and financial stresses. New reports, however, suggest that the divorce process is tougher on women than it is on men. With childcare responsibilities and fewer financial resources, modern women of divorce are still faced with challenges that their male counterparts are unlikely to encounter.

According to a report from Marie Claire magazine, a woman’s overall quality of life drops 45 percent after a divorce. Another study from Iowa State University’s Institute of Social and Behavioral research found that while divorce didn’t immediately affect a woman’s physical health, the effects on her mental health caused physical problems a decade after divorce. Social isolation and fewer job opportunities after divorce, according to the study, could be responsible for illness reported ten years later. Psychologists attribute stress as the cause of health issues after a divorce.

"It's very, very traumatic... they are so attached to the commitment. The forever of two lives is being upset, and all dreams and hopes, everything that you have thought about since childhood is lost. Even people who are very functioning are surprised at how hard it is just to do their daily activities," says Allison Pescosolido, a grief counselor and cofounder of Divorce Detox, a divorce recovery program for women.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, women are likely to respond to life-changing events like divorce in ways that prolong the stress and increase the risk for depression. Others say divorced women’s quality of life decreases financially because of the need for a clean break from their exes. Lawyer and author Stacy Schneider says women commonly make the big mistake of “wimping out” when it comes to protecting their finances and property and later pay the price. Most divorced women take on additional parenting responsibilities, which also lead to a more challenging daily life.

But there is hope for women who are divorcing. Not only do programs like Divorce Detox and trips to qualified therapists and counselors help, but the experience of divorce can help change a woman’s perspective.

"When I went through my divorce I was devastated," says divorced mom "Susan B" in an e-mail to ABCNews.com. "My children were 13 and 15. I had to sell my house and move to another town. My kids had to switch schools. But with all that being said, we are much better off. We have grown to appreciate things a whole lot more. Yes, we struggled, but we are stronger for it today."

When it comes to the needs of children, family law attorneys in Pasadena take interest. No parent likes to have his or her child improperly tracked into lower-performing programs. In Pennsylvania, a district judge has set a trial date for a lawsuit alleging that special education and lower-level academic classes were being disproportionately filled with black students who had been subjected to improper tracking.

Initially, parents filed a class-action lawsuit, arguing on behalf of all black students in Lower Merion School District. However, in a 2009 ruling, Judge Harvey Bartle ruled that a class-action suit was not appropriate due to each case being too individualized.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which Congress reauthorized in 2004, requires districts to report on whether their special education placements show a disproportionate representation of minorities. Lower Merion's black student population is at about eight percent, whereas special education students in the district are represented at fourteen percent. Although Lower Merion's report to the state includes this fact, it found itself to be within racial disproportionality rules, noting that the disproportion of black students in special education was a result of inappropriate identification of disabilities. In other words, according to the district, it was not a matter of racial or ethnic tracking but misplacement of students in special education programs.

Both the district and lawyers representing the students continue to make their case. The district claims that the plaintiffs are not taking into account their attempts to close the minority achievement gap.

On behalf of the students, Sandra Kerr from the Disability Rights Project said, "We know that within the (school district), there are individuals who care and who want this situation solved. But the (school district) board needs to decisively act to solve this problem."

"The district has acknowledged, through its strategic plan, historical concerns surrounding minority achievement,” the district's statement said. “In response, the district has aggressively sought to take a leadership role in the effort to address minority achievement in the areas of educational programming, hiring, community engagement and staff development."

The court has set a date of Nov. 1 for the trial.

Divorce lawyers in Pasadena are familiar with the issues surrounding gay marriage in the United States. Now same-sex divorce is becoming an issue, as well. In the state of Texas, a same-sex couple cannot be legally married. But can a legally-married same-sex couple be granted a legal divorce? That question is not clearly answered at this stage.

Currently in the United States, different states have different laws regarding a same-sex couple's right to be legally married. A couple can be legally married in one state, and then move to another state where that marriage is not recognized.

The attorney general in Texas has been trying to block legally-married same-sex couples from divorcing in the state. In February 2010, an Austin court granted a divorce to a lesbian couple that wed in Massachusetts before returning home to Texas. That was when Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbot tried to intervene in order to block the divorce.

On Friday, the Texas Court of Appeals in Austin ruled against the attorney general, allowing the divorce to stand. However, the state has not resolved the debate over the legality of same-sex divorce, because a different appellate court has ruled against a different same-sex couple seeking a divorce in Texas.

An attorney in Austin, Jody Scheske, who is familiar with both of the cases, tried to clarify some of the confusion over the issue.

"It's complicated and to some extent remains unsettled and that's unfortunate," Scheske said. "If you have a legal marriage you should have the same equal right to divorce as all other married people have."

However, Lauren Bean, a spokesperson for Abbot, noted that “the Texas Constitution and statutes are clear: Only the union of a man and a woman can be treated as a marriage in Texas. The court's decision undermines unambiguous Texas law."

The attorney general has different options for pursuing the blocking of same-sex divorces in Texas, and this is an issue that could end up being decided in the Texas Supreme Court.

VTS 02 1 from Natalie Peoples on Vimeo.

Divorce lawyers in Pasadena sometimes see civil divorces affected by religious laws. Aharon Friedman, an Orthodox Jew, saw his religious decision to not grant his wife a divorce become scrutinized in the secular world. If you are wondering how a person can refuse to grant a divorce, in this case the answer to your query can only be found under religious rules of the Jewish Orthodoxy, and not under secular laws of the land.

In Jewish Orthodoxy, only the husband may grant what is called a "get", a Jewish decree of divorce. Friedman and his wife, Tamar Epstein, have already been civilly divorced and civil courts have granted shared custody of their daughter. However, under Jewish law the couple remains married, making Ms. Epstein an agunah, or chained woman. Neither she nor Mr. Friedman could remarry under Jewish law unless he grants Epstein a get. These disputes are frequently resolved with the help of the religious community, but when they aren't, it can lead to a mix of secular divorce laws spilling into the religious dispute.

Mr. Friedman is angry about the custody deal granted in civil court, and that appears to be his reason for not granting the get, tying the religious matter up with the secular outcome of his divorce. Ms. Epstein and her supporters have responded by taking the matter beyond the religious community and out into the secular community. In fact, a rally was organized outside Friedman's apartment, videos appeared on the Internet and a news article was printed, titled "Unchain This Woman".

Ms. Epstein's supporters do not feel that this is just a religious matter, but a matter for the public at large. The secular tactics did not end with the rally, the Internet, and the news article. Rabbi Shmuel Herzfield, a supporter of Ms. Epstein, wrote to the Ways and Means Committee, the powerful committee of the US House of Representatives, to see if they could help. However, Jon Traub, the Republican staff director of the committee informed the rabbi that the issue was not a matter for the Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. Epstein, like many people going through a divorce, just wants to move on with her religious as well as her secular life. For her, however, it is a matter not only for civil divorce proceedings. The religious aspect of her divorce is yet to be settled.

Pasadena family law attorneys might wonder how the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Larry King, Mel Gibson and Gibson's ex-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, all got tangled up in a First Amendment dispute at the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s family law division. On Thursday, December 30, the ACLU stepped in to stop Mel Gibson's legal team from a largely closed-door attempt to bar Oksana Grigorieva's lawyer, Martin Garbus, from representing her.

Garbus appeared with Grigorieva on Larry King's talk show, commenting on aspects of Grigorieva and Gibson's divorce proceedings. The move by Gibson's lawyers, including prominent family law attorney Stephen A. Kolodny, to bar Garbus from the case is a result of some of the public statements Garbus made on the broadcast. The ACLU has taken up the cause of Garbus, citing the move as an infringement on Garbus' First Amendment rights. The organization has made it clear that they are only interested in the free speech implications, and not interested in the final outcome of the divorce proceedings.

“This is about whether a lawyer can be stopped from representing a client who wants that lawyer, because of public statements," says Peter J. Eliasberg, ACLU. "The ACLU believes, in principle, that only very limited restrictions can be placed on lawyers” in relation to the public comments they may make.

The ACLU’s letter brief said that Gibson's lawyers objected to Garbus' statement on the Larry King broadcast that Gibson “doesn’t want to pay any support for the child.” However, the ACLU argues that nothing in Garbus' statements “in one television appearance on the Larry King show will have any continuing effect” on the legal proceedings.

As lawyers in Pasadena can tell you, education is an issue where all parents want their child’s needs to be met. However, many parents are not aware of all the laws that ensure their child is protected. Important legal provisions make educational needs a matter of children’s rights.

For example, many parents are familiar with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation. And everyone has heard of the No Child Left Behind Act.

But have you ever heard of the “Williams settlement?”

Here’s a line from the Williams vs. California settlement that a lot of parents interested in family law in Pasadena might find interesting:

“[T]hese thresholds for teacher quality, instructional materials, and school facilities are intended by the Legislature and by the Governor to be a floor, rather than a ceiling, and a beginning, not an end, to the State of California's commitment and effort to ensure that all California school pupils have access to the basic elements of a quality public education.”

On May 17, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the State of California due to substandard conditions in many California public schools. In August 2004, a settlement was announced. The settlement requires that all students have books and that their schools be clean and safe. It also requires the state to take steps to ensure that students have qualified teachers and that schools deliver these important resources to students.

All public schools in California fall under the provisions of the Williams settlement. A statewide accountability system has been put in place where every school district must now provide a uniform complaint process for complaints regarding insufficient instructional materials, unsafe or unhealthy facility conditions and teacher vacancies.

Budget cuts in California are inevitable, and those who place a premium on quality education are ready to advocate. With the coming budget cuts, the Williams settlement is more pertinent to the rights of children than ever.