The Department of Homeland Security Prevent Departure Program was created to stop non-U.S. citizens from departing the country. This program may be an effective tool to stop an international parental abduction in progress. It is important to note, however, that the program only applies to aliens. it is not available to stop U.S. citizens or dual U.S./foreign citizens from leaving the country.
Parents should note that there is a strict protocol to follow in requesting entry of a child or children into the Prevent Departure Program.
From the ABA Journal today, September 26, 2012: Plaintiff Catherine Zang and one other plaintiff is suing her ex-husband and his well-known Cincinnati lawyer for invasion of privacy in federal court. Zang and her online friend claim the
attorney intended to use secret surveillance in divorce proceedings.
Allegations in the complaint are that Zang then-husband installed a hidden video camera and
microphone, as well as computer-tracking software in order to spy on Zang's online communications with a friend. Damages sought: hundreds of thousands of dollars on allegations of wiretapping and invasion of privacy.
On September 20, 2012, just two weeks after releasing its opinion in Loutts v Loutts, the Michigan Court of Appeals ordered the opinion vacated and a new opinion was released. There were three issues in Loutts: (a) Whether the trial court should award to Wife her attorney fees and cost of appraisals; (b) Whether the imputation of income to Husband of $130,000 annually rather than his actual compensation of $240,000/year and wife was appropriate or whether the trial court's imputation of income to Husband of only $130,000 was appropriate to avoid "double-dipping" since Wife was awarded one-half of the value of the business and whether imputation of $40,000 to wife was an abuse of discretion; and (c) whether the non-compete clause in the judgment was overbroad and was an abuse of discretion.
Often as lawyers seek to establish what the potential for a child support award will be, they need to know what the usual income is for a particular kind of worker. The Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget maintains a website. There you will find databases for the typical incomes earned in Michigan by people skilled in a certain occupation.
On my way to the forum . . . [in today's parlance, "while surfing the Net"] . . . I found a terrific resource. It won't have application to my practice, but to those of you who also practice business or tort law, you will find this invaluable.
See Long-Arm Statutes: A Fifty-State Survey, published by Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C., a law firm with offices in Chicago, New York and Livingston, New Jersey.
Family lawyers encounter more high-conflict divorce and custody cases now than ever before. Today I found a resource for parents to help them raise more secure, self-confident children. Feel free to share this with your clients, friends, and others who are parenting children, no matter what the ages of the children.
Paul Tough argues that how young people build character is key to their opportunities to succeed. It isn't how well children do on IQ scores, standardized tests
or vocabulary quizzes that determines whether they will make it or not, he says. Tough explores this idea in his
new book, How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity and the Hidden Power of Character.
Tough begins with attachment theory. He says: "when kids are really young--when they are in their first year or two of life--my sense from the research is that you can't be too loving."
In Loutts v Loutts,
Court of Appeals Docket No
297427 [For Publication], several issues were presented. The financial
issues were complex, and it is apparent that, especially with the
valuation and "double-dipping" issue, there was much expert testimony.
The Court first considered the Appellant's issue regarding failure
of the trial court to award attorney fees and costs of expert
valuations.
Although the defendant repeatedly requested an award of attorney fees
and expert fees during the course of this divorce case, the trial court
never addressed her requests. Therefore, the COA held that
consideration of the issue was necessary to a proper determination of
the appeal, and that the COA had the right to consider it because the
trial court’s failure to address the defendant’s repeated requests for
an award of attorney and expert fees constituted plain error. This issue
was remanded to the trial court.
In Loutts v Loutts, Court of Appeals Docket No
297427 [For Publication], several issues were presented. The financial issues were complex, and it is apparent that, especially with the valuation and "double-dipping" issue, there was much expert testimony.
Although the defendant repeatedly requested an award of attorney fees and expert fees during the course of this divorce case, the trial court never addressed her requests. Therefore, the COA held that consideration of the issue was necessary to a proper determination of the appeal, and that the COA had the right to consider it because the trial court’s failure to address the defendant’s repeated requests for an award of attorney and expert fees constituted plain error. This issue was remanded to the trial court.
A colleague, Mary G. Falcone, family lawyer in West Bloomfield, Michigan, posted a download on the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Listserv today with contact information for subpoenas to various telephone and social media sources. Thank you, Mary. The information comes from the North Calorina Indigent Services Office. Note the reference to a North Carolina Ethics Opinion regarding service of a subpoena in another state. It is possible, in Michigan without any cost, to "domesticate" a subpoena.
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ["UCCJEA"] was enacted to serve the following purposes: (1) to avoid interstate jurisdictional competition and conflict in child custody matters, (2) to promote cooperation between courts of other states so that a custody determination can be rendered in a state best suited to decide the case in the interest of the child, (3) to discourage the use of the interstate system for continuing custody controversies, (4) to deter child abductions, (5) to avoid relitigation of custody issues, and (6) to facilitate enforcement of custody orders. The UCCJEA treats a foreign country, such as Japan, as a state of the United States, unless the laws of the foreign country violate fundamental principles of human rights. [See section 207] Home state jurisdiction is prioritized to make this uniform law consistent with the Parental Kidnapping Preventation Act.
The UCCJEA contemplates jurisdiction in the state where the child and parents have actually lived for at least six months immediately prior to the commencement of a child custody action. Subjective intent of the parents is not important. This issue often arises with respect to deployed parents who have lived abroad with the child for an extended period of time. Servicemembers do not lose their legal residency ["home of record"] just because they are or have been deployed abroad. But that does not mean that the home of record is a state having home state jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination.
