#Child Amicus Attorney | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

odinsblog · 1 year

Text

Stalking is so closely correlated with lethal violence that experts refer to it as “slow motion homicide”: More than half of all female homicide victims in the U.S. were stalked before they were killed. Despite the terrifying and dangerous consequences, many victims of stalking do not report the abuse to law enforcement for fear they will not be taken seriously.

The reasonableness of that fear was vividly illustrated by the Supreme Court oral arguments in Counterman v. Colorado on Wednesday morning, as members of the highest court of the land joked about messages sent by a stalker to his victim, bemoaned the increasing “hypersensitivity” of society, and brushed aside consideration of the actual harm of stalking to focus on the potential harm of stalking laws.

For nearly two years, Billy Raymond Counterman sent thousands of unsolicited and unwanted Facebook direct messages to C.W., a local musician, ultimately driving her to abandon her career and leave the state. Counterman, who had previously served time in federal prison for making violent threats against his ex-wife and her family, argues that his conduct towards C.W. was free speech protected by the First Amendment. Counterman maintains, supported by amicus briefs from influential civil libertarian organizations such as the ACLU, the EFF, and FIRE, that stalking cannot be criminally prohibited except when the government can prove that the stalker subjectively intended to terrify his victim. The state of Colorado, supported by amicus briefs from First Amendment scholars, stalking experts, and domestic violence victim advocates, argues that it is enough to prove that the stalking would be terrifying to a reasonable person in light of the totality of the circumstances. If the court rules in Counterman’s favor, delusional stalking—no matter how objectively terrifying or threatening—will be transformed into an inviolable constitutional right.

During oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts quoted a handful of the thousands of unsolicited messages Counterman sent to C.W. “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you,’” Roberts read aloud. After a pause, he joked, “I can’t promise I haven’t said that,” prompting laughter from other justices and the audience. Picking out another message, which he described as an “image of liquor bottles” captioned as “a guy’s version of edible arrangements,” Roberts challenged Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser to “say this in a threatening way,” leading to more laughter from the court. And the laughs didn’t stop there: Counterman’s attorney, John Elwood, shared with the court that his mother would routinely tell him to “drop dead” as a child, but “you know, I was never in fear because of that.”

(continue reading)

#politics #scotus #john roberts #stalking #femicide #misogyny #rape culture #war on women #counterman v colorado #stalkers

46 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 11 months

Text

The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law designed to keep Native American children connected to Native American families in custody and adoption proceedings.

A 7-2 majority of justices rejected challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act from several states and White families who were seeking to permanently adopt Native children. They had argued they are being discriminated against and disadvantaged, in violation of equal protection guarantees in the Constitution.

"They argue that it exceeds federal authority, infringes state sovereignty, and discriminates on the basis of race," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the court's opinion for the case of Haaland v. Brackeen. "The United States, joined by several Indian Tribes, defends the law. The issues are complicated… .But the bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners’ challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing."

The dispute is a clash of tribal sovereignty, states' rights and racial discrimination claims.

At issue is whether the high court should toss out or severely dismantle the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, meant to protect Native American rights in state child custody proceedings. It has long been championed by tribal leaders as a means of preserving their families and culture.

The case dealt with aspects of a unique relationship between Native tribes and the federal government, and the ability of state courts to broadly determine the discretionary "best interests" of children in placement hearings.

Among those challenging the law were Jennifer and Chad Brackeen of Fort Worth, Texas, who had first fostered, then adopted, a son known in court papers as A.L.M., beginning in 2016, after his mother, a member of the Navajo Nation was unable to care for him. The tribe sought to place the boy with other out-of-state tribal members not related to him.

The Brackeens eventually won custody of A.L.M but now would like to adopt the child's half-sister, identified in state proceedings as Y.R.J.

"It's been three-and-a-half years in court, and we have not been able to finalize the adoption," Chad Brackeen told Fox News Digital. "Ultimately, these two siblings belong together."

But the more than three-fourths of the 574 federally-recognized American tribes told the Supreme Court in various amicus briefs the law has been on the books for 44 years and is working.

"The precedent of the Supreme Court is that Indian tribes are political groups of people, they are not racial groups of people," said Chrissi Ross Nimmo, the deputy attorney general of Cherokee Nation. "Tribes determine citizenship... just like countries."

Many tribes warn of a broader loss of political sovereignty if the ICWA is struck down or weakened, over such matters as health care, education and housing, which are all covered under specific federal laws.

Texas, along with Indiana and Louisiana, have also challenged the federal law, saying it oversteps authority over state child custody matters.

#nunyas news #those damn trump appointed judges #they're going to usher in a new world of fascism #or so I'm told

9 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 8 months

Text

By: Bernard Lane

Published: Aug 24, 2023

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and American medical societies have sacrificed child safety and standards of scientific evidence in pursuit of fashionable causes and financial self-interest.

This is the charge levelled in a blistering court brief filed last week by Alabama’s Attorney-General Steve Marshall and 15 other Republican states in defence of Missouri’s law restricting medicalised gender change for minors. A county court judge is to decide whether the law—under challenge from transgender-identifying plaintiffs—is put on hold or goes into effect as scheduled on August 28.

“While medical organizations are certainly capable of establishing true, evidence-based standards of care [for the distress of gender dysphoria], they have utterly failed to act responsibly when it comes to pediatric gender transition procedures,” the amicus brief says.

WPATH, the Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are central to the debate about the safety of youth gender clinics because their endorsement is regularly invoked—in the absence of a sound evidence base—to justify “gender-affirming” medical interventions such as puberty blocker drugs and synthetic cross-sex hormones for minors.

This in turn is provoking a more intense counter-attack on the trustworthiness of the gender-affirming treatment guidelines and policy statements issued by medical societies, who have put their reputations on the line amid political polarisation.

In Alabama and Florida, state administrations fighting challenges to laws shutting down youth gender medicine have retaliated by issuing subpoenas to expose in court the nature of the internal processes that led to adoption of contentious treatment policy documents.

These preliminary skirmishes may foreshadow potential lines of attack on medical societies enlisted in the trans rights cause, should a test case reach the Supreme Court of the United States.

“The WPATH standards of care for the health of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people, now in its 8th version (SOC8), is the foremost evidence-based guideline for the provision of TGD healthcare. SOC8 is based on the best available science with input from over 100 global medical professionals and experts and represents best-practice guidelines for the provision of gender-affirming healthcare. Gender-affirming interventions are based on decades of clinical experience and research and are not considered experimental. Gender-affirming hormone therapy is a component of widely accepted medically necessary care for TGD people.”—WPATH, statement denouncing Missouri’s emergency restrictions on youth gender medicine, March 2023

Who’s in charge?

Last week’s multi-state intervention in favour of Missouri’s “Save Adolescents from Experimentation” Act protests that medical associations are being touted “as the real regulators [of healthcare], authoring standards that no mere state could contradict.”

According to the Alabama-led brief, the trans-identifying plaintiffs’ argument would constitutionally entrench WPATH’s “shoddy standards.”

The brief says that while others debate how best to help children with gender dysphoria, WPATH has “taken its gender ideology to the extreme and included in its latest standards of care [SOC8] an entire chapter on self-identified eunuchs.

“In addition to advocating castration as ‘medically necessary gender-affirming care’ for males whose ‘gender identity’ is ‘eunuch,’ WPATH recently removed most minimum-age requirements for gender-modification procedures from its standards of care.

“According to the lead author of the [SOC8] chapter on children, WPATH dropped the age requirements to ‘bridge th[e] considerations’ regarding the need for insurance coverage [of treatment] with the desire to ensure that doctors would not be held liable for malpractice if they deviated from the standards.

“Just as with eunuchs, WPATH’s standards consider sterilizing gender-modification procedures to be medically necessary ‘gender-affirming care’ for minors suffering from gender dysphoria. This is the stuff of nightmares or farce, not constitutional law.”

The brief says that by supporting WPATH’s radical treatment guideline, the American Medical Association has failed to “use their institutional goodwill, built up over time, to be the voice of reason and put the safety of children first.”

It says WPATH has “suppressed dissent” from the dogmatic gender-affirming model, and “tried to cancel nearly every researcher that has looked at rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (the hypothesis that social influence helps explain the unprecedented surge in trans declarations chiefly by teenage females).

As for the American medical associations lined up in support of gender-affirming treatments, the brief says they are “interest groups, with a strong financial interest in our capitalistic economy to promote the procedures their members make a living by providing.”

At the same time, these “American medical organizations have become increasingly ‘performative,’ treated by their leaders as platforms for advancing the current moment’s cause célèbre.

“Add to this a replication crisis in scientific literature and the ability of researchers to use statistics to make findings appear significant when they are not, and it is no wonder that medical organizations find it easier to just go with the zeitgeist.

“Science is hard, and there is no reward in the current climate for any organization that questions the safety and efficacy of using sterilizing gender-modification procedures on children.”

The multi-state brief challenges the mantra that “the science is settled” in favour of the gender-affirming treatment model.

That model promotes early social transition, potentially locking in gender dysphoria, and puberty blockers almost always followed by cross-sex hormones meant to be taken lifelong—a combination expected to render patients sterile and for males, incapable of orgasm.

“[England’s National Health Service, the NHS] recommends that [puberty blockers] for children and young people with gender incongruence [a sense of mismatch between body and identity] should only be accessed through research. [The] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was commissioned [in 2020] to review the published evidence. “Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in gender incongruence, mental health, body image and psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents treated with [puberty blockers]. [The NHS] has concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time. “NHS England commissions treatment based on evidence of clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and safety. WPATH standards of care do not determine clinical commissioning decisions for the NHS.”—NHS England, statement, 3 August 2023

Watch and wait

The brief in the Missouri case says: “In recent years, medical authorities in the United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden, and Norway have all looked at the evidence and determined that [medicalised gender change for minors is] in fact experimental.

“[American] states have every reason to wait for the results of the experiments to come in before allowing children to be sterilized… the medical interest groups [that the trans-identifying plaintiffs in the Missouri case] rely on are biased participants, not neutral arbiters of science.

“Plaintiffs [litigating against Missouri] entirely discount the European experience, suggesting that no European regulator qualifies as a ‘reputable medical association.’

“But how can pediatric treatments that several European countries treat as experimental be definitively ‘neither harmful nor experimental’ for children in Missouri?

“Such treatments [as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones] stunt children’s pubertal and mental development, lower their bone density, and gamble away their ability to have children as adults.

“While healthcare authorities in Europe have curbed access to pediatric gender transition procedures, American medical organizations have run in the opposite direction: advocating unfettered access to transitioning treatments while quashing [their own] members’ calls to review the evidence.”

Apart from Europe’s evidence-based shift to caution, the brief in the Missouri case also cites recent reporting and commentary in the British Medical Journal and the Wall Street Journal potentially damaging to the authority of WPATH, the Endocrine Society, the AAP and their treatment policy documents.

Other recent developments illustrating the potential vulnerability of medical societies include—

In litigation over Oklahoma’s law banning paediatric gender medicine for minors, the medical watchdog group Do No Harm in June highlighted the inconsistency of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, noting its belief that adolescents can give informed consent “when it comes to the permanent and lifelong risks of experimental gender medicine, such as sterilization”. However, Do No Harm said the academy took quite a different position in the context of lifetime prison sentences for minors, where it protested that adolescents “are more likely than adults to engage in risky, impulsive, and sensation-seeking behavior … overvalue short-term benefits and rewards, and are less capable of controlling their impulses … [and] are also more emotionally volatile and susceptible to stress and peer influences.”

In March 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Liles C. Burke ruled that WPATH’s guidelines were “part and parcel” of the case brought by plaintiffs against Alabama’s law restricting paediatric transition. For this reason, WPATH could not block the state’s subpoena seeking documents about the guideline process, including the association’s “consideration, if any, of the U.K.’s NICE literature reviews [declaring the evidence base to be very uncertain, and] the Swedish and French statements regarding [the risks of] transitioning care for minors.” Judge Burke said that allowing WPATH to withhold such information “would, in essence, amount to acceptance of WPATH’s standards as ‘established, evidence-based clinical guidelines’ on WPATH’s word alone, and without further inquiry.”

In a challenge to Florida’s curbs on youth gender medicine, the Endocrine Society, WPATH and the AAP also resisted state subpoenas seeking to reveal the inner workings that led to their treatment advice documents. But District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols agreed with Florida in March that this information “goes to the heart of the lawsuit”, being the question “whether, based on current medical knowledge, the state’s determination that [certain] treatments [for gender dysphoria] are experimental is reasonable.” The judge pointed out that the plaintiffs challenging Florida’s law “lean heavily” on the positions taken by these medical associations. He said it was “also understandable that the state would try to defend the reasonableness of its position by seeking information that goes to the rigor of the process by which the guidelines and policy positions were adopted.”

Note: GCN has sought comment from WPATH, the AAP, the Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

I've said it before and I'll say it again: what excuse will you give when you're asked why you stood by as this happened?

#Bernard Lane #gender ideology #genderwang #queer theory #medical malpractice #medical scandal #religion is a mental illness

5 notes · View notes

aronarchy · 1 year

Text

Chief Justice John Roberts’ Mockery of Stalking Victims Points to a Deeper Problem

By Mary Anne Franks April 21, 2023

During oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts quoted a handful of the thousands of unsolicited messages Counterman sent to C.W. “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you,” Roberts read aloud. After a pause, he joked, “I can’t promise I haven’t said that,” prompting laughter from other justices and the audience. Picking out another message, which he described as an “image of liquor bottles” captioned as “a guy’s version of edible arrangements,” Roberts challenged Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser to “say this in a threatening way,” leading to more laughter from the court. And the laughs didn’t stop there: Counterman’s attorney, John Elwood, shared with the court that his mother would routinely tell him to “drop dead” as a child, but “you know, I was never in fear because of that.”

There were more chuckles when Justice Neil Gorsuch returned to Elwood’s anecdote during his questioning of Weiser, but Gorsuch shifted to a more serious tone to express his concern about the reasonable person standard. “We live in a world in which people are sensitive, and maybe increasingly sensitive,” he began. “As a professor, you might have issued a trigger warning from time to time when you had to discuss a bit of history that’s difficult or a case that’s difficult,” Gorsuch continued, a reference to Weiser’s prior experience teaching on a law school faculty. “What do we do in a world in which reasonable people may deem things harmful, hurtful, threatening? And we’re going to hold people liable willy-nilly for that?”

Justice Clarence Thomas echoed the concern, asking whether the reasonable person standard is appropriate given that people are “more hypersensitive about different things now.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed the point as well, offering the following hypothetical: What if a college professor gives a lecture “about just how vicious it was to be in a Jim Crow south and puts up behind them on a screen a picture of a burning cross and reads aloud some threats of lynching that were made at the time” and “Black students sitting in the classroom” interpret the lecture as a physical threat “because they don’t understand it”?

The justices’ message was clear: Stalking is not the problem; sensitivity is. To them, stalking is quite literally a state of mind: If the stalker didn’t mean for his conduct to be frightening, then it isn’t. All the target has to do is understand that; she just needs to lighten up, take a joke, accept the compliment, grasp the lesson. Just because someone has made objectively terrifying statements is no reason to overreact and get law enforcement involved; victims should wait for the stalker to do something really frightening before they jump to conclusions.

One of the many painful ironies of this logic is that many stalking victims have already internalized it. Less than half of stalking victims seek help from law enforcement, in large part because they believe that the matter isn’t serious enough or that they can handle it on their own. Even the victims who do seek help from law enforcement will often not get it—police take no action at all in nearly half of all reported cases, and only make arrests in 7.7 percent of cases. If victims are lucky, their stalker will eventually lose interest and cease contact. If they’re not lucky, they end up dead.

The court’s discussion was so disconnected from the reality of stalking, so contemptuous of the victims targeted by it, and so awkwardly punctuated with culture-war buzzwords with no obvious bearing to the topic at hand, that it was sometimes hard to believe it was taking place within the Supreme Court and not a Fox News talk show. Perhaps nothing else could be expected from a far-right dominated court that has made its hostility to women and racial minorities abundantly clear. But the progressive justices did little to push back against the chief justice’s snickering tone, or to critique these efforts to turn an oral argument about stalking into a referendum on the supposed crisis of “hypersensitivity.”

Of course, had the conservative justices’ professed concern about “increased hypersensitivity” been sincere, there would be no need to reach for strained hypotheticals about college students overreacting to a lecture about the history of racism in the U.S. The actual, concerted, and ongoing efforts by GOP politicians to prohibit such a lecture from ever occurring in the first place is a far more apt example of fragility and intellectual cowardice. For that matter, there are a number of current Supreme Court justices who would provide excellent examples of hypersensitivity: Justice Thomas characterizing questions about credible sexual harassment allegations during his confirmation hearing as a “high-tech lynching”; Justice Brett Kavanaugh declaring that “[m]y family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed” by questions about credible sexual assault claims during his confirmation hearing; Justice Samuel Alito declaring that “saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line.”

One might have hoped that the recent rise in threats against the judiciary might have made the justices more empathetic to the harms of stalking. The Supreme Court’s 2024 budget request reflects heightened concern for judicial security, seeking nearly $6 million in new security funding because “[o]n-going threat assessments show evolving risks that require continuous protection.” In his 2022 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Roberts praised new legislation that protects the privacy of personal information about judges and their families, writing that “we must support judges by ensuring their safety. A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear.” That, apparently, is only an appropriate fate for everyone else.

https://twitter.com/NBedera/status/1649795373295190017

I cannot emphasize enough how often a perpetrator gets away with it because the person overseeing the case says: “Well, if that’s stalking/sexual assault/intimate partner violence, then I would be a perpetrator too.”

Sometimes, these comments reflect a deep misunderstanding about what violence is.

Other times, it’s just a statement of fact. A recognition that the adjudicator has been violent in the past and sees protecting the perpetrator as a form of protecting themselves.

We do not see committing acts of violence as disqualifying for working as a judge, prosecutor, police officer, HR rep, or Title IX administrator.

And, yes, that means that a victim often has to plead another perpetrator to take action to protect them.

#repost of someone else’s content #Slate #twitter repost #Nicole Bedera #stalking #abuse #misogyny #feminism

0 notes

zooterchet · 1 year

Text

Family Legal Developments (Contributions to Government)

Minos: An invention of patent, with "Herculean" son, warrants gift of lands, under border of product reclaimed.

Bartleby: A book, must be structured, so law can be developed as argument of advertising.

Longinus: Crime is the superior substance of law, the prior career to a lawyer's degree at wedding, not marriage.

Pilate: The canon is made to be argued over, an aphrodesiac to the witless public portrayed in law and courts.

Muhammad: The woman is to be equal in marriage, unless pets be involved, then the man is assumed to be a child molester for failing to refuse at death of hounds and felines and other assorted vermin.

D'Outrement: The amicus curae can be introduced to courts by anyone scholarly in literature, to remove reference revealed by art, instead of logic of remedial quality.

Khan: The bank's losing hand, is the greatest, hence the command must be incorrect to employ of separate accounts, none sought for gain outside the structure of jurisdiction.

Avicenna: The homosexual male has had anal sex with a woman with the phallus, and the lesbian has bedded him, now a prostitute fo course of need from assumed consent being allowed by whore's mother, the father of an infidel.

Troit: The devil's costume for informant, is banned, and all witnesses of forensics are now nuns pregnant, hence the Bible must be sworn to refute holy law from court; the prosecutor to prove innocent of case guilty, and the defense to prove case of guilt of false accusation through plea.

Golden: The costume of state is assumed to be foreign, that of witchcraft if trial consists of lawyers bearing on reputation, hidden in courts through acclaimed member of Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.

MacBeth: The power of the courts is prohibition of substance based on unpleasant production for animal, labor, and child, not of effect or social program imbibed post sales.

Sanchez: The sweep of police is to be associated with art and weather, s the ignorant can be marked in poverty, the falsely accused can continue as vigilante against the government of law having refused, and the film or debut of pageant can spectacle on future class of law enforcement specialty to target one's own criminal behavior, per villain, with the sanctimony of avenged as major player.

Lascerdes: The sales of whiskey, to son, cannot be made illegal, for it is Irish, not a poor bread's man, a Slav, denying police's background of own child.

Polk: The strip club, is to be forbidden, for without glasses, the woman gains cancer of the breast, from being viewed by man, yet freedom is still needed, from "pig", Mussulman degraded into white jihadi, the concept of the envious and stupid.

Booth: Resource economics, considers that the vital structure, judge the mathematics and orchestration, of the necessary structures elsewhere, in measure and calculation.

Bundy: The power of attorney, cannot be seized, without those doing so, being placed in the woods, and shot, by law officer, doing the same, his "gold watch"; meanwhile, that robbed, be given bed's pleasure of crime accused, with prison staff avenging crime throughout incarceration, to male, female, or mother's arts or artist.

Malcolm X: The Nation of Islam, is no longer to exist, slaves of Jews, in name only, unless assumed to be Zionist Occupational Government, those bigots refusing pig, the gift of God, to Africa, and those poisoned by shellfish, the sanctomount of Mengitsu.

Charlebois (Jake): The superior field play, is the sacrifice of athletics, to school.

Charlebois (Raymond): The racial slur, is intended to help the race of origin the slur intends to fit.

Charlebois (Michael): The claim of a witness as against government interests, is a witness having commandeered witness booth, as if automobile, to be made known in court, by lawyer performing cross-examination, in complaint to judge.

Charlebois (Steven): Prison, is to report rape, as 'long time', for attempting to fight in prison, and any assault, is to be placed in return in prison, if reported, indicating the prisoner has guard's privileges.

Charlebois (David): Marijuana can be tested, with hard candy, to see if sprayed aerosol has been applied, therefore the marijuana is impossible to smoke.

Winston (Ellen): Any cop in the family, cannot have fasted, or else reported to the psychiatric ward immediately, to refuse all religion as a psychotic delusion, caused by Ghandhi, who went to Hell (fags).

Ted X: Harry Potter, is pedophiliac, and has to be marked gay, for being a children's story, so children will have proper test in educational sciences, and all such feeling otherwise, will be turned over to sodomey wards, to be raped by long-haired men opposing National Socialism; the fans of children's literature and cartoons and games.

Winston (Jack): The common advantage, is not by building accumulation, hence any religious deacon acting through Judaism can be spotted, by using case history, as the sum of a man's life.

0 notes

brownstonee1 · 2 years

Text

Robert Sirianni

The Brownstone Law Firm is a firm of attorneys with expertise in appeals in federal courts across the nation. When it comes to representing clients during the appeals process and at the appellate level, our federal appeals attorneys are skilled. We will evaluate the numerous appeals we have handled in various state and federal courts before examining your civil or criminal case. Our appellate litigation team combines legal services with creativity to produce results and tactical solutions best appeal attorney in Texas for our clients on appeal. Our federal appeals attorneys employ persistent strategies and top-notch resources to best satisfy your needs. Our handling of civil and criminal appeals is well-known for our work ethic and moral principles. We cordially invite you to join our appellate litigation legal team. The work of an appeals lawyer differs from the work of a trial lawyer. The federal appeals lawyers at Brownstone Law are very skilled in writing appellate documents and putting forth persuasive legal arguments. A successful appeal lawyer must have in-depth knowledge of the law, exceptional legal research and writing skills, and the ability to convince a jury of judges during an oral argument to accept a certain legal interpretation. Amicus curiae The filing of complex and criminal federal appeals in each federal circuit court of appeal is a request we commonly receive from clients across the nation. The nation's most prestigious and influential corporations rely on the federal appeal lawyers of Brownstone Law to file appeals with the US Supreme Court. Additionally, the law firm represents clients in appeals involving conspiracy and drug trafficking offenses before federal appellate courts. All of the circuit courts in this nation have admitted Brownstone as a legitimate business. We have handled a number of appellate cases successfully in recent years, including those involving marijuana cultivation and possession, drug importation, shareholder disputes, business litigation, federal criminal sentencing hearings, insurance fraud, medical fraud, internet pharmacy violations, malpractice in the practice of medicine, divorce, child custody, tax evasion, and white collar crimes.

#best appeal attorney in Texas

1 note · View note

rapeculturerealities · 4 years

Text

Police charged a California woman with murder after she gave birth to a stillborn baby. Now the state's Attorney General is condemning it - CNN

(CNN)California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed an amicus brief on Friday in support of ending the prosecution against a woman who was arrested and charged with murder after delivering a stillborn baby with toxic levels of methamphetamine in its system.

Chelsea Cheyenne Becker, 26, delivered a stillborn child on September 10, 2019, that medical professionals believed may have been exposed to drugs while she was pregnant. The death was ruled a homicide after an autopsy by the Kings County Coroner's Office found methamphetamine in the baby's system, police said.

Becker has been in jail since November of 2019 and is currently awaiting trial. Her bail is set at $5 million. The superior court denied Becker's motion to dismiss the charges in June.

"Our laws in California do not convict women who suffer the loss of their pregnancy, and in our filing today we are making clear that this law has been misused to the detriment of women, children, and families," Becerra said in a statement.

#California #tw stillbirth #Pregnancy #Victim blaming #Becker #Tw drugs

89 notes · View notes

houstontexaslawinfo · 4 years

Text

Adoption: Essential information for Texas families

If you want to related guideline confidentiality Texas Child Law experience, So you can better suggestions in Adoption: Essential information for Texas families

Houston Divorce: Although they come with less regularity than questions about child custody or divorcecases, people do come into the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC with questions about adoption and how our office may be able to assist them with a potential adoptioncase.

Whereas many family lawcases present facts and circumstances that are not particularly “positive”, adoption cases can offer a glimpse into a situation where people come together and do what is in the best interests of a child.

It’s likely that if you are reading this blog post that you may find yourself with your own questions about the adoption procedure in the State of Texas. I would like to walk you through some basic information about adoption so that you may understand the process a little bit better and be able to make educated decisions for yourself and those people in your life.

What must occur for an adoption to take place

There are two circumstances that must first be in place for an adoption to occur in Texas. The first being that the parental rights of at least one parent of the child must be terminated by a Court. This means that of the legal father and mother to the child, one person’s parental rights must be terminated. A child can only have two parents in the eyes of the law, so this all stands to reason.

Circumstance number two that must come into being is that the adoption of the child by you or whomever must actually be approved by a court. This involves the judge looking into your situation as best as he or she can and determining whether or not an adoption of the child is in the child’s best interests.

What exactly does terminating a person’s parental rights mean?

When a judge terminates the parental rights of a person this means that the former parent is not the legal parent of the child any longer and therefore holds no rights or duties to the care and upbringing of the child. Issues like whether or not the child will be able to inherit money or property from the terminated parent upon their death are also determined in this proceeding.

Obviously, this is an extremely important decision for a judge to make and it usually cannot be overridden or appealed. A parent can agree to have their parental rights terminated or a judge can make a ruling after being petitioned to do so by the other parent, or another party with standing to initiate such a proceeding in family court.

An agreement between parents to terminate their rights to a child can occur

Houston Family Lawyers: If you are the biological parent of a child and you and the other parent would like to terminate your parental rights to a child you may agree to do so. A relinquishment of rights form must be filed with a court wherein you are telling the court of your desire to no longer have any rights, duties or responsibilities for the child. The child will then be put up for adoption in order to locate people who want to take on those same rights and duties that you voluntarily gave up.

A hearing will be had within sixty days of the relinquishment form being filed with the court. It is up to the judge to make a determination as to whether the relinquishment request is in the best interest of the child and if it should be granted.

What does an involuntary termination proceeding look like?

Absent an agreement by the biological parents of the child, a court will appoint someone called an Amicus Attorney to help him or her determine if termination of the parent’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child.

Circumstances that lead to a parent having their parental rights terminated against their will typically involve absenteeism (not being present for the child), not providing support for the child even after being ordered to do so by a court and/or abuse or neglect of the child.

What happens after a parent’s parental rights have been terminated?

If you are a person who is interested in adopting a child you would file a petition to adopt the child in the same court that either terminated or will terminate the rights of the biological parent. The judge will order a social study to be administered upon your home, you and your spouse and other persons in your life. That study will help the judge determine if your home environment is conducive to raising and supporting a child. Your criminal history will also be looked into.

If your adoption petition is approved you become the legal parent of the child. I alluded to at the beginning of this blog post that this is a rare “happy” day in family court. Judges have a final hearing in which all of the parties to the case, even the child, come in and speak to the judge about things and the judge makes a final ruling.

Especially in the event that the parents had mutually agreed to terminate their parental rights, this is seen as a day where the child can celebrate a new “birthday” with their adoptive parents. I’ve even seen judges in Harris County gift Teddy Bears and other tokens of goodwill to the children that are involved in the adoption case.

Additional questions about adoption in Texas? Contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC

Houston Family Law Attorney: Thank you for coming to our website and showing an interest in this important topic. If you have questions about adoption beyond what we’ve discussed in this blog post please do not hesitate to contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC.

Our office represents clients across southeast Texas and would be honored to speak to you about doing the same for you and your family. A consultation with one of our licensed family law attorney is always free of charge and are available six days a week ... Continue Reading

#divorce #Divorce Attorney #texas divorce #Divorce Attorney Texas #Divorce Attorney Houston #family #Family Law #Family Law Attorney #bryan fagan #houston family law attorneys #attorney #attorneys #law #lawyer #lawyers #Houston #divorce houston #Divorce Attorney in Houston #Texas

43 notes · View notes

decaffeinatedcoffeekitten-blog1 · 4 years

Text

Work in Progress

(I’m sorry if I don't catch all of the times that Timpa was autocorrected to Tampa)

I was inspired to write this after seeing posts on reddit saying that no one cared about Tony Timpa because he was white, and seeing how on the wikipedia page for Police brutality in the United States, Tony Timpa’s name was shoehorned in a paragraph about May 2020.

Timpa was a victim of police brutality, he deserves to be treated with respect instead of having his murder used as justification for pushing a racist agenda.

I’m copying and pasting the paragraph: In May 2020, the issue of police brutality saw a surge in public response following the police killing of George Floyd. Protests occurred nationwide and internationally beginning in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 26, 2020. In 2016, Tony Timpa was killed in the same way in Dallas.[26]

That is the laziest thing I have ever seen, it doesn't even flow. It doesn't mention it happened in August 2016, It happened chronologically before George Floyd was killed so why is it after talking about Floyd. Further more it says that Timpa was killed in the same way, I don't remember reading news articles that said the police were on Timpa’s neck for 14minutes, I only remember reading how police were holding him face down with a knee on his back. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/dallas-police-officers-video-bodycam-tony-timpa

Heres a link to a picture of Timpa that the Timpa’s family lawyer says that Floyd probably has similar (but not exact) marks on his body.: https://twitter.com/geoff_henley/status/1268182203919405056?s=20

I highlighted a better location where it would made sense to insert information about Timpa’s murder in the same wikipedia page. It seems like someone just wanted to use Timpa’s murder for not a good reason, but if they did any effort whatsoever they could have also mentioned that mentally ill people are likely to be victims of police violence but they didn't mention how Timpa called the police for help and told the operator that he had schizophrenia and didn't take his medication.

If someone claims that no one cared about Tony Timpa I think they are being disingenuous, ignorant and appears to be trying to further a racist agenda. Just look at how many people cared here: https://twitter.com/ESOP_STL/status/1156586732302798850?s=20

In 2019, I was at the dentist getting cavities filled when I watched Vicki Timpa on the news. She was talking about finally getting the bodycam footage released after 3 years of fighting in court to get justice for her son. Timpa was a real person who deserves justice, not to be used as an example to shut the people up who talking about police brutality. https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/08/02/tony-timpa-mother-reacts-dallas-police-video-son-death/

Before writing this I only knew about happened was that Timpa called the police for help and that he was murdered by in a horrific way.

I’m not sure why I’m adding this since some people keep claiming that no cared (or cares) about Timpa because he was white but Timpa’s birthday was June 5, 1984, his murder occured on August 10, 2016, and his middle name was Alan. He grew up in Rockwall. He loved model trains as a boy and became a popular football player in high school. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/dallas-police-officers-under-investigation-following-death-of-unarmed-man/40744/

Three officers from the Dallas Police Department were involved when Timpa was killed in August 2016. https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2019/08/01/police-laughed-and-joked-as-he-lost-consciousness-in-handcuffs-minutes-later-he-died

When people bring up Timpa to complain that people didn’t care because he was white, I haven’t seen a lot of them also mention that Timpa had schizophrenia. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb54bx/this-video-shows-a-mentally-ill-man-who-called-the-police-for-help-now-hes-dead

So why are they just bringing up the white “angle” instead of pointing out that mentally ill people are common victims of police violence?

Did you know his mother’s name is Vicki Timpa? Did she not care? So, whenever someone says that no one cared because he was white, you are intentionally ignoring his mother crying in press conferences, you’re ignoring how she suffered through a lawsuit (honestly, I’m not sure if it should be considered as multiple lawsuits but that doesn’t detract from my point) and had to fight for 3 years until the footage was released.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13515242/timpa-v-the-city-of-dallas/ This link to the court history shows a fraction of how much Vicki Timpa cared about her son.

What I'm saying to the people who claim that no one cared about Tampa because he was white: You might be going “yeah, why does that matter, it was just his mother, she’s supposed to care, but I was just referring to the people protesting with and involved with Black Lives Matter”.

My reply is that saying “no one cared” is literally incorrect and ignores everyone who spent YEARS fighting to get the bodycam footage released. The whole reason why we have the horrific footage of Timpa being killed is because someone CARED.

Do you want to know what Vicki Tampa said YEARS before the video was released:

"Why can't they take their badge? Why can't they turn in their badge? Why can't they call me? Why can't they make me whole? Why?" she asked, as tears streamed down her face. "I will keep going until I get those answers." source: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/dallas-police-officers-under-investigation-following-death-of-unarmed-man/40744/

I want everyone to respect Timpa’s family privacy but other evidence of someone “caring” is how on a complaint filed in District Court on November 3, 2016, Vicki Timpa is listed as a “next friend of K.T., a minor child”, so it sounds like Timpa had more than one family member who “cared”. So, that’s at least two people who “cared”. Please don’t be rude and dismiss Timpa’s family by saying that no one cared. source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13515242/1/timpa-v-the-city-of-dallas/

Have you ever heard of Cary Aspinwell? She is a reporter who has been publishing about Timpa since at least 2017, I think she might care about Timpa since she acknowledged Timpa’s birthday yesterday on June 5.

The Dallas Morning News, Inc. “cared” enough to “respectfully request that the Court” … to “direct the clerk to file TDMN’s amicus brief at that time.”

Amicus curiae means “friend of the court”, so that means that a major newspaper cared enough about what happened to Tony Timpa to want to file a brief with the court, as a 3rd party. So, anyone who says that no cared seems to be saying that newspapers just pay lawyers for fun. https://twitter.com/caryaspinwall/status/1156543499958935558?s=20

I think it’s safe to assume that Geoff Henley cares too. Henley is the attorney who represented the Timpa family, I think its very possible that Henley can take a job that is more profitable. I admit this is a very low bar but Henley might care about what happened to Timpa since he still tweets about Timpa. https://twitter.com/geoff_henley?lang=en

It was kind of sad how on June 5, 2020 I saw people using Timpa’s name to say that no one cared when police killed a white person, but from the people who posted things like that, I didn’t see any birthday tributes talking about wanting justice for Timpa at the same time. To be clear I’m not claiming that there wasn’t any or that no one cared about Timpa’s life.

Other evidence that people cared about what happened to Timpa was that Dallas officers claim that they got death threats after the video was released. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/dallas-police-officers-receive-death-threats-after-viral-video-of-in-custody-death/287-8067c53c-f9e2-46cb-a531-ee1466770512

I’m tired of seeing people use Tony Timpa’s name to further their agenda to try to further divide people, which I honestly don’t really understand why when Timpa’s murder should be used as a reason why no one is safe against police brutality, so everyone should be against police brutality.

Timpa’s murder by the Dallas Police Department shouldn’t be used to distract people into being against Black Lives Matter, it should be used to say that we can’t forget about any victim of police brutality. Timpa’s murder is as an example of when police departments get away with murder with minimal or no consequences.

What happened: Timpa was the one who called the police the night he was held down for 14 minutes and died. I want to mention that he was handcuffed while being held down.

The three officers from the Dallas Police Department involved are Keven Mansell, Danny Vasquez and Dustin Dillard. They were indicted in 2017 on charges of misdemeanor deadly conduct, but the Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot dismissed the charges in March 2019.

I don’t understand how the police managed to kill Timpa when he was already handcuffed by private security guards before they arrived on the scene. It sounds like this should have been an easy night but someone still died.

Mike Mata, the president of the Dallas Police Association, said the officers are not to blame.

In my mind, it makes logical sense that if you have bad performance on your job then it makes sense to get fired, they weren’t fired, in fact Dallas spent $11 million in ONLY five years to settle more than 20 lawsuits against police. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2017/08/16/461283.htm

If someone believes in government fiscal responsibility, then they should be against protecting police officers who make cities waste so much money because of unneeded violence.

My impression is that the Dallas Police Department only wanted to protect officers from consequences.:

“On the eight-minute recording, the head of the disciplinary hearing says that if the officers learned something from the incident they'll probably be able to continue as city police. They then received written reprimands.

"I personally believe you guys are better than that," the commander said. "But I still need you on the force. So if you learned something from it, most likely we can move forward from here."”

Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/dallas-officers-jokes-during-deadly-arrest-were-strategy-1.4535309

I have a question for everyone who brings up Timpa to point out some so-called “hypocrisy”: Have you ever heard of Eric Garner, Kelvion Walker, Genevive Dawes, Deborah Danner, Tony McDade, Atatiana Jefferson, Willie McCoy, Sandra Bland, Bartholomew Williams, Spencer Mims III, Christian Chavez (killed in 2012 at age 18), and so many other people.

A small-time newspaper named The New York Times wrote about Timpa. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/us/tony-timpa-dallas-police-body-cam.html

When someone says that no one cared about Timpa because he was white, are they saying that Vicki Timpa didn’t care?

I’ve seen people who are using Timpa’s name in their bad faith nonsensical statements that no one cared that he died because he was white. How is it possible that statement is relevant? We should this time to shine a bright light on every victim of police brutality, not use another victim to try to shut down people who are trying to advocate against police brutality.

On the website of Black Lives Matter, it says their “mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.” Also, on their website it says that: “We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.”

If someone feels uncomfortable with the statement that “white supremacy should not exist” then they should examine why they feel so insecure. Timpa shouldn’t be used as an example of why someone should be critical of today’s protestors who were galvanized by the murder of George Floyd.

In my impression, people have brought up Timpa’s murder to say that the Black community is full of hypocrites because they didn’t protest police brutality after three officers from the Dallas Police Department murdered Timpa.

If anyone feels that way then they should protest for Tony Timpa right now instead of complaining about people who want to make sure what happened to Timpa doesn't happen to anyone else.

Also, I think it's relevant to point out that a lot of people are unemployed right now so they have more time to protest and organize themselves.

And if someone is complaining about why did they not protest after Timpa died, are you criticizing Vicki Timpa? (I honestly don't know if she organized protests),

Or are they trying to say that Vicki Timpa didn’t do enough to get justice for her son after she got the body cam footage released after 3 YEARS of trying?

Vicki Timpa still cares, and she's doing more for his memory then people using the murder of her son as an excuse for racism. https://starlocalmedia.com/rowlettlakeshoretimes/news/tri-east-naacp-launches-movement-to-get-controversial-restraint-method-removed/article_c424b738-a478-11ea-93f6-3bea447001ae.html

#blm #tony timpa #police brutality #icantbreathe #black lives matter #dallas #mentally ill #this is america

2 notes · View notes

lawinformation · 5 years

Text

Texas Family Law Courts: The role of an ad litem in your divorce

On the off chance that you have require a best reasonable Texas Divorce Law encounter, Texas Family Law Courts: The role of an ad litem in your divorce with the immense procedure!

Family Law Attorneys Houston: Many of the subjects that we’ve discussed so far in our discussion of Texas Family Law Courts are very well known. Child support, property division upon divorce and child custody are all concepts that immediately come to mind when considering the implications of filing a divorce or child custody case in Texas. They may even be issues that have kept you awake at night due to your not knowing exactly how everything is going to fall into place for your particular case.

On the other end of the spectrum are circumstances that occur in many family lawcases in Texas but do not immediately jump to mind for most folks. One of those issues is ad litem representatives being appointed to your case.

It is possible that not only have you not considered this subject much but that you’ve also never even heard the term before. The purpose of today’s blog is to explore this subject in greater detail and to help you process how an ad litem can impact the lives or you and your family.

Ad litem defined for a family law case in Texas

The word “ad litem” may have multiple definitions if you were to go online and look up all the different contexts in which it is applicable for. However, for our purposes we can think of an ad litem as a person who is appointed by a judge (either by the request of a party to a lawsuit or at the motion of the judge him or herself) whose role in the case is to protect the interests of a child or other party that is involved in the case.

For the most part, it is children that the ad litem ends up representing but this is not always the case. Persons that are declared mentally incompetent are represented by an ad litem in many instances due to their inability to understand and process the proceedings of a case themselves.

In many CPS cases ad litem attorneys are appointed to search for a missing parent who has not answered the court’s notification of a legal case that involves him or her. The ad litem would utilize whatever contact information is available to him or her and will seek to locate and inform the parent of the proceedings.

If the parent cannot be located the ad litem reports back to the judge with that information.

Amicus attorney vs. Ad litem attorney

An amicus attorney functions in some of the same ways as an ad litem attorney but acts more so as the eyes and ears of the court outside of the courtroom. The amicus attorney conducts interviews of the parties, children and other relevant persons involved in your divorce or child custody case and reports directly to the judge with their opinions.

A judge is tasked with making decisions that are in the best interests of the children involved. The amicus attorney does their job with this responsibility in mind and will assist the court as much as possible in this endeavor.

The amicus attorney does not work for either party individually or a child of the case. The amicus is an independent practitioner that is appointed by the judge to help the judge with decision making.

Grandparent Visitation in Texas Family Law Cases

Houston Family Law Lawyers: Let’s jump around some and discuss what rights grandparents have in Texas to visitation with their grandchildren. The idea of the “nuclear family” as portrayed in such famous television shows as “Leave it to Beaver”, is fast becoming a structure of the past.

Today, blended and multi-generational households are becoming much more commonplace. With grandparents living with grandchildren more and more it would make some sense that they would have a special role to play in the upbringing of children. You may even be under the impression that as a result of that “special” relationship, grandparents are afforded special rights to visitation with their grandchildren no matter if the child’s parents remain married.

The fact is that grandparents do not have special rights carved out for visitation in Texas. The law in Texas is such that if a parent denies a grandparent visitation it is assumed that the parent is acting in the best interest of the child.

However, grandparents can file their own lawsuits to gain visitation or can even see to modify prior orders that were already in place. The law is such that grandparents will not have an easy time winning a case, however. Let’s discuss some of the circumstances where a grandparent could be successful in attempting to gain visitation with their grandchildren.

First and foremost, a grandparent must be the biological or adopted grandparent of a child in order to proceed with a lawsuit. This means that if you are a step-grandparent that you are out of luck and cannot be awarded visitation as a result of a family lawsuit in Texas. Your child’s parental rights to your grandchild must remain in place in order to proceed with a lawsuit as well.

A judge will need to determine that your being denied visitation with your grandchild will impair your grandchild’s physical health and emotional well being. The last requirement that you must meet is that it is necessary to show the court that you are the grandparent of a child whose parent (your child) has been:

> Incarcerated during the three month period prior to your having filed the lawsuit > Found to be incompetent by a court > Is Deceased > Does not have court ordered possession or access to your grandchild

With this number of requirements in mind, it is critical to make sure that you have a strong case prior to proceeding to court. I would advise you to meet with an attorney to learn about your rights and your circumstances prior to filing suit.

Questions on ad litem attorneys, grandparent rights or any other subject in family law? Contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC today

Family Law Lawyer Houston: If you have additional questions on any of the subject matter we’ve discussed today please do not hesitate to contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC. One of our licensed family law attorneys is available six days a week to meet with you to answer questions in a free of charge consultation ... Continue Reading

#divorce #divorce law #family #Family Law #fagan #bryan fagan #attorney #attorneys #texas attorneys #law #lawyer #lawyers #Houston lawyers #Houston #Texas

3 notes · View notes

texaslawinformation · 5 years

Text

Amicus Attorneys in Child Custody Disputes in Texas?

If you have need a best Law service, You can get better suggestions from Amicus Attorneys in Child Custody Disputes in Texas? with the great process!

Houston Divorce Lawyer: This article discusses Amicus Attorneys in Child Custody Disputes cases in Harris and Montgomery County in Texas.

In some child custody disputes, the court may appoint an amicus attorney, to help the court decide what is in the best interests of the child.

Who does the Amicus attorney represent?

The amicus attorney is appointed by the Court to represent the child. It is the Job of the amicus attorney to make recommendations to the court regarding what kind of custody arrangement would be best in the best interest of the child.

What does Amicus Mean?

“Amicus” literally means “friend to the court.” The amicus attorney does not represent either side, nor does he represent the child directly. The amicus attorney’s only concern is the child’s best interest.

Who pays for the Amicus Attorney?

Generally, both sides split the amicus attorney’s fees. However, this not always the case and is something the Judge will decide.

What Does an Amicus Attorney Do?

Some things you can expect include:

> Talking to the children and the parents > Home visits > Interviews with third parties, such as doctors or friends > Attending court hearings or mediation > Possibly sending out discovery

By doing these things, the amicus attorney is trying to gather enough information to make a recommendation to the court.

Are Amicus Attorneys Always Appointed?

Spring Divorce Lawyer: Amicus attorneys are only appointed in cases where the court feels it needs assistance in protecting the best interest of the child. Like social studies and psychological evaluations, amicus attorneys are usually only appointed in more contentious cases.

Many couples find that it’s better for the entire family to try and agree to a custody arrangement without entering into a courtroom battle. Courts will usually adopt the custody arrangement agreed to by the parents, as long as that arrangement is in the best interests of the child. However, there are some situations where a legal custody battle cannot be avoided. In those cases, the court might decide that appointing an amicus attorney is the best way to protect the child’s interest ... Continue Reading

#divorce #family #Family Law #law #lawyers #case #free #attorney #attorneys #Houston #Texas #divorce attorney

11 notes · View notes

bryanfaganlaw · 5 years

Text

Child custody essentials for Texas families

If you have need a best suitable service your Child Law experience, Child custody essentials for Texas families with the great process!

Houston Divorce Lawyers: Whether you are a parent going through a divorce or a child custody case in Texas, you need to be familiar with how a court will view your case if you and your child’s other parent cannot settle in mediation. The fact is that as long as you are not in a courtroom, what you and your opposing party can agree to is pretty much how your case will be decided. Meaning: if you all can settle on an arrangement for child custody a court is likely to honor it because there is a presumption under the law that as your child’s parents, you both have his or her best interests in mind.

On the other hand, if you cannot settle your case then it will head to a courtroom where all of the power as far as decision making is taken from you and your child’s other parent and placed in the hands of a family court judge. This judge, while well meaning and bound to make decisions based on the law in Texas, does not know you, your child or the opposing party in your case. He or she will have a limited amount of time to learn the facts and circumstances of your case and then apply the law in a fair manner.

Best interests of your child

It is presumed that naming you and your child’s other parent as joint managing conservators is in the best interests of your child. This is the starting point that your judge will being their analysis from when it comes to awarding a particular schedule of possession. However, once evidence begins to be presented in a trial a judge can make different decisions regarding what is actually in your child’s best interests.

What sort of evaluation does a judge make as to what is (or is not) in your child’s best interests? First of all, the judge would likely want to do a review of the home environments of both you and your child’s other parent. This often times meaning have an amicus attorney or attorney ad litem conduct a review of the home environments and to compile a report for the judge so that he or she can make a more informed decision.

Next, what your strong-suits when it comes to parenting and what are your weaknesses? What are those of your child’s other parent? Do you and your child’s other parent work well when it comes to co-parenting or are you unable to stand the sight of the other? Your jobs and your financial stability are also considered, although to a lesser extent when yours and that of the other parent are similar.

What a court will look to when making its ultimate determination as to child custody

Judges in Texas are empowered by the Texas Family Code to use their judgment to a great extent when making this decision. The law will guide him or her but in large part your judge’s own notions and opinions on the subject will be key.

I will note that if your child is over the age of 12 and you file a motion to have him or her speak to the judge about their own wishes as to where they want to reside primarily a judge must consider their opinion. How much the judge considers it is left up to that judge.

The current and future needs of your child (emotional, educational, financial, etc.) are considered along with your and your opposing party’s abilities to provide for your child’s needs. How stable is the home that you are living in and what do your habits and past actions in the realm of parenting indicate as far as your ability to provide the sort of environment that is conducive to raising a successful and happy child in today’s world.

There are other factors that will present themselves in your trial, but since they vary significant on a case to case basis I won’t attempt to discuss them here. Suffice it to say that a judge will consider a great number of factors when determining custody and conservatorship issues.

Sole custody of your child

Family Law Attorney Houston: A judge can award you or your child’s other parent a sole managing conservatorship. This means that your child would live primarily with that parent. This is how it would work under a joint managing conservatorship as well, but the major difference is that the sole managing conservator would be in the driver’s seat as far as making decisions for your child in regard to important subjects like education and health care matters.

Joint custody of your child

Joint custody is much preferred by judges and, as we just finished discussing, is the presumptive choice for judges to order in a child custody or divorce case. Not only does it encourage parents to both have a long lasting and committed relationship with their child but it also allows parents to split the responsibility of sharing rights and duties as to that child. I think in my years of practicing family law that this is most underrated aspect of parenting. Most parents focus on time and de-emphasize the rights and duties aspects of parenting. Ask any parent who feels left out of the conversation when it comes to making important decisions and that person will tell you how hard it is to be an effective parent without this right.

Drawing a distinction between rights/duties and time with your child

As a parent there are really two, main aspects to your ability to parent your child. The first is being able to spend time with your child and have him or her in your possession. Quality time is what most people like to call this. Evenings spent watching a movie in the living room, early morning breakfasts enjoying a sunrise together or playing catch in the backyard. These are familiar images for a lot of families and are what I think most clients in a family law case think about when considering what it means to be a parent and what is being fought for and over in a family law case.

I will again emphasize, however, just how important it is to have the legal right to make decisions on behalf of your child. Where your child attends school, what kind of religion he or she practices, the sort of medical care he or she receives and many other decisions are just the sort of life changing issues that I am talking about when I talk about rights and duties of parenting.

While you or I may commonly refer to this as legal custody of your child it is actually called conservatorship in the Texas Family Code. Ironically enough, despite how frequently it is used by the general public and attorneys alike, the word custody does not actually appear in the Texas Family Code even one time.

Using the parenting class as an opportunity to learn more about your child and your family

Most Texas counties will require you to go through a mandatory course on parenting. It may seem a little demeaning for a court to demand that you attend a course on parenting after you have been a parent for years. I understand this may seem like a waste of your time, but I have had more than a few parents tell me that it really did open their eyes on how to resolve conflict, work with the other parent after a family law case and how to maximize the time that you do have with your child.

More on the subject of child custody will be posted in tomorrow’s blog

Houston Divorce Attorney: If you are interested in the information contained in today’s blog post then you will want to stick around until tomorrow when we conclude this mini-series of child custody issues in Texas family law cases. If you have any questions in the meantime I suggest that you contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC. One of our licensed family law attorneys can meet with you six days a week for a free of charge consultation. We can answer your questions and address your concerns in a comfortable and pressure-free environment ... Continue Reading

1 note · View note