A judge in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, recently ruled that dogs can’t be treated like children, as part of a divorce case. And while I’m as big a fan of puppies as the next person, Justice Richard Danyliuk’s argument makes a lot of sense.

Here’s the backstory: a divorcing couple–married 16 years–were dealing with a “custody” case involving their two dogs, Kenya and Willow (a.k.a. Willy). The wife wanted the dogs, with only visitation rights for the husband, and vice-versa. They argued that this should be treated like a “traditional” custody argument, one that would usually include human children.

This whole dispute ended up in front of Danyliuk, who seemed pretty annoyed that this landed in his courtroom, saying: “To consume scarce judicial resources with this matter is wasteful. In my view such applications should be discouraged.” Danyliuk also expressed frustration that the legal filings by the couple included a lot of extraneous information, including the wife’s claim that her husband had not been very attentive to their cats earlier in their relationship.

But Danyliuk also made a few different compelling arguments why dogs simply aren’t children:

In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders.

We tend not to breed our children with other humans to ensure good bloodlines, nor do we charge for such services.

When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering.

When our children act improperly, even seriously and violently so, we generally do not muzzle them or even put them to death for repeated transgressions.

Danyliuk pointed out that pets aren’t legally treated exactly the same as traditional property, as there are laws that protect them from abuse and harm, but at the end of the day they are, for all intents and purposes, property.

So, despite how  much you might love your furry friend, they aren’t going to be treated like children in the courtroom–at least in front of this one Canadian judge.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Judge Rules That Dogs Aren’t Children appeared first on Law Street.

When actress Sofia Vergara and businessman Nick Loeb were engaged, they created and froze embryos, planning to use a surrogate to have a child. But they split up in 2014, and since then, a legal battle has ensued over the frozen embryos. Loeb wants to use one of those embryos to have a baby despite Vergara’s opposition. And allegedly the reason why they split up was because he wanted kids and she didn’t. A legal contract they signed when they were still together made it clear that the embryos could only be used if both parties consented. But it didn’t specify what would happen if they split up, which is why in May of 2015 Loeb sued Vergara for the right to have his own baby.

Now, Loeb is using a different tactic. He filed a lawsuit on “behalf” of the frozen embryos, which are named Emma and Isabella (yes, they already have names). Loeb wants full custody and the chance to implant them in a surrogate. He contends that they have the right to live and to benefit from a trust fund that Loeb set up for them to fund their future education and health care costs. This sounds like a very bizarre case, and like Vergara says, it’s not ideal to bring their mutual embryos to life considering the couple is separated and she is now married to actor Joe Manganiello. But considering the suit was filed in Louisiana, a very pro-life state, it’s not unfathomable that Loeb gets his way.

STRONG CONTENDER FOR THE STRANGEST HEADLINE YOU’LL SEE TODAY: “Sofía Vergara sued by her own embryos” https://t.co/M83TIVe4gj

— Jon Manuel (@JonManuel) December 7, 2016

If that happens, he would get full custody and Vergara would have no parental rights. Loeb has also previously argued that it’s unfair that women can bring children into the world even if the man objects. “Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects?” he wrote in an op-ed in 2015. Quoting religious beliefs about the sanctity of life, he claimed that the embryos should be seen as lives rather than property. He wrote that he has dreamt of being a parent his whole life, but that during their relationship it became apparent that it was not a priority for Vergara, who already has a 22-year-old son from an earlier relationship.

According to her lawyer, Vergara wants the embryos to stay frozen, as she is Catholic and could not let them be destroyed. She claims that Loeb just wants to take advantage of her celebrity status to promote himself. Loeb’s claims that he truly wants children and that he believes that keeping their embryos “frozen forever is tantamount to killing them.” No matter who is right, the case is unusual, and it could be precedent-setting.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sofia Vergara Sued by Her Own Frozen Embryos appeared first on Law Street.

Brangelina is officially over!

Angelina Jolie reportedly filed for divorce from Brad Pitt on Monday, citing irreconcilable differences. She is seeking full physical custody and joint legal custody of their six children.

According to the Associated Press, Robert Offer, an attorney for Jolie Pitt, said that the decision to divorce was made “for the health of the family.” Jolie lists the date of separation as September 15, 2016.

While speculation is swirling as to the specific reason for the divorce, a number of media outlets have obtained statements from sources claiming to know the real cause for the split. TMZ claimed to have spoken with sources who allege that Jolie filed for divorce after being “fed up” with Pitt’s parenting methods and consumption of weed and alcohol. Another source told Page Six that the divorce is a result of Pitt’s alleged affair with actress Marion Cotillard, his “Allied” costar.

Jolie and Pitt began dating in 2005 while filming the movie “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” and married in August 2014 after a two-year engagement.

Pitt responded to the filing in a statement to People Magazine.

“I am very saddened by this, but what matters most now is the well-being of our kids,” he said in the statement. “I kindly ask the press to give them the space they deserve during this challenging time.”

This is Jolie’s third marriage and Pitt’s second. The couple has six children together: 15-year-old Maddox (adopted from Cambodia in 2002), 12-year-old Pax (adopted from Vietnam in 2007), 11-year-old Zahara (adopted from Ethiopia in early 2005), 10-year-old Shiloh, and 8-year-old twins Knox and Vivienne. Jolie is asking the judge to give Pitt visitation with the children.

According to Radar Online, Pitt and Jolie reportedly signed a prenuptial agreement that stipulated “If Brad gets too serious with another woman while they are married, she’ll get primary custody if they split.” However, TMZ is reporting that no third party played a role in the couple’s split.

Celebrity divorce attorney Laura Wasser is representing Jolie in the divorce. She also represented Jolie in her divorce with Billy Bob Thorton. Jolie is not seeking any spousal support.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brangelina is Over: Why is Angelina Jolie Filing for Divorce from Brad Pitt? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a big, often unrecognized problem for our nation’s poor. Many do not have access to the legal resources they need to complete processes like divorce or custody battles. Legal help is extremely expensive, and unlike in criminal cases, anyone who is a party to a lawsuit is not automatically granted an attorney. So, Washington is trying to help with that, by introducing a Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT) rule.

The LLLT program will allow candidates to take a year-long series of courses at community and state schools. Those classes particularly focus on things like legal research, civil procedure, and contracts. Then they’ll complete a sort of apprenticeship with a practicing attorney. After those steps are completed, the students can become licensed to advise on certain aspects of law, particularly family law issues. Right now, the Washington LLLT program focuses on family law, but if successful, it could probably end up being expanded. The biggest new power granted to these LLLTs is the ability to give legal advice, which is currently prohibited for paralegals or legal assistants.

As Steve Crossman, who heads up the LLLT board, stated:

One of the unique things about this is they can practice on their own; (unlike paralegals) they don’t need to practice under the supervision of lawyers. They can practice in conjunction with practicing lawyers so they work out of the same office. We’re thinking they also could work for a government-funded or volunteer legal-services agency.

The program has its beginnings in 2012, when the Washington Supreme Court adopted a rule allowing LLLTs. Since then, the program has been developed and refined a few times, and the first class of future LLLTs began in 2014.

Overall, the LLLT program is focused on cost on a few different levels. First of all, the program is much cheaper for students. It’s no secret that law degrees are incredibly expensive. In 2013, private law schools cost an average of nearly $42,000 a year, public law schools for residents cost nearly $25,000, and public law schools for non-residents cost almost $37,000. In comparison, an LLLT program costs only about $10,000.

These lower costs will translate to the clients. An extensive 2009 study from the Legal Services Corporation showed that somewhere between 80-90 percent of low-income Americans don’t have access to legal aid for their civil legal issues. The cost is pretty prohibitive, and because law school is so expensive, new lawyers can’t always lower their prices to provide low-cost aid. Empowering LLLTs will allow low-cost services. While there are legal aid programs, many are underfunded and understaffed.

Some have been comparing the work of LLLTs to nurse practitioners, or other medical professionals who aren’t doctors but can still perform some medical services. Given that the first group of LLLTs began classes last year, some will be ready to work as early as this Spring.

This is an innovative program that may solve a lot of problems, both for aspiring legal professionals and those who require legal help. If it’s successful, hopefully other states will create similar programs.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paralegals Will Soon Be Able to Give Legal Advice in Washington appeared first on Law Street.

A custody battle between a famous skier and his former girlfriend has opened up a national discussion on respective paternal and maternal rights. In 2012, the Olympic skier Bode Miller, 36, had a brief relationship with a 27-year-old former Marine and firefighter, Sara McKenna. They dated for just a few months after they had met through an online dating service, when McKenna discovered that she was pregnant with Miller’s child. When she informed him she was going to an ultrasound appointment in June, Miller claimed that he didn’t want to be involved, and that she had made the decision to keep the baby against his wishes. She was living in California at the time of conception, but was considering a move to New York to attend Columbia University on GI Bill benefits, a possibility of which she informed Miller in October.

McKenna went ahead and moved to New York City when 7 months pregnant. In the meantime, Miller had gotten married, to a beach volleyball player named Morgan Beck, in October. In November, Miller began to seek custody proceedings. So, after the baby was born this February, McKenna went to a New York Family Court to seek custody of her child, Samuel Nathaniel Bode Miller-McKenna. (I will refer to the child as Sam, as that is the first name recorded on the birth certificate, despite the fact that Miller calls his son Nate) The Family Court determined that, despite the child being born in New York, which would normally establish that Court’s jurisdiction, the case should be dealt with in California.

The New York court claimed that McKenna’s choice to move from California to New York while pregnant was  “unjustifiable conduct,” that she committed “appropriation of the child while in utero” and that it was “reprehensible.” Then, the California court gave full custody to Miller.

So, this November, McKenna brought the case back to New York, where an appeals judge ruled that McKenna’s rights were violated. They stated, “putative fathers have neither the right nor the ability to restrict a pregnant woman from her constitutionally protected liberty.” And on Monday, she received temporary custody of her son again, at least until the next hearing takes place on December 9th.

There are so many things wrong here, I barely know where to begin. Let’s start with the clear blurred lines that New York Family Court created in the distinction between fetus and child. It is illegal to bring a child across state lines if it violates a custody agreement or something of that nature. But she didn’t do that, she, as an autonomous adult who also happened to be pregnant, moved. These blurred lines are concerning in a time where the rights of a mother versus her unborn baby can be tricky at best. A University of Florida law professor, Lee-Ford Tritt, noted, “I’ve never heard of a restriction on a pregnant woman telling her that she can’t move to another state.”

This case is also upsetting in regards to what it could mean for the child. At this point, a child under the age of one has already been bounced from his mother to his father back to his mother again. It is entirely possible that there will be more moving between the two as the hearings progress. For the good of Sam, (or Nate), this case needs to be solved soon.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Voyager via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Famous Skier’s Custody Battle Goes National appeared first on Law Street.