A lesbian filed an appeal in the Mississippi Supreme Court on June 1 to be recognized as the legal parent of a child she raised with her ex-wife.

After Chris Strickland and her ex-wife, Kimberly Day, divorced in 2016, a lower court recognized only Day as the legal parent of the couple’s children.

Strickland sought joint custody of their younger child, but was told she did not have a legal option to seek joint custody of their older child. The judge did not grant Strickland joint custody, but did grant visitation with both boys.

Strickland and Day adopted their older son in 2007. Since same-sex couples could not yet get married or adopt children in Mississippi at the time, only Day legally adopted the child and was listed on his adoption papers. However, Strickland still considers him to be her child.

“Me personally, that’s my child,” Strickland told NBC. “A piece of paper doesn’t mean anything to me.”

Strickland and Day decided to get married in 2009 and traveled to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legal, to tie the knot.

Two years after the couple married, Day got pregnant via in vitro fertalization and gave birth to their younger son. Again, same-sex marriage was not yet recognized in Mississippi, so only Day’s name was  listed on their son’s birth certificate.

Following the lower court’s decision, Strickland appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court for legal parentage of her younger child. Strickland is being represented by Lambda Legal and attorney Dianne Ellis. Day is being represented by attorney Prentiss Grant.

In a similar case in May, Judge Greg McMillan of the Knox County 4th Circuit Court recognized a Tennessee woman as the “husband” in a relationship during a same-sex couple’s divorce proceedings. The couple, Sabrina and Erica Witt married in Washington, D.C., in 2014.

The couple had a child via artificial insemination with Sabrina carrying the child. Since same-sex marriage was not legal in Tennessee at the time, Erica was not included on the birth certificate. While McMillan initially ruled that only Sabrina was the legal parent, he eventually reversed that ruling. McMillan named Erica as the “father” of the child and granted both parents custody.

That ruling came days before the Tennessee legislature passed a bill requiring judges to give “natural meaning” to gendered words such as “mother” and “father.” However, McMillan’s decision remained standing.

When children are born from opposite-sex relationships, both parents are more often listed on the child’s birth certificate and child custody disputes are less complicated–if only slightly so.

However, in cases which deal specifically with same-sex couples, those couples are especially affected by parental rights disputes arising from births and adoptions prior to marriage equality.

Depending on the decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, a new precedent could be set for Mississippi and potentially lay the groundwork for future child custody cases nationwide.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lesbian Appeals to Mississippi Supreme Court for Child Custody appeared first on Law Street.

A lesbian couple from Knoxville, Tennessee, has officially gotten divorced–but it wasn’t without a hard-fought legal battle that ended up involving the state legislature. In a first for the conservative southern state, a woman has been designated as the “husband” in a custody case. Knox County 4th Circuit Court Judge Greg McMillan’s ruling, which was anticipated, came as the Tennessee legislature was attempting to file a bill that would preclude gay and lesbian couples from being covered under gender-specific words in custody cases.

Sabrina and Erica Witt were married in 2014 in Washington D.C., where gay marriage was legal. At that point, gay marriage wasn’t legal in Tennessee, so when they had a child via artificial insemination, carried by Sabrina, Erica wasn’t included on the birth certificate. McMillan initially ruled that because the language in the Tennessee custody law was specific, and referred to “husband” and “wife,” only Sabrina could have custody. However, more recently, he ruled that the law could be applied to their case.

McMillan’s decision granted both Sabrina and Erica custody. Erica is viewed as the “father” in this situation, and has the right to see her child. Moreover, she is on the hook for child support payments.

But, while the Witts’ case was making it way through the courts, local legislators took notice. A few days after the ruling, the state legislature passed a bill that requires judges in McMillan’s situation to give “natural meaning” to words that are gendered. Governor Bill Haslam signed the bill. However, the legislature was prevented from intervening in this particular case, by McMillan’s decision. The lawmakers are appealing that decision.

LGBTQ rights groups in the state and nationally reacted with outrage that the state legislature was inserting itself into an individual family’s custody battle.

However, that new law is already wrapped up in a lawsuit. Four married lesbian couples, each of whom are pregnant, are suing the state over the law, claiming that it clearly was enacted with the intention to discriminate against gay couples. There are also concerns that this law could conflict with the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges.

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 Why does the Tennessee Legislature Care About a Lesbian Couple’s Divorce? appeared first on Law Street.

Technology is not glitch-proof, as a businessman from Côte d’Azur in southern France learned last week. The man is suing San Francisco-based Uber for a whopping $48 million after the app let his wife know of his whereabouts, which allegedly caused his divorce.

The man says he used his wife’s iPhone to order a ride through Uber then signed out of the app. But what he didn’t know was that the app apparently kept sending notifications to the phone much later, even when he was logged out. Those notifications let his wife know when he was traveling and when he arrived at a destination.

It’s unclear whether or not she could also see his actual destination, but if he had told her that he was, say, working late or visiting his parents, she probably got suspicious if the app kept telling her he was riding in an Uber. According to French newspaper Le Figaro, it is also not known whether he actually did cheat, but he said that the notifications certainly led his wife to believe so. The couple is now divorced.

@Independent Well, he should have known better

— WeCanGetYouAnything (@WeCanGetYou) February 9, 2017

While it may be common sense to not use your partner’s phone if you’re up to no good, the man and his lawyer still blame Uber for everything. “My client was the victim of a bug in an application […] and the bug has caused him problems in his private life,” said his lawyer David-André Darmon. Uber declined to comment, as the company doesn’t comment on individual cases.

Le Figaro tested recreating the glitch, and confirmed that the app would keep sending notifications to a phone, even if the user had logged out. But it only worked with versions of the app that were older than the December 15 update and only on iPhones.

This is not the first time that Uber has been involved in a privacy issue. For example, at the end of last year, a court filing by the company’s former forensic investigator, Samuel “Ward” Spangenberg, revealed that the company’s lack of cyber security allowed employees to keep tabs on famous politicians, celebrities, and even exes.

Uber insisted that Spangenberg had old information and that the company’s strict policies prohibited employees from seeing such data. But then five former security professionals spoke up and largely confirmed Spangenberg’s account. Both cases raise concerns about Uber’s handle on its users’ private information.

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 French Man Sues Uber For $48 Million, Claims the App Caused His Divorce appeared first on Law Street.

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.

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.

After suffering through domestic violence accusations, damning photos and text messages, and a restraining order, Amber Heard has made good on her promise and has given away her $7 million divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to charity.

Amber Heard Is Donating All $7 Million Of Her Johnny Depp Divorce Settlement https://t.co/zosgwOYF7h pic.twitter.com/aMX48OIfWM

— Elite Daily (@EliteDaily) August 19, 2016

Heard announced the decision in a statement to Buzzfeed Thursday, saying the divorce with Depp was never about the money and that she hopes the money goes to people “less able to defend themselves.”

According to Buzzfeed, Heard said the large donation “will be divided equally between the ACLU, with a particular focus to stop violence against women, and the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, where I have worked as a volunteer for the past 10 years alongside organizations like the Art of Elysium.”

Heard filed for divorce in May, and later obtained a temporary restraining order that alleges Depp hit her during a fight in their Los Angeles apartment that same month. Her allegations looked pretty convincing as she walked into an L.A. courtroom with a bruise on her right cheek below the eye.

Depp, who has stayed relatively silent over the course of the divorce proceedings, has yet to release a statement and is probably under orders from his publicist to avoid the media at all costs. Why? Perhaps because its unclear if his career will recover from the domestic violence scandal. Former fans are still trying to figure out if they can forget forgive his domestic violence allegations and justify spending more money to see him in another “Pirates” sequel or freaky Tim Burton gothic comedy.

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 Amber Heard Donates $7 Million Divorce Settlement to Charity appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the Mississippi Senate voted not to make domestic abuse a valid reason for getting a divorce. Senate Bill 2418, passed in the house but died in the senate after additional amendments were added.

The state currently has 12 grounds for divorce, and domestic abuse would have been the 13th. Some of the established grounds that warrant divorce are impotency, adultery, habitual drunkenness, and mental illness.

In addition, one of the grounds is “Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.” This seems as if it would satisfy concerns of domestic violence because it is cruel and inhumane treatment. However, as vague as it is, it may not have been effective enough, which is a reason why legislators introduced the amendment.

It is the word “habitual” that raised concerns for legislators like state Sen. Sally Doty, a Republican representing Brookhaven, Mississippi.

“I said it in committee, and I won’t back down from it. I think one instance of domestic violence is enough for me,” Doty told the Jackson Free Press. She added, “I don’t think you should have to say, ‘Oh no, he beat [me] up again,’ and then we’ll see if it doesn’t work out.”

The state senate initially passed the bill, but when the house added a provision to allow divorce after separation for at least two years, it failed to make its way to the governor’s desk. Mississippi is only one of a few states that require fault for a divorce.

One interesting issue with the proposed legislation is that it only discusses physical domestic violence. In instances of emotional, financial, or mental abuse, the amendment would not have been able to have helped.

“I’m in favor of anything that helps our women and children, make life easier, and help them get through the process faster,” Lorine Cady, Founder and Executive Director of House of Grace, said to WREG.

Domestic abuse is a significant issue for many Americans. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV):

• 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime.
• 1 in 5 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

In addition, NCADV also notes, “1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime to the point in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.”

Women and men who find themselves in the position of an abusive and/or violent relationship have a difficult time getting away from their partner. Streamlining the divorce process and making it clearer would be a small step to addressing the issue, giving an individual the tools they need to legally get away from an abusive marriage.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Bill Aimed to Help Domestic Abuse Victims Seek Divorce Fails appeared first on Law Street.

Jennifer Lopez is currently locked in a pretty nasty legal battle with her first ex-husband, Ojani Noa. Noa, who was married to the actress and singer for eleven months in 1997-1998, is in possession of a number of salacious home videos featuring J-Lo. He wants to release them, but she doesn’t want them to see the light of day. Now, they’re stuck in a seemingly interminable legal battle over the issue.

J-Lo’s people have been fighting the release of the tapes for approximately six years now. According to Noa, they contain personal incidences like J-Lo arguing with her mother over gambling. But what appears to have garnered the most attention is the fact that Noa is claiming that he’s in possession of a sex tape of the two of them from their honeymoon. Noa’s business partner Ed Meyer told In Touch:

There is revealing video of her with a lack of clothing and in sexual situations, especially in the hotel footage from the honeymoon.

While J-Lo’s team has been fighting Noa’s team in court for six years, the videos have been kept closed under court order. But J-Lo’s lawyers recently withdrew from the case during arbitration. According to Meyer, that resulted in a loophole that will allow them to release the videos. But Noa and Meyer don’t plan on just releasing the videos, they also plan on profiting from them. Meyer has said: “We are going to produce a DVD and also have a streaming release of the J.Lo home video footage.” It’s seemingly not just about the money, though. Meyer has implied that the attempted release of the videos are in some way vindictive and personal, stating: “The videos contain salacious material and are going to shock her fans. We have unfinished business.”

While the release of celebrity sex tapes, or celebrity nude pictures, have become sadly the norm, the threatened release of J-Lo’s sex tape, as well as other aspects of her private life are still horrifying. While Lopez’s marriage to Noa clearly didn’t have a happy ending, that does not entitle him, or his business partner, to exploit her private life and shame her for her sex life with Noa. Regardless of Meyer and Noa’s plans, Lopez’s team will probably continue to attempt to block the release of the video–we’ll see if they’re ultimately successful.

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 J-Lo vs. Her Ex-Husband: Former Couple in Court Over Sex Tape 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.

Do you need a break? Are you tired of the day-to-day life? Have you and your husband or wife been constantly fighting over the little stuff … and let’s not even get started on the big stuff? If you answered yes to these questions, then you need a vacation. Gideon Putnam Resort is the ideal vacation destination for you. Stay for just one weekend, and your biggest problems will be solved.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Relieve your stress as you are pampered in the luxury spa. Sleep in and wake up for a nice brunch. Then head down to the casino for some additional fun. Plus, go play golf, swim, and hike. They offer it all. And when you leave, they guarantee they will have stopped all of your marital bickering. Just select the divorce package, and you can leave on Sunday marriage-free. No need to worry about all the legal matters–Gideon Putnam will do that for you! See? You can’t fight with your spouse if you don’t have a spouse to fight with!

At Gideon Putnam, a popular wedding location, you can have your marriage come full circle and end it at the beginning. First, go there to get married. And then, when you are ready, go back and get divorced. That’s right: the resort has recently started offering divorces on its premises. You can come cut the tie that binds you to an unwanted spouse even if you got married at some other place. For just $5,000, you can start your new single live in comfort and style.

The idea is that you check in for the weekend (don’t worry: you get your own room), have a stress-free vacation, talk to some mediators, sign some papers, and hopefully leave on Sunday having had a stress-free divorce. They will even do their best to keep you away from all the happy weddings going on during your stay. Who needs a court when you can go to a resort?

Courtesy of Giphy.

While this idea seems pretty bizarre (at least to me), it has been going on in certain resorts in Europe for a while (which I suppose does not necessarily negate its bizarreness). I guess it must be working over there for people to want to move it here. So maybe this unique option is the right thing for you. Next time your spouse is getting on your nerves, do not lose your temper. Take a deep breath, count to ten, and calmly say, “Honey, I think we need a weekend getaway. Have you heard of Gideon Putnam Divorce … errr … I mean Resort?” And then relax: let them take care of the rest!

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Resort Now Offering Vacation Divorce Package appeared first on Law Street.

Lawyers. You can’t count on them for anything. It is why I decided to go into legal editing out of law school instead of actually doing a despicable thing like practicing. I mean, lawyers have to have good malpractice insurance because at some point, they are going to be sued for something stupid or dishonest that they did–not because the client is an idiot. No. It will definitely be the attorney’s fault.

Courtesy of Giphy.

What type of dumb or shady thing would a lawyer do anyway? I am sure we can all come up with some lackluster examples, but I have one that beats all of yours. What if a woman were to go to the office of a divorce lawyer and ask for help with her divorce? And what if, on hearing this request, that lawyer went ahead and helped her without giving her the proper disclosure that getting a divorce could lead to being divorced? Clearly that attorney would just be trying to get that paycheck without any regard for the client, right?

I am sure you–if you are a lawyer or are preparing to be one–would never make this mistake. I mean, you probably have warning signs in your office to alert incoming clients to this little-known side effect of divorce. I am sure you are all good guys looking to help your clients, not trick them; however, at least one lawyer has done this hateful crime. And it all happened in the UK.

Jane Mulcahy is a good Catholic who would never do something horrible like get a divorce. So when she entered the office of what would soon be her archenemies and asked for help with her divorce, she did not, and could not, know that soon the worst thing imaginable would happen: she would be divorced.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Now, as Ms. Mulcahy was not herself familiar with the field of law, it could not be expected that she came into the law firm with the knowledge that we, members of the legal world, have on this subject. I still remember, after all, the week in law school that we spent talking about the meaning of divorce and how, at the end of the proceedings, it would somehow end up with the termination of a marriage. It was a shocking revelation, indeed, and one that not a lot of outsiders were privy. So, of course, with this being such a legal secret, it is very plausible that this poor, abused woman had no idea what a divorce was when she asked for one.

Because of the murky definition of divorce, and knowledge of Mulcahy’s strong religious beliefs, it was the duty of her solicitors to inform her that if she were to get a divorce, her marriage would, in fact, be terminated. Also, they should have advised her instead to get a judicial separation–which is basically just all the benefits of a divorce without the sin of a failed marriage. In other words, it was perfect for Mulcahy, and yet her lawyers did not let her know about it. (It is my humble opinion that divorces probably make the lawyers more money, and so they deceitfully hid the meaning of divorce from their client to make a few more bucks from themselves. They should be ashamed.)

Courtesy of Giphy.

When Mulcahy learned of the trickery that had been done to her, she did not take it lying down. Instead, she sued. See, dirty lawyers? This is what happens when you play fast and loose with the lives of your clients: you get sued and lose lots of money … wait. What? A judge dismissed the claim? Man. Clearly, we are dealing with a crooked judicial team as well. Will justice ever be served to the poor, downtrodden Mulcahys of the world? Probably not. They all have pretty bad karma from committing the sin of divorce. Payback is a bitch, after all.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Sues Because Her Divorce Ended in Divorce appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college tuition has increased by leaps and bounds over the last few decades. There are a lot of bills to be paid, and there’s no question that if you want an education, someone has to pay those bills. The new question, however, is who? Is it the students’ responsibility? Or their parents? New Jersey judges and legislators are starting to weigh in on that pivotal question.

Several cases have sparked the need to look into this question, but the most recent–and probably most talked–about is that of a young woman named Caitlyn Ricci. Ricci is from New Jersey, but chose to attend school at Temple University in Philadelphia. She’s pretty much estranged from both of her parents, who have long been divorced. After she was kicked out of an internship program for underage drinking, she moved into her grandparents’ house and eventually began attending Temple. But a judge just ruled that her parents have to pay $16,000 toward her education, even though they didn’t want her to go to Temple in the first place. She is apparently now doing well–she works 30 hours a week in addition to attending classes.

Part of the issue appears to be that there’s a legal loophole–the fact that Ricci’s parents, Michael Ricci and Maura McGarvey, are divorced. They may not have to had to pay if they were married. After all, in a similar case regarding a young woman named Rachel Canning, also in New Jersey, she sued her parents to pay her last year of private high school, and she didn’t end up winning.

Michael Ricci explains that’s he pretty upset about the whole ordeal. He told Yahoo News that he would have been fine paying his daughter’s bills if she had remained at a state school. He explained his frustrations, saying:

We offered in-state tuition and she wants to go out of state. Common sense would say she should pay for it. The law is ridiculous. My ex and I have met with legislators who are writing a new bill that protects parents from this happening again. Do you realize that if you are married in the state of New Jersey, you are not under any legal obligation to pay for college? But, if you get divorced, you must contribute? Please, someone tell me how that makes sense. Not only do you have to pay, but apparently you have to pay for any college they want to go to, anywhere in the country. My ex and I have five kids between us, a mortgage, and other expenses. Why don’t they take any of that into account?

He has also said that he’s not going to pay–he’d rather be held in contempt of court.

Now a couple of New Jersey legislators have teamed up with Ricci’s parents to make sure this won’t happen again. They don’t want any other divorced parents put in the position that Ricci and McGarvey were. Two assembleymen–Paul Moriarty and Christopher Brown–are working to make sure that the law always treats divorced and married parents fairly and equitably.

It’s definitely a tough debate, and I think it’s more linked to the rising college costs than anything else.

Courtesy of Live Science.

The numbers in this infographic are even a little old–they are from a couple of years ago, but they still illustrate a point I’d like to make. Someone having a child in the early-to-mid 90s could expect to pay about $5,000 to a public university, but now they’d pay $12,804. Similarly, they could expect to pay around $10,000 to a private university, but now it’s over $30,000. There was no good way for most average parents to predict how exponentially the cost of college was going to increase, so it would be hard for them to predict whether or not they could pay for a child’s schooling all the way through graduation. That being said, it’s also very hard to imagine a student being able to pay for everything him or herself, and while loans are of course a very viable option, they do lead to a lot of debt. It puts families in a tricky position. Ricci will get the money she needs, presumably, but at what cost?

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 New Jersey Girl Sues Parents for College Tuition…and Wins appeared first on Law Street.

TGITFWAOTW–you know that phrase, right? “Thank God it’s Time for Weird Arrests of the Week,” of course! Also, it’s Friday, which is always a good thing. Enjoy!

[SlideDeck2 id=28812 ress=1]

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 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: October 25, 2014

Well, that was quick. As of today TLC has pulled the plug on its uber successful reality show “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” The announcement comes after weeks of speculation and reports asserting that Mama June, Honey Boo Boo’s mother, has been dating a convicted sex offender since splitting with her long-time partner Sugar Bear.

Here is the family’s response to the news, posted to their Facebook fan page earlier today:

According to Mama June in the video, she is not dating Mike McDaniel, who was convicted of aggravated child molestation in 2004.

“The statement of me dating a sex offender is totally untrue. Pumpkin (June’s daughter) has openly said that I’m not dating him … I would never, ever, ever, ever put my kids in danger.”

TLC, unsurprisingly, has been cautious when addressing this situation. “TLC has cancelled the series ‘Here Comes Honey Boo Boo’ and ended all activities around the series, effective immediately. Supporting the health and welfare of these remarkable children is our only priority. TLC is faithfully committed to the children’s ongoing comfort and well-being.”

No word yet from Sugar Bear on this controversy. It remains to be seen if the Shannon-Thompson family’s fans are as loyal as those of another major cable network’s reality family: the Robertsons of “Duck Dynasty” on A&E. A&E briefly barred the Robertson family patriarch from filming when he likened homosexuality to bestiality in a GQ interview. The whole family threatened to walk and many viewers revolted against the network, which later walked back the suspension.

Read our prior coverage on Mama June and Sugar Bear’s split, which kicked off speculation over the show’s future, here.

UPDATE October 25, 2014: Anna Shannon Cardwell, the oldest daughter of Mama June Shannon, reportedly was the eight-year-old child who McDaniel molested between 2002 – 2003. Cardwell defended her mother against reports that she was dating the man who spent ten years in jail for her molestation, until yesterday when she received more information about her mother’s relationship. Cardwell reportedly came forward with this information about her experience because of the nature of what she sees as her mother’s betrayal.

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Horatio Agostini via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TLC Cancels Honey Boo Boo, Possible Sex Offender Connection appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a sad, sad day for all you closet Honey Boo Boo fans out there. TMZ is reporting that Mama June caught Sugar Bear trolling dating sites for the last time. OK, to be fair, TMZ may be reporting it, but my mom is the one who reported it to me (and I’m sure she would want me to point out here that she is not actually a Honey Boo Boo fan, for the record):

To translate parent-text, ‘msnh’ = ‘many’ & ‘whoch’ = ‘which.’ Next up, WhenParentsText.com.

According to TMZ, David Michael Thompson — “Sugar Bear” on TLC’s reality hit Here Comes Honey Boo Boo — has made a habit of trolling various dating sites online, most recently as an “adventurer” looking for a “long term” relationship on PlentyOfFish.com. This of course poses a problem since Sugar Bear has been in a relationship with “Mama June” Shannon for nearly a decade. The couple, who started out as “shack ’em up mates” and exchanged vows at a committment ceremony earlier this year, have one daughter together, Alana “Honey Boo Boo” Thompson, and have been raising June’s three older daughters.

Courtesy of Giphy

Filming of the next season of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo is still underway, so we can expect some reference to these latest developments, if not footage from the fallout. The show has garnered shockingly huge ratings for the network, even beating the 2012 Republican National Convention in ratings. The family reportedly doesn’t use any of the money from their increasingly popular reality show, but rather lives off Sugar Bear’s income as a contractor. The family received up to $20,000 per episode in 2012, but the most recent figures put their per episode paycheck at $50,000 — all of which goes directly into trust funds for each of the daughters and one granddaughter for disbursement on their twenty-first birthdays. So, the division of assets probably won’t be as complicated as your run-of-the-mill reality star break up, but there will surely be no shortage of legal representation and publicity to go around.

I leave you with TLC’s video compilation of Mama June and Sugar Bear’s relationship as it played out on the show. #RIPShackEmUpMates

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Lwp Kommunicacio via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Line Up the Lawyers: Honey Boo Boo’s Parents Are Splitting appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Like it or not we live in a social media world — it is sometimes shoved down our throats when we don’t want it to be. No matter what show I watch, especially the news, everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Vine, or Pinterest logo popping up on the screen attached to the handle of whomever is speaking at that moment. Don’t get me wrong, I love social media, but I wonder how far we have allowed this phenomenon to take us that soon-to-be married couples are considering Social Media Prenups.

I tend to be a fairly private person and I don’t post every move I make on Facebook. My Twitter, on the other hand, is an outlet for everything that is going on, but I try to keep it as anonymous as possible for others involved. With that said, there are plenty of people out there who put their entire lives on Facebook and Instagram. I think it’s great if you are one of those people, you are braver than I am. But where do you draw the line?

I always thought a prenuptial agreement was something that was drawn up for a couple on the incase that the marriage might go south and the individuals need to protect themselves during the fallout. When did dictating what a person can or cannot do during the marriage based on social media become a thing? Why would you marry someone who did not respect your verbal wishes of keeping certain things private and between each other and not put it out for the whole world to see? This concept of a social media prenup screams a lack of respect for one another’s privacy and wishes, so maybe you shouldn’t marry that person if he can’t do the simplest of things. Not to mention that respect should be a deal breaker. If you don’t respect the other person then why are you with them?

I love social media, but this is getting out of hand. Penalizing your spouse for posting a picture, really!?! That’s unnecessary drama just waiting to happen. I do understand that if the marriage ends and your now-ex decides to post awful pictures and sexual videos or slander your name, you have every right to penalize them and that should be something included in a prenup — or even just a simple contract for married couples. But just because your husband posts a picture of you that you think doesn’t look good should not warrant a fee. Simply ask him to take the photo down! And if he refuses, y’all have bigger issues than a bad photo on the internet.

According to ABC News, people are also creating “love contracts,” which are essentially something that promotes a way of communicating and understanding one another’s boundaries. I think it’s a good idea but attaching a financial penalty to posting a bad photo is just insane, petty, and childish. Laying out a plan and understanding ways of better communication should be something every couple does before getting married.

Go out and enjoy life. Share it on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or Vine. Just don’t cross a line that you know would upset your significant other. Respect your relationship and respect social media.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Quinn Dombrowski via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Jump on the Social Media Prenup Bandwagon appeared first on Law Street.

Today The New York Times wrote about a Brooklyn Orthodox Jewish rabbi who is accused of kidnapping estranged husbands of women seeking a religious divorce.

Rabbi Mendel Epstein has been charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey with kidnapping the husbands of his clients for money and using violence to get them to divorce their wives.

Background

In the Orthodox Jewish community, a “get” is necessary for a divorce decree to be finalized.  Gets require the husband to permit the wife to divorce him. If a get is not obtained, then a divorce within the eyes of the Orthodox religion is not recognized.

Gets are the sole province of husbands in a marital relationship, and the denial of one to a wife renders the woman unable to move on under the rules of the religion.  There has been much advocacy in recent years focused on protecting the rights of women in their pursuit of freedom from their husbands.  This is especially true when their reasons for wanting to leave the marriage are based on domestic abuse, cruelty, or inhumane treatment.

When husbands refuse to grant their wife a get, rabbis can take action against them within the confines of their religion, including excluding them from activities within their synagogue.

Rabbi Epstein sought resolution in a different way.  He allegedly charged women $10,000 for decrees permitting violence against the husbands and $50,000 to arrange the violence himself.  Rabbi Epstein has been able to issue these decrees because he serves as a judge and lawyer within the religion.

Epstein’s activities were apparently an open secret among the Orthodox communities in New York and New Jersey.  Additionally, he spoke in depth to undercover investigators about his tactics for persuading husbands to allow their wives to obtain a get- namely employing tactics that didn’t leave marks on his victims.

The Case Buildup

According to the Times, Rabbi Epstein was sued in the late 1990s for similar conduct.  The suit was later dismissed.

When this case was being investigated, Epstein allegedly stated that “if the [estranged husband] does not have a mark on him,” police will not conduct a further inquiry into allegations of kidnapping or abuse.

With the widespread publication of this information, there has been an influx of potential victims calling into the FBI hotline.

On October 18, bail was set for four of the ten men accused of kidnapping the husbands, with amounts set between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

Family Law Parallels

Family law students may remember the case of Aflalo v. Aflalo, 685 A.2d 523 (NJ Sup. Ct. 1996).  In this case, a wife wanted to obtain a divorce decree from her husband but he refused to grant her a get.  In that case, the court ruled that they could not force her husband to grant her a get. The legal reasoning of the Alflalo court was that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution prohibited their involvement in the religious divorce procedure. Further, the court noted that it’s not unfair per se for their decision to not intervene.  Mrs. Alflalo was permitted to obtain a legal divorce from here husband, but the perceived unfairness stems from her own religious beliefs.  The court’s reasoning was that a person, in effect, chooses their religion.  Parties that enter into a marriage within the Orthodox Jewish religion are willingly adhering to the rules and regulations of that religion.

Resolution

It remains to be seen how this case will play out in the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey, but I think it’s fair to say that if Epstein and his accomplices are found guilty of this activity, they will GET what they deserve.

[New York Times] [Failed Messiah] [CNN] [The Jewish Week] [USA Today] [Brooklyn News 12] [NJ.com] [Google Scholar]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Sandor Weisz via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Orthodox Rabbi Accused of Using Violence to Obtain Religious Divorce Decrees appeared first on Law Street.