Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Kids Count'
Whether you represent the father or the mother in a custody dispute, every attorney has an obligation, professionally, ethically, and morally, to make certain that the children involved in a case are protected. Some practitioners find it difficult to protect the child's interest, while at the same time being expected to advocate properly on behalf of one parent in the custody matter. After all, to represent a parent zealously may entail necessary action that could subject the child to psychological evaluations, interviews by the judge, and other litigation-related participation. Forcing a child to play an active role in a custody matter can cause him/her lifelong scars.
For instance, no matter how many times a judge, with good intentions, may advise a child that he/she is not responsible for the decision made by the court, the true psychological repercussions are unpredictable. While some children may feel responsible for their parents' divorce, others may believe that they are disappointing their parent(s) when they meet with the judge to express their feelings and preferences. It is not uncommon for children to harbor resentment against their parents for placing them in the uncomfortable position of having to speak to the court. This could, and often does, contaminate the parent-child relationship. One New Jersey court has taken steps to help children embroiled in this process through a program called 'Kids Count.'
All participants in a custody action (the parties, the attorneys and/or the judge) should always remember that children are quite impressionable. They often sense when their parents' marriage is deteriorating around them and typically feel caught in the middle. Some are frightened and withdrawn, while others are angry and destructive. There is no doubt that each individual child will respond to a custody dispute with varying reactions. Most parents, no matter how much they love their child(ren), truly do not realize the actual extent to which their child is affected.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?