Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NJ & CT News
NEW JERSEY
Child's Interests Take Precedence over Mother's Privacy Concerns
A baby's adoption was recently put on hold after a New Jersey appellate court found that the State's Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) had failed to meet its obligation under New Jersey Statutes Annotated (N.J.S.A.) 30:4C-12.1(a) to initiate a search for relatives who might be willing and able to take care of the child. The child in question in Division of Youth and Family Services v. K.L.W., A-5178-09T3, A-5234-09T3, was born addicted to drugs and required special care. Her mother already had four other children, all of whom had previously been placed in their maternal grandparents' care. While still in the hospital, the mother voluntarily gave up custody to DYFS, but asked that the child's caseworker not contact her parents because they were unaware that their daughter was abusing drugs. (The child's father said he could not care for the baby because he was a long-distance truck driver.) Upon leaving the hospital, the baby was placed with a children's home and soon thereafter with the woman who eventually sought to adopt her. As requested by the mother, DYFS never contacted the child's grandparents, although the agency had their contact information. Eight months later, DYFS filed a guardianship complaint and proposed adoption by the woman who had been raising the child, and the trial judge, in accordance with the best-interests inquiry under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1)-(4), terminated both parents' parental rights. The parents appealed. The Appellate Divisionreversed and remanded, finding that by putting the mother's privacy interest above the child's best interest in having the chance of being placed with willing and capable relatives, DYFS breached its duty to the child, as laid out in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12.1(a).
CONNECTICUT
Lawyer's Counterclaim Did Not Arise from Same Transation
In Bracken v. Welty, Doc. No: CV09-6006355S, a case in which a man alleged negligence and breach of contract on the part of his divorce attorney, a judge recently threw out the lawyer's counterclaim for defamation because it did not, in accordance with Practice Book ' 10-10 “arise[ ] out of the transaction or one of the transactions which is the subject of the plaintiff's complaint ' .” The plaintiff, Christopher Bracken, hired the defendant lawyer, Jean Welty, to represent him in his divorce. He later sued Welty and her law firm, alleging that they should have requested that his former wife undergo drug and alcohol tests, and should have asked for his wife be permitted only supervised visitation with the couple's children. Welty sought to counterclaim for defamation, alleging that Bracken wrote disparaging things about her on two attorney rating websites. On one, he allegedly stated that potential clients should “[s]tay away from Welty ' arrogant, negligent, dislikes strong men.” On another, he purportedly wrote, “Welty did nothing for me in my divorce except take my money,” and “You will make a huge mistake if you engage this attorney.” In denying the defendant attorney's request to amend her answer to include counterclaims, the court wrote, “A counterclaim does not arise from the same transaction as the complaint” if the allegations in the counterclaim are concerned solely with “conduct of the plaintiff occurring after the events involved in the subject matter of the complaint.” Here, the plaintiff's complaints arose from the attorney's conduct during the term of the contract between them, while the alleged defamation took place only after the attorney-client relationship had terminated.
NEW JERSEY
Child's Interests Take Precedence over Mother's Privacy Concerns
A baby's adoption was recently put on hold after a New Jersey appellate court found that the State's Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) had failed to meet its obligation under New Jersey Statutes Annotated (N.J.S.A.) 30:4C-12.1(a) to initiate a search for relatives who might be willing and able to take care of the child. The child in question in Division of Youth and Family Services v. K.L.W., A-5178-09T3, A-5234-09T3, was born addicted to drugs and required special care. Her mother already had four other children, all of whom had previously been placed in their maternal grandparents' care. While still in the hospital, the mother voluntarily gave up custody to DYFS, but asked that the child's caseworker not contact her parents because they were unaware that their daughter was abusing drugs. (The child's father said he could not care for the baby because he was a long-distance truck driver.) Upon leaving the hospital, the baby was placed with a children's home and soon thereafter with the woman who eventually sought to adopt her. As requested by the mother, DYFS never contacted the child's grandparents, although the agency had their contact information. Eight months later, DYFS filed a guardianship complaint and proposed adoption by the woman who had been raising the child, and the trial judge, in accordance with the best-interests inquiry under
CONNECTICUT
Lawyer's Counterclaim Did Not Arise from Same Transation
In Bracken v. Welty, Doc. No: CV09-6006355S, a case in which a man alleged negligence and breach of contract on the part of his divorce attorney, a judge recently threw out the lawyer's counterclaim for defamation because it did not, in accordance with Practice Book ' 10-10 “arise[ ] out of the transaction or one of the transactions which is the subject of the plaintiff's complaint ' .” The plaintiff, Christopher Bracken, hired the defendant lawyer, Jean Welty, to represent him in his divorce. He later sued Welty and her law firm, alleging that they should have requested that his former wife undergo drug and alcohol tests, and should have asked for his wife be permitted only supervised visitation with the couple's children. Welty sought to counterclaim for defamation, alleging that Bracken wrote disparaging things about her on two attorney rating websites. On one, he allegedly stated that potential clients should “[s]tay away from Welty ' arrogant, negligent, dislikes strong men.” On another, he purportedly wrote, “Welty did nothing for me in my divorce except take my money,” and “You will make a huge mistake if you engage this attorney.” In denying the defendant attorney's request to amend her answer to include counterclaims, the court wrote, “A counterclaim does not arise from the same transaction as the complaint” if the allegations in the counterclaim are concerned solely with “conduct of the plaintiff occurring after the events involved in the subject matter of the complaint.” Here, the plaintiff's complaints arose from the attorney's conduct during the term of the contract between them, while the alleged defamation took place only after the attorney-client relationship had terminated.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?