Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Judge Restricts Calls, Texts of 'Overly Involved' Mother
A divorced mother must limit the number of phone calls and texts she sends to her daughter while the teen visits her father and must refrain from scheduling any activities for her daughter during that time, a New York state judge has ruled. Supreme Court Justice Anthony J. Falanga in Nassau County, NY, addressed the issues raised by “an overly involved parent who has difficulty letting her daughter spend unfettered time with her father,” in W.J.F. v. L.F., 018610-1999.
The father, W.J.F., and mother, L.F., divorced in 2005. The mother was granted sole custody of their now-14-year-old adopted daughter, C. The daughter stays with her father from Thursday after school through Saturday evening, along with designated summer vacations and alternating holidays. In the current proceeding, the father sought legal custody, claiming the mother violated the terms of the parenting schedule by arranging activities for the child during his scheduled time and encouraging C. to lie about the plans. The father also claimed the mother texted their daughter between five and 10 times a day, making it difficult for him to reach his daughter because of a full mailbox.
Justice Falanga denied the custody modification request, but prohibited the mother from actions like scheduling social activities during the father's parenting time. He also restricted her to one daily call or text at a specified time.
' Andrew Keshner
Judge Restricts Calls, Texts of 'Overly Involved' Mother
A divorced mother must limit the number of phone calls and texts she sends to her daughter while the teen visits her father and must refrain from scheduling any activities for her daughter during that time, a
The father, W.J.F., and mother, L.F., divorced in 2005. The mother was granted sole custody of their now-14-year-old adopted daughter, C. The daughter stays with her father from Thursday after school through Saturday evening, along with designated summer vacations and alternating holidays. In the current proceeding, the father sought legal custody, claiming the mother violated the terms of the parenting schedule by arranging activities for the child during his scheduled time and encouraging C. to lie about the plans. The father also claimed the mother texted their daughter between five and 10 times a day, making it difficult for him to reach his daughter because of a full mailbox.
Justice Falanga denied the custody modification request, but prohibited the mother from actions like scheduling social activities during the father's parenting time. He also restricted her to one daily call or text at a specified time.
' Andrew Keshner
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?