Landmark Nebraska Decision
June 30, 2005
On May 12, 2005, a federal trial judge in Nebraska struck down what has been called the most extreme of the anti-gay family laws in the nation. <i>Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc., v. Bruning</i>, - F. Supp. 2nd - , 2005 WL 1126834 (D. Neb. 2005). Passed by Nebraska voters in 2000, the ballot initiative that was known as "Measure 416" became Section 29 of the Bill of Rights of the Nebraska constitution. In addition to limiting marriage to a man and a woman, the measure provided that the "uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." Plaintiffs challenged the law under the United States Constitution as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the prohibition on Bills of Attainder.
Texas Chooses Intolerance over Harsher Bigotry
June 30, 2005
This past session, Texas legislators looked into the abyss and then turned away. But only barely. Texas teetered on the verge of becoming the only state to ban gays, lesbians, and bisexuals from serving as foster parents before the Senate pulled back from an amendment to legislation pending in the Statehouse. Instead of staining Texas as the most intolerant state in the union with regard to the rights of its gay and bisexual citizens, Texas legislators chose merely to give its voters the choice of amending the Texas Constitution to ban civil unions for gay Texans.
News Briefs
June 30, 2005
Important information you need to know.
Case Updates
June 30, 2005
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Marriage and the Transgendered Person
June 30, 2005
In last month's newsletter, we discussed two 1970s New York decisions that held marriages between transsexuals and persons of their birth sex to be invalid. No recent cases on this issue have been brought in New York, so we are left to ponder what would be the outcomes of those cases in present-day New York. Recently, however, the Florida Court of Appeal relied on those old New York cases -- Frances B. v. Mark B.</i>, 78 Misc. 2d 112 (1974) and <i>Anonymous v. Anonymous</i>, 67 Misc. 2d 982 (1971) -- when it decided that marriage in Florida between a female-to-male transsexual and woman was invalid at its inception. In light of recent social trends in the State of New York, was that reliance justified?
Introduction
June 30, 2005
In divorce situations, nothing -- not even the question of who gets the house -- can compare to the importance of the question of how custody of the children will be worked out. Some lucky families will be able to work together toward the optimum solution for all concerned, with a willingness to be flexible that will keep the arrangement working smoothly for years. Other parents, however, will be at odds, due to real concerns for the children and the parents' relationship with them, or even from sheer animosity toward one another. In this special issue focusing on custody, we look at the some things all parents in custody battles should consider as well as some things that will affect only a smaller percentage of parents.
How to Represent the Non-Biological Parent in a Custody Fight
June 30, 2005
Representing the non-biological parent in a custody dispute today is an uphill struggle. There are only three classes of people under New York statutory law who may seek custody of or visitation with children: parents, siblings, and grandparents (DRL '' 70-72). All others have no standing. And under current case law, biological strangers are legal strangers.
Parent Testimony in Custody Disputes
June 30, 2005
Over the years, I have helped prepare many parents to testify in custody matters. In that time, I have discovered crucial areas of preparation that will help produce a competent and confident witness. Parents need guidance on: 1) attitude; 2) behavior; and 3) basic custody topics they should be prepared to discuss. Most lawyers manage to include parts of these three areas when preparing their clients for trial, but frequently, the approach is scattered. The instructions are fine as far as they go, but there are holes in the preparation that, if stumbled into, will certainly trip up and unnerve a witness. School your client on the following elements of testimony and the chances of a favorable outcome will be greatly increased.
International Parental Child Abduction
June 30, 2005
When resolving custody issues between international parents, counsel should address the issue of international travel and should use their best efforts to prevent international parental child abduction. In my practice, I assist attorneys and clients around the world to prevent children from being abducted overseas and to seek their return if they have been abducted. Preventing child abduction is obviously far better than trying to recover abducted children from countries that do not recognize an obligation to reunite families. Unfortunately, clients often seek help too late, lawyers often do not recognize the severity of the situation or do not know what steps to take, and judges often fall back on concepts such as international comity to justify a refusal to issue the necessary orders.
