Test Kentucky Divorce Law

Bar Represents Man Who Went Online to Arrange Divorce

Bar Represents Man Who Went Online to Arrange Divorce
Posted on January 15, 2007 by Grant Griffiths at Kansas Family Law Blog.

The North Carolina State Bar is taking up the case of a man who went online to try to arrange his divorce, only to find court officials wouldn't accept the documents he downloaded from the Web site.
Joe Bruno got the documents from Law Online Incorporated and took them to the Gaston County Courthouse. Officials there told him that the documents weren't legal and that they wouldn't take them.
The state Bar wants to stop Law Online from doing business in the state, and accuses the company of offering legal advice without being licensed as attorneys in the state. The bar filed a lawsuit in Wake County.
The company says it did little more than offer people a way to handle a divorce on their own, and shouldn't be singled out by the Bar.
Bruno eventually got his divorce by hiring an attorney and paying half the 600 dollars Law Online asked for.

Grant does a very nice job with his blog. Sometimes I assume everybody already knows about the great family law blogs out there, so I have posted stories from them less frequently of late. Since I know I have many new readers, I will link to these other good blogs for awhile, so the newcomers can see the fine things going on online in family law.

Premarital Agreements and the Young Couple

Premarital Agreements and the Young Couple by Linda J. Ravdin is a very helpful article at Wealth Strategies Journal. Emotional Issues in Estate Planning: Planning for the Guardianship of Minor Children is the title of a promised January, 2007 article. The founders, editors, and advisory board are an impressive crew.
Thanks to the Kentucky Law Blog for finding this promising site. Now, if it just had RSS feed. You can subscribe to email updates, but who has time for any more email?

16th Annual (KY) Domestic Relations Update

The 16th annual Domestic Relations Update will be February 23, 2007, 11-1 at the LBA, hosted by Hon. Richard A.Revell and yours truly. For blog readers, you already have the cases and digests. The best part of this CLE, though, is always the discussion about these cases. Click here for info on the seminar and how to register.

Tax Issues Relating to Asset Division in Divorce

Tax Issues Relating to Asset Division in Divorce, sponsored by the American Bar Association Section of Family Law and the Center for Continuing Legal Education will be presented Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The online session will cover the following:

Valuation issues in a closely held business
Tax issues relating to the asset division
Allocation of carryover tax attributes to include net operating losses, capital losses, passive losses
Alimony versus property settlements -- excess front loading
Home ownership and marital residence issues
Promissory notes in an asset division
Latest trend in splitting retirement plans
Section 529 Plan issues
IRS notice and recordkeeping requirements

Click here to register online.

Breastfeeding and Parenting Schedules

Tulsa attorney Daniel C. Nunley has posted two articles on his new Oklahoma Family Law Blog about the challenges breastfeeding poses to a separated father's parenting time, Breastfeeding and Visitation and Breastfeeding and Divorce.

Dan is off to a nice start with his blog. I will be updating our family law blog roll soon, as there are several worthy new ones to add, and a few others to delete as they have been dark for awhile.

Report of Kentucky Inspector General Released

The Kentucky Office of Inspector General has issued its report, available online, on quick trigger adoptions, inter alia. While the investigation is beyond the scope of this blog, many readers will want to read the entire report, parts of which will no doubt be in the headlines in the coming days and weeks.
We are pleased to hear that one of its recommendations is to make these proceedings less secretive:

Based on our findings, we believe it would be imprudent to ignore the serious nature of the issues identified herein by only addressing individual misconduct while failing to fully address the conditions that ripened the environment for individual misconduct. It is the opinion of the OIG that such issues flourished, in large part, from the shroud of secrecy that so fully envelops the TPR process as to leave it highly susceptible to individuals or groups of individuals desirous of corrupting the process. For example, we believe strongly, the cloak of secrecy that currently dominates this process is not in the best interest of Kentucky’s children and must be removed as part of any material reform. Simply stated, these are not matters of national security, wherein effectiveness often requires secrecy. Rather, they are social service issues that demand the full light of day in order to better ensure the integrity of the process. The fact that children are involved in the process should no longer be used as an excuse to protect these proceedings from meaningful public oversight.

The Kentucky Law Blog posted this morning the news that three key officials are leaving for private practice. Sadly, Inspector General Robert Benvenuti, author of the report, is among them.
UPDATE: Read Deborah Yetter's front page story at the Courier-Journal and Valarie Honeycutt Spear's story at the Lexington Hearld-Leader.

Public Forum To Improve Kentucky Child Protection Services

Persons with suggestions to improve Kentucky's system of child protection services will have the opportunity to voice their ideas at a public forum next week in Frankfort. The Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services is hosting the forum from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 17, in room 169 of the Capitol Annex. I hope one object of the forum will be to help the cabinet garner support for a large budge increase from the legislature. Our state's financial priorities are out of whack. We need social workers and we need them badly. We don't need any more social workers killed while walking solo into dangerous situations. And, while it is not the subject of this forum, our judges need more time for these important cases, which means we need more family court judges.

How Are We Doing Setting Those New Years Resolutions?

Life happens so quickly, it is seeming archaic to make resolutions for an entire year only once. Old habits are hard to break, so I plod on cementing goals for this year. As I am firming them, though, I do think I will add as a goal more frequent introspection, reassessment, and action planning. Adding the pleasant ritual to more frequent resolutions will be the challenge.
I have been looking at how others are approaching resolutions, and stumbled upon The Blawgosphere Offers Its New Year Resolutions by Bill Gratsch. OMG. He's quoting and linking to me, and I don't even know who he is! Query: Shall I read more or write more? In this blawgosphere, my contacts are quality and I have been enormously enriched by the ones I have made. The zest for getting to know more (particularly those who like what I write) is almost irresistible.
Yet.
Many years ago it was with much delight that I introduced new neighbors to each other. Upon inviting one who had become a dear friend to some new gathering, he said, "No. Diana, I have enough friends. I don't need any more friends." (Shocking words to me.) And so it was that he kept and nurtured the friends he already had and does so to this day, adding one or two only as ones go astray because of death or some unpreventable obstacle. I have teased him endlessly about this comment, but had he added more friends than he could nurture to his inner circle, the depth of those friendships may have been less. Ours included, an unimaginable thought.
So, I am now pondering how broadly to cast the net: how much in time and energy to devote to those I already know, those I already love, and those I would like to know. How much time can I allot to those I don't even know I'd like to know, like those who read, quote, and like what I have to say. Maybe it's simply a matter of separating me from what I write.
A corollary theme is the object for writing the blog. It is the passion for and the discussion of the law. It was never intended as a vehicle to make friends, or even business acquaintances. The fact that fascinating people have come into my email box is a happy coincidence, and that some have become friends is great good luck. Another part of how life just happens.
This month long thinking really is a process, and one I enjoy even if I suspect it is becoming obsolete.
So, I'll keep plodding with the thinking and planning, yet be very grateful for and open to the serendipity.

A.D.B. v. Com.

A.D.B. v. Com., 205 S.W.3d 255 (Ky. App. 2006)

A.D.B., the mother of D.W.G, brought the child to the doctor for a checkup. The exam showed that his head was enlarged and that he had delayed development. The doctor referred the family to another doctor, who conducted a C-Scan. That exam revealed two brain bleeds, one recent and one over a week old. The mother denied knowledge of any injuries, but offered the possibility of the child falling accidentally. The family was then referred to UK Medical Center, where it was determined that the injuries were the result of non-accidental trauma. The matter was then referred to the Cabinet.
The Cabinet removed the child from the home in March of 2004. The mother signed a case plan to work toward being reunited with her son. After a police investigation and a court hearing regarding the abuse allegations in October of 2004, the court adjudicated that P.G., the child’s father who lived with the mother, was more likely than not the person who abused the child.
In April of 2005 the Cabinet filed a petition to involuntarily terminate the mother’s parental rights. In July of 2005, P.G. voluntarily terminated his parental rights to the child. In August of 2005 a hearing was held, and the family court terminated the mother’s parental rights. The mother appealed.

Analysis:
The Court found that the evidence supported the family court’s determination that statutory grounds, under KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g), existed for termination of the mother’s parental rights. At the hearing, the evidence demonstrated that 1) the mother knew P.G. was the abuser and continued to live with him against the Cabinet’s request, 2) the child suffered an older brain bleed which the mother failed to seek timely treatment for, 3) the mother failed to regularly visit the child while he was in the Cabinet’s custody, and 4) the mother repeatedly failed to provide, or was incapable of providing, essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education necessary for the child’s well-being and no reasonable expectation of improvement in her conduct existed.
The Court also found that the evidence supported the family court’s finding that the termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the child under KRS 625.090(3)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). At the hearing, the evidence showed that 1) the mother neglected her other children on three other occasions, 2) the mother did not meet the goals of the Cabinet for reunification, 3) the child had resided with the same foster family since his removal and was doing very well and becoming attached to that family, 4) the mother failed to pay child support for the child, and 5) the mother did not make P.G. move out of her residence until 14 months after the child was removed.
The Court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the family court’s findings. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision below.

Second Edition of International Parental Kidnapping Guide Issued

The U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention announces A Family Resource Guide on International Parental Kidnapping . It offers

practical and detailed advice about preventing international kidnapping and increasing the chance that children who are kidnapped or wrongfully retained will be returned. This OJJDP Report offers descriptions and realistic assessments of available civil and criminal remedies, explains applicable laws, identifies public and private resources, and identifies strategies to help left-behind parents recover their children or reestablish meaningful contact with them in another country. It covers important developments in policy and practice since the publication of the first edition in February 2002. The guide also includes a list of recommended readings; a directory of related resources, including Web sites; a Hague Convention application, with instructions; a checklist for parents involved in non-Hague cases; and an index.

Save it; it is a good article to have at your fingertips when a call about an international parental kidnapping comes to you. Or, do as I do and come back here and check the categories when you "know you saw that somewhere."