Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
SCRA in Child Custody Cases
Ongoing United States military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe forces military parents to make important and sometimes difficult decisions with regard to their children. The current state of world affairs has resulted in increased deployment of active duty military members and increased activation and deployment of military reservists and National Guard members. Among other things, the mobilization of a military parent may result in the need for legal counsel to deal with complicated child custody issues. As a result, family lawyers dealing with military families must familiarize themselves with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
A Brief History
Prior to its amendment in 2003, the SCRA was known as the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA). It is intended to relieve service members from the strain of litigation during periods of service that would adversely affect their ability to participate in the proceedings. The SCRA affords protection to Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard service members, including active-duty members, reservists and National Guard members called to active duty. Under the SCRA, servicemembers may be entitled to a 'temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings' in civil actions, including domestic relations cases, while the servicemember is deployed. As a result, courts are forced to balance protection of servicemembers' civil rights during military service with the need to resolve matters involving the best interest of children promptly and efficiently.
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.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.