Grandparent Custody
In last month's newsletter, we explored the state of the law on grandparent custody of children prior to the amendments to FCA ' 651(b) and DRL ' 72(2)(a) (b) (c), which codified jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions filed by grandparents for custody of their grandchildren. The amendments, which went into effect on Jan. 5, 2004, appeared to change the law to make it easier for grandparents to gain or keep custody of grandchildren. The leading case law previous to the amendments could be found in <i>Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys</i>, 40 NY 2d 543, 387 NYS 2d 821, 356 NE 2d 277 (1976), in which the Court of Appeals held that a parent has a superior right to custody over a nonparent unless the nonparent meets the burden of proving "extraordinary circumstances." Once such extraordinary circumstances are shown, a court may then move on to consider custody in light of the best interests of the children. After the amendments went into effect, the question became, did those amendments substantially change the law for grandparents seeking custody?
Enhanced Earnings Capacity
Two recent cases in our office have highlighted the legal and procedural conundrums occasioned by parties residing in different states at the time divorce proceedings are commenced, where one of the spouses earned a medical degree and obtained medical licenses and board certifications (ie, enhanced earning capacity) during the course of the marriage. As most readers of this publication are surely aware, New York is the only major jurisdiction in our nation to value enhanced earning capacity for purposes of equitable distribution. Thus, whether the case is litigated in New York or in a different state can have a marked effect on the outcome of the financial aspects of the case, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.
Decisions of Interest
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
In the Spotlight: Being Gun-Shy ' Difficulties Surrounding the Trigger of Rights of First Refusal and First Offer
The right of first refusal ('ROFR') and its close cousin, the right of first offer ('ROFO'), collectively sometimes called pre-emptive rights, are devices used to afford the grantee a degree of flexibility in potentially buying or leasing the subject property at a future time. These rights can be considerably more troublesome, especially to grantors, than may be immediately apparent to many real estate deal makers. Many who have been 'burned' recognize that the problems include: 1) financial loss and delay in completing a transaction that arise from dampened interest in the subject property on the part of third-party potential bidders, and 2) disputes (sometimes resulting in litigation) that arise from issues surrounding the triggering, execution, and preservation of the right. This article focuses on the second problem, with special emphasis on disputes that revolve around the triggering of the pre-emptive rights. It also suggests certain drafting implications that follow from the analysis.
Features
Introduction
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.
Features
Parent Testimony in Custody Disputes
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.
Features
International Parental Child Abduction
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.
Features
How to Represent the Non-Biological Parent in a Custody Fight
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.
Features
Is It a Mark Or Not? Strategies for Overcoming Refusals Based on Genericness, Ornamentation and Functionality
While most trademark practitioners are prepared to handle an initial refusal to register a mark from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") based on likelihood of confusion or descriptiveness grounds, many are considerably less comfortable responding to refusals in which the PTO challenges whether a particular mark even qualifies for trademark status. Such refusals are often based on genericness, ornamentation, or functionality grounds. Strategies for overcoming such refusals are discussed in detail below.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About ItWhy is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?Read More ›
- Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the RoughThere is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.Read More ›
- Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand OwnersBlockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.Read More ›
- Trying to Determine Rights in Pre-1972 Sound RecordingsAudio recordings of speech, musical instruments or any other sounds created before Feb. 15, 1972, are treated very differently from other recorded sounds under U.S. law. Each of the 50 states is free to apply its own rules to the protection of audio sound recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972, and may continue to do so for the next 54 years. As a consequence, the scope of protection for pre-1972 sound recordings is inconsistent from state to state, often vague and sometimes difficult to discern.Read More ›
- Disavowals of Liability Do Not Disembowel Coverage: Liability Settlements and Insurance CoverageLiability insurance policies apply where the insured is liable for bodily injury, property damage, or wrongful acts (depending on the policy). What happens, however, when the policyholder denies that any injury or wrongdoing took place? Does that mean that insurance is not applicable?Read More ›