Current Size: 100%
FAMILY LAW TASK FORCE 
Chairs:
Senior Attorney Advocate: Margaret Maupin
For a complete list of Family Law Sample Pleadings, click Pleading in the task bar at the top of the page and then, from the drop down list, select Family Law
Family Law Task Force content posted in order of most recent to oldest.
More on the Baby Veronica Case before SCOTUS: NYT Forum on Adoptive Parents vs. Tribal Rights
The New York Times
1/24/13
Adoptive Parents vs.
Tribal Rights
The
Supreme Court has agreed to consider an adoption case involving a South Carolina couple
who were ordered to turn over a 2-year-old girl they had cared for since birth
to her biological father, a member of the Cherokee Nation, whom she had never met.
While South Carolina
law says the girl, Veronica, should stay with the adoptive parents, federal
law, under the Indian Child Welfare Act, says tribal authorities should decide
the case.
Should
the adoption of American Indian children receive special consideration, or is
it too focused on race? Kevin Noble Maillard, a professor of law at Syracuse University and a member of the Seminole
Nation of Oklahoma, organized this discussion.
For the forum, click
NYT Room for Debate: Adoptive Parents vs. Tribal Rights.
Tshiani vs. Tshiani, CSA, November, 2012: Parties' foreign "proxy marriage" was valid and entitled to comity.
Tshiani vs. Tshiani, 208
Md.App. 43, 56 A. 3d 311 (2012)
Opinion issued 11/21/12.
Facts: Husband and
Wife married in Kinshasa, DRC, in a proxy
marriage ceremony; Wife was in Kinshasa
and Husband participated by telephone, while Husband’s cousin stood in for him
in person. They then lived in the US as
a married couple, owned property as a married couple, had children, participated
in a renewal of marriage vows ceremony in a Catholic Church, and Husband claimed
a “dependency allowance” for Wife from his employer, the World Bank. In short, the couple lived as a married
couple. Wife filed a complaint for absolute
divorce. The Circuit Court awarded Wife the divorce, alimony, a division of
property, child support, and attorneys’ fees.
Husband appealed.
The question presented: Did the
Circuit Court err in recognizing the parties’ marriage in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo?
Holdings:
- The evidence supported finding that parties' foreign marriage in the Democratic Republic of Congo was a valid marriage under Congolese law;
- Maryland statutes do not prohibit recognition of a marriage by proxy or by telephone; and
- Foreign marriages by proxy or by telephone are not repugnant to Maryland public policy.
From the decision:
When
evidence suggests that the parties were lawfully married, it raises the
presumption that the marriage was valid according to the law of the foreign
state or country where it occurred. Redgrave
v. Redgrave, 38 Md.
93, 97 (1873). Competent evidence of a marriage includes official records of a
marriage, admissions or declarations of the husband and wife, statements of
witnesses to the wedding, or any other evidence that is admissible under the
general rules of evidence. Wright v.
State, 198 Md.
163, 168–69, 81 A.2d 602 (1951). Indeed, “the admissions and declarations of the
husband and wife have always been accepted in this State to prove their
marriage.” Brell v. Brell, 143 Md. 443, 448, 122 A. 635
(1923). “[W]here parties live together ostensibly as man and wife, demeaning
themselves towards each other as such, and are received into society and
treated by their friends and relations as having and being entitled to that
status, the law will, in favor of morality and decency, presume that they have
been legally married.” Redgrave, 38 Md. at 97 (Citations
omitted).
In Brell, the Court of Appeals determined
that a wife's testimony that she and her husband were married in Germany coupled
with the husband and wife living together and having a deed and a mortgage in
both names was sufficient evidence to regard the two as husband and wife. Brell, 143 Md. at 448, 122 A. 635. In Redgrave, the
Court found a marriage to be valid where witnesses testified that the parties
were married in Wisconsin, went to Iowa for two or three years, held themselves
out as husband and wife, the community recognized them as husband and wife, and
they had two children together. Redgrave,
38 Md. at
96–97. The evidence in this case exceeds that in Brell and Redgrave.
...
In
deciding whether a valid foreign marriage will be acknowledged in Maryland, courts employ
the doctrine of comity. Henderson v. Henderson, 199 Md. 449, 457–58, 87 A.2d 403 (1952). Under
this doctrine, Maryland
“will give effect to laws and judicial decisions of another state or
jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation but out of deference and respect.” Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. CAE–Link
Corp., 330 Md.
115, 140, 622 A.2d 745 (1993) (Citations omitted). In other words, Maryland courts will honor foreign marriages that were
valid where performed, even if the marriage would not have been valid if
performed in Maryland.
Henderson,
199 Md. at
458, 87 A.2d 403. There are two exceptions to this general rule. First, the
marriage must not be expressly prohibited by the General Assembly. Second, the
marriage must not be repugnant to Maryland
public policy. Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435, 444–45, 44 A.3d
970 (2012) (Citations omitted).
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Tshiana vs Tshiana.pdf | 60.04 KB |
Family Law Related Legislative Update as of 1/14/13
Here's your (approximately) weekly update of the proposed legislation related to family law and children before the General Assembly. Most notably, a new bill, SB 101, entitled "Family Law - Grounds for Absolute Divorce - Time Requirements" has been added. It was added this morning, and the first reading before Judicial Proceedings is scheduled for today. There is no synopsis and no actual bill on the General Assembly website yet.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 2013 1-14 Legislation Update.doc | 51.5 KB |
Supreme Court to Hear Adoption Case Involving Baby Veronica and Native American Dad
From the ABA Journal:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an adoption dispute involving a toddler named Veronica and an American Indian father who initially renounced his parental rights by text message.
"The Supreme Court granted cert on Friday, report the New York Times, SCOTUSblog and The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times. Matt and Melanie Capobianco are seeking the return of the daughter they adopted at birth who, at the age of 27 months, was ordered returned to her biological father. Though the father initially renounced responsibility for baby Veronica, he sought her return when he learned the mother had given up the girl for adoption.
"At issue is whether a law designed to preserve American Indian families applies when a noncustodial father relinquishes rights to a non-Indian mother. The law, the Indian Child Welfare Act, seeks to keep children within Indian families and tribal settings in custody disputes.
"The case is Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl."
From SCOTUSblog:
"The adoption case (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, docket 12-399) involves the competing rights to a child that may arise under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. In this case, a South Carolina couple had adopted at birth the daughter of a young woman who was not a tribal member, but the child was considered to be an Indian because of her father’s tribal membership. The South Carolina couple had to give up the child after raising her for two years, because a state court ruled that the federal law took priority over state law. At issue in the case is the definition of “parent” under the federal law, including whether that includes an unwed father who only belatedly claimed parental rights."
Family Law Related Legislative Update as of 1/9/12
Welcome to the 2013 session of the Md. General Assembly! On day one, here's what I found relating to family law. The search function on the state website is pretty bad, so if you know of something I haven't listed, let me know and I'll add it. The good news this year is that there is now a much better bill-tracking function so I'll (allegedly) get up-to-date information in my email every morning.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 2013 1-9 Legislation Update.doc | 39.5 KB |
New Free Online Toolkit Aims to Inform Lawyers Who Work With Traumatized Youth
Find this new resource at: http://www.safestartcenter.org/resources/toolkit-court-involved-youth-exposure-violence.php
From the ABA press release and website:
Research shows that most young people entering the juvenile or adult justice system have been exposed to violence and other traumatic events, and often they have experienced trauma multiple times. Research also shows that the greater the degree of exposure, the more likely the child will suffer physically, socially and emotionally, says Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law.
These factors led to the creation of a free toolkit, available online and intended for use by the justice system. The toolkit, titled “Identifying Polyvictimization and Trauma Among Court-Involved Children and Youth: A Checklist and Resource Guide for Attorneys and Other Court-Appointed Advocates,” is designed to make legal representation of children in delinquency, dependency (abuse/neglect) and other cases more focused on addressing the victimization a child client has experienced, and on how that client has been affected by multiple traumas, Davidson says.
Lawyers can use the toolkit’s checklist to identify and better understand what violence and other distress their child clients have experienced, he says. The checklist provides a vehicle to help lawyers determine whether the youth they represent has one of more than 20 adverse symptoms that may indicate their client is suffering from severe traumatic stress.
“If their client has traumatic stress, there is a flowchart to help the lawyer understand what trauma-informed referrals and services the child may need,” Davidson says.
Accompanying the toolkit is the issue brief “Victimization and Trauma Experienced by Children and Youth: Implications for Legal Advocates.” Among the topics the document covers are: understanding the symptoms of traumatic stress; the role of legal advocates, judges and court staff; screening instruments for identifying past trauma and exposure to violence; descriptions of relevant state and local initiatives; and considerations related to developing a trauma-informed legal practice.
The tools stand to benefit lawyers and their child clients, Davidson explains. “Many children and youth in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems have experienced or witnessed violence or other traumatic events and suffered the fear of ongoing exposure to harm,” he says. “Trauma-informed care and evidence-based mental health treatments are a crucial part of recovery. These tools were developed to increase awareness of these issues among the legal profession, especially court-appointed lawyers for children in juvenile and family courts.”
Davidson encouraged development of the documents and facilitated support for them through the Safe Start Center, a program funded by the Department of Justice. The final products represent a partnership between the ABA, Safe Start, Child and Family Policy Associates and the Chadwick Center for Children and Families.
“I hope that these documents will be widely disseminated and utilized, so that we will truly have trauma-informed legal advocacy for vulnerable children and youth across the country,” Davidson says.
Family Law Task Force meeting
Date:
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 10:00am - 12:00pm
If you are a member of the Task Force, find the GoToMeeting information at:
http://www.mdjustice.org/FamilyTaskForceGoToMeeting
Be sure to sign in to see the page.
Locations for 2013 meetings are:
Jan. 22 - Baltimore
March 26 -Towson
May 28 - Metro
July 23 - Midwest
Sept. 24 - Annapolis
Nov. 26 - Baltimore
For office addresses, see: http://www.mdlab.org/About%20Us
Sponsor:
Maryland Legal Aid
CNN Story, 1/4/13 - Backers hope to revive Violence Against Women Act
From CNN
Backers hope to revive Violence Against Women Act
By CNN Staff
Updated 10:34 AM EST, Fri January 4, 2013
Washington (CNN) – Supporters of the Violence Against Women Act hope to revive the law in a new Congress after efforts to renew it failed in the last one.
"It is an early priority for us," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, told CNN as the 113th Congress convened Thursday. "Since it passed the Senate last time, with two more Democrats in the Senate, we hope that it will have an easy path there and a doable path there -- and a successful one in the House."
…
The Senate voted to renew the act for a third time in April, barring agencies that receive funding under the law from discriminating against gays and lesbians, allowing immigrants who face domestic violence to seek legal status and giving tribal authorities new power to prosecute cases on Indian reservations.
For the whole story, click Backers hope to revive VAWA, CNN, 1/4/13
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
MD gets $36.5 million for improving children's access to health insurance
From the Baltimore Sun:
--------------------
MD gets $36.5 million for improving children's access to health insurance
--------------------
By Andrea K. Walker
December 19 2012, 5:49 PM EST
The federal government has awarded Maryland $36.5 million for its success at getting children enrolled in government subsidized health programs.
The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/blog/bal-childrens-grant,0,731458.story
Miller v. Matthias - UCCJEA
Miller v. Mathias
No. 146, September Term 2008
August 27, 2012
FAMILY LAW > CHILD
CUSTODY > ENFORCEMENT > UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION &
ENFORCEMENT ACT
The purpose of the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act is to provide stronger
guidelines for determining which state has jurisdiction, continuing
jurisdiction, and modification jurisdiction over a child custody determination,
not to resolve the substantive issue of custody.
FAMILY LAW > CHILD
CUSTODY > ENFORCEMENT > UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION &
ENFORCEMENT ACT
Section 9.5-207 does not
preclude a court from conducting an inconvenient forum analysis simply because
the court has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
CIVIL PROCEDURE > VENUE
> FORUM NON CON VENIENS
The decision whether to relinquish
the court’s jurisdiction in favor of a more convenient forum is one addressed
to the sound discretion of the court.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Miller vs Matthias.pdf | 75.18 KB |
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
2011 - Sumpter v. Sumpter - Access to Custody Evaluation
Millicent Sumpter v.
Sean Sumpter
No. 120, September Term, 2011
--- A.3d ---- 2012, 2012 WL 3568302 (2012)
HEADNOTE: FAMILY LAW
– CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS – ACCESS TO COURT ORDERED CUSTODY INVESTIGATION
REPORT
Mrs. Sumpter, a party to a child custody
proceeding in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, contends that a
Circuit Court local policy or “rule,” which prohibits the parties’ counsel in a
custody case from obtaining pre-trial a copy of a court-ordered custody
investigation report, is unconstitutional, in that it deprives her of due
process rights. Problematically, the appellate record did not elucidate sufficiently
the contours, application, and purpose of the Circuit Court policy or rule. Moreover,
Mrs. Sumpter’s contentions were unchallenged by an opposing party or amicus curiae
in the Court of Special Appeals or before this Court. The Court, therefore,
directs remand of the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
without affirmance or reversal, for supplementation of the record as to the
Circuit Court policy or rule. Furthermore, the Court invites the Office of the
Attorney General of Maryland, in its role as legal counsel to the Circuit Court
and/or hearing judge, to address as amicus curiae Mrs. Sumpter’s arguments
regarding the viability and effect of the policy when the case returns to the
Court of Appeals.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Sumpter vs Sumpter.pdf | 57.59 KB |
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Federal Court Declares the Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional
Federal Court Declares the Defense of Marriage Act
Unconstitutional
June 6, 2012
ACLU Press Release
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK
– A federal judge ruled today that a critical section of the so-called “Defense
of Marriage Act” (DOMA) unconstitutionally discriminates against married
same-sex couples. Today’s decision joins four other federal courts that have
struck down DOMA under the Constitution.
For complete story: Federal
Court Declares DOMA Unconstitutional
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Judge Bruce Lamdin Investigated for Inappropriate Remarks to a Domestic Violence Victim During a Protective Order Hearing
Senator calls for judge's ouster after domestic violence
comments
Third time in six years Judge
Bruce S. Lamdin has come under fire for courtroom actions
By Luke Broadwater, The Baltimore Sun
8:07 p.m. EDT, September 5, 2012
A state senator from Baltimore County is pushing to oust a district
judge accused this week of mistreating a White Marsh woman who was seeking a
restraining order in a domestic violence case.
District Judge Bruce S. Lamdin will
not hear any cases until an investigation into his statements is complete, said
Terri Bolling, a spokeswoman for the Maryland
court system.
. . .
The Women's Law Center
and House of Ruth filed a formal complaint against Lamdin on Tuesday, stemming
from the case.
Susan Elgin, board member at the
Women's Law Center, said her organization only
learned of the case recently, but members were appalled after hearing the
recording, noting what they believe is different treatment for men and women in
Lamdin's courtroom.
For the complete story:
Senator
calls for judge's ouster after domestic violence comments
Complaint filed against Baltimore County
judge
Judge Bruce Lamdin removed pending review of domestic
violence case
WBALTV.Com
UPDATED 6:30 PM EDT Sep 05, 2012
Judge Bruce Lamdin sat in Baltimore
County District Court until last week when he was removed from the bench
pending review of his handling of a case that left a woman in tears and begging
for help.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Continuation of medical coverage for divorced spouses
Here is my question:
We concluded a divorce hearing on July 6, 2012 in which client received an absolute divorce, rehabilitative alimony, child support and the court also ordered that the husband continue to provide medical insurance for Client and Child through his employer provided group insurance plan.
On Friday, August 1, 2012 , my client found out from Husband's employer, a large hospital, that the Husband allowed his insurance to lapse as of June 30, 2012, just before our divorce hearing. Husband, who is pro se, denies this and claims he he renewed the insurance. No notice was given to my client of the lapse.
To be brief, the employer reinstated the Child on the insurance policy, but refused to reinstate Client. The employer is claiming that she is no longer a beneficiary. I know that under MD Code Insurance § 15-408, allows for a divorced spouse to continue to be covered on the other party's health insurance.
What is there any way to compel the insurance company to reinstate her?
Health Care. Women of Color Get It.
Date:
Sat, 09/08/2012 - 8:00am - 4:00pm
From the Women's Coalition for Health Care Reform:
The Supreme Court affirmed Maryland's implementation of the Affordable Care Act, now it's time to get it right for women of color! Join Mildred Thompson, Director of PolicyLink Center for Health Equity and Place, and other dynamic speakers who will lead lively discussions on health care reform and it's impact on women of color and their families.
This conference is for you if you are:
- Health care and public health professionals and students;
- Community-based leaders, outreach and education workers and advocates;
- Working on minority health and health disparities, cultural competency and health literacy issues, health policy; or
- Tasked with implementing health care reform and monitoring its impact on communities of color in Maryland.
The conference flyer is here: http://www.mdhealthcarereform.org/storage/pdfs-and-docs/WOC%20Conference%20Flyer_7.26.pdf.
Click on the link below to register now! The cost* is $25 for individuals, $10 for students, or organizations can purchase 5 tickets for $100. Cost includes a continental breakfast, lunch and afternoon break. For full conference details as they become available, please visit our website.
*A limited number of scholarships to cover the registration fee are available. If you need a scholarship, contact us.
Sponsor:
Women's Coalition for Health Care Reform
DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional by U.S. District Court in Connecticut
DOMA Ruled
Unconstitutional In Yet Another Case
Advocate.com, July 31, 2012
By Julie Bolce
In a blockbuster 104-page opinion, a Connecticut federal judge appointed by
George W. Bush dealt another blow to the Defense of Marriage Act being defended
by House Republicans.
Joanne Pedersen and Ann Meitzen A federal judge in Connecticut has ruled
against the Defense of Marriage Act in a challenge brought by married same-sex
couples.
Judge Vanessa Bryant, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that
the Section 3 of the 1996 law, which prohibits the federal government from
recognizing same-sex marriages, violates equal protection guarantees. The suit,
Pedersen et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al, was brought by six
couples and one widower in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont
who were denied federal benefits because they were legally married to a spouse
of the same sex.
The opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut is attached.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Pedersen vs OPM - USDC District of CT.pdf | 283.34 KB |
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Miami-Dade Passes Resolution: Freedom from DV is a Fundamental Human Right
Miami-Dade
County Commission unanimously passed a resolution declaring that
"freedom from domestic violence is a fundamental human right" and
"all local government agencies to incorporate these principles into their
policies and practices."
The
resolution: Miami-Dade
Resolution - Freedom from DV is a Human Right
An op-ed written
by UM Human Rights Clinic student, Michael Stevenson, and Miami-Dade
Commissioner Sally Heyman (titled "Government has a role in ending
domestic abuse"): Op-Ed:
Government Has a Role in Ending Domestic Abuse;
University of Miami Law
School Article: UM Web Story.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Gillespie vs. Gillespie, CSA, June 29, 2012
Gillespie vs. Gillespie
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Nos. 960, 2153, Sept. Term,
2011.
June 29, 2012.
2012 WL 2483429
Ex-husband filed a motion to
modify custody. The Circuit Court for Frederick County
modified the physical access of the children and also modified legal custody,
granting ex-husband tie-breaking authority in the event of an impasse. Ex-wife
appealed.
The Court of Special Appeals
held that:
- The trial court could consider doctor's report for the purpose of evaluating the validity and probative value of opinion of psychologist, who relied on doctor's report in reaching her conclusions;
- The trial court did not improperly consider as substantive evidence doctor's report;
- The evidence was sufficient to support trial court's finding that material change of circumstances had occurred, so as to warrant change of custody; and
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying joint physical and legal custody so as to grant significantly more access to ex-husband than ex-wife and to grant ex-husband tie-breaking authority in the event of an impasse.
Affirmed in part; vacated in
part; and remanded.
From the opinion:
It
is well established that experts may rely upon inadmissible evidence in
formulating their opinions. Md.
Rules 5–703, 5–705. Moreover, evidence “that might not otherwise be admissible
may, under Rule 5–703(b), be properly admitted if it is relied upon by an
expert or is necessary to illuminate testimony.” Brown v. Daniel Realty Co., supra, 180 Md.App. at 118, 949 A.2d 6.
Rule 5–703(b) provides:
“If
determined to be trustworthy, necessary to illuminate testimony, and
unprivileged, facts or data reasonably relied upon by an expert ... may, in the
discretion of the court, be disclosed to the jury even if those facts and data
are not admissible in evidence. Upon request, the court shall instruct the jury
to use those facts and data only for the purpose of evaluating the validity and
probative value of the expert's opinion or inference.”
In Hutton v. State, 339 Md. 480, 513, 663 A.2d 1289 (1995) the Court
of Appeals stated:
If
trustworthy, but inadmissible, facts or data are relied upon by an expert in
forming an opinion, the jury is instructed that the underlying facts are not
substantive evidence. Md. R. Evid. 5–703(b). That, however, is not a concern in
the instant case. The jury saw and heard the victim, so that the historical
basis for the diagnosis was in evidence through a witness who had personal
knowledge.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Gillespie vs Gillespie.pdf | 93.3 KB |
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Toland vs. Futagi (2012) UCCJEA Case
TOLAND v. FUTAGI, 425 Md.
365 (2012)
No. 83, Sept. Term, 2011, March 28, 2012
The father, as the child's sole surviving parent, filed a complaint
to establish custody of the child, who lived in Japan with her maternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother had been appointed
as the child's guardian pursuant to a Japanese decree. The grandmother filed a motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and pursuant to the UCCJEA. The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint and
the father appealed.
Holdings:
- The father's due process rights were not implicated by the trial court's consideration of the Japanese guardianship decree in the limited context of determining whether an exception to the application of the UCCJEA applied;
- The UCCJEA's “vacuum jurisdiction” provision did not apply so as to permit trial court to exercise jurisdiction over father's complaint; and
- The appointment of the child's grandmother as the child's guardian pursuant to Japanese decree did not implicate fundamental principles of human rights, as the appointment did not sever father's right to custody of child, and, thus, the exception to application of the UCCJEA allowing for a trial court to exercise jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding in a situation in which the child custody laws of a foreign country violate fundamental principles of human rights did not apply so as to permit trial court to exercise jurisdiction over father's complaint to establish custody of child under the UCCJEA.
Affirmed.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Toland vs Futagi.pdf | 54.37 KB |
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Petition for Cert. Docketed Appealing 1st Circuit's Rejection of DOMA
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives v. Nancy Gill, et al.
On July 3, 2012, Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives v. Nancy Gill, et al., was docketed in the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of Massachusetts v. HHS.
In Massachusetts v. HHS, the 1st Circuit held that DOMA was not adequately supported by any permissible federal interest, and therefore violated equal protection principles.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Feedback
We welcome your comments and suggestions