FAMILY LAW TASK FORCE  Father and child

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

Home > Groups > Family Law Task Force

Family Law Task Force

Family Law Task Force content posted in order of most recent to oldest. 

Gillespie vs. Gillespie, CSA, June 29, 2012

Posted on: 07/23/2012
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:
 
  1. 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;
  2. The trial court did not improperly consider as substantive evidence doctor's report;
  3. 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
  4. 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.
AttachmentSize
Gillespie vs Gillespie.pdf93.3 KB
up

Toland vs. Futagi (2012) UCCJEA Case

Posted on: 07/20/2012
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:
 
  1. 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;
  2. The UCCJEA's “vacuum jurisdiction” provision did not apply so as to permit trial court to exercise jurisdiction over father's complaint; and
  3. 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.
AttachmentSize
Toland vs Futagi.pdf54.37 KB
up

Petition for Cert. Docketed Appealing 1st Circuit's Rejection of DOMA

Posted on: 07/18/2012

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.

Read Petition

up

Windsor v. U.S. - USDC So. Dist. of NY Rejects DOMA

Posted on: 07/18/2012
Windsor v. U.S.

833 F. Supp.2d 394
(United States District Court, Southern District of New York, June 6, 2012)
 
This case arises from Plaintiff Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), the operation of which required Plaintiff to pay federal estate tax on her same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which similarly situated heterosexual couples are exempt. Windsor brought an action seeking a refund of the federal estate taxes, and a declaration that section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining "marriage" as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife violated equal protection. After the Executive Branch decided not to enforce DOMA, a congressional group was allowed to intervene to defend the constitutionality of the statute, 797 F.Supp.2d 320. Subsequently, Windsor moved for summary judgment and congressional group moved to dismiss. Held: (1) Windsor had standing to bring the action, and (2) the challenged section of DOMA violated equal protection under rational basis review.
 
up

Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services - 1st Circuit Rejects DOMA

Posted on: 07/18/2012
Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214
(United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, May 31, 2012)
 
The Court of Appeals held that provision of DOMA which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts was not adequately supported by any permissible federal interest, and therefore violated equal protection principles.
 
up

Custody and Military Deployment: Proposed Federal Law, Proposed Uniform Law, Some State Laws, and Latest News

Posted on: 07/18/2012
UNIFORM DEPLOYED PARENTS CUSTODY AND VISITATION ACT
 
The Uniform Law Commission has a Committee to Draft a Deployed Parents Custody and Visitation Act.  This committee will prepare an act that provides standards and procedures for resolving visitation and custody issues affecting military personnel and their families, which may include resolution of matters in intrastate, interstate, and international contexts.
   
FEDERAL PROPOSED LAW – H.R. 4201: Servicemember Family Protection Act
 
112th Congress, 2011–2012.
Text as of Jun 04, 2012
Referred to Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
   
STATE LAWS CONTROLLING CUSTODY AND VISITATION WHEN PARENTS ARE DEPLOYED
 
Alaska
 
AS § 25.20.095. Custody and visitation proceedings involving a military parent:  AS § 25.20.095
 
California
 
Ann. Cal. Fam. Code § 3047 Modification of custody or visitation orders; military duty, temporary duty, mobilization, or deployment as justification; temporary custody orders; ability to appear at hearing; legislative intent:  Ann.Cal.Fam.Code § 3047
 
Iowa
 
I.C.A. § 598.41D Assignment of visitation or physical care parenting time--parent serving active duty--family member:  I.C.A. § 598.41D
 
Kansas
 
KS Stat. § 60-1630: Child custody and parenting time for parents deployed by the military; modification of orders; hearing:  KS Stat. § 60-1630
   
 
North Carolina
 
North Carolina General Statutes § 50-13.7A Custody and visitation upon military temporary duty, deployment, or mobilization:  North Carolina General Statute § 50-13.7A
 
Oklahoma
 
43 Okl.St.Ann. § 112.7. Modification of custody--Military deployment:  A military deployment shall not be used as evidence of a substantial, material and permanent change of circumstances to warrant a permanent modification of custody.  43 OK St. Ann. § 112.7
 
Oregon
 
O.R.S. § 107.145 Definitions; modification of preexisting judgment providing for custody of minor child; reinstatement of preexisting judgment; absence of child from state; attorney fees and costs:  O.R.S. § 107.145
 
O.R.S. § 107.146 Motion for expedited hearing; video, electronic or Internet testimony in cases where deployed parent or parent whose deployment is imminent cannot personally appear:  O.R.S. § 107.146
 
Pennsylvania
 
51 Pa.C.S.A. § 4109 Child custody proceedings during military deployment:  51 PA CSA § 4109
 
NEWS STORIES
 
US panel seeks to improve child custody rules for military
 
Stars & Stripes
July 18, 2012
 
A commission of lawyers working to simplify child custody rules for military servicemembers meets Wednesday for final approval on a measure that could streamline custody rules across the United States, The Associated Press reported.
If approved, the Deployed Parents Custody and Visitation Act would streamline laws and rules that state legislatures can adopt in order to standardize custody rights for military parents, particularly those who are deployed, AP reported.
   
Legal group drafts law to make child custody rules work better for deployed military parents
 
Washington Post
July 18, 2012
 
NASHVILLE (AP) – A national legal panel that works to standardize state laws wants to simplify child custody rules for military servicemembers, whose frequent deployments can leave them without clear legal recourse when family disputes erupt.
 
The Uniform Law Commission, an influential group of some 350 attorneys appointed by all the states, is meeting in Nashville on Wednesday to give final approval to the Deployed Parents Custody and Visitation Act, a set of uniform codes that state legislatures can adopt to standardize custody rights for parents who are deployed.
 
With deployments on the rise from the first Gulf War through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, especially for National Guard and Reserve members, a majority of the states have implemented a patchwork of laws designed to protect servicemembers in child custody and visitation cases. But the rules aren't consistent across the country, says Eric Fish, legal counsel for the Uniform Law Commission.
   
House Again Passes Useless Custody Bill
 
Newport News Daily Press
June 11, 2012
 
Legal experts and military family advocates saw their advice ignored anew this year as the House again has passed a controversial bill from Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, aimed at protecting service members from losing custody of their children because of military deployments.
 
Among the bill's critics this year is Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
 
The vote last week was 390-to-2 for legislation that the Senate is almost certain to kill, as senators again heed the legal warnings and shrug off, at least on this issue, some of the sound-bite rhetoric that can be so persuasive in the House where members face reelection every two years.
       
up

Family Law Task Force Minutes 2012 05-24

Posted on: 06/26/2012

Minutes for Family Law Task Force Meeting May, 24, 2012

10:00 a.m until 1:15 p.m

Members Present:

Patricia Cochran, Leila D’ Ambrosio, Amanda Eden, Caitlin Evans, Natalie Hynum, Cheryl Hystad, Anne Lembo, Sara Magette, Eileen Nnoli, Desiree Reetz, Conte Robinson, Risheena  Schwemle, Janine Scott, Karen Smith, Ronika Sumlin, Ashley Wagner, and Lauren Walker.

Welcome

Trish Cochran and Karen Smith

DV & Human Rights
  • Cheryl Hystad updated the task force on the recent passage of the Baltimore City Domestic Violence Resolution.  The resolution declares that the freedom from domestic violence is a fundamental human right.  The task force discussed how to use the resolution as persuasive authority in cases.  Trish Cochran and Anne Lembo agreed to take part in a conference call regarding the Resolution 

Legislative Updates
  • MD Child ID Theft Bill:  Karen Smith discussed this bill, which was passed in response to the increase of child id theft in Maryland.  This bill will allow parents to take steps to freeze their child’s credit at any time.
  • (2) Child Support—Incarcerated Obligors—Suspension of Payments and Accrual of Arrerages: HB651.  Leila D’ Ambrosio updated the group on legislation that she was involved in.  The legislature passed a bill concerning the suspension of child support when the obligor is incarcerated.  This legislation automatically suspends child support obligations when the obligor is incarcerated and, once released, continues the stay for 60 days.  This automatic suspension of child support applies only if: (1) the obligor was sentenced for 18 months or more; (2) the obligor is not on work release and has insufficient finances to make payments; and (3) the obligor did not commit the crime with the intent of avoiding such payments. 

Case Updates
  • Karen discussed Toland v. Futagi, Port v. Cowan, and Mulligan v. Corbett, and provided those present with a brief synopsis of the cases.

Training
  • (1) Guardianship
    • Group discussed some of the overlap and confusion between elder law and child guardianships and the possibility of arranging a training on this topic. 
    • Janine gave a status update on the family law/guardianship training her committee is planning.
  • (2) Cheryl gave an update on a Symposium at American University:  Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States
    • The event took place at AU on April 17th.  The conference had speakers that discussed the current standing of domestic orders, and the Supreme Courts’ ruling in Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States. 
      • In Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States the mother of deceased children, who were murdered by their father, brought a civil rights suit against the Castle Rock municipality and the police department, who failed to enforce a final protective order.
    • The task force watched a video (through you tube) that was shown at the conference.  The video was about the Lenahan case, and the Supreme Court’s ruling that an individual who has been granted a protective order does not have a constitutional right to enforcement of said order. 
    • The group discussed how to incorporate the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights decision.  The Inter-American Commission held that an individual who has been granted a protective order does have a fundamental human right to have that order enforced.  The Commission further held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lenahan should be re-examined. 

 

Brochures
  • Cheryl advised the group that the brochures the Task Force has been working on were finally sent to the designer and may be expected in about a month.
  • Group discussed creating some new brochures for clients, especially to pro se litigants. 
  • The following people volunteered to work on brochures:
    • Contempt brochures- Kathleen Hughes
    • Child support & custody modification brochures- Margaret Maupin
    • List of statewide counseling services (to go on PM and MD Justice)- Erica Riley
    • Handout on what to expect when seeking custody (a procedural overview)- Sara Magette
  • The group also discussed the possibility of creating the following:
    • A list of neutral visitation exchange centers, including the costs
    • A brochure on giving temporary custody to a 3rd party when the parent is experiencing a hardship

Case Staffing
  • Janine discussed her upcoming adoption case.

Future Meetings

Future Meetings

  • July 24th at Metro Office
  • September 25th at Central Office
  • November 27th at Metro Office
up

Proposed Uniform Deployed Parents Custody and Visitation Act

Posted on: 06/07/2012
This is the proposed Uniformed Deployed Parents Custody and Visitation Act.  It has not been approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws; it’s just a proposal.
 
If y’all have time to look at it, I’d be interested in feedback.  There are things about it that concern me and I’d like to hear from everyone else.
 
 
From the Prefatory Note:
 
The Uniform Deployed Parents Custody and Visitation Act (UDPCVA) addresses issues of child custody and visitation that arise when parents are deployed in military or other national service. Deployment in national service raises custody issues that are not adequately dealt with in the law of most states. In many instances, notice of deployment will be sudden, making it difficult to resolve custody issues before the deployment by ordinary child custody procedures. Furthermore, the overseas deployment of a parent raises special difficulties in ensuring that the parent-child bond remains intact during the parent’s absence. In addition, the return from deployment raises questions regarding how and when the temporary custody situation should be ended and the permanent custody situation resumed. At all these stages, there is the need to ensure that parents who serve their country are not penalized for their service, while still giving adequate weight to the interests of the other parent, and, most importantly, the best interest of the child.
 
The issues surrounding child custody of service members are complicated by variance among the law of different states. Issues of child custody and visitation are the province of state law. Because of the mobile nature of military service, and because a child’s other parent will often live in or move to a different state than the deployed service member, bringing the child with them, there are many times that custody issues relating to the child of a service member will involve two or more states. Currently, however, there are large differences among states in the law applied to custody issues that arise on the deployment of a parent. A number of states have adopted statutes that specifically address the custody issues that service members face, but these statutes vary widely among states in a number of respects. For example, the service members who are eligible for their protections differ considerably among states. Further, some of these statutes allow the service member to delegate custody to a person besides the child’s other parent without a court order; others do not. Some provide for expedited court procedures before deployment; others do not. Some allow for automatic reversion to the permanent custody order on the service member’s return from deployment; others do not. Other states have adopted no laws that specifically apply to custody issues relating to service members. These states differ with one another on how they treat custody issues on deployment, and, in addition, often apply very different laws to this situation than are applied in states that have adopted statutes. A uniform approach to these issues would greatly increase predictability and certainty for the families affected, and would increase fairness by ensuring that the same standards apply no matter where the parents lived or a family happened to be posted before deployment.
 

House Passes Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance

Posted on: 06/06/2012
The Associated Press June 6, 2012, 09:15AM ET
 
House acts on international child support treaty
 
By JIM ABRAMS
 
WASHINGTON:  Legislation passed by the House Tuesday would make it easier for states to collect child support payments from parents living outside the United States.
 
up

U.S. House to Pass Bill Ensuring Cooperation with Overseas Child Support Orders

Posted on: 06/04/2012
From The Hill’s Global Affairs Blog:
 
The House will pass legislation this week under which the United States would recognize child support orders from several European countries and even help those countries track down parents in the United States who owe child support.
 
The bill implements an international treaty that would also make it easier for children and families in the United States to collect child-support payments from parents residing abroad.
 
 
up

Mulligan vs. Corbett: Presumption of Legitimacy Based on Time of Conception

Posted on: 05/23/2012
HEADNOTE
 
Amy Mulligan v. William Corbett
No. 43, September Term, 2011
May 23, 2012
 
Paternity – Blood testing:  Respondent, asserting paternity of child conceived during marriage of mother, but born after her divorce from husband, claimed unconditional right under Family Law Article (FL) to blood tests to prove standing for court ordered visitation and child support. Mother, reunited with former husband, opposed. After hearing, circuit court found that blood testing was not in child's best interest and denied requested relief.
 
Court of Special Appeals reversed. FL § 5-1002(c) provides: "Nothing in this subtitle may be construed to limit the right of a putative father to file a complaint to establish his paternity of a child." Evans v. Wilson, 382 Md. 614 (2004), involving a child conceived and born during marriage, had held that "putative" meant the father of a child born "out of wedlock," and , thus, denied FL § 5-1002(c) testing. In instant case, Court of Special Appeals held that Respondent was a putative father because the child was born after the mother's divorce, hence "out of wedlock."
 
Court of Appeals reversed: "Out of wedlock" means illegitimate. Presumption of legitimacy under FL § 5-1027(c)(1) is based on time of conception. Respondent not entitled to blood test under FL § 5-1002(c) without rebutting presumption of legitimacy by other evidence. Case remanded to Court of Special Appeals to consider other issues raised on appeal.
AttachmentSize
Milligan vs Corbett.pdf145.54 KB

Port vs. Cowan - CA Rules Valid Gay Marriage From Another State Must be Recognized in MD

Posted on: 05/18/2012
Jessica Port v. Virginia Anne Cowan
 
Court of Appeals
No. 69, September Term, 2011
 
HEADNOTE:  FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – RECOGNITION OF VALID FOREIGN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE – DOCTRINE OF COMITY
 
Under the common law doctrine of comity, a valid out-of-state marriage will be recognized in Maryland, for purposes of application of its domestic divorce laws, if it is not statutorily prohibited or “repugnant” to Maryland public policy. The “repugnancy” threshold is very high. Maryland statutes do not treat as void expressly foreign same-sex marriages. Rather, a review of Maryland statutes and executive branch policies demonstrates that recognizing valid foreign same-sex marriages is consistent with Maryland public policy. Therefore, the parties’ valid California same-sex marriage is cognizable in this State for purposes of adjudicating a divorce complaint.
AttachmentSize
Port vs Cohan.pdf51.16 KB
up

Why Hiding Money From Your Spouse Has Gotten a Lot Harder

Posted on: 05/14/2012

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304356604577337743171120240.html?mod=WSJ_PersonalFinance_PF14

The following is just an exerpt, click the link above for more details:

It's a sad but true fact of marriage: Troubled couples often try to hide money from each other, whether to spend it on extramarital mischief or keep from sharing it in a divorce. They might do anything from stashing wads of money in a safe-deposit box to setting up a secret online brokerage account to build up funds on the sly.

But however they do it, let the hiders be warned: Electronic discovery is making it a lot easier to uncover all that covert activity.

Suspicious spouses might dig around in their partners' Web-surfing history and social networks to find traces of hidden bank accounts and business deals. They might install software on home computers that records every keystroke their spouses make—whether it's secret stock trades or cash transfers to paramours—and use smartphone and GPS tools to show when they've been making sneaky withdrawals from ATMs.

Graphic about how spouses behave in divorce

Webcast of “Hot Topics/Tips for the Family Law Practitioner” April 13, 2012

Posted on: 04/09/2012
Continuing Legal Education Department – Raising the Bar for Education
 
If you missed the live presentation of the 2012 “Hot Topics/Tips for the Family Law Practitioner” last month you have three opportunities in April to catch all the great presentations that day by attending either a scheduled webcast from the convenience of your home or office or by video replay in either Baltimore or Rockville.  Some of the topics covered this year include but aren’t limited to: the pitfalls and snake pits of military pensions, the do’s and don’ts of pre-nuptials, parenting coordination, and alimony – is there still a dependent spouse?  6.5 CLE credits available.
 
Schedule:  Webcast - Friday April 13, 2012 – 9:00 a.m. to 4:20 p.m.  Click here to see the full agenda and to register for the webcast: http://www.legalspan.com/msba/calendar.asp?UGUID=&ItemID=20120314-124242-121418
 
Video Replay – Rockville – Tuesday April 17th, 2012 – 9:00 a.m. to 4:20 p.m.
Video Replay – Baltimore – Thursday April 26th, 2012 – 9:00 a.m. to 4:20 p.m.
   
Andrea C. Terry, Esq.
Director of Continuing Legal Education
520 W. Fayette St.
Baltimore, MD 21202
410-685-7878
410-685-1016 (FAX)

21st Annual Law Day for Seniors

Posted on: 04/02/2012
Date: 
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 8:00am - 2:00pm

The Bar Association of Baltimore City’s Legal Services to the Elderly Program is holding its 21st Annual Law Day for Seniors on Saturday, April 21, at the Edward F. Borgerding District Court Building, 5800 Wabash Avenue in Baltimore, from 8 a.m to 2 p.m.

The goal of Law Day 2012 is to educate seniors, their families, and caregivers about available community resources and legal issues affecting them. Maryland Legal Aid attorneys will attend, distribute information and answer questions. About 200 to 300 people attend each year. Parking is free.

Location
Location Name: 
Edward F. Borgerding District Court Building
Address1: 
5800 Wabash Avenue
City: 
Baltimore
State: 
MD
Sponsor: 
The Bar Association of Baltimore City’s Legal Services to the Elderly Program

TRAINING: Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States of America: The Domestication of International Law

Posted on: 03/27/2012
Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States of America:
The Domestication of International Law
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
02:00 PM - 05:00 PM
American University Washington College of Law, Room 603
4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
*CLE*
 
While other international cases have situated domestic violence as a human rights violation, Lenahan v. United States is the first individual complaint by a victim of domestic violence to be brought against the United States for a failure to enforce a mandatory protective order. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ decision in favor of Ms. Lenahan confirms a state responsibility, rooted in international law, to protect individuals from so-called private violence. The decision of the Inter-American Commission stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the same facts in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, in which the Court held that Ms. Lenahan’s constitutional rights had not been violated because individuals do not have personal entitlement to police enforcement of a protective order.
The symposium will explore the multiple dimensions of these related cases, including implications both in the United States and abroad. The Symposium will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the influential American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law.
Presented by The Women in the Law Program & the Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law 
 
(See attached document)
 
WCL Alumni, AU & WCL Students, Faculty & Staff – no charge
General Public - No Charge
(registration is required)

(3 credit hours) will be applied for as requested to different states.
CLE Accreditation - $ 165.00
 
For further information, please contact:
Office of Special Events & Continuing Legal Education
American University Washington College of Law
Phone: 202.274.4075; Fax: 202.274.4079; or secle@wcl.american.edu
 
AttachmentSize
04.17.12-LenahanAgenda.pdf324.28 KB

Self Help Family Law Tool

Posted on: 03/27/2012

The following link has been posted for a couple of years on the People's Law Library, it was part of a TIG grant from LSC that Maryland Legal Aid completed in 2009.  The interview uses a tool called A2J Author to create an animated interview that walks a client, online, through obtaining custody, visitation, contempt, modifications, and answers to each of those things.

Find more information about the interview at http://www.mdjustice.org/node/136. 

Find the interview (and feel free to test it out) at: https://lawhelpinteractive.org/login_form?template_id=template.2010-06-02.8915381402.

Here is what you can do using the interview (see pictures below - on the website):

 

 

 

Family Law Task Force: TOMORROW 3/27/12 - 10 AM at Metro

Posted on: 03/26/2012
 
FAMILY LAW TASK FORCE MEETING TOMORROW
 
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
10 A.M. through 12 Noon
Metro LAB
 
GoToMeeting Available
 
Please RSVP to Margaret (mmaupin@mdlab.org) so we have an estimate of how many to expect; also please let us know if you are going to attend through GoToMeeting.  A GoToMeeting invitation/reminder will be sent.
 
PROPOSED AGENDA – If you have anything to add, let Margaret know.
 
So far, the items tentatively on the agenda: 
  • New co-chairs of task force
  • Report from training committee
  • Staffing of cases
  • Final drafts of 3 brochures, discuss what comes next
  • Legislation update 
  • Direction of task force, what should it look like going forward, what do we want to accomplish at meetings, etc.
  • DV and human rights, possible future training, discussion, action by Baltimore City Council
Syndicate content

Feedback

We welcome your comments and suggestions