This N.J. case is just one example of how a court can limit your right to post information about other people on Social Media Sites. So if you find yourself asking ‘should I post this or not?’ about someone else, know that a court can order it down and restrain you from posting anything about that person.
In September 2013, Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage is unconstitutional and ruled in favor of approving same-sex marriage in the state of New Jersey beginning October 21, 2013.
This ruling ends a court battle in which 6 same-sex couples in civil unions brought suit against the state of New Jersey alleging they were being denied the same legal protections as same sex couples in civil marriages.
The State of New Jersey appealed this decision to the supreme court of New Jersey filing for a “stay” in order to stop the October 21’st order permitting same-sex marriage from going into effect in order the let the battle “play out”. However, after the Supreme Court denied the states application for stay, pending appeal, finding that the State of New Jersey had failed to prove it would supper irreparable harm if the lower court order were not stayed. The Supreme Court further stated, “…the State’s domestic partnership laws failed to bridge the inequality gap”. Since it became clear by the courts ruling that the State of New Jersey would not likely prevail on appeal, Governor CC withdrew the States appeal on Monday, October 21st, making the lower court ruling final if no other appeal is taken.
This is the first time in history, since the Supreme Court ruled DOMA as being unconstitutional, that the court system in a state made a court ruling on same-sex marriage instead of the state’s Political leaders.
Sunday night, at one minute past 12am, the first same-sex couples were legally married at the Newark Court House and were officiated by Senator-elect Corey A. Booker.
The age old quote, “Money is the root of all evil,” unfortunately holds true when it comes to greedy spouses in the midst of a divorce. A recent article in Bloomberg, focuses on such spouses and the extremes they go to in order to rake in the dough.
Matters that couples tend to fight over include the division of assets, child support, child custody, spousal support, visitation rights etc. Yet some people will not only hide money right after the fact that getting a divorce has been decided upon, but even before there are troubles in paradise.
While this is typically a very hard thing to do if you work for a company that is not yours, due to set salary and taxes automatically being taken out every cheque, it is still possible. Also those who own their own business outright can be hiding their true income from not only their spouse but also from the Government. This not only reduces how much financial support the dependant spouse receives, but can also cause more trouble for both parties if the Government finds out and gets involved.
Hiding money from the IRS is tax evasion, and although there are laws that protect the innocent spouse, it is not foolproof. This is due to the fact that it can argued that the innocent spouse would have had to have known that money was being hidden or falsely reported due to red flags such as luxury items or outrageous mortgages when you’re supposedly living off a middle class income.
So if you see the writing on the wall, be smart enough to conduct your own investigation of all income and assets before going through with a divorce. This is to make sure that you are receiving the proper amount of child/ spousal support that you deserve and to make sure that you don’t get in trouble with the IRS if they find out and act upon it.
On January 25th, Governor Christie passed a bill that protects Military men and women from loosing custody of their children due to being deployed/ receiving treatment post deployment.
The law protects these men and women from having the court make changes to their custody agreement while they are away, and up to 90 days after they return. They are not allowed to deem these men and women as unfit parents just because they are/ were away serving out of the country as long as they have a written notice of deployment or post-deployment treatments. The temporary guardian, of these children, must legally set aside time for the children to interact with their mother or father, such as over the phone or by video messaging.
However, this new law does not stop the court from changing the agreement, and potentially taking away custody, if it comes to the attention of the court that the child, or children, are considered in danger.
For more information: Source
Photo by: S Braswell
To Prosecute, or Not To Prosecute, That is the Question:
Should there be legal consequences for women who use either alcohol or illegal substances while pregnant? This question is still extremely controversial, and due to varied opinions, will continue to be for years to come.
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently reached a unanimous decision that the state may NOT consider a newborn to be abused or neglected based solely on evidence of prenatal drug exposure. There has to be substantial evidence showing that the drugs and or alcohol ingested while pregnant will have lasting effects on the infant and his/ her health in order for there to be a case. This evidence can come in the form of actual physical or mental impairments at birth etc.
According to the article, many states have already prosecuted women who have abused drugs or alcohol during pregnancy. These convictions were mainly overturned because of the fear that it would discourage women, who are pregnant while suffering from substance problems, from seeking out the help they need.
Congress has already responded by authorizing grants, which will be used to set up drug treatment programs targeting pregnant drug/ alcohol users.
Sound off WordPress: Should All Cases of Prenatal Drug and or Alcohol Use be Considered Child Abuse and Neglect? Vote and Leave a comment!