DC Child support obligations are correlated and connected with the award of child custody. They are inversely proportional. That is, increase in child physical custody reduces the child support obligations. Thus it is beneficial to litigate the child support and child custody matters simultaneously to both potentially reduce the child support obligations and also to increase the physical time spent with your child. In the District, the award of child custody may take one of the following forms but it is always based on the best interest of the child criteria: (i) sole legal custody; (ii) sole physical custody; (iii)
Read More
DC Drinking and Driving Implied Consent Statute; submit or not to the blood alcohol content test?
Upon being stopped for suspected drinking and driving, and before being administrated or submitting to alcohol/drug detection devices, the police officer has to inform you explicitly as to your right to refuse test submission pursuant to DC Implied Consent Act. DC Statute Sec. 50-1905 makes it clear that refusal to submit to two chemical tests pursuant to Sec. 15-1902 (blood, urine, or breath), will result in an automatic suspension of the driving privileges in the District for a period of 12 months. Before suspension, the arresting officer has to submit an affidavit stating that the implied consent act was explained, and
Read More
LEGAL NEWS MARCH 2012
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS: V.C.B. v. U.S., No. 10-CO-89 (Decided February 16, 2012) Available at: http://tinyurl.com/75gm3fu Challenge to trial court’s refusal to seal arrest records after case dismissed. Significant as the case involved child witnesses –Remanded. Patterson v. U.S., No. 08-CF-876, 10-CO-1611 (Decided February 16, 2012) Available at: http://tinyurl.com/6u7p2l7 Expert testimony and requirements for admissibility. OTHER NEWS: Failed Adoptions Lead to More Homeless Youths (NYTimes) Available here. Calls for More Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse (NPR) Available here. Poverty Thinning Out But Still Hurting District (Washington Examiner) Available here.
Read More
LEGAL NEWS FEBRUARY 2012
RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS: In re J.R., No. 10‐FS‐38 (Decided December 22, 2011), available at: http://tinyurl.com/ckbhy38: Challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction to conduct neglect and custody proceedings – and finding of neglect, affirmed. In re M.A., No. 07‐FS‐1313 (Decided December 22, 2011), available at: http://tinyurl.com/cg8tllt: Appeal from a second‐degree child sex abuse — adjudicated delinquent – and denial of suppression of confession – affirmed. A.R. v. F.C., No. 11‐FM‐766 (Decided December 22, 2011), available at: http://tinyurl.com/ctxnl7c: Civil protection orders extend to persons who allege stalking, sexual assault, or sexual abuse with no prior relationship with the alleged offender,
Read More
DC Post-Adoption Contact Agreements/Contracts
Often times in contested adoptions the biological parents as well as all involved biological relatives should balance the litigation strategy in light of the Adoption Reform Amendment Act (“ARA”) § 101 which established enforceability of post-adoption contact agreements between biological parents, other birth relatives, adoptive parents, and adoptees (if they are 14 or older) for first time in the District of Columbia. The contact agreement is tantamount to a custom made contract tailored to terms and conditions dictates by negotiating parties generally governing “contact” between the child and his or her biological family after the adoption is finalized with specific
Read More
How our expectations of privacy has been morphed by the technology and its widespread development
The US Supreme Court will soon address the legality of allowing the police to monitor the movements of the US mobile phone users without a warrant. The issue in the case before the Supreme Court in US v. Jones is whether the police officers can track suspects’ car via a GPS device without first obtaining a warrant. In that case, the suspect was surveilled for some 28 days by the law enforcement GPS device planted without a warrant. The question before the Court there is whether the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy as his car was at all
Read More