There is rebuttable presumption that custody with a parent is in the best interests of the child unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. In another word, there is a parental presumption of fitness that can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. This is also a constitutionally rooted and protected principle. In the District, a third party may file for custody of a minor child – however, the legal standard used – similar to adoption and termination of parental rights – is as stated: by clear and convincing evidence. Thus with the third party
Read More
Archives for dc dwi lawyer
DC COURT OF APPEALS EXPANDING AND REAFFIRMING FATHER’S RIGHT
The DC Court of Appeals in IN RE D.S., K.M., B.S., R.S., T.S. & P.S.; J.M., issued on September 20, 2012, reiterated the legal principles governing placement of children in the custody of their biological parents in a split neglect case. Here the evidence established that the mother physically neglected the children and removal from her home was warranted, however, the court did not sufficiently consider the biological father and placement of the children with him rather than the shelter care — basis for the Court of Appeals reversal of the case. The father was willing and able, had sufficient housing
Read More
DOES INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) APPLY TO A NON-CUSTODIAL OUT OF STATE BIOLOGICAL PARENT?
Until recently, and almost consistently, the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) would in cases where a non-custodial non-petitioned biological parent intervenes in the neglect proceedings and seeks custody of the child – would require that parent to go through the rigorous and rather arduous task of the ICPC approval traditionally reserved for out of state placement with a foster family or an out of state pre-adoptive home. The Supreme Court of Connecticut in an opinion published on July 19, 2012 (IN RE EMONI W. ET AL), dissected the ICPC statutory language and clearly ruled that the biological non-custodial parents
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
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