« May 2005 |
Main
| July 2005 »
June 27, 2005
Police Not Liable for Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order Enforcement Failures
The Supreme Court ruled today that police cannot be sued for decisions they make in enforcing domestic abuse no-contact orders. This decision ends a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters. The mother alleged that police did not do enough to stop her husband who took their three daughters from the front yard of her home in June 1999 in violation of a restraining order. Later that day, the husband died in a gun fight with officers outside a police station. The bodies of the three children were in his truck. The mother argued she was entitled to sue based on her rights under the 14th Amendment and under Colorado law that says officers shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order. The case is Castle Rock, Colo., v. Gonzales, 04-278, available here.
Posted on June 27, 2005 in Domestic Abuse | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
June 24, 2005
Federal Court Upholds "Defense of Marriage Act"
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has upheld the 1996 federal "Defense of Marriage Act." The ruling, available here, affirms the constitutionality of the DOMA statute even though the law "has a disproportionate effect on homosexual individuals. " The Court found the government's desire to promote procreation is a valid reason for infringing on the rights of same-sex couples.
Posted on June 24, 2005 in Federal Laws-Cases | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
June 23, 2005
Alons v. Iowa District Court - Lack of Standing to Challenge Dissolution of Civil Union
As widely expected, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected a third-party challenge to a district court decree dissolving a Vermont civil union. The case, Alons v. Iowa District Court was brought by several persons in various representative and individual capacities and one religious organization. Each claimed that they had standing to challenge the underlying decree, despite the fact that none of the challenging parties was a litigant in the underlying dissolution action.
After exhaustively analyzing the legal requirements for standing and each particular appellant's claim that he, she, or it somehow did have standing, the Court rejected every claim without reaching an discussion of the substantive merits raised by each appellant. Here's the money quote from the decision:
Finally, we agree with the amicus’s observation that '[m]any people have strong opinions about marriage, as they do about divorce, child custody, zoning, and many other issues, but if everyone were allowed to petition for certiorari simply because of ideological objections or strongly held philosophical beliefs that an order should not have been entered, then there would be no limits to the petitions brought. Iowa law has never permitted such unwarranted interference in other peoples’ cases. Simply having an opinion does not suffice for standing.'
Posted on June 23, 2005 in Divorce | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
June 16, 2005
Decision expected in Civil Union Termination Case (Alons v. District Court)
The Iowa Supreme Court has the following case on its expected list of decisions to be issued June 16th:
Alons v. Iowa Dist. Ct. General case description: The plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari review to challenge the district court’s termination of a civil union. The petition was granted and the plaintiffs argue they have standing to bring this matter by virtue of their status as members of the public, as legislators (both state and federal), as married persons, as taxpayers, as a minister, and as a church. They also contend this court may review this matter by invoking its supervisory and administrative jurisdiction to exercise control over all inferior judicial tribunals. Iowa Const. art. V, § 4. The plaintiffs argue the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in dissolving the civil union and its decree should be set aside.
Not mentioned in the court's description is that the Court sua sponte ordered the issue of the plaintiffs' standing to bring the challenge to the district court's action. The Court's docket lists "dissolution of civil union, standing to sue or raise issue, jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction" as the general legal issues presented. The Court's decisions are normally posted at on Friday morning at approximately 9:00 a.m. CST.
The district court granted a decree terminating a female same-sex couple's civil union that was originally obtained in Vermont. The parties resided in Iowa at the time of the court's order terminating their civil union. Iowa does not have a civil union statute. The Court apparently granted the termination under its general equitable powers. Here are some prior press quotes about the case:
An Iowa county judge is under fire after granting a divorce between two lesbians who were joined in a civil union in Vermont. In December, the Associated Press reported that Judge Jeffrey Neary of Woodbury County approved the split for Kimberly Brown, 31, and Jennifer S. Perez, 26, last month, claiming he didn't realize the two were a same-sex couple. But when he figured out what happened, he decided not to reverse the divorce decision. "I think we will see (civil union divorces) periodically, and we will have to decide how we are going to handle these," he told the Sioux City Journal.
Even though Iowa is one of 37 states to ban same-sex marriage, Neary feels his ruling was necessary. "If I'm presented with a dispute that has to be resolved in my courtroom, or is before me that affects the rights of Iowans, I feel an obligation to solve that problem," Neary told the AP. "I don't believe I'm recognizing same-sex marriage." Neary claimed the divorce was legal under the Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause," which requires states to recognize the laws of other states.
But Iowa state Sen. Neal Schuerer, a Republican, disagreed, calling Neary's actions "judicial activism at its worst. The judge was wrong. He should have backed away and sent them back to Vermont," Schuerer told the AP.
As could be expected, a number of parties have filed Amicus Curiae briefs with the court, including the Iowa Civil Liberties Unions, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund. The Iowa Attorney General's office has also appeared on behalf of the District Court. The Appellant, Dwayne Alons, is an Iowa legislator from Iowa's 4th District. His website describes himself as "mature, conservative, and pro-family."
Posted on June 16, 2005 in Divorce, Federal Laws-Cases | Permalink
|
TrackBack (2)
June 08, 2005
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and Child Custody
In a case involving an apparent conflict between the "best interests" standard the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"), the Iowa Supreme Court has reversed the recent Court of Appeals decision of In re Marriage of Grantham that the SCRA automatic stay prevented a custody modification while a servicemember-parent was deployed. The decision appears to be largely fact-based on the particular circumstances of this case, where concealment of important information by one parent from another may have occurred.
Of import more generally is the affirmance of at least one procedural aspect of the Court of Appeals decision:
We agree with the court of appeals that the filing of the petition to modify the child custody provisions of a dissolution decree does not carry with it a right for the determination of temporary custody pendente lite. Modification proceedings differ from original actions in this regard because, in original actions for dissolution, the parties start out with equal rights to child custody, and their separation creates a need for temporary orders until permanent orders are entered at the conclusion of the litigation. As the court of appeals correctly noted, once child custody has been finally settled in a dissolution decree, the provisions of the decree should continue in force until such time as the decree is modified. No need exists for temporary orders in the interim.
The decision appears to carve out an unstated exception to the rule where, as in this case, the custodial parent is absent and has delegated care-taking responsibilities to a third-party instead of the other parent. This exception should be limited to similar cases where the custodial parent is physically absent from the children, as in a military deployment. It does, however, raise a question as to the validity of military family care plans.
Posted on June 08, 2005 in Custody, Federal Laws-Cases | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
Main
| July 2005 »
June 27, 2005
Police Not Liable for Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order Enforcement Failures
The Supreme Court ruled today that police cannot be sued for decisions they make in enforcing domestic abuse no-contact orders. This decision ends a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters. The mother alleged that police did not do enough to stop her husband who took their three daughters from the front yard of her home in June 1999 in violation of a restraining order. Later that day, the husband died in a gun fight with officers outside a police station. The bodies of the three children were in his truck. The mother argued she was entitled to sue based on her rights under the 14th Amendment and under Colorado law that says officers shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order. The case is Castle Rock, Colo., v. Gonzales, 04-278, available here.
Posted on June 27, 2005 in Domestic Abuse | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
June 24, 2005
Federal Court Upholds "Defense of Marriage Act"
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has upheld the 1996 federal "Defense of Marriage Act." The ruling, available here, affirms the constitutionality of the DOMA statute even though the law "has a disproportionate effect on homosexual individuals. " The Court found the government's desire to promote procreation is a valid reason for infringing on the rights of same-sex couples.
Posted on June 24, 2005 in Federal Laws-Cases | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
June 23, 2005
Alons v. Iowa District Court - Lack of Standing to Challenge Dissolution of Civil Union
As widely expected, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected a third-party challenge to a district court decree dissolving a Vermont civil union. The case, Alons v. Iowa District Court was brought by several persons in various representative and individual capacities and one religious organization. Each claimed that they had standing to challenge the underlying decree, despite the fact that none of the challenging parties was a litigant in the underlying dissolution action.
After exhaustively analyzing the legal requirements for standing and each particular appellant's claim that he, she, or it somehow did have standing, the Court rejected every claim without reaching an discussion of the substantive merits raised by each appellant. Here's the money quote from the decision:
Finally, we agree with the amicus’s observation that '[m]any people have strong opinions about marriage, as they do about divorce, child custody, zoning, and many other issues, but if everyone were allowed to petition for certiorari simply because of ideological objections or strongly held philosophical beliefs that an order should not have been entered, then there would be no limits to the petitions brought. Iowa law has never permitted such unwarranted interference in other peoples’ cases. Simply having an opinion does not suffice for standing.'
Posted on June 23, 2005 in Divorce | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
June 16, 2005
Decision expected in Civil Union Termination Case (Alons v. District Court)
The Iowa Supreme Court has the following case on its expected list of decisions to be issued June 16th:
Alons v. Iowa Dist. Ct. General case description: The plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari review to challenge the district court’s termination of a civil union. The petition was granted and the plaintiffs argue they have standing to bring this matter by virtue of their status as members of the public, as legislators (both state and federal), as married persons, as taxpayers, as a minister, and as a church. They also contend this court may review this matter by invoking its supervisory and administrative jurisdiction to exercise control over all inferior judicial tribunals. Iowa Const. art. V, § 4. The plaintiffs argue the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in dissolving the civil union and its decree should be set aside.
Not mentioned in the court's description is that the Court sua sponte ordered the issue of the plaintiffs' standing to bring the challenge to the district court's action. The Court's docket lists "dissolution of civil union, standing to sue or raise issue, jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction" as the general legal issues presented. The Court's decisions are normally posted at on Friday morning at approximately 9:00 a.m. CST.
The district court granted a decree terminating a female same-sex couple's civil union that was originally obtained in Vermont. The parties resided in Iowa at the time of the court's order terminating their civil union. Iowa does not have a civil union statute. The Court apparently granted the termination under its general equitable powers. Here are some prior press quotes about the case:
An Iowa county judge is under fire after granting a divorce between two lesbians who were joined in a civil union in Vermont. In December, the Associated Press reported that Judge Jeffrey Neary of Woodbury County approved the split for Kimberly Brown, 31, and Jennifer S. Perez, 26, last month, claiming he didn't realize the two were a same-sex couple. But when he figured out what happened, he decided not to reverse the divorce decision. "I think we will see (civil union divorces) periodically, and we will have to decide how we are going to handle these," he told the Sioux City Journal.
Even though Iowa is one of 37 states to ban same-sex marriage, Neary feels his ruling was necessary. "If I'm presented with a dispute that has to be resolved in my courtroom, or is before me that affects the rights of Iowans, I feel an obligation to solve that problem," Neary told the AP. "I don't believe I'm recognizing same-sex marriage." Neary claimed the divorce was legal under the Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause," which requires states to recognize the laws of other states.
But Iowa state Sen. Neal Schuerer, a Republican, disagreed, calling Neary's actions "judicial activism at its worst. The judge was wrong. He should have backed away and sent them back to Vermont," Schuerer told the AP.
As could be expected, a number of parties have filed Amicus Curiae briefs with the court, including the Iowa Civil Liberties Unions, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund. The Iowa Attorney General's office has also appeared on behalf of the District Court. The Appellant, Dwayne Alons, is an Iowa legislator from Iowa's 4th District. His website describes himself as "mature, conservative, and pro-family."
Posted on June 16, 2005 in Divorce, Federal Laws-Cases | Permalink
|
TrackBack (2)
June 08, 2005
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and Child Custody
In a case involving an apparent conflict between the "best interests" standard the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"), the Iowa Supreme Court has reversed the recent Court of Appeals decision of In re Marriage of Grantham that the SCRA automatic stay prevented a custody modification while a servicemember-parent was deployed. The decision appears to be largely fact-based on the particular circumstances of this case, where concealment of important information by one parent from another may have occurred.
Of import more generally is the affirmance of at least one procedural aspect of the Court of Appeals decision:
We agree with the court of appeals that the filing of the petition to modify the child custody provisions of a dissolution decree does not carry with it a right for the determination of temporary custody pendente lite. Modification proceedings differ from original actions in this regard because, in original actions for dissolution, the parties start out with equal rights to child custody, and their separation creates a need for temporary orders until permanent orders are entered at the conclusion of the litigation. As the court of appeals correctly noted, once child custody has been finally settled in a dissolution decree, the provisions of the decree should continue in force until such time as the decree is modified. No need exists for temporary orders in the interim.
The decision appears to carve out an unstated exception to the rule where, as in this case, the custodial parent is absent and has delegated care-taking responsibilities to a third-party instead of the other parent. This exception should be limited to similar cases where the custodial parent is physically absent from the children, as in a military deployment. It does, however, raise a question as to the validity of military family care plans.
Posted on June 08, 2005 in Custody, Federal Laws-Cases | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
© 2004-2011 iadivorce.com All Rights Reserved.