« August 2007 |
Main
| November 2007 »
September 22, 2007
Interesting Decision re. Federal Prosecution for Non-Payment of Child Support
In an interesting (in a lawyerly kind of way) decision, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the federal conviction of a father who failed to pay child support. The Court found that the federal statute in question, the "Child Support Recovery Act," 18
U.S.C. § 228(a)(1) (2000), requires that the "government must prove that the defendant knew his child resided in another state." In this particulate case, it was alleged that the custodial parent moved the child from state to state and that the defendant/payor did not know where his child lived. Although the government argued that the the statute's requirement that the child reside in a different state than the payor was merely jurisdictional, the Court found otherwise and held that knowledge of the out-of-state residency requirement was a substantive element of the statute required for conviction.
How the Court arrived at this conclusion is itself very interesting, particularly the concurring opinion's use of an exchange between two Senators discussing the legislative history of an unrelated statute.
Decision: U.S. v. Fields.
Posted on September 22, 2007 in Child Support, Federal Laws-Cases | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
|
TrackBack (0)
September 14, 2007
Disinterment Rights
While not a "family law" case in the traditional sense, today's Iowa Supreme Court decision of Stark v. Stark does implicate spousal rights. In the case, the surviving spouse of the deceased husband sought to disinter and rebury the husband's body apparently because he was buried "near plots owned by Audrey, his first wife, and the Stark children." The surviving spouse applied for and received a permit from the Iowa Department of Public Health to do so. The children then obtained an injunction in district court permanently enjoining the surviving spouse from disinterring the remains.
The Supreme Court's decision follows traditional statutory interpretation principles and does not open new legal ground in any substantive respect beyond the facts of the case. But the facts of the case and the relative (no pun intended) rights of the various parties involved are something to be considered, as this is probably an emotional issue (i.e., where to or who decides where to bury a parent/former spouse) that arises more frequently than one would otherwise suspect.
Posted on September 14, 2007 in Divorce | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
|
TrackBack (0)
Main
| November 2007 »
September 22, 2007
Interesting Decision re. Federal Prosecution for Non-Payment of Child Support
In an interesting (in a lawyerly kind of way) decision, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the federal conviction of a father who failed to pay child support. The Court found that the federal statute in question, the "Child Support Recovery Act," 18
U.S.C. § 228(a)(1) (2000), requires that the "government must prove that the defendant knew his child resided in another state." In this particulate case, it was alleged that the custodial parent moved the child from state to state and that the defendant/payor did not know where his child lived. Although the government argued that the the statute's requirement that the child reside in a different state than the payor was merely jurisdictional, the Court found otherwise and held that knowledge of the out-of-state residency requirement was a substantive element of the statute required for conviction.
How the Court arrived at this conclusion is itself very interesting, particularly the concurring opinion's use of an exchange between two Senators discussing the legislative history of an unrelated statute.
Decision: U.S. v. Fields.
Posted on September 22, 2007 in Child Support, Federal Laws-Cases | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
|
TrackBack (0)
September 14, 2007
Disinterment Rights
While not a "family law" case in the traditional sense, today's Iowa Supreme Court decision of Stark v. Stark does implicate spousal rights. In the case, the surviving spouse of the deceased husband sought to disinter and rebury the husband's body apparently because he was buried "near plots owned by Audrey, his first wife, and the Stark children." The surviving spouse applied for and received a permit from the Iowa Department of Public Health to do so. The children then obtained an injunction in district court permanently enjoining the surviving spouse from disinterring the remains.
The Supreme Court's decision follows traditional statutory interpretation principles and does not open new legal ground in any substantive respect beyond the facts of the case. But the facts of the case and the relative (no pun intended) rights of the various parties involved are something to be considered, as this is probably an emotional issue (i.e., where to or who decides where to bury a parent/former spouse) that arises more frequently than one would otherwise suspect.
Posted on September 14, 2007 in Divorce | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
|
TrackBack (0)
© 2004-2011 iadivorce.com All Rights Reserved.