Thursday, January 24, 2019

Save Money on Setting Child Support?

Most people realize that if they utilize the Dept. of Child Support Services (DCSS), obtaining support
may take awhile, but the Department does not charge the client in order to obtain the support from the paying parent.
In many cases where the paying parent has a job where the employer is a business
that is medium-large, or will clearly issue business checks or direct deposit, there may not be many issues.  However, if there is an employee working for a family owned business, or the worker is self employed on a cash basis, or the worker does odd jobs and doesn't have a checking account or pay taxes, or (just an example) is engaged in illegal sales of whatever (drugs, illegal goods, etc.) then
using the DCSS may not work.

Attorney will routinely see cases where clients go to court for child support, and will pay attorneys to carry out the process. Although some of these clients may do well to utilize attorneys, many cases can actually be handled with DCSS (as it does not cost anything).... Whether a client may be treated better by family law judge using the Dissomaster v the DCSS using the same Dissomaster is debatable. However some clients do not care to go to DCSS support hearings and simply would rather pay their attorney. DCSS essentially has a very wide basis of enforcement and tracking ability throughout the United States. DCSS can routinely work with other states for enforcement. It may take awhile, but it is done. This also applies to potential contempt issues.

If you have questions, feel free to call attorney herein at 530 797-6006. You should leave your name and a return number and attorney will get back with you. There is no charge for this.

When Courts allow Criminal Informants to Have custody?

Why WOULD a family law court knowingly give a criminal informant (aka snitch) the
minor children? Why would the police be trying to help the informant?  Why would everyone
ignore the other parent, and listen to the informant?  Should judges in family court give criminals the minor children?

If you didn't know before, apparently in this county one can be a snitch and then get treated like he's the greatest guy on earth.  Why?  Because obviously, he has done enough snitching such that the police, the District Attorneys, investigators and even the Judges in family law courts, will GIVE him custody???  and what of the kids? Apparently it doesn't matter if you give minor kids to criminals on purpose. Even if the kids have an attorney appointed to help them (also known as minor's counsel..)
From what we have seen, in informant cases, minor's counsel may not be much help? Or maybe
that's because he or she already knows that an informant will be given preference? Just guessing?

WARNING-- very little is written on family law cases where one parent is or was
a confidential informant.  These cases will nearly always be very difficult, because the
snitch will likely be given preference over the other parent depending on how much
leeway is owed to the snitch.

Bad parent may have:

Huge criminal history, jail, prison, VOP, you name it
Violation of nearly all parental ethics
Allowed to engage in child endangerment, slam into a vehicle 7 times with
  his own vehicle, with other parent/minor kids in it, and may not be charged?

Close to kidnapping, (or actual) and withheld visitation for months on and off
Lying nearly 100% of the time, no matter what subject
Used fraud and failed to properly give notice, but the Intent to Withhold Unit
just allows it, unfettered

Used kids as pawns and secretly grooming kids in bad ways
Was able to LIE to all JUDGES without  with some of them even knowing it????
Always able to get perpetual "intent to withhold" and when they expire, do nothing
   and keep the kids?

 Because both federal and state government allow criminals to work for
them as snitches, much has been written about the practice, and the pitfalls that occur.

  • Not to be outdone, academia has launched proposals for The Confidential Informant Accountability Act. A version of such a bill affecting federal law enforcement agencies is currently working its way through Congress. Its sponsor said the bill stems from a September 2016 report by the Office of the Department of Justice Inspector General about the extent of CI use by the DEA and ATF – with little or no oversight.


Police policy and procedures

Monday, January 21, 2019

Family Violence Appellate Project-- CA DV Survivor and Out of State Abusers

October 30, 2017The appellate court granted  publication request in the case of Hogue v. Hogue, making the decision binding legal precedent in trial courts statewide.

  California victims of domestic cyber abuse will now be able to get restraining orders against out-of-state abusers. The new published appellate opinion is binding statewide legal precedent that can be cited in any CA trial court case where the abuse survivor wants to obtain a restraining order against someone who committed an act of domestic abuse from another state, (i.e. cyber harassment or electronic abuse) as long as the survivor was in California at the time of abuse.

 The universal pervasiveness of social media has made it exponentially easier for ex partners to commit domestic abuse, cyber harassment, and other forms of online predatory behavior across state lines. This new ruling in effect extends the intention of California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act to include modern electronic communications from out-of-state parties.

Monday, January 7, 2019

Parents, Marijuana Use and Custody in California

Could you lose custody of your children due to smoking marijuana?

Most county employed mediators have standard provisions that parents should adhere from smoking in presence of children, or sometimes even when the kids are under the control of that specific parent. Further, even if smoking is allowed in certain areas, many mediators don't want kids near second hand smoke, period. EVEN if it's inside the house in another room...EVEN if it's anywhere near where the kids might be, play, or access? Like outside?  **Note: in one mediation case, a mediator told a client that because MJ smoking is legal, to drop the issue...quite frankly, the actual smoking or use of the drug (even where legal) is not necessarily proper inside, where kids are, or in cars and other certain places? or where kids have any type of respiratory issue/other ailments? In any event, despite the mediator, it is NOT a good idea for MJ to be used around kids, period. Don't care if it's legal.

The "smoking" will generally cover most forms of tobacco and possibly edibles.... (cigar, cigarette, vape, medical MJ, etc...)  And many times, smoking by third parties in the home may not be a good idea due to secondhand smoke. VAPING is almost worst because it is becoming well known, that the nicotine involved, is fused with scents (i.e. cherry,etc) that the teens are running to buy/try?   https://vaping360.com/how-old-to-vape/

In Butte County, a jury has previously returned a guilty verdict over an issue of whether medical marijuana is a defense (to child endangerment charges)--- the long contested case of  Daisy Bram, where allegedly, the lesser count of misdemeanor child endangerment was found (as opposed to child endangerment likely to cause great bodily harm)... Judge Glusman ruled that no valid evidence was presented as to the certified use of medicinal marijuana and thus it was not available as a defense. Ms. Bram was not represented by counsel, which obviously hindered her defense.


Child Endangerment in California...

Under Penal Code section 273a  there is a possibility of criminal prosecution whenever a child is under your care or custody and you:
  • Willfully permit the child to suffer;
  • Inflict unjustifiable physical or mental pain upon any child; or
  • Willfully endanger the health of a child.
If the prosecuting agency in your county believes that you are “endangering the health of your child” by smoking marijuana or growing it in a home where your children reside, you may face criminal charges....

These charges may be filed as a misdemeanor or as a felony. Of course, if the court order stated that any type of smoking or use of same is not allowed while child is under your care, a violation might be a contempt charge potentially, if the other spouse or another was to bring that claim forward?
If convicted of felony child endangerment, you could be sentenced to up to six years in prison and ordered to pay a maximum $10,000 fine. A misdemeanor conviction is punishable by up to one year in county jail, up to a $1,000 fine, or both.

Why is Alcohol Allowed But Not MJ?

Generally, no courts like the idea of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, edibles, cigarettes, cigars, etc. when it comes to kids. Although there are tons of rules regarding drunk driving, there are not tons of rules for intoxication at home due to getting high on drugs, including legal marijuana and the like. While the hearsay out there is that MJ will be used, consumed and grown by large business, including beer companies, and that the feds will be changing those laws, it is a possibility, but we wouldn't bet your life on it happening super soon. The banks and other super duty corporations always want to benefit themselves first. BUT if they manage to do it, we can be assured that they will have already thought of safer ways to tone down common marijuana so that it would be as common as alcohol, and treated closer to the way alcohol is regulated.  OTOH, the presence of nicotine in the vaping formulas which are targeting teens (and apparently succeeding)-- is something that relies on curiosity and being popular, because "everyone" is trying it. However one is supposed to be 21 to be "vaping"....well, we are sure that plenty of people are ignoring that there law?? LOL
Parents that are smoking or vaping, your kids are watching you.

Note:  //The courts generally do not favor the smoking of MJ, even if it is medically prescribed. People with chronic anxiety often resort to marijuana use, or prescription meds. The meds only do so much, the overly anxious client will still be overly anxious, but somewhat better than with no meds at all.//

https://buttecountyfamilylawlawyer.blogspot.com/  Another site by attorney C. Chan

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

MJ Law Claiming to Protect Minors from Online Ads?

On Jan. 1, 2019, a new California law introduced by Assemblyman Ed Chau

will go into effect with the aim of closing this loophole for good. AB 3067

 will help protect minors from online advertisements of a product which they

cannot legally consume.

RELATED: Pot deliveries can be made throughout California, regulators say

Basically, AB 3067 adds any cannabis, cannabis product, cannabis business,

or any instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking or ingestion

 of cannabis to the list of products and services subject to the Privacy Rights for

 California Minors in the Digital World (PRCMDC).

Lisa Buffo, Founder and CEO of Cannabis Marketing Association, says that this

new law mainly clarifies some of the language that was already in effect.

"One significant change is that businesses are not allowed to use depictions or

 images of anyone under 21. Before, businesses were not allowed to use

 depictions or images of minors under 18," Buffo says.

Buffo's organization helps educate cannabis marketers on current and future

 advertising and marketing regulations and connects communications

 professionals within the cannabis industry. Buffo aims to keep people in the

 industry informed and, in doing so, close the education gap between cannabis

 and the consumer.

"There is a large education gap between the industry and the public regarding

cannabis," Buffo says. "Speaking to the media and educating the press about

what your business is doing is one way to reach an audience."

PRCMDC currently prohibits an operator of a website, online service, online or

 mobile app directed to minors from marketing or advertising certain cannabis

and tobacco products.

Operators are also prohibited from knowingly using,

disclosing, or compiling, or allowing a third party to use, disclose, or compile

the personal information of a minor for the purpose of advertising certain products.

AB 3067 expands these current regulations on privacy for minors, making it

harder for advertisers of cannabis and tobacco paraphernalia to reach internet

 and app users under the age of 21.

The law is ultimately designed to protect minors.
Blogger:  To be honest, making it "harder" for advertisers to sell weed to minors online
is basically not going to stop kids from the bud.  It doesn't take rocket science or a
professional advertiser to know this, *however* if an ad company doesn't want to break
a law, then that advertiser just has to be aware of the laws involving minors/weed.
In other words, just because depictions of kids smoking weed aren't visible, this will have
little effect overall on the kids that want to smoke weed (no matter what age)...there are
going to be potheads whether it's popular or not. Nothing has really changed that much
since the 70's except now everyone uses the Internet, and people seldom play records or
even own a clock, kids don't want to drive, own a car, or move out from their parent's home.
Maybe it has gotten worse? LOL  The baby went to CPS, felony child endangerment, etc.
REALITY:  People apparently are pretty stupid, as evidenced by this case. But at least it
was not worse, had she not put it on FACEBOOK, she probably wouldn't be in jail...
(video shared over a million times; police encouraged people to report 'crimes'...)