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.

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.

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.
https://abc13.com/mom-arrested-after-facebook-video-shows-baby-smoking-pot/3243645/
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'...)

How Can I Fix My Custody Order?

This is one of the most commonly seen issues around. And apparently this is the case throughout the entire state of California.  Further, it is extremely common now to find parents and family with various afflictions, including mental, emotional, behavioral, etc.  In turn, this obviously will affect the kids, extended family, and more.

One of the worst things that attorney sees, and is always surprised each time--is finding that less than half of clients seen-- actually get on some type of program for their mental or emotional issues.

If that was done, it would lessen the effects that travel down to the kids. But when the parents try and take care of their own issues, rather than pretending they do not exist,  it becomes much easier to work with the kids, whether they have any issues or not.

Another very very common scenario is for each parent to blame the other parent. Of course some of that is likely true, but not every set of parents can actually do "co-parenting" ....and attorney believes that parents with issues mentioned above, may not work well in "co-parenting" set ups.

Attorney believes that "co-parenting" assumes that there are not major issues with the parents. But when there are some huge issues with a parent (or both)-- it is highly unlikely that co-parenting will work smoothly simply because the very nature of cooperation is assumed, and quite obviously parents themselves who have issues are not likely to stick with cooperation.

 If such parents can prove they can do it, that is one thing, but inevitably usually what happens is, one parent starts taking advantage of the other parent. In other words, there are many parents that believe they should stay together for the sake of the kids.

 What they don't realize is the harm they do to the kids when they do not parent the kids successfully?

"Fixing" your custody order might require a re-work of whatever you have in order to FIX it!

Pet "Custody" Law New in 2019 in California!

We suppose the pet "custody" issue was just a matter of time in California, due in part to animal activists, HOWEVER, before everyone runs to gain "custody" of a pet, be forewarned that under normal laws, animals are still considered property.

Animal activists have, in the states,  long tried to give animals-- "human" status...a case in point being, the whale lawsuit at Sea World, and the current case where activists are suing to have a horse be able to sue the former owner for abuse. If the status of animals was changed to having the same rights as humans, all hell would break loose in the USA with activists running to court to sue for many animals incessantly and relentlessly. It would essentially cause the tort system to grind to a halt in short order.

Attorney herein can easily make this statement, as attorney has worked in animal law field for many years, and is extremely aware of what animal activists do. In fact, attorney was actually attacked by an animal activist in the federal courthouse (Eastern District) while working on a national case involving illegal seizure of horses. The horses were NOT abused. The activist that was trying to attack attorney was guilty of many things, but was promoting misrepresentation to the media. The case was moved to Los Angeles and in the end the activist failed to show for trial, lost the non profit, the free 600 acre ranch lease, and everything else. Activist was also sued by bank attorney who used the non profit to take the animals improperly.

So for the 2019 "custody" law, which attorney briefly reviewed--it appears if an issue with a pet is disputed as to which person should be taking the pet, then we have the question-- who is to be awarded the animal? Generally, a judge is not likely equipped to decide WHO should keep care of an animal in general. HOWEVER-- under the NEW PET LAW FOR 2019, California judges will have authority to consider subjective factors and help find a resolution to the quandary.

Example of science related article on humans/pets https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296307002214

Supposedly, attorney imagines that inquiry might revolve around acquisition of the animal-- was it a gift to one person? Is it actually the pet of one of the kids? Is it licensed to only one person?  Is the animal only bonded to one person? Does one person take care of the vet visits, training, feeding, etc? Has there been any alleged domestic violence in the home?  Has the animal been injured or abused by a party? Is the animal being used as a tool to further another objective? Was the animal subjected to harm previously? Does the animal have dangerous propensities?  Bitten people? Allowed to run at large?  [*pets are specifically named in the California DV TRO forms, and any actual abuse to animals by one party should be noted on the form where applicable]

Attorney has seen/read  many animal cases, and researched a large amount of animal cases-- there is unlikely an attorney in the local county that has done more animal law cases or worked with experts on such cases.  Additionally, attorney prevailed on a post seizure hearing in Hollywood CA, which is not only rare, but virtually unheard of....

Having a background in animal law gives attorney a decided positive background for nearly any animal case. 

Attorney has worked closely with the expert (who helped the amicus parties)  in the First Amendment case of U.S. v Stevens, 559 U.S.460 (2010) --   a national landmark Supreme Court case involving a dog owner being sued under a statute which punished harm to animals when they are used in so called crush videos-- which was completely inapplicable to the issue at hand [which was the sale of  videos covering the history of dog fighting]... ( the statute used re the videos, was related to a fetish of a sexual nature involving animals being crushed by a female wearing high heel shoes; that law was completely unrelated to the case they prosecuted.....that statute was a product of the Humane Society of the United States, which has been found guilty of racketeering in the case involving the Barnum and Bailey circus which activist kept going for 14 long years....) 

--- By the way, do not donate your money to the Humane Society of the United States---they are basically fleecing the public and spend more on telemarketers than helping animals; case in point, during Hurricane Katrina, they "raised" about $30million from their TV ads for the animals--and could only account for about $7million when audited. Need I say more???

United States v. Stevens - SCOTUSblog

www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-stevens/

Holding: A federal statute that criminalizes depictions of animal cruelty in videotapes and other commercial media is unconstitutional. Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, ...

United States v. Stevens :: 559 U.S. 460 (2010) :: Justia US Supreme ...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/559/460/

Apr 20, 2010 - The government may not ban depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain because this law is overly broad under the First Amendment in ...

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS - Cornell University

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-769.ZS.html

Apr 20, 2010 - Syllabus. NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the ...

United States v. Stevens (08-769) | LII Supreme Court Bulletin | LII ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-769

Stevens was prosecuted for selling videos depicting dog fights. Stevens claimed that § 48 violates his First Amendment right to free speech and is therefore ...

[PDF]

United States v. Stevens - Supreme Court of the United States

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

Apr 20, 2010 - UNITED STATES v. STEVENS. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR. THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 08–769.