Robert L. Mues, Author at Ohio Family Law Blog

Blast From The Past: Preventing a Parentectomy After Divorce

Blast from the past 13 years Ohio Family Law Blog

How To Prevent A Parentectomy After Divorce

PUBLISHER’S UPDATE:
Here is one of my favorites posts from back on June 27, 2009! The advice rings as true now as it did then…We have a ton of interesting articles in our archives of the Ohio Family Law Blog. Use our Search tool and enjoy a few oldie but goodies!

One of the most interesting and well written pieces that I have read in a long time is a keynote address presented by Dr. Frank S. Williams to the National Council for Children’s Rights in Washington D.C. on October 20, 1990. Dr. Williams is a noted child psychiatrist and the Director of Family and Child Psychiatry at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. While this presentation was almost 19 years ago, Dr. Williams’ sage advice is no less relevant now than it ever was!

During my 31-year law career, I have focused a large part of my efforts both professionally and as a member of various community organizations and non-profit Boards towards diverse child-welfare related causes. So with that stated background, I whole-heartedly encourage everyone to read Dr. Williams’ presentation in full, by clicking here.

I will attempt to capsulate some … Read More... “Blast From The Past: Preventing a Parentectomy After Divorce”

Internet Evidence In Ohio: Will It Hold Up in A Court of Law?

In this day and age, where children can operate their parents smart phones before they can read, where sending a hand-written letter has been replaced by a text, and where anything you could ever want to know is just one Google search away, it is not surprising that technology and the internet have found their way into our court systems. And with all this material so readily available, it begs the question . . . will information found on the internet hold up as evidence in a court of law?

In Ohio, it seems that it depends on the situation. In Bank of Am., N.A. v. Miller, the Second District Court of Appeals was asked by the Plaintiff to take “judicial notice,” and therefore accept factual information found on U.S. Bank’s website.

The Court explained that in order for it to take judicial notice, Ohio courts generally will only do so if a party is unable to deny the information that is posted on the website. In addition, if a party is seeking to use a website document as evidence, it will only be admitted if it fits within an exception to the hearsay rule. For example, in Hess … Read More... “Internet Evidence In Ohio: Will It Hold Up in A Court of Law?”

GAL: Should a Guardian Ad Litem Be Required to Obtain a Release of Information From the Parties Involved?

man walking in woods with young daughter

In Ohio, a guardian ad litem (GAL) (also known as a CASA- court appointed special advocate), is appointed by the court to assist a domestic or juvenile court in determining what is in a minor child’s best interest. A GAL does this by reviewing court pleadings, requesting and reviewing records of the necessary parties and children involved, speaking with witnesses, and conducting studies and interviews of the children at home and at school. Because the GAL does not represent either party in the case, it is believed that through their independent investigation they will be able to recommend to the court what outcome is the best for the children.

A critical part of the GAL’s investigation is reviewing the records of the parties involved. Therefore, in Ohio, when the court appoints a GAL to a specific case, the order issued makes it clear that the GAL has the power to review these otherwise confidential documents, and make copies if necessary. The court order usually states that it complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) regulations and states:

“Upon presentation of a copy of this court order, issued in compliance with 45 C.F.R. 164.512, to any agency, hospital,

Blast From The Past: Fathers are Indeed Important!

PUBLISHER’S UPDATE – Blog Originally Published on January 16, 2010: It is time for another “BLAST FROM THE PAST!” After Court recently, my client thanked me and reminded me about writing this Blog about his case seven and a half years ago. I was once again representing this father in the same rural Ohio Juvenile Court. The child is now 13+ and about to start the 8th grade but really wanted to move out of Ohio to live primarily with Dad and his family and attend school in North Carolina. Dad’s perseverance once again paid off! After a very strong guardians report, the parties agreed to a 1 year trial period for their child to move to the Tar Heel State. This child is indeed blessed to have 2 excellent, loving, and caring parents willing to try to do what is in the child’s best interest! Good parenting by Dad and all his love and his fortitude did once again pay off!

A large body of research overwhelmingly suggests children do best when they have both a mother and a father involved in their lives. Specifically, children whose fathers participate in raising them do better in school, are less likely … Read More... “Blast From The Past: Fathers are Indeed Important!”

Life Insurance Policies on Ex-Spouses: Can and Should a Divorce Court Allow These?

Spousal Support Can Be Secured With A Life Insurance Policy

In today’s world, it is not uncommon for married spouses to take out life insurance policies on one another. Of course, if you’re happily married, you hope and pray that you’ll never be in the place of having to cash one in. Nevertheless, such policies provide some “peace of mind” that should the unthinkable happen, the financial burden caused by such a tragedy may be a little easier to bear.

So, having a life insurance policy on your spouse makes sense, right? But what about having a life insurance policy on your ex, or soon-to-be ex-spouse? Can and should a divorce court allow this?

Many people would argue that in divorce cases where child support or spousal support is ordered, it is smart to have a life insurance policy in place on the parent who is obligated to pay. By doing so, it ensures that the children or receiving spouse will be supported even if the other spouse dies.

Therefore, it is fairly common for a spouse who wants to guarantee support, to request that their soon-to-be ex-spouse carry a policy naming them as the beneficiary.

Life insurance policies guaranteeing … Read More... “Life Insurance Policies on Ex-Spouses: Can and Should a Divorce Court Allow These?”

Blast From The Past: Hitting The Airwaves With “Big George” On The BBC

“The experience being interviewed by celebrity “Big George” of the BBC radio in London was really a memorable and fun one! George had read a blog article of mine which he seemed to really enjoy. “Big George” Webley seemed like a cool guy and had a wild wit and great sense of humor. He asked me a couple hilarious questions during the interview which got me laughing. After this episode, I only talked with him 1 other time. Sadely, “Big George” passed away on May 7 2011, at the young age of 53. To the power of the internet and the reach of the Ohio Family Law Blog, I say thank you for creating this blast from the past! May you rest in peace “Big George”.

England is trying to catch up with Ohio and the rest of the United States when it comes to Family Law. Until a landmark case last week, the courts in England and Wales put little, if any, weight on the terms of prenuptial agreements. Prenuptial agreements (also called antenuptial agreements) in one form or another have been around for a very long time. The Supreme Court of Ohio in 1984 held in Gross v. … Read More... “Blast From The Past: Hitting The Airwaves With “Big George” On The BBC”

Same-Sex Marriage Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Birth Certificates

Supreme Court Rules States May Not Treat Same-Sex Marriage Couples Differently From Others When Issuing Birth Certificates

On Monday, June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court reversed a decision from the Arkansas Supreme Court. The decision that was just overruled by the United States Supreme Court was monumental in that the Supreme Court reaffirmed its 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, recognizing constitutional rights to same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that states may not treat married same-sex couples differently from others when issuing birth certificates. The case in question, Pavan v. Smith, concerns an Arkansas law that treated same-sex couples differently than opposite sex-couples.

In Pavan, married lesbian couple had jointly planned their child’s conception by means of an anonymous sperm donor. However, when the parents went to list both moms as parents on the birth certificate, Arkansas state officials would only allow the biological mom to place her name on the certificate. Unfortunately, under Arkansas law, same-sex couples were unable to have a same-sex spouse listed as a parent, whereas an opposite-sex couple could automatically have a non-genetic father listed on the birth certificate. The court ruled this unjust as there was a violation … Read More... “Same-Sex Marriage Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Birth Certificates”

Page 36 of 68

1 … 34 35 36 37 38 … 68