What is The Purpose of the Ohio Putative Father Registry?

puronlineform.jpgLately, it seems that I have had more and more of my male clients coming in to see me to discuss issues relating to paternity.  There are so many myths out there about what needs to happen to establish paternity and the possible outcomes of failing to do so, that it never ceases to amaze me!  Perhaps the most serious outcome that many people are unaware of is that a “putative” father can have his child adopted out to someone else without his consent if the appropriate action has not been taken.

In Ohio, a person is presumed to know that if he has had sexual relations with a woman and she becomes pregnant that the child may be adopted without the father’s consent once the child is more than a month old.  As a way to counteract this result, the Ohio State legislature mandated the creation of the Ohio Putative Father Registry.  The purpose of the Registry is that a person who believes that he may have fathered a child can now establish the legal right to be notified of any hearings where the mother either voluntarily or involuntarily gives up custody rights to the child.  The “putative” father … Read More... “What is The Purpose of the Ohio Putative Father Registry?”

They Fight For America and Upon Return Must Fight For Their Children…

mturner.jpgRecent articles and news programs have focused upon active duty military members who have returned from overseas tours of duty (often in the Middle East) to find themselves engaged and involved in “custody battles” with former spouses who are arguing it would be in the “best interests” of the minor child/children to remain with the parent who has provided care and custody during the year(s) the military parent was deployed overseas.

Michael R. Turner, R-Ohio, a member of the House of Representatives, has been trying for the past three to four years to pass an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) which would provide military parents child custody protection while they are serving out-of-country on active duty with any branch of the military service.  To read Turner’s proposed amendment, click here. In a pointed letter directed to the Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, on September 30, 2009, Representative Turner wrote:

“What is particularly troubling (to me) is that the Department of Defense has misplaced priorities with regard to federal protections for service members.  It has no objection to the FY10 NDAA House language allowing service members to cancel their cell phone contracts without penalty after orders … Read More... “They Fight For America and Upon Return Must Fight For Their Children…”

Dividing Military Pensions

mil_div.jpgBecause our law practice is in close proximity to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (“WPAFB”) and because I am a “former” military spouse (who receives a fifty percent (50%) share of my former spouse’s military pension), a decision was made to add several articles to our Family Law Blog Site related to special considerations which must be made in assisting a military member and/or his/her spouse in the termination of their marriage.   This is the first article having special emphasis on the division of military pensions.

Historically, it is important to note that military pensions were not always subject to division.   In 1981, in a decision that was hailed by military members and greatly criticized by their former spouses, the Supreme Court of the United States in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981), decided that military pensions were NOT marital property or community property; and as such, were not subject to division between spouses going through a divorce or dissolution.  In response to pressure from former spouses and other supportive groups, in 1982 the Congress  drafted and passed corrective legislation known as the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”) to nullify the holding in McCarty v. McCarty.  … Read More... “Dividing Military Pensions”

Ohio Enacts New Booster Seat Law

seat_boost.jpgOn January 6, 2009, Governor Strickland signed Sub. H.B. 320.  This new law requires children between the ages of four and eight and under 4’9″ tall to be restrained by booster seats.  The law provides that this is a secondary offense, requiring the driver to be stopped for another reason before a citation may be issued.  The law goes into effect on April 6, 2009.  Warnings will be issued for six months before fines, ranging from $25 to $75, can be imposed.  Governor Strickland is seeking to increase those fines to between $50 and $100 in his proposed budget. Thanks to our friends at the Cleveland Law Library Weblog for posting this summary! To learn more about the new law, click here.

Page 2 of 2
1 2