.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, April 29, 2006

 
SENATE APPROVES MONEY FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SUSPECTS

The Greenville News has reported that the South Carolina Senate has approved funds for indigent defendants charged with Criminal Domestic Battery. The decision was made over the objections of Senator Jake Knott. Republican Senator and former police officer Knotts said,"A man that beats a woman, he don't need no lawyer. He needs a butt-cutting. You need to take him out behind the shed and teach him how to fight a man and not a woman...let that person that's beating that woman get out there and hire his own lawyer and let him know to start with we're not going to give you a lawyer, feed you, clothe you and not let you work. You're going to have to go to court, you're going to have to pay your own lawyer or you're going to have to face the bar by yourself."

We find it surprising that Senator Knotts has apparently never heard of either the 6th Amendment or the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." We are more surprised that this former police officer never met an innocent suspect.

Friday, April 28, 2006

 
CHARLESTON AND MT. PLEASANT SUSPEND TRAFFIC TICKET FEES

The Post and Courier reports that Charleston and Mount Pleasant ordered police officers to "immediately" write traffic tickets for $10 less than they normally do after revelations that the city's so-called "criminal user fee" "might be illegal."

Thursday, April 27, 2006

 
CHARLESTON SUED OVER FEES ADDED TO TICKETS

It was bound to happen. We now anticipate that Charleston County will soon get sued for charging 5% as an administrative fee on collection of child support even though many folks have Orders only requiring payment of 3%. And watch out Sheriff Nash in Dorchester County.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

 
ACTOR CHARLIE SHEEN DENIES ABUSE CHARGES FROM WIFE

REUTERS has reported that actress Denise Richards claims that husband Sheen had been abusive toward her and their daughters and had threatened to kill her. Sheen has denied the allegations, but was reportedly ordered to keep at least 300 feet away from Richards and their two young daughters after the abuse allegations were made in Court papers.

We, of course, have no way of determining who is telling the truth. We note, however, that only rich guys like Sheen can afford to fight these types of allegations. And, in South Carolina, the State does not seem very concerned about protecting women who are the victims of domestic violence. As the saying goes, the legislature is "all hat, and no cowboy."

Sunday, April 23, 2006

 
QUESTIONABLE USER FEES IN MT. PLEASANT SOUTH CAROLINA

We have long held the view that many "user fees" accessed against either criminals or litigants in Family Court are inappropriate. We are pleased to learn that, in at least in one context, the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court and the Attorney General of South Carolina share our view.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

 
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE AND DEATH

In an opinion rendered earlier this week, the South Carolina Supreme Court considered the relationship between common law marriage and the probate process. Thomas v. McGriff presented the question of whether Floyd Thomas and Ella Mae McGriff were common-law spouses on the date of Ella Mae’s death.

The Court held that the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether Floyd Thomas was Ella Mae Mc Griff's's common-law spouse on the date she died. Although the woman’s probate estate was open, it was the existence of the marriage rather than heredity that was the issue before the Court. Therefore, the Court concluded:

The written opinion can be accessed by clicking here.


Saturday, April 15, 2006

 
HURRICANE SEASON COMING

With the Hurricane Season on the way, all parents involved in custody and divorce disputes and living in coastal areas should read this article and consider its ramifications. Basically, the article discusses the enormous displacement of families caused by Hurricane Katrina and the resulting chaos and confusion regarding custody and visitation rights. It suggests that States adopt legislation to clearly spell out the circumstances under which a "custodial"* parent can relocate after a natural disaster without the permission of the "noncustodial" parent. It also suggests that parents involved in custody or visitation disputes address these issues in Orders and Agreements.

*The terms "noncustodial" and "custodial" are often inadequate to describe the legal status of a parent. For example, in situations where no custody Order has been entered, both parents may be said to be the "custodial" parent.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

 
CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDING IN TROUBLE IN SOUTH CAROLINA

We were not real keen on the new CDV Legislation in South Carolina. But now come word that the Senate Finance Committee has rejected Attorney General McMaster's proposal for a dedicated Criminal Domestic Violence prosecutor for every county's magistrate courts. Senator David Thomas proposed cutting the House budget version from $2.2 Million to $550,000 for a pilot project in 4 un-named judicial circuits. The measure was approved by the committee.

We have two questions. First what is the point of passing legislation if the legislature is not going to provide the funds needed to effectuate the legislation? Second, isn't Senator Thomas supposed to be the family values guy who is interested in protecting the defenseless?

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

 
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE "NEARS EXTINCTION" IN SOUTH CAROLINA

It may not be long before one fewer state recognizes common law marriages. A House-approved bill advancing in the South Carolain Senate would end common-law marriage in the state effective January 1, 2008. Those wishing to establish common-law marriage would have to file suit to establish such a marraige prior to that date. And because common-law marriages are established either in Probate Court or in divorce proceedings in Family Court, presumably those seeking to prove the existence of a common-law marriages need to either divorce their spouses or encourage them to die in very short order.

Monday, April 10, 2006

 
ANOTHER PRETTY GOOD BLOG

Log on to http://www.scfamilylaw.com/ to access information about South Carolina Family Law. The articles are comprehensible, in many instances supporting case citations are included, and the printing format is useful.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

 
COMMENTS ON FAMILY COURT REFORM LEGISLATION IN SC

Log on to http://www.statehousereport.com/feedback/index.htm to read all the comments posted regarding the proposed family court reform legislation in South Carolina. We have posted two of them hereinbelow.
_____________________________________________________________

3/8: Family court needs juries

To the editor:

I am writing to you because my children and I are a victim of the family court. ... Your reform [Commentary, 3/5] would not help. I have been on T. V. and the newspapers with my story. ... So you see it happens to good parents, the parent without the money. So I would say to you, the only thing that would help is a jury. The only way you or any one can help is to have a jury to decide our children's future. These Judges are too biased to one Lawyer. And for the Guardians
(OH MY), they are biased too.

-- Cindy Leonard, Hilton Head Island, SC

3/6: More needed on family court reform

To the editor:

I applaud our state legislators' overdue effort to reform our overworked family court system. [Commentary, 3/5] Perhaps this is an indirect acknowledgment that our state (family law) legal judicial process has failed to provide the standard of care that exist in other states.

What do we tell those that have endured the emotional and financial abuse dish out by our over worked family/state court? Sorry SouthCarolina doesn't have it together right now you'll just have to suffer the consequences, have a nice life.

My personal experiences suggest that caseload has little to do with common sense and making informed and correct rulings. We must go back to the judicial selection process for that.

I know this sounds like sour grapes, but I would advise Senator Ritchie and Chief Justice Toal to include plaintiff and defendants' experiences when it comes to address family court reform. If you rely totally on the legislative/legal community you'll likely get contaminated and biased result.

Let's be honest the family court system is designed around independence with little or no accountability to fairly meet the (cost effective) needs of the people it is suppose to correctly serve.

I hope these five new major changes improve our family court system. I would recommend to our legislative panel that we have plaintiff and defendant sign the court orders (QDRO) as well since these are often isolated independent decisions by our overworked attorneys and judge(s) and often errors and mistakes can be detected better by the people most familiar with the case, (the people it affects!).

-- Terry R. Housley, Wedgefield, SC

Labels:


Tuesday, April 04, 2006

 
SILLY FAMILY COURT REFORMS NOT NEEDED

Each year about this time the South Carolina newspapers begin to percolate with reports of the pending enactment of long promised and "overdue" legislative reforms. This year is no exception. But, in reviewing the proposed Family Court legislative reforms, we came to the same conclusion that we come to almost every year--the proposed "reforms" are not needed and the needed reforms are not proposed.

Take the burning issue of "common law marriage" for example. How big a problem is this really? And even assuming it is a problem, there is an easy solution to the problem. All South Carolina has to do is pass a law that states:
All adulterers in South Carolina shall immediately be removed from public office. Moreover, in the event that two unmarried adults have sexual intercourse in South Carolina and conceive a child, then they are deemed to be husband and wife as a matter of law with all the rights and obligations attendant thereto. Additionally any unmarried man over forty years of age who shall have sexual relations of any nature within the borders of the State of South Carolina with an unmarried woman more than ten years his junior shall be deemed her husband and upon the subsequent dissolution of their marriage, for whatever reason, shall be required to pay her annual alimony in an amount not less than 50% of his gross yearly income.
If we would pass this reform legislation we could guarantee that South Carolina would see a decline in unwanted births, illegitimate births, teenage pregnancies, venereal disease, AIDS, and "fornication." More important, all those gold digging "harlots" feared by the old white men in the legislature would probably leave Hilton Head and move to Florida.

Seriously, we do need reform. But, before we enact new laws we should make a serious effort to try enforcing some of the laws on the books. For example we should:

Admittedly, some of the current South Carolina laws are silly and unfair. But, if we are not going to enforce them, we should not enact them. And we should repeal all old silly laws before we enact new laws of any kind.

Labels: ,


Monday, April 03, 2006

 
PRIVATE GUARDIAN AD LITEM WINS MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR DEFAMATION SUIT

A jury in Charleston, South Carolina returned a verdict in favor of a former private Guardian ad Litem who had sued a group alleging that they tried to destroy her by making disparaging remarks about her personal life. The group, the Justice Seekers and the Domestic Court Reform Movement, was highly critical of the Guardian ad Litem system in South Carolina and managed to bring about stricter rules for guardians. The verdict was for $6.5 million -- $500,000 in actual damages and $6 million in punitive damages. You can read more about this story in "Ex-Guardian Wins $6.5M in Defamation Suit", published in the Charleston Post and Courier. For the losing side's view of the situation, log on to http://www.nofreespeech.com.

Sunday, April 02, 2006

 
MORE ON RANDY JOHNSON

We promised ourselves that we would not fixate on this case, but this article is on point that we could not resist posting it. We are not particularly interested in Randy Johnson the man--rather our interest in him and his lawyer is as metaphor. No good can come of taking positions like this. While Johnson's lawyer may be able to squeeze thousands of dollars out of him, the liklihood is that Johnson himself, his eldest child, his wife and younger children, and his public image will all suffer. And even if the Big Unit does "win," some angry judge is sure to be lying in wait for him next time he has to go to court.

So this should be a lesson to everyone--do not take unneccessary risks. Do not be jerks. Only bad things can happen if you do.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?