The LAW & LAWYERS Blog

According to Amy Taylor of London, England, it is. Taylor said that she caught her husband’s avatar, having sexual relations with a virtual prostitute in Second Life. In the realm of virtual reality, Second Life allows the user to create alter egos, form relationships, build careers, and trade products and services for cyber currency that can be converted into real dollars.

Taylor’s husband admitted to having an online relationship with a “girl in America,” but he denied any wrongdoing. Currently, Taylor and her husband are now separated and Taylor is involved in a new relationship with a man she met online roleplaying in World of Warcraft.

On election day in California, voters were asked to decided whether same-sex marriages should remain legit. The results are in and 52 percent of them voted that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Opponents filed a legal challenge today with California’s Supreme Court to keep the ban from taking effect. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Equality California and consisted of six same-sex couples who didn’t marry before the election but want to marry.

Lawyers for same sex-couples said they’ll argue that the anti-gay-marriage law was an illegal revision to the constitution, saying that it doesn’t provide for equal protection guarantee.

Elizabeth Gill, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, told reporters that “A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions to the Constitution.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Do you believe you’ve been wronged? If you’re thinking about filing a lawsuit, consider talking to a lawyer today. Total Lawyers has a wide network of lawyers ready to listen to you.

With the economy in such turmoil, times are tough for everybody—even lawyers. Layoffs at law offices are rare but becoming somewhat of a trend as income dwindles.

A Chicago law firm laid off 24 defense lawyers out of its 680 staff and another firm let go of 21 defense attorneys out of their stock of 650, according to a Chicago Tribune story.

But don’t worry—if you’re looking for a lawyer, we have an extensive network and nobody’s going anywhere!

Total Lawyers can help you if you’re looking for a:

• Bankruptcy Lawyer
• Criminal Defense Lawyer
• Personal Injury Lawyer
• DUI Lawyer
• Divorce Lawyer
• Family Law Lawyer
• Estate Layer
• Lemon Law Lawyer

As the week comes to an end, check out the latest articles from Total Lawyers:

Appeals Panel Saves American Girl From Deportation:

This article highlights the case of a father who, despite allegedly sexually abusing his daughter, was trying to get the American-born child deported to his current country of residence.

GPS Tracking Law Raises Constitutional Questions:

In Illinois, judges are allowed to order any person considered to be high risk for domestic violence to wear a GPS system. Total Lawyers examines the constitutionality of this new law.

Non-Sex Offender Constricted By Child Predator Law:

How can a man who’s never committed a sex crime be forced to register as a sexual predator? Read this article and learn more about the people who are unfairly labeled sex offenders.

Old Law Prevents Rapists from Prosecution:

DNA evidence has helped close thousands of criminal cases; however, what happens when the statute of limitations expires? Read on…

Though attorney Jackie Chiles was not presenting arguments in the ongoing legal dispute between author Tom Clancy and his wife over division of marital assets in their divorce, the Maryland Court of Appeals used a page directly out of a script for the hit ’90s television sitcom “Seinfeld” in their ruling on the case, Law.com reports.  

Clancy’s ex-wife claimed that Clancy removed his name from a series of books originally titled ”Tom Clancy’s Op-Center” (which Clancy did not write) just so that he would not be paid royalties that he would have to divide with her.  The question before the court was whether Clancy had acted in good faith when he decided to remove his name from the book series.

The final decision returned the case to a lower court, as the appellate court decided that there was potentially competing evidence of Clancy’s motivations.  In making their decision, the court cited a Seinfeld episode titled “The Wig Master,” in which Jerry Seinfeld attempts to return a jacket to a men’s clothing store, as he puts it, “for spite.”

The court used this example to demonstrate how contractual good faith works, that Seinfeld was beholden to act in good faith toward the other party as part of the store’s item returns policy.

It’s a strange example, to be sure, but surprisingly relevant to the case at hand.  In other words, the example “fit like a glove.” 

A strange tale of international intrigue and mystery was published yesterday in the New York Times—but the intrigue comes from obscure international child custody laws, and the mystery from a New York man who was totally clueluess about how to apply them to his situation.

The story involves the adopted child of Eric Hyett and Joshua Glazer, who were married in one of the first same-sex marriage ceremonies in Massachusetts.  Their child, Jedidiah Hyett-Glazer, now 2, was born to a surrogate mother, and lived with the men until their split sometime last year.  A joint custody arrangement was ordered, with one man keeping the boy during the week, the other during the weekend.

However, Hyett failed to show up to return the child to Glazer after an extended stay, and later revealed over the phone that he was in Israel with the child and would not return.  Hyett said that he had read the law, and claimed that his action was at worst a first-degree custodial interference, a crime for which he could not be extradited.  He also claimed sanctuary in Israel with the child as per the Hague Convention, a treaty that governs international adoption.

However, Hyett should have consulted a divorce lawyer.  Not only was he wrong in claiming a provision of the Hague Convention—an Israeli family court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction—but he was wrong that his custodial interference would not cause him to lose custody.  Glazer was given custody and Hyett now awaits trial in Manhattan, facing up to four years if convicted.

It’s a strange story, but one that reminds you how important a divorce lawyer can be in making sure you’re on the right side of the law, in tricky matters of child custody and especially when dealing with international matters.

In Topeka, Kansas, a man who agreed to be a sperm donor for a long time friend who wanted to have a baby is now fighting for parental rights to the twins he fathered.

Daryl Hendrix is a gay man who is in his 40s, and says decided that since he is mature and now financially able to support children, he agreed to provide his friend,  Samantha Harrington, with his sperm so that she could become pregnant.

According to Hendrix, Harrington assured him that they did not need a written agreement and that since she is a lawyer and they had been friends for 10 years, he believed her.  He says that on the second try, Harrington became pregnant and called him to say, “Congratulations Daddy.”

When the babies were born in May, 2005, Hendrix says that he got a nasty surprise when he attempted to go see the children at the hospital.  He was turned away and not allowed to see the newborn boy and girl.  He was then informed that sperm donors have no legal rights without a written agreement.  Harrington also filed legal documents asking that Hendrix have no legal rights to the children.

In October, the court upheld the 1994 Kansas law that denies Hendrix parental rights to the children in the absence of a written agreement.

Hendrix is appealing to the state Supreme Court and says that he will take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

In the ongoing custody battle between divorced couple Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, the court orders seem to just keep on coming.  Unfortunately, very few seem to be in Spears’ favor.

Court documents reveal that Federline has spent $160,000 in attorneys’ fees in the custody battle, and he requested that the court order Spears to pay up.

The paperwork submitted to the court say that Federline is self employed as a performing artist and has no income.

The judge dealt a blow to Spears, which I’m sure she is used to by now, and ordered her to pay $120,000 of her ex-husband’s legal expenses.

A Family Court judge ruled in 2004 that a homeless couple who are addicted to drugs were banned from having any more kids until they were able to take care of the four children they have already produced and had taken away from them.

Stephanie Pendleton and Rodney Evers already have four children, three who were born addicted to cocaine, who are currently placed in other homes.

Pendleton, who is now 38, appealed the Family Court judge’s ruling. The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeal saying that the family court judge had overstepped her boundaries and basically ordered the couple to stop having sex, use birth control or get surgically sterilized. The Family Court judge said that she was within her legal boundaries because by law the court can order medical treatment.

A five judge appeals panel overturned the Family Court order which barred the couple from having more children. They found that the family court judge did not have the power to stop or limit procreation. The appeals panel did not overturn the Family Court decision that the couple’s four existing children were neglected and that the couple should have their parental rights taken away.

So Stephanie Pendleton and Rodney Evers are now free to have more children for the foster care system to take care of, if they so choose to procreate once again.

Almost eight years after a raid on a Miami, Florida home, another case involving divorce law, immigration law, and diplomatic relations with Cuba is being decided in a Miami courtroom.

The New York Times reports that Rafael Izquierdo is fighting for his four-year-old daughter. Izquierdo is a farmer in Cuba who allowed the girl’s mother to bring her to the United States in 2005. Several months after their arrival, the girl’s mother attempted suicide and the girl and her half-brother were placed in foster care. The children, who have different fathers, were placed with Joe Cubas, a wealthy real estate developer, in 2006. Cubas is well known for helping Cuban baseball players defect to the United States.

Lawyers for Florida’s Department of Children and Families have argued that Izquierdo is not a fit father because he allowed his daughter to immigrate to the united with her mother, who he knew was unstable. Izquierdo’s lawyers dispute this claim. His lawyer said: “We want to keep the focus on whether or not a dad has the right to have his child. D.C.F. has not proven any neglect by our client Rafael.”

This case reminds us of Elian Gonzalez, who’s Cuban father came to the United States to be reunited with his son. Elian’s mother had drowned during the crossing and he had been placed with relatives in Miami. Anti-Castro immigrants held daily protests at the home where Elian lived and tried to prevent federal marshals from removing him from the house.

Bernard Perlmutter, a family law professor at the University of Miami who has followed both cases, said that “this matter is appropriately being adjudicated in a family court.”

In the Gonzalez case, Elian’s relatives produced what I’ve called the Bill Gates argument: Rather than being reunited with his father, Elian should remain in the United States with his relatives because they have the financial resources to give him a better life. If the court had accepted this argument, Bill Gates would have the right to select any child he wanted to raise as his own because he has greater financial resources than anyone else.