Hanging By a Thread

When to Call in the Big Guns {Seeking Professional Advice from a Lawyer}

Getting Past the Stereotype

"If you or a family member have been injured in a crash or as a result of using a defective product...."

When I hear these words I think sleazy personal injury attorney preying on people in tight spots. I know I'm not alone in this. In fact, you can probably recite these words and the words that follow them along with the name of a personal injury attorney who often advertises on the TV channels you watch.

Of all the types of lawyers, personal injury attorneys probably have the worst reputation. While there are some slimy attorneys (just as there are slimy people in every profession), and some of them do indeed practice personal injury law, there are also a good number of honorable attorneys.

These attorneys are there to help their clients recover money to live their lives and/or support their families after being severely injured or when a family member has been killed because of someone else's negligence.

Case by Case

The problem for many is knowing when to sue and when not to sue or even when to seek advice from an attorney. And often these questions involve a personal injury issue, but the uncertainty regarding seeking legal action may also involve family law issues, civil wrongs or even criminal charges.

I recently read an article about a woman who sued a former college professor because of the low grade he gave her in class. She claimed that grade was given based on a dispute between the two and had ruined her chances at getting higher paying jobs down the road and asserted that this one grade would cost her a million or more in lost future wages.

So....this is a not a good reason to sue {in my opinion}.

A few months ago, a friend told me about a co-worker who had just gotten a new car and then was involved in a car accident through no fault of her own. The co-worker was having neck pain and was having trouble getting the person's insurance to respond to her, but she felt bad about seeking out legal advice about what to do. She didn't want to be THAT person.

So....this is a good example of when legal action may be necessary.

Often, those who have a legitimate cause of action fail to seek legal advice because they don't want to cause trouble or feel like they would look like the aggressor or bad guy. However, many times it may require only a phone call or letter from an attorney to get an insurance company moving or stop certain behavior or modify an agreement, etc.

Our society does tend to be quite litigious; sometimes that's a good thing that leads to changes in laws or reduces future injuries or deaths through changes to industry standards or sheds light on bad practices or get the needed money and/or care that a person injured in an accident deserves or increases or decreases child support payments, etc. Other times it's a waste of money and court resources that leads to nothing more than a few headlines outlining the preposterous allegations.

Seeking Professional Advice

So, if you and/or your loved one have been injured in an accident or property has been damaged or a loved one has been killed or you have information regarding poor or dangerous industry standards or you have another legal quandary, should you talk to an attorney?

Well, to give you a lawyer's answer...that all depends... but here are a few tips for when it's a good idea to get an attorney:

1. You've been injured on the job, on the property of another (a private residence or commercial business), in a car accident, etc and the injury was caused by another's negligence or mostly by another's negligence or your property has been damaged and you aren't getting anywhere regarding a settlement of costs/damages;
2. A loved one has been injured or killed by another's negligence and there is a family to support or medical bills to pay or funeral expenses to cover;
3. The person or business that caused the injury (directly or indirectly) or their insurance company or attorney is giving you the runaround;
4. There will be long term effects from the injury that require much care at a great cost;
5. The same thing that happened to you could happen to other due to a poor industry standard or on-going negligence, etc.
6. Or another circumstance in which you are not receiving damages for a wrong done to you or loved one; or
7. You need to modify a family law order or need help with divorce proceedings or getting a will or other estate planning document prepared.

The Scoop

There are many reasons to seek out the advice of an attorney; some of them may lead to court. However, a lawsuit can be expensive, take a lot of time and cause much emotional and physical stress. It should not be entered into lightly. And yet, there are many situations that do require going to court in order to be resolved fairly.

Don't be fearful of the law or an attorney or the court. Over and out...

Anna

On Fried Chicken and Casting Stones

Framing the Issue

This has NOTHING to do with fried chicken.

I have been mulling this over in my mind for a long time trying to find the right words to address this topic.

When we go to the polls in November, the voters in my state will be asked to make a number of important decisions. One of those questions regards an amendment to our state constitution concerning the definition of marriage within MN.

This topic has gripped our nation in recent months based on various ballot questions, the presidential election and the prospect of court rulings from the highest courts in the country in the coming year or two.

What am I talking about? Well, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm referring to same-sex marriage. For the record, I am a heterosexual female and I'm married to a heterosexual male, but this debate coursing through our country has me steaming. So, why do I care?

For me, there are multiple layers to this issue.

Fueled by Fear

I don't generally argue about religious issues here on Motherly Law, but for me this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with religion. For me, this is a legal issue, just like other laws that regulate who can and cannot marry, when, where and why.

However, for some people this is a religious issue. What I can't figure out is where in the world these people got the idea that God would want them to use His name in this hateful, fear-based argument against other human beings.

What is clear to me is that this is exactly that: a hateful rant born out of fear and misunderstanding.

I ask you, do you know any same-sex couples? Well, I do, and you know what? They are exactly like "opposite-sex" couples. That's right. They casually chat with each other over a quiet dinner; they argue over whose turn it is to do the dishes or take out the trash or get up with the crying baby; they share inside jokes; they take their kids to the park; they buy groceries; they go to church on Sunday; they live their lives just like any other family in the neighborhood.

Fear of "these people" corrupting our kids and our "family values" is misplaced.

And for the record, I have known a number of "opposite-sex" couples who should have never been allowed to get married; who made a mess of their marriage; who destroyed their families; who certainly stained our idea of "family values"; some of these people are church-going, God-fearing people...for the record.

Historical Instances of Suppressing Rights

From a historical and legal review, I would ask you to think about all the laws that have sought to restrict the rights of other groups of people and have eventually been rectified and those laws amended or overturned in court. Two groups that certainly come to my mind are women and black people.

For far too many years a woman's rights to vote, to hold certain positions, get paid an equal amount for the same work, own property and make decisions concerning her own body were held in check by laws; laws made by white men. And for the record, women's suffrage was considered a religious issue in that fight too; it would ruin "family values" and all...for the record.

Our country felt so strongly about whether white men had the right to control, nay...own other human beings and treat them as property, as the laws referred to slaves, simply because their skin was darker than the men who made the laws, that our divided nation went to war to resolve this issue.

It may have taken hundreds of years, but we have finally reconciled these wrongs. We have finally recognized the rights of all human beings...oh wait. That's right. We are now fighting hard not to allow two adults who love each other the right to get married and raise a family as a married couple with all the rights a married couple has.

From a different legal perspective, many of the laws we have on our books are there to protect people from physical or mental harm, protect their property and be sure that basic human rights are not quashed. Laws are not intended to harm a particular group of people who believe something different than the majority or single out people of a certain creed simple because some of the people in the country don't understand or agree with their beliefs or lifestyle choices.

A legal union between two consenting adults of full mental capacity, regardless of gender, national origin, religion, etc. is a basic right that harms no one, at least in my book. How would you feel if your right to marry your spouse was suddenly in question?

The Scoop

You know, as I ponder this hateful rhetoric, I think that perhaps the real fear is that same-sex couples do act like "traditional" couples. I think the real fear is that "they" raise families like the rest of "us"; "they" are just like "us" when it comes to spousal duties, in-laws, career aspirations, planning the summer vacation, etc. And if "they" are like "us" then what? I think this elicits fear of the unknown for some people.

I would liken this fear to the uncomfortable, uneasy feelings that predominated white families as minority families began moving into "their" neighborhoods years ago. While most neighborhoods and communities are quite multi-cultural now and that fear has greatly subsided, the original prejudice was based on ignorance and misunderstanding of each other's cultures and values.

If we could all be loving, peaceful and kind to one another, as the Bible teaches us, then we would get along, learn from each other and live happily ever after. While that is clearly not possible, at least not yet, I suggest that we all follow the advice of Jesus found in John 8:7 when Jesus said,

If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone...

This was in reference to a woman who had been caught committing adultery; a crime punishable by stoning. And in case you don't know the rest of the story, not one of the men present cast a stone at her or condemned her, especially not Jesus.

The point is, we have all sinned in various ways, and it's not for us to judge each other's actions and decisions and determine what's a sin and what's not and how each sin ranks on a scale 1-10.

This has NOTHING to do with fried chicken. We're talking about people, just like you and me.

And for the record, this is my opinon; a view I have a right to express thanks to our Constitution. What's your opinion? Over and out...

Anna

For more about this topic from me, please read: There's a Storm a Brewin' in Minnesota: NOH8MN

Less Than Perfect Behavior: Temporary Orders

While we were visiting Texas, we celebrated Darling 1's birthday. My sister-in-law had gotten a gift for Darling 2, as well, since his birthday is in a few months and it would be easier on her to give it to him now in-person and easier on him to receive it now while his brother was getting lots of gifts; it's hard to understand these kinds of things when you're still a little guy.

Well, Darling 2 knew about this gift, and he wanted to open it right away because he's 3 and impatient with a single-focus when there are presents to be had.

Darling 2 didn't care about the schedule of the evening or the reasoning behind waiting. All he knew is that he wanted that gift. Darling 2 felt angry and distraught and powerless in his situation; and he couldn't think of anything else.

As the evening advanced, he became more and more difficult and more and more upset knowing there was something he wanted in that bag, but wasn't able to have it until someone in charge gave the OK.

Eventually, he got to open that present and was ecstatic to find a Transformer. He quickly forgot the agony he had been in having to wait to get what he wanted once he had.

Well, adults can behave this way too.

Often, when a marriage has come to an end, but no formal divorce proceedings have begun, the once couple, now two separate beings have a single-focus of getting out of the marriage and holding on to whatever dear is left whether it's the kids, the house, pets, grandma's china, the big screen TV or a big bank account. And often, both spouses feel angry, sad and powerless in their situations.

That's not a good place to be. It's a confusing time and sometimes the result is a whole lot of...inaction. Perhaps, each person is waiting on the other to make a move; or worried that the other will act faster and more aggressively than the other; or just plain stuck, not knowing where to go next.

Many times once a couple has decided that marriage is no longer an option for them, the concern turns to custody and finances. There are questions about who will pay the mortgage, the insurance, the bills, etc. And if there are children involved the biggest tension point is most often who will the kids live with and who will pay child support and how much, etc.

The easiest and best way to answer all these questions is to get a Temporary Order in place once one party has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.

A Temporary Order is a court order that establishes temporary custody of children and visitation schedules, amounts of spousal support and/or child support; ensures that valuable assets won't be sold; allows for who will be living in the home, paying the bills, etc. This order can remain in force until it is amended at a subsequent hearing or until the Divorce Decree is filed and takes the place of the Temporary Order.

Once the petition for dissolution is filed and one spouse is moving out, the two spouses can decide these issues on their own and then present it to the court for approval or if the two are unable to come to an agreement about these key issues, the court will decide these matters, at least on a temporary basis.

So, if you find yourself feeling powerless and confused as you face divorce and are concerned about what will happen when your spouse moves out or whether your spouse will drop you from the insurance policy or who will be responsible for making house or car or credit card payments and most importantly how will the children be taken care of, by whom and where, then you should promptly contact an attorney about filing a petition for dissolution and getting a temporary order in place.

The Temporary Order involves filing a few documents, answering some questions, working out a few things with your soon to be ex-spouse or leaving it all up to a judge and agreeing to abide by this court order until further notice. *Exact details vary by jurisdiction. Over and out...

Anna

Life is Fragile: An Instant of Distraction {Distracted Driving}

Gone in an Instant

Life is fragile. It's not just a matter of life and death, but also freedom and imprisonment. The life we have can be changed in an instant; in an instant of misjudgment; in an instant of distraction; in an instant of tragedy.

Over the past two years I have discussed distracted driving. I take a hard line stance on the matter; it's no secret. I am more passionate about this issue the more I read, research and write on the subject.

It's difficult not to feel this way when so many lives have been lost, broken and forever changed by another's careless decision. I have mostly focused on distraction by cell phone, but a person can be distracted by passengers in the car, food or drink being consumed, multitasking, an illness, medication taken, etc.

There are two specific cases that have been on my mind most recently. While the accidents occurred in the the last year, the cases have finally made their way to the courtroom.

Youth

When you are young, you live in the here and now. Your life is spread out before you. You have plans right now. You don't dwell on the what ifs and the might have beens. You simply live each moment; and now with technology at our fingertips wherever you go, it's easy to stay connected...always.

Tragic Circumstances

Last fall, sixteen year-old, Rachel Gannon, was driving her car in Platte City, MO, when she swerved into the path of an oncoming car driven by Loretta Larimer. Ms. Larimer had to be cut from her vehicle and later died at the hospital. There was also a 10 year-old girl in the backseat of Loretta's vehicle who was injured in the crash.

Police reports say that Rachel had been looking at her phone and texting when she drove off the road. She then overcorrected, which caused her to swerve into Ms. Larimer's path.

Rachel has been charged with manslaughter and assault and texting while driving. While a date has not been set for trial yet, Rachel will stand trial as an adult. If found guilty of these charges, Rachel could be sentenced up to four years in prison.

While this tragic accident has been very difficult on Ms. Larimer's family, two of her sons have said they don't want to see Rachel go to prison. "Enough lives have been ruined and shattered. We certainly don't want to ruin any young person's life," said John Larimer in an article on KMBC.com

The family would rather see Rachel sentenced to community service; have her out speaking to people about the senseless death of Ms. Larimer and the dangers caused by those who use their phones while driving.

This is a merciful and insightful approach for Ms. Larimer's family to take. I'm not sure if the court will see it their way, but with Ms. Larimer's sons' endorsement, Rachel just might stay out of prison and begin a new life; a life with a new purpose and an important message.

Too Many Stories

One of the tragedies of this story is that there are far too many of them just like this one. The facts may vary a bit; perhaps a whole family was killed; perhaps the distracted texter was the one killed; or maybe all escaped major injury or death, but time after time I see the headlines detailing an accident caused by a texting teen.

While some drivers of all ages do text while driving, statistics show that the age group most likely to text while driving are our youngest, most inexperienced drivers. This is not just a problem for teens and their parents though. This is a problem for all of us.

Those of us with small children must begin teaching them by example now by not using our phones {at all} while we drive. Parents of tweens and teens must be ever vigilant in their plight against distracted driving whether it's caused by too many giggling, rambunctious teens in the vehicle, texting and driving or other distraction for the most inexperienced drivers. And the rest of the community must be supportive of the message that using the cell phone while driving is dangerous and does kill.

The Scoop

This is not just a question of laws; whether there are any and what the law prohibits, but a community response to a real and growing issue among our young drivers. What action are you going take?

The other case involving a driver's misjudgment and apparent distraction is completely different from this one. And I'll tell you about that one tomorrow. Over and out...

Anna

A Pinterest{ing} Question: Is it Safe to Pin?

Failing to See the Forest for the Trees

A few weeks ago, we tried one of those do-it-yourself yogurt bars where you choose from 16 some odd flavors of yogurt and then pile on the toppings. You can go crazy or keep it modest. I let the boys choose their flavors and toppings with minimal help from me, allowing them to create their own unique treat. They actually kept it pretty respectable with a balance of fruit and candy.

On the way out the door, Darling 1 dropped his cup, spilling some of the kiwi fruit, gummy bears and brownie chunks out on the sidewalk. He panicked and began to go into hysterics, but I scooped it up and assured him that I had saved most of his delicious concoction. Once seated and chowing down on his frozen yogurt treat, he forgot about those lost gummy bears; and despite this small hiccup and near meltdown, he enjoyed his very distinctive "fro-yo" creation.

Sometimes we lack vision and can't see past a small stone in the path that we mistaken for a giant boulder. When that happens it takes insight from others to realize it's not really such a big deal.

Jumping the Gun

About a month ago, a woman wrote a post explaining her tearful decision to close her Pinterest account over fear of lawsuits regarding the photo links she "pinned" on this social media platform. After reading the Pinterest Terms of Use and considering copyright laws she basically panicked, pulled her boards down and spread her paranoid post across the blogosphere. I've been ruminating on this issue since reading the article. And finally, I have a chance to write about it.

For those who don't know, Pinterest is a relatively new social media platform where users can create virtual bulletin boards with different themes. Each time a user places a photo link on a board, it's called "a pin." Many websites have added buttons titled "Pin This" or other similar statements to encourage readers to post the link with a photo to their Pinterest boards.

I do have a Pinterest account, but I admit that I have barely used it and I'm certainly no expert on Pinterest, but my opinion is that this woman made a mountain out of a molehill. There are two issues to address: 1) Terms of Use; and 2) copyright laws. Neither of these issues are unique to Pinterest.

Terms of Use

The woman who sadly left Pinterest was apparently shocked to find that Pinterest claimed indemnity when it came to copyright issues, including attorney fees. Well, let me tell you that all online platforms who have covered all their bases, dotted every i and crossed every t is going to place all the blame squarely on your shoulders and leave your mess in your lap should you violate someone's copyright. And why shouldn't they?

After all, it's not Typepad's {my blog host} responsibility to make sure that I don't infringe on anyone's copyright, etc. They are merely the paid host of thousands of blogs. They are not the regulators of content, nor the owners of any of the content contained within each blog. Just as it is not Pinterest's obligation to ensure that everyone being pinned is alright with this. So, any legal actions, including any costs incurred, are the user's liability not the platform's problem.

This should not have been a shock to this woman. This is standard language in a Terms of Use policy. I would be shocked if the Terms of Use didn't contain these provisions. There's no reason to quit Pinterest because of this standard and fair language.

Copyrighted Material

As with any social media platform, all users should have at the very least a vague understanding of copyright laws in order to protect their own works and protect themselves from getting in trouble if using someone else's original work. I think, in general, misunderstandings about what constitutes copyrighted material and what is an infringement of such copyright abound in the world of social media.

It's actually quite easy to infringe on someone's copyrighted material if you're pinning content on Pinterest, posting photos that you didn't take or writing articles with liberal use of other's written words without permission from the copyright owner.

Here are a few of the basic concepts:

• What type of material is protected by copyright? {the short answer}
  • Copyright protects original works of authorship including literary, musicals. Dramatic and artistic works.
  • Copyright does not include ideas, systems, facts or methods of operation.
• What constitutes copyright infringement?
  • In general terms, a copyright is infringed when a person makes a derivative work, reproduces, performs, publicly displays or distributes copyrighted material without the permission from the copyright owner.
• What is fair use?
  • Fair use is a doctrine that allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without first acquiring permission from the copyright owner.
  • Under fair use, copyrighted material may be used for news reporting, criticism, commentary, educational uses, research and the like.
  • In determining whether fair use applies, a court will look at 4 factors;
    • Purpose and character of the use;
    • Nature of the original; material made for commercial use is less protected;
    • Amount and substance of original used; and
    • Effect that the use has had on the market of the original material.

Pinning without Permission

While "pinning" a photo that acts as a link to the original source, may or may not be considered copyright infringement {the courts haven't considered this specific issue yet}, most website owners are not going to be upset by this link. The pinning to a board in Pinterest will likely cause increased traffic to the original source's site, which for most will be considered a positive effect.

One exception might be photographers who are showcasing photos of clients or selling their art on their sites. These sites are often protected by passwords and/or have water marks on photos and provide language about the use of their photos.

However, should your "pin" not link the material to the original source, a problem could arise. And yet, most likely the first course of action will not be to file a lawsuit. Most of these issues can easily be corrected by contacting the person who is infringing on another's copyright and demand that the offending person take down copyrighted material immediately.

If that doesn't do the trick, a formal cease and desist letter would follow. And then, if there is still infringement or if there is a gross infringement or habitual infringement, a petition would most likely be filed in federal court.

The Scoop

Few with a heavy online presence haven't had to send a demand to take down a page or post or photo. It happens often, whether on purpose or in ignorance. I don't mean to say it isn't a big deal; it is. But it's usually something that can easily be dealt with without filing a lawsuit.

So, should you close up shop at Facebook, Twitter, your blog, Pinterest, et al? I don't think so. But I do think you should know what the Terms of Use that you have agreed to say and understand the basics of copyright law. When in doubt about whether what you're "taking" from another constitutes copyright infringement be sure to look it up; you can find anything online. Oh, and I'm fine with you "pinning" this on Pinterest, sharing it on Facebook or Retweeting it on Twitter Over and out....

Anna

Restraining Facebook Comments: Two Courts & Two Outcomes

A Change of Status

About a month ago, my Dear Husband Will was closing one Facebook account and attempting to migrate all his friends, connections, information, traffic, etc. over to a different Facebook account. In so doing, before shutting down the one account he changed his relationship status from "married" to "single" as he added me as his wife on his other account.

One would not have thought this would cause such a stir, but it did. On his original account, Will immediately got messages and comments from concerned and well-meaning friends when his status showed up as "Single" in his friends' streams. Will wasn't sure why everyone was so concerned until he realized what he had done.

He quickly assured everyone we were indeed still {happily} married and quickly updated his relationship on his newer account. All of this was unbeknownst to me until I noticed that my Timeline had been updated to reflect that I had just married Will on that day in January 2012.

Again, well-meaning friends who knew better than to believe that update posted messages of congratulations under that relationship update. I had seen a notification to confirm I was married to Will and had done so, but didn't think much of it until he relayed this whole story to me.

Conversations Streams

We use Facebook to share lots of information whether good, bad, game changing, mundane, of interest to all, of interest to only a few. Some people are more laid back about their security levels and who they allow to see the information they post and how much of this information is available to people they haven't approved and granted "friend" status to yet.

People use their Facebook accounts for different reasons. Some use it as a networking tool for business. Others view it as an extension of hanging out with friends at a bar or coffee shop; friends sharing information and opinions. Some people are guarded about what type and how much information they share on this platform, even among friends. Others share just about every thought that crosses their minds; or so it seems.

Regardless of how each of us chooses to use his or her social media outlets, we are all tuned in and we listen to what our "friends" are saying. We react, respond and form opinions based on this information, as illustrated in the above example.

Harassment on Facebook

Courts are still trying to figure out how social media fits with the law. There were recently two cases involving Facebook posts; one from Minnesota and one from Ohio. These cases involve different circumstances and have different outcomes.

Olson v. LaBrie

In this case, Olson found that his uncle had posted old family photos and made mean and disrespectful comments regarding those photos. Olson emailed his uncle requesting the photos and comments be removed or altered to remove Olson; LaBrie refused to do so. Olson eventually filed an application for a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) against LaBrie.

The district court found that LaBrie's actions did not constitute harassment and did not grant the HRO. Olson appealed and the appellate court agreed with the district court's ruling.

The Court of Appeals of Minnesota held that, "To constitute harassment, words must have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another. Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1). Comments that are mean and disrespectful, coupled with innocuous family photos, do not affect a person's safety, security, or privacy—and certainly not substantially so."

So, in the end Facebook was not a component in this case. Regardless of where the photos and rude comments were, they simply didn't constitute harassment under the MN statute.

Byron v. Byron

In this Ohio dissolution case, the Facebook statement made by the husband against the wife who already had a temporary protection order in place due to an incident of domestic violence from June of 2011, was considered to be in violation of the TPO.

In November of 2011, Mr. Byron posted to his Facebook account the following statement: "If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely -- all you need to do is say that you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away!"

Mrs. Byron became aware of this statement even though she is blocked from his account and filed a motion stating he was in violation of the TPO. The TPO restricted Mr. Byron "from causing plaintiff or the child of the parties to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance or bodily injury."

The magistrate ruled that Byron had violated the TPO and sentenced him to 60 days in jail and $500 fine or in lieu of this sentence he could pay back child support and post an apology on his Facebook page for 30 days beginning February 13, 2012. The magistrate wrote the apology into the order and required Byron keep his Facebook page active during that time.

Byron complained about free speech issues, but the magistrate reminded him that while we do have the right of free speech, there are limitations; we can't just say anything.

The Byron case is not over. This case will return to court on March 19^th. Once the case is concluded, Byron may choose to appeal the court's ruling on this and/or other grounds. This is certainly one to keep an eye on.

The Scoop

As I said, both of these involve statements made on Facebook. Both have very different outcomes. So, which one is right? Well, both could be. Each state can have different standards and different language regarding various areas of the law.

However, regardless of what the law says in your state, the rule of thumb when it comes to social media is kind of like the old adage, measure twice, cut once. That is to say, think twice before posting what's on your mind; asking yourself will this harm, offend, harass, frighten, disrespect anyone?; and then hit enter once.

We certainly do have the right to say many things and post those things on Facebook if we wish, but if it's harmful, offensive, disrespectful, etc. expect that some may block you, tell the person you are making remarks about, unfriend you on Facebook and maybe in real life too and perhaps even take the matter to court. This open forum does not give you an unfettered right to say ANYTHING that comes to mind. Over and out...

Anna

Child Obesity: What’s in the Child’s Best Interest?

Truly a Growing Problem?

I came across an interesting article earlier this week, and I'm not even sure what my opinion is regarding this matter. It has to do with weight. Weight is a touchy issue; very few of us, have never struggled with a weight issue, whether the issue was to lose weight or gain weight. At various times of my life I have been on both sides of this issue.

Let me also preface this subject by saying that I have tall, muscular, broad kids (both built like their daddy) who both tip the scales at the top of their age ranges; they also rank in the top of height percentiles, as well. In fact, at the last well-check of each Darling Boy the pediatrician explained that based on their weights alone, he was forced to check them off as "obese" for insurance purposes. This reporting is done anonymously in a large pool of all kids who have well-checks, based on specific ages.

My children are not obese for any other purpose (check out those sweet, skinny boys above & don't let the 3 year-old's pudgy cheeks fool you; he's the skinniest). I, of course, spoke up and argued this point. While my sons' pediatrician agreed with me, he told me that his hands were tied because this "mandatory" reporting is linked to insurance companies paying the doctors for their services to patients. He went on to tell me that every big, strong high school athlete he had recently seen for school physicals were also labeled as "obese" for the insurance reports.

Now, this makes me think twice when I see the reports of the high percentages of obese kids; and all of the reports, studies, groups and grants concerning this issue. At the same time, I know there are kids who are obese and who need to learn how to eat a nutritional, balanced diet and exercise on a daily basis. There are also kids who have a genetic predisposition to weight gain. And now for the story I read. Then, you can decide where you stand on this topic.

200 Pound Third Grader

This subtitle reads like a tabloid article, and you can just picture the photo running with the headline in the newsprint placed next to the bubble gum at the checkout counter, but this is sadly true. A boy in third grade weighing 200 pounds was removed from his mother's custody and placed with a foster family due to his weight related health issues. The mother had taken her son to a hospital last year when he started to have breathing problems; clearly, a concerned parent. It was determined that he has sleep apnea. At that time, the hospital enrolled him in program aimed at reducing his weight. Through that program, he was being monitored by social workers and had been losing some weight, but had recently begun to gain weight again.

When he started putting pounds on, the social workers asked a juvenile court to remove the boy from his mother's custody based on his obesity as a medical neglect issue. The boy's mother claimed that she was following the dietary guidelines provided by the hospital program and was doing her best to help her child.

Obesity as Neglect

This may seem extreme, but remember the court's duty is to do what is in a child's best interest. So, is this in the child's best interest? What if the child was severely underweight instead of grossly overweight? How would you feel about this issue then? If the child appeared to be starving, the court would remove the child in this instance too. The court must do its best to ensure that any child that comes to its attention has a clean, safe and healthy environment with adequate nutrition and direction in which to live and grow.

Clearly, this is an extreme case, but it has happened before. The article I read from ABC News cited a 90 pound 3 year old girl who was removed from her parents' home for two months due to her large size and inability to lose weight in her parent's care. She was returned to her parents when it was determined that she had a genetic predisposition and she did not lose any weight while in foster care despite following strict guidelines.

The Scoop

Are we going overboard on the subject of obese kids? Is obesity a legitimate cause for concern and reason to lose custody of your child, even temporarily? For me, this is hard question. How do you feel about this issue? No matter which way you view this story and others like it, it's very sad for the child and the parents involved. Over and out...

Anna

Losing It: Mental Illnesses and Child Custody Issues {A Post from the Past}

Some Days

There are some days; days that I feel that I am one step away from completely losing my marbles. The chaos, the lack of sleep, the stress, the ups and downs of life, it can be overwhelming. But I keep it together...for the most part. I know that these days are just that; one day ever so often in a life full of many days. I don't have a mental illness, and I have a spouse who can take the helm for a bit while I sort through my feelings, get some rest and move past the funk.

Mental Illnesses

And yet, there are parents out there who do struggle with mental illnesses. For some of these parents just making it through each day is a challenge; every day. For other parents with mental illnesses, medication can alleviate the symptoms and bring balance back to that parent's life; and the family's lives, for that matter.

Some of these parents have to find a way to cope with their illnesses and handle divorce and/or custody issues too. And other parents struggling with mental diseases are single parents dealing with everything on their own; work, finances, illness, parenting, medications. Many questions arise in these situations.

Custody Issues

For parents with severe mental illnesses the rate of losing custody is between 70 – 80%. Some states have laws that list mental illness of a parent as a condition for losing custody. The severity of the illness, combined with the symptoms of the particular mental illness, side effects from medications and the absence of another parent in the home are among the determinants for removing a child from the house of a mentally ill parent.

While all parents have a right to raise their children without government interference, the courts must weigh what's in the best interest of a child with a parent's mental disabilities and the impact on the family. If it's clear to the court that a child will be endangered by the parent's incapacity to care for his or her child, the court must remove the child from that parent's home and award custody to the other parent {in a divorce situation}, a grandparent or another competent adult.

In order for a court to determine what's in the best interest of a child, extensive mental health evaluations are ordered for the parent. The mere presence of a mental illness does not determine whether that parent will completely lose custody rights. In some cases, the court will find that based on all the evidence presented, a parent with a mental illness is still capable of caring for his or her children, at least some of the time.

A court's concern is that a child living with a mentally ill parent may suffer from neglect or abuse, be subjected to unsafe conditions or situations or be forced to take care of the parent instead of the other way around. Courts take these situations very seriously.

Due to these concerns of the courts and the high chance of losing custody, some parents in this situation may attempt to hide the illness or minimize the effects of the disease or the medications. Parents may even avoid needed treatment for mental diseases for fear of losing custody. While this is understandable considering how painful it would be to lose custody of a child, the parent must keep his or her focus on the child's safety and general well-being.

It's important to be forthright with any investigation, whether you are the parent being assessed; or the parent being evaluated is your spouse or soon-to-be ex-spouse, a friend or a family member. Again, the focal point must always be the best interest of the child.

The Scoop

No matter the determination or outcome of any case involving a parent and/or child with a mental illness, it's a heartbreaking situation; and not one taken lightly by the courts. Termination of parental rights is final, but a custody situation is changeable, depending on circumstances. For instance, if a parent seeks treatment, becomes stable on medication, etc. the parties could revisit the custody arrangements, if so desired.

No matter how you look at it, a case involving a parent suffering from a mental illness is never easy for anyone involved. Over and out....

Anna

Mississippi Underestimated: Answering the Question of Personhood

Free Choice

I recently saw a quote from a conservative governor stating that he had vetoed a particular bill because he didn't want to micromanage the actions of adults. This quote struck me as odd for a number of reasons. To name one, it's conservatives who typically are trying to take away the choice of abortions for all women. Isn't this also micromanaging adult women's actions?

Let me be clear. I am not a proponent of abortions. I don't know a single soul who is. I am a proponent of free choice. Abortion is not something that I would choose, as far as I know. But then again, I've never been in a position to have to make this decision; so I can't say for certain. I am certain that I cannot make that decision for anyone else though; it's not for me to say what others do with their bodies.

I think that a woman or a man should have the choice of making decisions regarding her or his body without the state interfering with this choice because someone else living in that state may disagree with the choice that person makes. The decision to have an abortion for any reason is one of the most personal choices I can think of.

An Argument for Conservatives

I liken my argument to that of gun rights. I, personally, don't think that people should own guns for personal safety or hunting. I, personally, think that people with guns make our society less safe. However, not everyone agrees with me. There are those who think it's vitally important to have firearms in the home in order to protect the family. There are others who enjoy the sport of hunting.

I will leave them to their sport and their sense of security. I will not tell them they can't own guns, even if they are safe with them and follow all the laws regarding firearm ownership and don't threaten others or commit crimes with their firearms. That is their right.

MS 26

Well, it's also a woman's right to decide what happens to her body. Yesterday, the people of Mississippi went to the polls to vote on a number of items, one of which was Initiative 26. "MS 26" as it was termed may have been on the MS ballot, but it was an issue that could have affected all women across this country. I spent my evening watching my Twitter stream with the hashtag #MS26 {I met some lovely ladies from MS too.} and monitoring MS election results.

If MS 26 had succeeded it could have opened the flood gates rushing toward the eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade. Well, it didn't. The people of Mississippi came through in the name of women's rights.

The exact wording of MS 26 is this:

Should the term 'person' be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof?

57% of the voters in MS answered this question with a resounding, "NO" despite the time and money spent by Personhood USA in hopes of a "yes" vote.

Personhood USA

Personhood USA is a Colorado based "Christian" nonprofit organization that "serves the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans."

What this means is that a grassroots team showed up in MS and planted the idea of putting this question to the vote of the people in hopes of stirring the pot into a frenzy that could lead other ultra conservative states to do the same. The Personhood Mississippi website says if the vote was yes, a legal challenge would be set up to challenge Roe v. Wade. Of course, the website also says that the most important reason to vote yes is that it will honor God and show love to their neighbors in the law system. Clearly, Personhood USA was appealing to the conservative Christian voters of that state.

Strong Southern Women

Mississippians responded with their own grassroots fight, explaining to would-be voters that MS 26 could have more far reaching effects, such as infertility treatments, access to contraception and women's health, in general. Personhood USA thought it could appeal to the deeply conservative, Christian, low-income and uneducated citizens of MS. They were wrong. Mississippians are smarting than that.

The idea of the personhood question evolved from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's observation during Roe v. Wade oral arguments when he said, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case here." Now Personhood USA is trying to do just that. 

The Scoop

There are a number of laws in place that regulate the how, when and where abortions are performed, by whom and upon whom. It's not a spur of the moment, lightly taken, frivolous decision....ever. And the laws in place protect those who for whatever reason have come to a clinic for an abortion. Without these laws, providing this right, abortions would still take place, but behind the scenes, without safeguards, without regulating the who or what or when or where.

In the past I wrote about laws with unintended results. If the voters' answer to MS 26 had been yes, this would have been one of those laws. This issue is not about choosing abortion; this issue is about choosing for one's self. The people of Mississippi have chosen for themselves. Over and out...

Anna

 

Budget Cuts Hit Home: Topeka’s Prosecutorial Blunder {On a Soapbox}

No Experience

I usually fight with words. Fortunately, I don't have personal experience with domestic violence. While searching my brain for a personal story to tell involving domestic violence, there is only one that comes to mind, and even it was not necessarily domestic violence, but the potential for it. And it's not my story to tell. It (almost) happened to a friend. And I'm happy to say that she did not marry him in the end.

When I wrote about domestic violence last December, many of my regular readers did not read those posts. Hopefully, this means that domestic violence is not something you have any experience with.

Finding Strength to Report

For those who do live with violence or even the threat of violence from a supposed loved one it's degrading, devastating, depressing and dangerous. For many living with this secret, one of the hardest things they will ever have to do is pick up the phone and call the police on a spouse or significant other.

And yet, many will find the strength to call and report an assault. Some of those will later recant their stories and refuse to testify against their abusers, but some will keep that ire burning, still feeling the sting from the smack dealt to them from some who's supposed to be a protector and supporter. Those people will be willing to testify against their spouses/partners/significant others and aid the prosecution as best they can. Then, hopefully, those people can move on with their lives.

No Aid Available

Well, what if no one could afford to prosecute such cases? What if the city decided to repeal the law making domestic violence a crime? What if the county refused to prosecute these misdemeanors? What would be the point of calling the police? Who would help those in need?

Well, that's exactly what Topeka, Kansas, did. In an attempt to cut budgetary costs, the city government repealed a municipal law making domestic violence a misdemeanor. Back in September the Shawnee County District Attorney stopped prosecuting domestic violence cases due to budget cuts. The city says this is an attempt to get the district attorney to begin prosecuting these cases again. And it worked too.

Reckless Abandon

The way I see it, this is an awfully reckless move on the part of the county and city. If the county and city refused to prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence cases, then it would have been open season for abusers in Topeka. Thankfully, the Shawnee County DA, Chad Taylor, reluctantly agreed to begin prosecuting the domestic violence cases even though they have very few resources and are lacking in staff.

Of course, the dropped cases would have applied only to misdemeanor charges, not felonies. If a domestic violence case had escalated to a felony, let's say murder, then that case would have been prosecuted by the district attorney. Unchecked, unstopped, unprosecuted domestic violence could very well lead to murder, of either the abused or the abuser. And the authorities sure as hell will prosecute an abused spouse/significant other who kills her/his abuser. This is not a situation to take lightly.

Threatening the safety of its citizens to force the hand of the county district attorney's office is heartless and treacherous. I understand that everyone {individuals, small businesses, municipal, county, state and federal government agencies} is struggling to make ends meet, with the exception of the elite top 1% of our country, but taking it out on domestic violence victims is not OK.

The Scoop

Topeka, figure it out. While the Shawnee County DA has taken on these cases once again, there remains a budget issue. This could be a nightmare, both figuratively and literally, for citizens, the city and the county. Cut from an area of the budget that will not affect such a vulnerable, usually mute, segment of the community; perhaps a cut to your own salaries is in order, City of Topeka officials. Priorities must be set; the safety of people must be placed over other city projects. Over and out...

Anna