Dawson Quick
Paralegal 1
Memo 1
Interoffice Memorandum
To: Supervising Attorney
From: Dawson Quick
Date: 5/19/18
Case: Morgan v. Morgan
Office File No.: ABC123
Kind of Case: Family
Docket Number: 1
Re: Modification of Order for Child Support
INTRODUCTION/ASSIGNMENT:Denise Morgan has requested that our office represent her in a family court matter addressing the modification of a child support order. The supervising attorney asked that I review the facts of the case and the legal authority provided to determine strengths and weaknesses of Ms. Morgan’s case and if the Motion to Vacate requested by Mr. Morgan will be granted by the court, applying only the law provided, not to include any outside research.
ISSUES:Will David Morgan’s motion to
…show more content…
vacate likely be granted based on Section 2 of Title 47 of the Liliput Code for the Armed Forces?Does the rule in question strengthen or weaken Ms. Morgan’s Case? BRIEF CONCLUSION:David Morgan motion to vacate will likely be denied based on the criteria of Section 2 of the Title 47 of the Liliput Code for the Armed Forces as well as legal precedent set in a previous case. FACTS:Denise and David Morgan divorced in December 2010, in their Country of Liliput. David is an active member of the armed forces. Denise retained custody of their 3 children and a child support order and visitation were established at that time. David’s income has increased since then by over one thousand (1,000) dollars due to promotions and a new marriage. Denise has attempted to modify the child support order, which was temporarily granted, but David moved for a deviation and the motion was granted and the support order was modified by $75. In December of 2015, Denise filed a Motion to Compel discovery, after David repeatedly failed to respond. Denise Withdrew the motion due to David’s absence from the country, even though his deployment was well after the original discovery response was due. In October 2016, Denise filed a motion for a final hearing. David was unable to attend due to a deployment and the hearing resulted in the court entering final orders on the child support modification in Denise’s favor. David’s lawyer Motioned to Vacate those orders. LAW/LEGAL AUTHORITY: Section 2 of Title 47 of the Liliput Code for the Armed Forces (L.C.A.F.) provides, in part, the following:If a member of the Liliput Armed Forces is a party to a civil action, the court shall, upon application by the service person, stay the action for a period of no less than 120 days. An application for a stay shall include the following:i.) A notarized statement by the service person describing the manner in which the service person’s required military duty affects that person’s ability to appear and stating a date when the service person will be available to appear; andii.) A statement or other communication from the service person’s commanding officer stating with specificity that the person’s military duty prevents appearance and that leave is not authorized for the time appearance is required. In a similar case involving Reid Walters, and his ex-wife, Captain Jennifer Walters-Damon, the trial court adjourned proceedings for six months due to Jennifer’s required participation in training a Special Forces unit. Reid Walters appealed the stay, arguing that the requested income verification could have been provided through affidavits, pay records, and other financial documents; that those documents could have been made available to Jennifer’s attorney; and that Jennifer’s obligations, therefore, did not preclude her ability to actively participate in the proceedings. Liliput Supreme Court held that: 1) Until the court has rendered final judgment, a stay shall be granted in family matters involving members of the Armed Forces unless the member’s ability to participate in their defense will not be significantly impaired by the person’s military obligations; 2) the trial court shall have sole discretion in determining whether such impairment exists in any matter at bar. [Walters v. Walters-Damon, 9 L.P.T. 2d 456 (2009)] LEGAL ANALYSIS: Section 2 of Title 47 of the Liliput Code for the Armed Forces (L.C.A.F.) can broken down into these elements: 1. A member of the Liliput Armed Forces 2. A party to a civil action 3. An application for stay shall include i. A notarized statement by the service person describing the manner in which the service person’s required military duty affects that person’s ability to appear and stating a date when the service person will be available to appear; and ii. A statement or other communication from the service person’s commanding officer stating with specificity that the person’s military duty prevents appearance and that leave is not authorized for the time appearance is required. David Morgan is filing a motion to vacate the child support modification due to the fact he was deployed and could not attend the hearing. However, the main problem with David’s argument are as follows:According to Section 2 of the Title 47 of the Liliput Code for Armed forces, David would have needed to apply for the court to stay the action for 120 days.
David did not do so. Nor did he provide a notarized statement explaining why he was unable to appear. Nor a statement from his command officer that his leave is not authorized for the time of appearance. According to the ruling in Walters v Walters-Damon, 9 L.P.T 2d 456 (2009), Income verification and other financial documents could have been provided through affidavits and made available, therefore, did not preclude David from his ability to actively participate in the proceedings. Denise will argue that she has been asking for a modification of child support since 2015, giving sufficient time for David to turn in the proper paper work. She can argue that his repeated refusal to respond to her discovery requests were due to the pay increase and his knowledge of how that would increase his child support payments, as was granted in the temporary orders. Denise’s strength in her argument is that she did withdraw motions several times to accommodate David’s active duty lifestyle and that she allowed these proceedings to go on for two (2) years. In that time David made no effort to take any action on this case. CONCLUSION:Denise has the stronger argument based on the requirements set in place by the Liliput Code for the Armed Forces and the previous case, Walters v. Walters-Damon. David’s only argument is that he wasn’t physically there for the final case. However, he had sufficient time to respond previously. In addition, he could have turned in financial documents without physically appearing. RECCOMONDATIONS:Some further investigation is needed. All financial documents will need to be obtained from David and his wife. Proof of his deployment will also need to be
obtained.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Returning to the judicial world of the Bronx Family Court as a judge, after years of working in administration, Judge Richard Ross is astonished to find a distinctly more disjointed situation than the one he left. As he attempts to live out his life as “both the fact finder and arbiter of the law” it is clear the current judicial system does not serve him well (xv). Judge Ross conveys to the reader the fundamental issues of the Family Court system through his day to day happenings which range from endless caseloads to death threats. The use of personal experience is effective in adding credibility to more clearly convey his point that not only the Judges, but the case workers, 18-B attorneys, and various legal aides are overworked to a point
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
...Streeter 275. Courtesy of the Tarlton Law Library, Jamail Center for Legal Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 2013. Web. 3 February 2014.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed this Court’s power to make special findings orders when it reversed a Family Court’s denial to issue such an order in an appropriate case. See Trudy-Ann W. v. Joan W., 2010 NY Slip Op. 03946 (May 4, 2010); see also In re Antowa McD., 50 A.D.3d 507 (1st Dep’t 2008). Additionally, in 2008, the Chief Administrative Judge of the United Court System of New York issued a memorandum that emphasized the appropriateness of the Family Court to make special findings orders in any proceeding that falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. See Memorandum from the Honorable Ann Pfau, Chief Administrative Judge, to Judges and Clerks of the Family Court (October 8, 2008) (“Juveniles may be eligible to apply to federal immigration authorities for SIJS where, in any category of court proceeding, a State court has determined that they are abused, neglected or abandoned, that “family reunification is not an option,’ and that it would be contrary to their best interests to return to their home country.”
Madison County DHR’s testimony revealed that this case opened in February 2008; the custodial parent (CP), Tekisha Triplett, requested paternity and the establishment of an order for child support. At the time, the non-custodial parent (NCP), Nelson Pierce, resided in the State of Missouri. In December 2009, on the behalf of Alabama the State of Missouri issued a child support order.
Facts of the case: A California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to "be addicted to the use of narcotics." Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law, which required a sentence of at least ninety days in jail. After a police officer, who had noticed that Robinson's arms were scabbed, discolored, and filled with needle marks. The officer arrested Robinson, who was sent to the Los Angeles central jail. He was examined by a narcotics division of the police department and proven to have and injection of unsterilized hypodermic needles in his arm.
To begin, we must examine the “best interest of the child” doctrine. Is this doctrine helping or hindering the child custody evaluation process? One important point made by John Mercer (2009) is that this term is not clearly defined and may in fact have different meanings for different children. This points to the idea that child custody evaluations are a very case/individual specific type of evaluation.
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
Stanley v. Illinois has been applied to an incarcerated woman’s right to raise her own child the same as Stanley did. Although the case occurred years ago, it still applies to all people having the right to raise their children. This however seems contradictory because it is protecting the incarcerated woman’s rights more so than it is protecting the rights of the father who is not incarcerated.
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.