What can I legally do if my child’s mother picks up our child in an Uber without a car seat? She is 5 years old, about 50 lbs. She is also the custodial parent with full custody rights, so she feels she can do anything she wants. Can I call the cops?
I’m old enough to remember when it was not illegal to wear a seatbelt. I’m old enough to remember when it was not illegal to permit a child to ride in a car without a seatbelt. I remember when there were no laws that children under a certain weight or height must ride in car seats when riding in cars. Most jurisdictions now have laws that require children of a certain age, weight, or height be strapped into a car seat when riding in a car.
So, the first thing you will need to do is find out whether it is illegal for your ex-wife to have your five-year-old, 50 pound child ride in a car without a car seat. You’ve mentioned that your ex-wife will often have your child picked up by Uber (a ridesharing service), and so you will want to ensure that even if there are laws that require a child to ride in a car seat when writing in a car, there are no exceptions for ridesharing services, taxicabs, buses, etc.
If, after conducting your research, you learn that it is illegal for your ex-wife to have your child ride in a car or when using a ridesharing service without having the child strapped into a car seat, then you would be well within your rights to report this to the police. just because you could do this, however, does not mean that you should, at least without first notifying your ex-wife that what she is doing is illegal and places your child in danger, and that if she refuses to comply with the law you will then report her to the police and perhaps even take the matter up with the court to get an order that requires her to secure the child in a car seat when traveling by car under circumstances when the law requires a car seat be utilized.
What percentage of people lie while under oath in a courtroom, and how often does someone get prosecuted for perjury?
Re: What percentage of people lie under oath in a courtroom:
If anyone knows this, I don’t know who he/she/they is/are.
If such statistics could accurately be obtained, I don’t know how they could be.
As with so many things, what constitutes “a lie” is not as cut and dried as it may seem, even to intellectual people.
If accurate statistics do exist, I’m sure most in the legal system don’t want anyone to know about them because I’d bet that if such statistics exist they are not flattering to the legal system.
I’m not sure how much we can blame the courts for “failing” to catch lies, however, given that no one is infallible and nobody is capable of detecting lies more than roughly 50% of the time*
Re: How often someone who committed perjury is prosecuted for perjury:
If I can’t find an attorney, can it honestly be said I got a fair trial?
If a person seeks legal representation in a court, and every attorney they tries to hire refuses to represent them, can he receive a “fair trial”?
That depends upon how you define a “fair trial”. Some people mistakenly believe that in the United States every litigant is guaranteed representation by an attorney in any lawsuit. This is not true. Defendants in criminal cases that involve the risk of substantial jail time are entitled to appointment of counsel, free of charge to the defendant, if the defendant so desires.
In some jurisdictions, a parent is entitled to appointed counsel if the state petitions to terminate that parents parental rights.
There is no right to appointed counsel in civil cases. so there is no right to appointed counsel in divorce actions or personal injury actions or other cases that do not involve serious, jailable criminal charges. So, if you were to claim you could not find any lawyer to represent me and to help me in my civil suit, you could not claim that your rights were somehow violated. It could thus be said that you received a fair trial, even if you were unable to find a lawyer to represent you at trial.
But if the case was a complex one, and one where a knowledge of the laws and/or regulations, as well as the procedural rules of court, makes the difference between winning or losing, having no attorney to represent you, that isn’t a fair fight. unfair, but not illegal. You have no legal recourse in those circumstances.
I have met people who have claimed that they cannot find an attorney to represent them in a particular civil action. More often than not, the reasons why are fairly clear: the person seeking representation can’t afford to pay the attorney and/or the person does not have a winning legal argument (either because that person is clearly in the wrong or because that person doesn’t have enough evidence to win or to win in the manner that person desires).
Can a parent legally keep the other parent from the children? Can a parent (married or unmarried) legally keep the other parent from the children without having gone to court? Yes. It can be done under certain circumstances. In the absence of a court order to the contrary, it is not illegal for one parent to keep the children from the other parent. I know that sounds weird, but it is true. This means that—whether the parents are married or not—if:
(Example 1) Dad, say, picks up the kids from school and then takes them to his house and does not let Mom see them or pick them up to spend time with her (whether at her house or just out and about), Dad is not doing anything illegal. Even if no one accuses Mom of being a danger to the children, she cannot force Dad to let her see or spend time with the children and if she calls the police for help there is nothing they can do because what Dad is doing is not illegal.
(Example 2) Mom and Dad break up and Mom moves out with the baby, and Dad calls the police asking them to help him see or spend time with the baby, the police can do nothing because what Mom is doing is not illegal. As with many things one can do, just because parents can keep their children from the other parent does not mean parent should do such a thing. Keeping children from their other parent, when the parent is not a danger to the children, is absolutely wrong. Now if there is a decree of divorce or other valid court order that awards shared custody and/or parent-time to a parent and the other parent withholds the children from that parent in violation of that court order, that can be both prosecuted criminally and penalized civilly as contempt of court.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
No, not yet. Why do I state “not yet”? Because now that the right of marriage has been extended to same-sex couples, it’s easy to imagine a logical and legally valid argument for plural marriage. I even think I might live long enough to see it happen (and I’m 51 years old as of the date I write this). I don’t like the idea of plural marriage myself, but only fools and the disingenuous would claim that there’s no argument for it. It’s practiced all over the world today and has been practiced by humans going back thousands of years.
Inability to care for a child is not the same as abandoning a child. If a parent (father or mother) were to “refuse custody” of his/her child, that would be abandonment of the child. Neglecting a child is obviously morally wrong. Extremely wrong. Hellishly wrong. It is also (not surprisingly) illegal.
If a pregnant woman were to abort her pregnancy, she would prevent the custody question from arising in the first place. This is also obviously morally wrong. Extremely wrong. Hellishly wrong. It is also legal. So it’s legal to kill a baby in the womb, illegal to abandon a helpless living child—with one major exception for newborn babies (see below).
An alternative to abandonment of a newborn baby is to leave the baby on the proverbial steps of the church or hospital. Some states, in response to tragic cases of live unwanted babies being tossed in trash cans and worse, have passed laws that allow the parents of an unwanted child to “safely relinquish a newborn child at a hospital . . . and retain complete anonymity, so long as the child has not been subject to abuse or neglect.” Here is an example of such a law from Utah, where I practice divorce and family law::
(1) (a) A parent or a parent’s designee may safely relinquish a newborn child at a hospital in accordance with the provisions of this part and retain complete anonymity, so long as the child has not been subject to abuse or neglect.
(b) Safe relinquishment of a newborn child who has not otherwise been subject to abuse or neglect shall not, in and of itself, constitute neglect as defined in Section 78A-6-105, and the child shall not be considered a neglected child, as defined in Section 78A-6-105, so long as the relinquishment is carried out in substantial compliance with the provisions of this part.
(2) (a) Personnel employed by a hospital shall accept a newborn child that is relinquished pursuant to the provisions of this part, and may presume that the person relinquishing is the child’s parent or the parent’s designee.
(b) The person receiving the newborn child may request information regarding the parent and newborn child’s medical histories, and identifying information regarding the nonrelinquishing parent of the child.
(c) The division shall provide hospitals with medical history forms and stamped envelopes addressed to the division that a hospital may provide to a person relinquishing a child pursuant to the provisions of this part.
(d) Personnel employed by a hospital shall:
(i) provide any necessary medical care to the child and notify the division as soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after receipt of the child; and
(ii) prepare a birth certificate or foundling birth certificate if parentage is unknown and file with the Office of Vital Records and Statistics.
(e) A hospital and personnel employed by a hospital are immune from any civil or criminal liability arising from accepting a newborn child if the personnel employed by the hospital substantially comply with the provisions of this part and medical treatment is administered according to standard medical practice.
(3) The division shall assume care and custody of the child immediately upon notice from the hospital.
(4) So long as the division determines there is no abuse or neglect of the newborn child, neither the newborn child nor the child’s parents are subject to:
(5) Unless identifying information relating to the nonrelinquishing parent of the newborn child has been provided:
(a) the division shall work with local law enforcement and the Bureau of Criminal Identification within the Department of Public Safety in an effort to ensure that the newborn child has not been identified as a missing child;
(b) the division shall immediately place or contract for placement of the newborn child in a potential adoptive home and, within 10 days after receipt of the child, file a petition for termination of parental rights in accordance with Title 78A, Chapter 6, Part 5, Termination of Parental Rights Act;
(c) the division shall direct the Office of Vital Records and Statistics to conduct a search for a birth certificate for the child and an Initiation of Proceedings to Establish Paternity Registry for unmarried biological fathers maintained by the Office of Vital Records and Statistics within the Department of Health and provide notice to each potential father identified on the registry. Notice of termination of parental rights proceedings shall be provided in the same manner as is utilized for any other termination proceeding in which the identity of the child’s parents is unknown;
(d) if no person has affirmatively identified himself or herself within two weeks after notice is complete and established paternity by scientific testing within as expeditious a time frame as practicable, a hearing on the petition for termination of parental rights shall be scheduled; and
(e) if a nonrelinquishing parent is not identified, relinquishment of a newborn child pursuant to the provisions of this part shall be considered grounds for termination of parental rights of both the relinquishing and nonrelinquishing parents under Section 78A-6-507.
(6) If at any time prior to the adoption, a court finds it is in the best interest of the child, the court shall deny the petition for termination of parental rights.
(7) The division shall provide for, or contract with a licensed child-placing agency to provide for expeditious adoption of the newborn child.
(8) So long as the person relinquishing a newborn child is the child’s parent or designee, and there is no abuse or neglect, safe relinquishment of a newborn child in substantial compliance with the provisions of this part is an affirmative defense to any potential criminal liability for abandonment or neglect relating to that relinquishment.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Can I protect marital assets from my spouse by “temporarily gifting” assets to somebody else until after the divorce is final?
Can you? Like is it doable? Sure, you can do it. And many divorcing people do this very thing successfully (meaning they get away with it).
But is it legal? No.
Translated, your question really means: “Can I hide or hog marital assets from my spouse by falsely claiming to have “gifted” the assets to someone without ever intending to give the assets away but in fact intending to get them back after falsely claiming to have gifted them away?”
As you might imagine, this has been tried before. Courts and legislatures have noticed this kind of thing is tried all the time, which is why it’s illegal.
There’s even a term for it: fraudulent transfer. A fraudulent transfer in divorce occurs when one spouse someone knowingly transfers ownership of marital property in an attempt to deprive the other spouse of his/her portion of the ownership or value of the marital property.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Part 1: can you legally record phone calls (or an in-person conversation)?
ANSWER: It depends on the jurisdiction. Some states won’t allow you to record a conversation (whether on the phone or in person) without you obtain the consent of the other party or parties to the conversation.
But other states are “single-party consent” jurisdictions, meaning (usually) that they allow you to record a phone call or conversation, 1) as long as you are a party to the conversation (you are a party to the conversation, so you can give consent without having to get the consent of any other party or parties to the conversation); and 2) you’re not recording for the purpose of committing a tort or a crime . Otherwise stated, you cannot secretly record a conversation between other people if you are not a party to the conversation yourself.
For example, in Utah, where I practice law, this is the law (Don’t let the “not acting under color of law” language worry you; “not acting under color of law” simply means, in this context, essentially acting under government authority)
(7)(b) A person not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws.
So what if you live in a single party consent state, but you are calling someone who lives in a state where that person’s consent must be given before you can record a phone call? I don’t know. But if you’re living in a state that is a single-party state placing a phone call to or receiving a phone call from someone in the same state or in a state where it too is a single-party consent state, you’re probably in the clear. Make sure you get competent legal advice before you start recording phone calls.
Part 2: What kind of evidence is admissible?
ANSWER: Lawfully obtained evidence, whether a recorded phone call or live conversation, is admissible in court, as long as it’s material and relevant to the issues to be decided, as well as competent. Evidence is material if it has some logical connection with the facts of the case or the legal issues presented (Black’s law dictionary 11th ed. 2019). Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Evidence is “competent” if it complies with certain traditional notions of reliability.
So, for example, if you are being sued in small claims court by someone who contends you owe him $1,000 for painting your house and you have recorded telephone calls in which he calls you a liar and a cheat and a bunch of vulgar names, that recorded phone call is probably not material or relevant to the issue of whether you owe the plaintiff any money. On the other hand, if you go into court claiming that you never agreed to pay the guy $1,000 to paint your house, and he has recordings of phone calls between you and him in which you state something like, “I know you painted my house, I know I agreed to pay you $1000, but you don’t have anything in writing and it’s your word against mine, and no one will believe you, Ahhhahhhah!,” then the recordings would be highly material and relevant to the case.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
No matter what you’re told, marijuana use is STILL ILLEGAL in this state. Illegal use of street drugs, including but not limited to marijuana, can and surely will be used against you in a child custody dispute.
And you can’t magically make current (i.e., illegal) use of marijuana legal once medical marijuana use becomes legal in July of 2019. If you use of marijuana now, IT’S ILLEGAL NOW.
If you are a parent and you’re going through a child custody battle, DON’T SMOKE OR OTHERWISE CONSUME WEED!
It does not matter if you ate a marijuana cookie in Colorado or sucked on a marijuana lollipop in Las Vegas. If you have marijuana in your system in Utah, you’re breaking the law.
It does not matter:
if you claim that you need weed to ease the pain of cancer or any other physical affliction;
if you claim that you need weed to manage your mental illness; or
if you claim you that can’t afford prescription medication.
It does not matter what excuses you try to get the court to swallow; illegal use of street drugs, including but not limited to marijuana, can and surely will be used against you in a child custody dispute.
Don’t believe me? Disagree with me? IT DOESN’T MATTER!
MARIJUANA IS ILLEGAL IN UTAH, STILL.
Recreational use of marijuana will still be illegal even after the medical marijuana use exceptions become law.
The solution?
DON’T USE WEED ILLEGALLY! Duh! Don’t let weed come between you and your children. I can’t believe how much I have to fight over this with parents who use weed. It’s not, not nuanced, not up for debate. Use weed and you will be hurt in child custody matters, period.
(And to those naive souls among you who believe that once you have that medical marijuana card you’ll be in the clear, remember you heard it here first (you have been warned): it’s going to take a while before most judges and commissioners in this state will believe that smoking dope, legally or not, doesn’t make you a lousy parent. If you think that having that medical marijuana card means marijuana can’t become an issue in your child custody battle, THINK AGAIN. Be careful with marijuana and child custody).
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277