The issue of who will have physical custody of the children in RI divorce proceedings has just gotten a lot more complex as a result of more and more women having to work longer hours to support their children alone.
In a tragic turn-around, single mothers who have to work longer hours to support their children, are now being faced with the prospect of losing custody of their children due to the fact that they need to be absent from the home for extended periods of time in order to earn enough money to meet the needs of their family.
In the past, this issue seemed to be reserved solely for fathers who were generally out of the home working for a good portion of the day. This new adjustment in the criteria places the children at most risk.
Sadly, the statement being made here is that neither parent will be in a position to care for their children unless they are able to live together and work together to support them. Making a living as a solo parent and provider takes more and more hours in order to provide even a moderate standard of living.
In multi-child households, the task becomes almost impossible, and if the custodial parent is working for a minimal hourly wage, chances are good that they will need to be absent from the home for longer than the courts in the State of RI will consider acceptable for physical custody consideration.
If you are a single parent in RI, or are in the process of a divorce proceeding or custody issue in RI, contact an experience Family Law Attorney immediately for assistance and consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Child Visitation Via Skype in NY Family Court Decision
A Long Island NY mother wins the right to move to Florida as long as the father is allowed visitation with the children via Skype. RI Family Court Visitation and Divorce Attorney Rui P. Alves posts the full article below.
Judge Orders Skype Visits as Condition of Mom’s Move
By Molly McDonough
Aug 12, 2010
A New York judge has ordered that a Long Island mother make her two children available to talk to their father via Skype, an online video conferencing service, as a condition of her move to Florida.
This is the first time such a condition has been made on a case in New York, theNew York Law Journal reports. But last year, the New York Times reported that a number of states have begun allowing for "virtual visitation," giving judges the option to keep non-custodial parents in contact with their children via e-mail, instant messaging and Web cams.
In the New York case, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo, inBaker v. Baker, ordered that the mother, at her own expense, "will see to it, prior to re-location, that the Respondent, as well as the children, are provided the appropriate internet access via a Skype device which allows a real time broadcast of communications between the Respondent and his children."
The couple has been divorced since 2008 and the mother, who is unemployed, is planning to move to Florida where she can live with her parents and find work.
In granting the mother's request over the father's objections to his children moving, Garguilo noted that common sense makes clear that a move aimed at finding a better way to support the family is necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Judge Orders Skype Visits as Condition of Mom’s Move
By Molly McDonough
Aug 12, 2010
A New York judge has ordered that a Long Island mother make her two children available to talk to their father via Skype, an online video conferencing service, as a condition of her move to Florida.
This is the first time such a condition has been made on a case in New York, theNew York Law Journal reports. But last year, the New York Times reported that a number of states have begun allowing for "virtual visitation," giving judges the option to keep non-custodial parents in contact with their children via e-mail, instant messaging and Web cams.
In the New York case, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo, inBaker v. Baker, ordered that the mother, at her own expense, "will see to it, prior to re-location, that the Respondent, as well as the children, are provided the appropriate internet access via a Skype device which allows a real time broadcast of communications between the Respondent and his children."
The couple has been divorced since 2008 and the mother, who is unemployed, is planning to move to Florida where she can live with her parents and find work.
In granting the mother's request over the father's objections to his children moving, Garguilo noted that common sense makes clear that a move aimed at finding a better way to support the family is necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
RI Immigration Laws to Follow Arizona Lead
RI Immigration Attorney Rui Alves reports the following article concerning a proposed change to the RI Immigration laws that would mimic the current Arizona Immigration laws. The AZ laws have been ruled against by a Federal Court after a lawsuit was filed by the Presidential administration. The full article concerning these landmark and precedent setting decisions in Immigration law follows below.
Nearly Half of United States Considering Arizona-Style Immigration Legislation
August 19, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – Twenty-two states are now in the process of drafting or seeking to pass legislation similar to Arizona’s law against illegal immigration. This is occurring despite the fact that the Obama administration has filed a lawsuit against the Arizona law and a federal judge has ruled against portions of that law – a ruling that is now being appealed.
Next month, two Rhode Island state lawmakers, a Democrat and a Republican, will travel to Arizona to speak with Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, local sheriffs, and other officials about how to better craft their own bipartisan immigration bill for Rhode Island, which already has been enforcing some federal immigration laws.
Meanwhile, 11 Republican state lawmakers from Colorado traveled to Arizona this week to meet with officials there on how to craft legislation for the Mile High state.
In addition, Alabama House Republicans announced this week that they would seek to “push an illegal immigration bill similar to the recently approved Arizona law.” This law would “create a new criminal trespass statute that allows local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants for simply setting foot in Alabama,” said Alabama’s House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard.
In Florida, proposed legislation against illegal immigration has been retooled to address some concerns raised by a federal judge who blocked the bill, though it would still allow Florida state police to enforce immigration law.
In all, there are 22 states considering copycat legislation from the Arizona law against illegal immigration, according to the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), a group that advocates for stricter immigration enforcement.
The law prohibits racial profiling and gives state residents the right to sue local agencies for not complying with the state law.
In the lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Obama administration said the United States should not have a “patchwork” of 50 different immigration laws. In late July, U.S. District Judge Susna Bolton ruled against most of the major elements of the Arizona law, halting their implementation. That ruling is now in the appeals process.
“We do not expand on federal law,” Florida state Rep. William Snyder, sponsor of the bill in his state, told CNSNews.com. “We do not change penalties. The goal is not to create a new immigration framework at the state level.”
Snyder, the chairman of the Florida House Criminal Justice Committee, said his staff attorneys have taken the decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton into consideration in re-crafting their bill for the next state legislative session.
Snyder said the office of state Attorney General Bill McCollum has reviewed the legislation, as has committee attorneys, and they believe it will withstand a potential legal challenge from the Obama administration.
McCollum, a GOP candidate for governor, supports the legislation. However, Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican-turned-Independent candidate for U.S. Senate, opposes the proposal.
In Rhode Island, a bill that was introduced late in the session last year, and thus never reached a vote, is expected to be reintroduced in the 2011 session. Its two lead co-sponsors hope to have a bipartisan bill that will withstand a legal challenge after they meet with Arizona officials.
“It exactly mirrors the Arizona law,” Rhode Island state Rep. Peter Palumbo, a Democrat, told CNSNews.com. “We will tweak the bill.”
Palumbo will be going to Arizona with Rhode Island state Rep. Joseph Trillo, a Republican.
Their legislation would essentially codify an existing executive order signed in 2008 by Gov. Donald Carcieri, a Republican, mandating immigration checks on all new state workers and ordering state police to assist federal immigration officials.
This is Carcieri’s final year in office, so Palumbo said it is important to put the force of law behind what has already been Rhode Island policy. State troopers report illegal immigrants they encounter for speeding and other offenses to the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Because of the executive order, corruption was discovered in the Department of Motor Vehicles, with drivers licenses being sold to illegal aliens, Palumbo said.
In New Jersey, state Rep. Allison Little McHose, a Republican, introduced a series of proposals that focused primarily on requiring employers to verify the legality of workers, and preventing state benefits from going to illegal aliens.
“New Jersey continues to be a sanctuary state for illegals because they know they can come to the state and receive many free benefits, like medical care,” McHose said in a statement. “The benefits may be free for those receiving them, but not the rest of the public because these costs are borne by the taxpayers.”
Other states with proposals that mirror the Arizona law are Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
“We are very pleased to announce 22 states are now following Arizona’s lead to pass versions of a law that has the support of 60 percent to 81 percent of Americans according to polls,” said ALIPAC President William Gheen in a statement. “State and federal candidates are rushing to display their support for Arizona’s law and immigration enforcement. We will not stop until all American states are protected from this invasion as mandated by the Constitution of the United States.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Nearly Half of United States Considering Arizona-Style Immigration Legislation
August 19, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – Twenty-two states are now in the process of drafting or seeking to pass legislation similar to Arizona’s law against illegal immigration. This is occurring despite the fact that the Obama administration has filed a lawsuit against the Arizona law and a federal judge has ruled against portions of that law – a ruling that is now being appealed.
Next month, two Rhode Island state lawmakers, a Democrat and a Republican, will travel to Arizona to speak with Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, local sheriffs, and other officials about how to better craft their own bipartisan immigration bill for Rhode Island, which already has been enforcing some federal immigration laws.
Meanwhile, 11 Republican state lawmakers from Colorado traveled to Arizona this week to meet with officials there on how to craft legislation for the Mile High state.
In addition, Alabama House Republicans announced this week that they would seek to “push an illegal immigration bill similar to the recently approved Arizona law.” This law would “create a new criminal trespass statute that allows local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants for simply setting foot in Alabama,” said Alabama’s House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard.
In Florida, proposed legislation against illegal immigration has been retooled to address some concerns raised by a federal judge who blocked the bill, though it would still allow Florida state police to enforce immigration law.
In all, there are 22 states considering copycat legislation from the Arizona law against illegal immigration, according to the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), a group that advocates for stricter immigration enforcement.
The law prohibits racial profiling and gives state residents the right to sue local agencies for not complying with the state law.
In the lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Obama administration said the United States should not have a “patchwork” of 50 different immigration laws. In late July, U.S. District Judge Susna Bolton ruled against most of the major elements of the Arizona law, halting their implementation. That ruling is now in the appeals process.
“We do not expand on federal law,” Florida state Rep. William Snyder, sponsor of the bill in his state, told CNSNews.com. “We do not change penalties. The goal is not to create a new immigration framework at the state level.”
Snyder, the chairman of the Florida House Criminal Justice Committee, said his staff attorneys have taken the decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton into consideration in re-crafting their bill for the next state legislative session.
Snyder said the office of state Attorney General Bill McCollum has reviewed the legislation, as has committee attorneys, and they believe it will withstand a potential legal challenge from the Obama administration.
McCollum, a GOP candidate for governor, supports the legislation. However, Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican-turned-Independent candidate for U.S. Senate, opposes the proposal.
In Rhode Island, a bill that was introduced late in the session last year, and thus never reached a vote, is expected to be reintroduced in the 2011 session. Its two lead co-sponsors hope to have a bipartisan bill that will withstand a legal challenge after they meet with Arizona officials.
“It exactly mirrors the Arizona law,” Rhode Island state Rep. Peter Palumbo, a Democrat, told CNSNews.com. “We will tweak the bill.”
Palumbo will be going to Arizona with Rhode Island state Rep. Joseph Trillo, a Republican.
Their legislation would essentially codify an existing executive order signed in 2008 by Gov. Donald Carcieri, a Republican, mandating immigration checks on all new state workers and ordering state police to assist federal immigration officials.
This is Carcieri’s final year in office, so Palumbo said it is important to put the force of law behind what has already been Rhode Island policy. State troopers report illegal immigrants they encounter for speeding and other offenses to the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Because of the executive order, corruption was discovered in the Department of Motor Vehicles, with drivers licenses being sold to illegal aliens, Palumbo said.
In New Jersey, state Rep. Allison Little McHose, a Republican, introduced a series of proposals that focused primarily on requiring employers to verify the legality of workers, and preventing state benefits from going to illegal aliens.
“New Jersey continues to be a sanctuary state for illegals because they know they can come to the state and receive many free benefits, like medical care,” McHose said in a statement. “The benefits may be free for those receiving them, but not the rest of the public because these costs are borne by the taxpayers.”
Other states with proposals that mirror the Arizona law are Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
“We are very pleased to announce 22 states are now following Arizona’s lead to pass versions of a law that has the support of 60 percent to 81 percent of Americans according to polls,” said ALIPAC President William Gheen in a statement. “State and federal candidates are rushing to display their support for Arizona’s law and immigration enforcement. We will not stop until all American states are protected from this invasion as mandated by the Constitution of the United States.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
RI Family Court Chief Judge Position Narrowed to 5 Finalists
RI Family Court Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves offers the following article concerning the appointment of the Chief Judge for the Rhode Island Family Court taken from the Providence Journal website and posted here in its entirety.
5 finalists selected for chief judge of R.I. Family Court
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
By Katie Mulvaney
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — The Judicial Nominating Committee Tuesday night picked five Family Court judges as finalists to take the top seat at the court that handles divorce, child custody and some of the state’s most heart-rending cases.
The names the commission will send to Governor Carcieri as possible nominees to replace former Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. include Judges Kathleen A. Voccola, Michael B. Forte, Laureen D’Ambra, Haiganush R. Bedrosian and Stephen J. Capineri. John E. McCann, who joined the bench in October, was the only contender not to make the list.
All eight commission members present voted in favor of naming Capineri and Forte as finalists. D’Ambra and Voccola each won seven votes. Commission member D. Faye Sanders opted not to support D’Ambra, while C. June Tow did not back Voccola.
Bedrosian, who has served as acting chief of the court since Jeremiah’s retirement June 30, won six votes. She failed to gain support from Sanders and fellow commissioner Norman L. Landroche Jr. Sanders cast the single vote for McCann.
Commissioners Mirlen A. Martinez Mal and Jeffrey M. Grybowski voted, although they did not attend the commission’s interviews of the candidates last week. Sanders also cast votes though she only briefly observed interviews.
There is no provision in the commission’s rules that prohibits a member from voting without participating in the interviews, Commission Chairman Dr. Herbert J. Brennan said. All the members had read each of the candidates’ applications, he said.
Before voting, the commission heard testimony from colleagues, friends and family of the six candidates as well as critics of the Family Court system.
Retired Family Court Judge Pamela M. Mactaz spoke on Bedrosian’s behalf as a friend and former colleague. Mactaz emphasized the importance of institutional knowledge to hoist the court out of its present “malaise” and lead it into the future. “The next chief justice of this court has to make some difficult choices,” Mactaz said, adding, “This is a woman who can say no.” Bedrosian, 67, of Warwick, joined the court in 1980, with prior private practice and prosecutorial experience.
Providence lawyer Patricia Rocha, daughter of the late Family Court Judge Gilbert T. Rocha, praised Capineri’s sharp mind, integrity and inclination to use education as a tool within the court. Capineri, 56, of East Providence, was named to the Family Court bench in 2001, after serving as a magistrate there for five years.
Voccola won accolades from Brother Brendan Gerrity, the executive director of Ocean Tides, the Narragansett-based school for troubled boys. Voccola, he said, affirms juveniles when juveniles need to be affirmed and treats kids with fair impartiality. With confidence and good humor, Voccola possesses the ability to make tough decisions, he said. Voccola was named to the bench in 1989 after serving as state liquor-control administrator.
Lia Stuhlsatz, a staff lawyer for Rhode Island Legal Services, told of Forte’s unsentimental fairness in applying the law. Forte, she said, gave a former client who had been in and out of jail a chance to prove she was a fit mother, despite her time in prison. His two decades on the bench had imbued him with the confidence and courage to send a child in state custody home, she said. Forte, 58, of Johnston, was appointed to the court in 1987. He served as a state senator in East Bay in the 1980s.
Victoria M. Almeida, president of the Rhode Island Bar Association, said D’Ambra had the experience and vision to bring the court into the modern day. She extolled D’Ambra’s collaborative approach and the administrative ability and strength of character she showed in challenging state practices as the former child advocate.
D’Ambra, 53, of Lincoln, joined the court in 2004, after acting as the child advocate for 15 years.
John E. McCann IV said his father could be stern when needed, but that he had a respectful manner and a voracious appetite for knowledge. “His only bias will be to do what is right,” the younger McCann said. McCann, 60, of Barrington, came to the court in October with 30 years of experience in private practice.
Under Rhode Island law, the governor is required to fill the vacancy within 21 days after the commission sends him the finalists. But his spokeswoman Amy Kempe said Carcieri views the 21-day time frame as merely advisory. The lifetime post carries a $154,707 base salary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
5 finalists selected for chief judge of R.I. Family Court
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
By Katie Mulvaney
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — The Judicial Nominating Committee Tuesday night picked five Family Court judges as finalists to take the top seat at the court that handles divorce, child custody and some of the state’s most heart-rending cases.
The names the commission will send to Governor Carcieri as possible nominees to replace former Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. include Judges Kathleen A. Voccola, Michael B. Forte, Laureen D’Ambra, Haiganush R. Bedrosian and Stephen J. Capineri. John E. McCann, who joined the bench in October, was the only contender not to make the list.
All eight commission members present voted in favor of naming Capineri and Forte as finalists. D’Ambra and Voccola each won seven votes. Commission member D. Faye Sanders opted not to support D’Ambra, while C. June Tow did not back Voccola.
Bedrosian, who has served as acting chief of the court since Jeremiah’s retirement June 30, won six votes. She failed to gain support from Sanders and fellow commissioner Norman L. Landroche Jr. Sanders cast the single vote for McCann.
Commissioners Mirlen A. Martinez Mal and Jeffrey M. Grybowski voted, although they did not attend the commission’s interviews of the candidates last week. Sanders also cast votes though she only briefly observed interviews.
There is no provision in the commission’s rules that prohibits a member from voting without participating in the interviews, Commission Chairman Dr. Herbert J. Brennan said. All the members had read each of the candidates’ applications, he said.
Before voting, the commission heard testimony from colleagues, friends and family of the six candidates as well as critics of the Family Court system.
Retired Family Court Judge Pamela M. Mactaz spoke on Bedrosian’s behalf as a friend and former colleague. Mactaz emphasized the importance of institutional knowledge to hoist the court out of its present “malaise” and lead it into the future. “The next chief justice of this court has to make some difficult choices,” Mactaz said, adding, “This is a woman who can say no.” Bedrosian, 67, of Warwick, joined the court in 1980, with prior private practice and prosecutorial experience.
Providence lawyer Patricia Rocha, daughter of the late Family Court Judge Gilbert T. Rocha, praised Capineri’s sharp mind, integrity and inclination to use education as a tool within the court. Capineri, 56, of East Providence, was named to the Family Court bench in 2001, after serving as a magistrate there for five years.
Voccola won accolades from Brother Brendan Gerrity, the executive director of Ocean Tides, the Narragansett-based school for troubled boys. Voccola, he said, affirms juveniles when juveniles need to be affirmed and treats kids with fair impartiality. With confidence and good humor, Voccola possesses the ability to make tough decisions, he said. Voccola was named to the bench in 1989 after serving as state liquor-control administrator.
Lia Stuhlsatz, a staff lawyer for Rhode Island Legal Services, told of Forte’s unsentimental fairness in applying the law. Forte, she said, gave a former client who had been in and out of jail a chance to prove she was a fit mother, despite her time in prison. His two decades on the bench had imbued him with the confidence and courage to send a child in state custody home, she said. Forte, 58, of Johnston, was appointed to the court in 1987. He served as a state senator in East Bay in the 1980s.
Victoria M. Almeida, president of the Rhode Island Bar Association, said D’Ambra had the experience and vision to bring the court into the modern day. She extolled D’Ambra’s collaborative approach and the administrative ability and strength of character she showed in challenging state practices as the former child advocate.
D’Ambra, 53, of Lincoln, joined the court in 2004, after acting as the child advocate for 15 years.
John E. McCann IV said his father could be stern when needed, but that he had a respectful manner and a voracious appetite for knowledge. “His only bias will be to do what is right,” the younger McCann said. McCann, 60, of Barrington, came to the court in October with 30 years of experience in private practice.
Under Rhode Island law, the governor is required to fill the vacancy within 21 days after the commission sends him the finalists. But his spokeswoman Amy Kempe said Carcieri views the 21-day time frame as merely advisory. The lifetime post carries a $154,707 base salary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)