Monday, February 28, 2011

The Constitution and Minor Children

The Constitution and Children

It may be surprising for many people to learn that, much in the same way that the criminal laws that apply to adults cannot be used against a minor child, the constitutional rights that protect adults, do not apply to children either. We need to ask ourselves if the rights that are inherent in every human being should be negated by the legal system based upon someone's age.

Are children not entitled to the same rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from self-incrimination, right to counsel, and right to remain silent simply based upon their status as being underage? It seems that this might open a debate under age discrimination for many, yet, it is a widely confirmed belief upheld by our own court systems in countless cases, and for many years.

In one California case where the issue of banning violent video game sales to children under 18, the only member of the court with minor children themselves argued that there was a duty expected of the court to protect children from these things. One could safely argue, based upon the very same constitutional law protections that are being withheld from the children of the population, that the decision for whether or not a child should be exposed to certain content rests squarely in the hands of the parents of that child, not the State.

When schools are allowed to interrogate children based upon assumptions, albeit well-meaning though often severely misguided and damaging to the child in the long run, we have to ask ourselves if this is an overstepping of boundaries of any kind. We need to begin to take the responsibility for raising our children away from the government, and that means paying attention to our children, and keeping them safe, unless we want others to do so for us.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

RI Truancy System Needs Monitoring

Rhode Island Truancy

Violators of truancy laws in RI fall under the title, "status offenders," because although their actions may be considered disrespectful, disruptive, or non-conformist, they are also patently non-violent, and non-criminal in nature.

The Rhode Island Family Court Magistrates who have sent over 28 minor children to the state's training facility in the past 5 years however, justify their actions with complaints of disrespectful behavior in their courts.

The fact that these children are being forced to spend one, at times two nights in the state juvenile training school with teenagers who are incarcerated for much more serious, criminal offenses. They are subjected to the same intake treatment as their criminally charged cell mates, of strip searches, blood and urine testing, and wear prison uniforms. The practice has not gone unnoticed by law-makers.

The law in RI states that no child will be held at the Training School for a status offense. The law is being circumvented by holding the children in criminal contempt of court; thereby making their trip to the juvenile facility "legal."

Because very few children have access to an attorney for truancy hearings, and the records are closed to the public, very little information is discovered while the process is taking place.

The full article discussing the provisions of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, as well as RI Public Defender Hardiman's comments can be read HERE


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Custody Dispute Issue of Parental Alienation

Family Law Issues

There isn't a lot of concern outwardly expressed about the behavior of parental alienation, yet it is a very real and accurate description of a pervasive form of child abuse typically displayed by parents going through a divorce or custody battle.

According to Dr. Douglas Darnall, Ph.D. and author of Divorce Casualties: Protecting your Children from Parental Alienation,” the definition of this syndrome as something that occurs almost exclusively during the process of child custody disputes. The syndrome gets its name from the fact that the child who is the subject of the custody matter, is often brainwashed into behaving and speaking out in a disagreeable fashion toward the other parent, without provocation or justification.

In situations where there is obvious justification, neglect or abuse by the parent in question, then parental alienation does not exist and the situation would warrant an abuse investigation instead. However, in many child custody matters, one parent will launch a confusing and controlling campaign aimed at turning the child against the other parent so as to solidify them gaining exclusive or sole custody of the child.

The motive of the instigating parent has both conscious and unconscious roots, and the child may even have motives that are linked to the same instant gratification desires inherent in all children who are left without competent parental guidance. The process has disastrous effects on the child, and can often rope the uninvolved parent into the arena as well in an attempt to counter-act the damage being done by the instigating party.

It is important to remember that parental alienation is a form of child abuse and brainwashing, and without justification of actual child abuse from one party to another that would substantiate the alienation of a child from their biological parent, must be dealt with as soon as the behavior is suspected in the other parent or the minor child. If you suspect someone of parental alienation, make it your priority to discuss the situation with your divorce and custody attorney immediately.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Child Support Reform

Family Law - Child Support Issues

Several states within the United States are in the midst of child support reform debates. The main ideals and criteria on the table have more to do with fairness between the adults, and far less to do with what may be considered 'fair' to the child.

If child support reforms are to have any lasting value, they must always encompass the needs of the child first. In this country where having children is typically not seen as a financial decision, the attitudes of the adults involved, it would seem, is what really needs to undergo radical reform.

On the table for debate are typical waiting periods for increases and decreases in support to take effect; which are governed by statutory laws and slow to change. Arguments for custodial parents who are not given increases when a non-custodial parent earns more money, are as abundant as the counter-point of non-custodial parents who are not given a decrease in support payments during periods of financial hardship or job loss.

At further issue, are concerns resulting from the involvement of the non-custodial parent with step-children, or further biological children, and mandating decreases based upon their extra obligation to the new family member(s). A major caveat in adopting this standpoint, is that the door then opens for further legislation where adults who are already living beyond their financial means or capabilities, are granted leniency for responsibilities owed to past biological offspring.

This outlook would effectively reward those parents who are merely joining with another parent to help offset the cost of raising their children together, whether or not any intimate relationship bond existed. And even in the event of intimate bonds, there needs to be some sort of inner compass at work that determines whether you are able to actually afford more children without neglecting those you already have. This kind of reform would send a rather clear message to biological children of divorce that their needs are not as important as the needs of either the adult, the step-children, or any new biological children. This does not seem to be in the best interest of the child at all.

Divorce, child custody, and child support in this country do need to be re-evaluated, but not from the perspective of the adults involved. Teaching adults to live within their means, learn self-respect and loving behavior and habits, and how to determine whether another child is something they can feasibly afford, needs to be the main focus in child support reform. When taken in combination with the actual monetary needs of the child, ie. how much food costs per week, what portion of the living expenses can be allocated for the child, school, healthcare and activities, etc., this type of reform would benefit everyone involved.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Family Court Judge Shawcross Retires

Aggressive Legal Services would like to wish Judge Shawcross a wonderful retirement and express their thanks for his many years of service as a Family Court Judge.

Judge wraps up career of helping troubled families

By Liz Boardman
January 20, 2011

SOUTH KINGSTOWN - Family Court Judge Raymond Shawcross keeps four stones with him on the bench. Each is etched with a word: Truth, listen, respect, patience.

As he presides over a packed calendar of divorce complaints, juvenile arrests and custody disputes, he will pick up the stone that best fits the attribute he is seeking at any given moment and rub his thumb across the word.

"Patience" is wearing thin.

It doesn't show. For the past 24 years - and in excess of 10,000 divorces - Shawcross, 65, of Narragansett, has presided over some of the worst days of people's lives. On Friday, he took the Family Court bench at the McGrath Judicial Complex in Wakefield for the last time. His retirement officially begins Jan. 31.

"[Family Court] is tough," Shawcross said. "You are dealing with people at one of the worst times of their lives. They are vulnerable, emotional, hurting. I'm sitting up there without a jury, in front of some very good people who are acting badly and need someone to blame. But it can be very rewarding - helping people, helping children."

Shawcross likens his job to being an emergency room doctor.

"We can stop the bleeding, but we can't treat and we can't heal," he said. "I don't have a magic word to solve everybody's problems. But I can ask questions."

And he does ask lots of questions. His way with litigants, sense of humor and pragmatic approach to courtroom management are so popular, lawyers have a name for it: The Shawcross Method.

"He has a patient demeanor and is straight-forward and very, very good with people," said Kerry Rafanelli, an East Greenwich lawyer. "I don't think people leave there feeling worse than when they went in."

"He has a perfect mix of legal knowledge and street sense and smarts," said Joseph Ballirano, a Johnston lawyer. "You absolutely could not bulls--- him either as an advocate or a participant in the Family Court."

The street smarts come from his upbringing, said Matthew Callaghan, a Wakefield lawyer who has known Shawcross since childhood.

"We grew up in the rough-and-ready Elmwood Avenue neighborhood in Providence," Callaghan said. "He dealt with a lot of wise guys and smart-alecks growing up."

While attending Providence College, Shawcross went to work for an inner-city after-school program in Providence.

"I worked on Smith Hill, near the Chad Brown [Housing Complex]," Shawcross said. "It was the first time I'd been acquainted with Family Court."

That was because some of the boys in his charge kept referring to "that old white-haired fool."

"They were talking about Judge [Francis J.] McCabe," Shawcross said, with a grin. "I always wonder if they are saying that about me now."

After graduating from Suffolk University Law School, Shawcross began working for Child Welfare Services, a forerunner to the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, and later for the former state Department of Social Rehabilitative Services.

Those experiences made him uniquely suited for Family Court. After a stint as legal counsel to then-House Majority Leader Joseph DeAngelis and then-House Speaker Matthew Smith, then-Gov. Edward DiPrete appointed him to the Family Court bench in 1986.

From the beginning, he has tried to reach out to the people who appear before him.

"I attempt to make it human, and to listen to people," Shawcross said. "If the [litigants] want to talk, let them. It makes them feel better. That's theraputic justice - if they are allowed to participate, they will feel better about the outcome."

In a court where emotions run high, lawyers said, Shawcross has a gift for calming people and easing fears.

"He will start talking to people," said Russell Bramley, a Warwick lawyer. " 'What do you want out of this? What is your story?' He gives them a chance to emote, and because of that, he can identify how to get issues to resolution."

"He has a keen insight into the issues in a particular case and the unique ability to get the parties, lawyers and clients alike, to recognize the respective strengths and weaknesses of their positions," said Councilwoman Carol Hagan McEntee, also a lawyer

"He uses humor to disarm people - you don't see that often," Bramley said.

R.I. Bar Association President Lise Iwon of Wakefield recalled a time when an inexperienced lawyer appearing before Shawcross asked her client what problems brought about the end of her marriage.

"He's a liar, he's a drunk, he's a thief, he's a drug addict, he won't work, and he has no personal hygiene," the woman said.

"But other than that, was he a good guy?" Shawcross asked.

"He is able to have jovial conversations with people and lead them down the primrose path to confession, just by talking," Iwon said.

During a paternity case, Shawcross asked the man if he knew the woman was alleging he had fathered her child.

"When I was having sex with her, she was having sex with every Tom, Dick and Harry for money for drugs," Iwon recalls the man answering.

Shawcross turned to the woman.

"What do you have to say about that?" he asked.

"I had my own money for drugs," she said.

Shawcross has had a front-row seat as society changed over the last generation.

"Substance abuse has always been a big issue [in breaking up marriages], but gambling addiction has risen in South County because of the casinos in Connecticut," he said.

These days, job loss and foreclosures are putting pressure on relationships. And far more of today's custody issues involve young, unmarried couples.

"And same-sex couples who share children - I didn't see that 24 years ago," Shawcross said.

One of his hardest jobs, he said, is deciding custody issues when one parent is relocating.

"In more and more cases, the mom wants to move with the kids to someplace like Arizona," Shawcross said. "It's not like North Kingstown or North Providence."

The way the courts, and the police, handle domestic violence also has changed dramatically. In 1994, as part of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Shawcross chaired the steering committee that drafted the new model state codes.

"It is all mandatory arrests now," Shawcross said. "Years ago, the police said it was a family matter, or told the man to go take a walk. It is a serious offense now, and studies have been done to show the impact domestic violence has on children."

"He has an extremely good understanding of domestic violence issues," said Iwon, who also sits on the Advisory Council of the Domestic Violence Resource Center of South County. "He knows it takes seven times of physical separation from a spouse before the other spouse leaves for good. He will ask, 'Have you gone to the Domestic Violence Resource Center?' "

His practical demeanor also helps in juvenile cases, lawyers said.

"With some of the Family Court judges, the kids are more street smart than the judges," Iwon said. "Shawcross is hip to their lingo and their tricks."

"He gets to understand the boy and he has a good sense of humor," said Brother Brendan Gerrity, president and executive director of Ocean Tides, a Narragansett-based school for troubled boys. "He makes sure the boys get what they need. There may be times when the kids make another poor choice, but he's not ready to hang them out to dry."

"It is easy to say the kid is always in trouble," said Rafanelli. "But up until 18, the role of Family Court is to rehabilitate, not punish, and Shawcross gives them the presumption of innocence, the idea they can be rehabilitated."

"He has great confidence in his own judgment," Callaghan said. "Some judges - especially with cases involving juveniles or child custody - like to appoint a guardian ad litem [a legal guardian]. He's never been big on that. He puts his hands right on the case and does the work himself. Not everybody can do that, frankly. It is more work for him, but if the decision is going to have his name on it, he is going to do it himself."

"I always thought that if you are going to make a mistake with a juvenile, make a mistake with leniency, rather than harshness," Shawcross said. "Harshness you can't take back. If you put them in the Training School, you are making them better car thieves. Once they are out of Family Court and in the adult courts, we've lost them, and we've failed."

While he helps the litigants, he is also committed to educating lawyers.

He is a frequent lecturer before the Edward P. Gallogly Rhode Island Family Law Inn of Court, a group of family court lawyers who gather nine months a year for continuing education.

"People want Shawcross," Rafanelli said. "He has no qualms stepping out of the box and telling us how to do it better for both lawyer and client."

Some judges bellow at the lawyers before them, riding them or putting on a show, lawyers said.

"Some lawyers never go back to the courtroom after that," Rafanelli said. "Shawcross doesn't do the show. He's the judge, no doubt about it, but he guides young attorneys. A lawyer knows what he's doing because he's practicing before a judge who knows what he's doing. In the end, we are presenters, helping the judge make a good decision."

"I try to be a student of the law and try to help them with what they should be presenting, in a nice way," Shawcross said.

He is one of the least overturned Family Court judges on the bench. A notable exception was the divorce case of Dr. Nagib Giha, which the state Supreme Court overturned in 1991.

"He bought a $1 ticket in the Massachusetts lottery and won $2.2 million," Shawcross said.

After his divorce court appearance, but before the final judgment was filed, Giha claimed the prize. His wife returned to court, looking for a share of the winnings, Shawcross said.

Giha's lawyer argued if Giha had lost that amount of money after the divorce was filed, it would not be claimed as a joint debt. Shawcross agreed.

"The Supreme Court said otherwise," Shawcross said.

Shawcross said he still thinks he was right, but he respects the decision.

"I enjoy the law, and pride myself on knowing what the law is - not what I think it is, or what it should be - but what the Supreme Court says it is," he said.

Next month, Shawcross and his wife, Noreen, who retired in June from her job as executive director of the state Housing Resources Commission, will take two months to vacation in Florida.

"I have been working since I was 15," he said.

In April, he will return to the Kent County Family Court bench part time, as the terms of his pension dictate, but also at the request of Family Court Chief Judge Haiganush R. Bedrosian, he said.

That news made lawyers happy.

"He is a wonderful judge, and we are all going to miss him terribly," Iwon said.

"He has been tremendous," Callaghan said. "If we could clone him, we'd be in great shape."
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com..

Same Sex Marriage and Green Cards

Same Sex Marriage and Green Cards

An omission in the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, serves as an opening to deny same sex couples the right to sponsor their partner for a green card. This omission conveys, in effect, that if you are a US citizen who happens to be in a same sex marriage, you must leave the country to maintain your togetherness with your partner. The omission denies same sex couples the ability to petition for their partner, and therefore subjects them to the risk of being in the country illegally.

The article below proposes not a change to the immigration laws, merely an executive order from the President that directs the executive branch of the government, not the citizens of the country, to rectify the omission by allowing same sex partners to sponsor their spouses for green card and legal immigration status in America.

A portion of the article follows below.

Same-Sex Green Cards: The Case for a Presidential Executive Order 2011

Melanie Nathan
Dec 30, 2010

At the federal level of government in the United States, laws are made almost exclusively by legislation. Legislation originates as an Act of Congress passed by the Congress of the United States; such acts were either signed into law by the President or passed by Congress after a presidential veto.

Legislation is not the only source of regulations which have the force of law. There is also judge-made common law and constitutional law. The President can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters of foreign policy.

When it comes to immigration matters, the standing law is that covered by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of the USA. This law cannot be changed, without the involvement of Congress through an amendment process. However I believe that when it comes to the regulations to effect the intent behind the law or something that unexpectedly and detrimentally impacts the law, the President of the USA can provide an executive order to adjust the circumstances, so impacted.

I do not believe that it was ever the intention of the Defense of Marriage Act to deny the de facto relationships of same-sex couples. I believe President Clinton who signed it into law would attest that it was never his intention to cause American citizens and Residents in same-sex relationships to have to exile the USA to pursue their Constitutional right to happiness. However Americans in the USA, in same sex relationships are denied the possibility to sponsor a partner for a green card.

Accordingly I believe that President Obama has the power to effect an Executive Order on behalf of same-sex couples who are specifically excluded by DOMA, from participating in the US Immigration laws. This quest would specifically denote a right by way of process to an American (citizen or resident) and not a right to an immigrant; the right of the American to Petition for a same-sex partner to reside in the USA, that is currently excluded via laws that simply fail to include the de facto situation, thereby causing extreme hardship to American Families.

I do not believe the Immigration law needs to change for this to happen in the short term; I do not believe that this reflects in any way shape or form on the marriage equality debate. It does not seek to change DOMA and nor does it impact the Immigration Act as we know it, at all.

There have been many early executive orders during all Presidencies; the State Department began numbering executive orders in the early 20th century, starting retroactively from President Abraham Lincoln’s Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana issued in 1862. An executive order is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government, generally to staff of the executive branch and not to the citizens of the country. Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution specifically reserves all federal legislative authority to Congress, not the president.

However here what would occur would be the President ordering the inclusion of same-sex partners under existing law, based on the de facto existence of relationships, the anomaly caused by State law that endorse such relationships, while the Federal government fails to secure the right of the American to remain at home in a relationship of their choice.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Crime of Illegal Immigration

Naturalization is still the best way to immigrate to any country. Following the legal rules and guidelines imposed by a society assures the most successful transition into the daily activities and lifestyles of that society. This is also the safest and most successful way of becoming a United States citizen currently in this country.

The recent immigration debate often overlooks the fact that many of the people being removed from the country are labeled as criminals, when in fact their only crime may be the situation that is getting them removed to begin with; their illegal immigration status.

An article from npr.org regarding the current immigration situation follows below.


Immigration Enforcement Working, Numbers Show

by Ted Robbins

This year promises to be another contentious one for U.S. immigration politics. The new Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has indicated it will take an even harder line against illegal immigration.

But while some politicians paint the Southern border as lawless and out of control, the numbers don't support that, says Doris Meissner, the former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"It really is astonishing that all of the enforcement data show us that the trend is that enforcement is making a difference," says Meissner, who is now with the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

Numbers from the Department of Homeland Security show a drop in apprehensions along the border — from more than 1 million five years ago to less than half a million in the past fiscal year. Fewer people are attempting to cross because there are fewer jobs available.

A Decade-Long Trend


But the trend began a decade ago, long before the recession began.

"This has been something that took hold when we started resourcing the borders — adding the infrastructure that was required, the technology — and that drop has continued," says Deputy Customs and Border Protection Commissioner David Aguilar.

Enforcement away from the border has also picked up. The government removed about 400,000 illegal immigrants from inside the U.S. last year — a small increase.

The biggest shift was a decision made two years ago to go after what the government calls "criminal aliens," or illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in the U.S. They now make up half of all illegal immigrants removed. Interior enforcement resources, though, are still small compared with border enforcement.

And there's still one place left where relatively large numbers of people still cross the border illegally: Arizona.

But even those numbers, says Aguilar, are low compared with what he used to see. There were 219,000 apprehensions last year in Arizona, less than half the number a decade ago. And despite high-profile incidents like the killing of a border patrol agent last month and a southern Arizona rancher last March, the FBI reports that overall violent crime in Southern border states is way down from a few years ago.

Real And Perceived Impacts

But Meissner says concerns and antipathy are "at an absolute high point."

It's not about the numbers, Meissner says. It's about the real and perceived impact immigrants are having on the country.

"And, underneath it all, the kind of cultural issues of how much immigration is changing us: What it means to the identities of communities, how different groups of people are being incorporated," she says.

Arizona State Rep. John Kavanagh is targeting illegal immigrants who have children in the U.S. He wants to change the way the Constitution grants those children citizenship.

"We believe that the current policy of giving citizenship based on your GPS presence in the U.S. at birth is a bad interpretation of the 14th Amendment," he says.

Kavanagh and legislators from 13 other states will announce a plan Wednesday they hope will result in the Supreme Court's reviewing the way birthright citizenship is applied.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.