#family law

[alwaysbewoke]

this year i learned that there's a thing called "permanent alimony" (support paid to the lesser-earning spouse until the death of the payor, the death of the recipient, or the remarriage of the recipient). that alone is reason to NOT get married. nahhhh.

[flipjack]

Jewel Staite for Gloss Boudoir, June 17, 2024

[kellisanth]

[catedemia]

19.11.24 — tuesday

i’m aware most of my study desk looks the same but it is the same subject 😭 family law

— anyways, completed hindu marriage laws and by tomorrow i will complete the rest as well

let’s achieve our goals for today ! 💌

[mysharona1987]

Ok, but Gina Carano’s lawyers literally introducing her lawsuit against Disney in the form of the Star Wars opening scroll is grounds for legal malpractice alone.

[wattsandroot]

[borntolaw]

How To Read Bare Acts

Dissecting Bare Act provisions is something that a lot of people find difficult or face troubles doing it. My suggestion would be to use different coloured highlighters, coloured pencils etc. to highlight all the pointers.

For instance, you can use a different coloured pencil to highlight each ingredient of any specific provision. This not only comes in handy when you're revising a few days before your exams but also in your note making resulting in short and to the point notes. And before referring to any text book, make sure that you thoroughly read the Bare Acts.

[P.S. Pay attention to all punctuation marks and connectors used in any provision.]

[callsmehome]

Family Law (2021 - )

[ghlawstudent]

8.12.2023

Family law. Chapter 4, part 4: Alimony.

🎧 ZEROBASEONE - Good Night

[flipjack]

Relaxing with Jewel Staite

[jewelstaite]

nellysrose Sister sister 💜 📸 @darkosikman

[attorney-anon]

What the Actual Fuck.

(TW: Cussing, homophobia)

So, I am appellate counsel for a case in Bumfuck Nowhere, Texas, and I am spitting mad right now.

The cast:

A: My client. A party to both GD and HBPC.

Awesome: A's trial counsel in GD

Amazing: A's trial counsel in HBPC.

Me: Appellate counsel for A in HBPC.

B: A's good-for-nothing spouse. A party to both GD and HBPC.

Bitch: A's trial counsel in GD and HBPC.

C: the petitioner in HBPC. Not a party to GD.

Cunt: C's trial counsel in GD and HBPC.

Kiddo: A and B's child, who has lived with A and B since birth.

Judge Bigot: The judge for both GD and HBPC.

The case:

Gay Divorce (Cause No. GD). A divorce between A and B.

Homophobic Bullshit Parentage Case (Cause No. HBPC). A parentage action by C, instigated at the insistence of B, with the intent of kicking A out of Kiddo's life.

C's argument is that A and B cannot both be the legal parents of Kiddo (age 12), because A and B are the same sex, and that because C and B are the biological parents of Kiddo, A should have no rights to Kiddo post-divorce. (This is a surprisingly common strategy in same-sex divorces with children in this state, because people are awful).

So a few months ago, Amazing filed (at my direction) a Plea to the Jurisdiction in HBPC alleging that C waited too long to assert parentage of Kiddo (because C did, in fact, wait too long to assert parentage of Kiddo), and therefore C lacks standing to bring the claim. The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to grant C's relief. We have not been able to schedule a hearing on this motion because C's counsel never responds to scheduling emails.

This morning, a temporary orders hearing was held on GD due to some amicus attorney shenanigans. A and B are present with Awesome and Bitch. Inexplicably, C and Cunt also show up to this hearing (🚩). Awesome requests to go on the record. Judge Bigot declines (🚩). At one point during the hearing, Awesome steps out in the hallway to confer with Bitch. A and B remain in the courtroom, as do C and Cunt (🚩). While Awesome and Bitch are in the hallway, Judge Bigot grants C's relief in HBPC (🚩🚩🚩). When Awesome returns to the courtroom and is informed of this fact by a now-panicking A, Awesome attempts to object, and is told to sit down and shut up (🚩) because the legislature, in limiting the time within which C could bring HBPC, clearly didn't mean to deprive children of their God-given right (🚩), to be raised by their traditional, (🚩) normal (🚩) families with one mom and one dad (🚩).

Awesome calls Amazing. Amazing calls me. Amazing is now working on a Motion to Reconsider/Motion for New Trial due to lack of notice, since HBPC was NOT FUCKING SET FOR TODAY (🚩), and because Judge Bigot didn't rule on the PTJ before granting C's relief (🚩). We also suspect ex parte communication, since Cunt and C somehow knew to show up to this hearing where C's input was neither wanted nor needed since C isn't a fucking party to this case (🚩). I am working on getting the notice of appeal and request for findings of fact and conclusions of law out, so that Judge Bigot has to put his reasoning on paper in black and white.

And we'll still probably lose the appeal, because this is Texas.

[erebusvincent]

…

The Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) industry—with its picture catalogues of men and women whose gametes are for sale, its lab-creation of batches of embryos for eugenic sorting, its “gestate-and-release” surrogacy contracts—exists to decouple child-creation from conjugal relation, to segregate gestation from enduring maternal relationship, and to make blood ties irrelevant to legal child custody and identity. The disintegration and fragmentation of persons, parts, and relations—and to subject them all to commercial negotiation—is the entrepreneurial essence and audacity of this technological regime performing a redefinition of human nature. In terms of its biotechnocratic and consumerist framework, the child comes into the world not naturally related to anyone, but only transactionally connected to the persons responsible for summoning him through purchase or technique, or other effort the law may ratify.

When the law permits and coordinates this commerce in persons, it teaches and ensures that the existence of a child is a legal problem for state resolution rather than a preexisting relational truth that obliges state acknowledgment and deference.

Moreover, for the law to discard the truth of the humanly defining relationality of the child to his forebears, in turn deprives law and society of the public premises that make it possible (for instance) to recognize and mourn the pitiable plight of orphans; to know that adoption mitigates a grievous loss; to justly condemn deadbeat dads; and otherwise to recognize a beauty and responsibility of care and support by a father and mother in view of their generative relation to their child. Each of the foregoing concerns is sensible only if the child is, ab initio, in a fixed relation that carries meaning and duties.

But the new legal model on offer proceeds by describing the child instead as a raw datum, ontologically isolated and absolutely individual—without a history and without a certain home—until the happenstance of a managerial adult choice intervenes.

This sort of mechanical-contractual and “gender-neutral” redesign of humanity invites a totalitarian political dynamic. For if the law now refuses to defer and conform uniquely to the authority of the natural family and its filial bonds, and instead redefines marriage and parent (and perhaps even male and female) to assign rigid equivalence in status to persons and relations that are, in fact, profoundly different, then a pristine legal positivism is enacted in which any sphere beyond state construction and command effectively disappears. When the individual is loosed from the natural family and its constraining certainty of relatedness, he (along with his now-contingent relationships) is instead comprehended exclusively within the uncertainties of political solicitude.

Thus, though this family redefinition is carried out under the banner of reproductive and sexual “rights,” instead of accomplishing a limitation on government power it becomes an instrument securing, in principle, the totalism of state jurisdiction. For on this account, parents are deemed provisionally accredited custodians, not naturally vested authorities.

As, on this telling, bodies are mechanisms, with the locus of personal identity present in subjective interiority, the embodied connections of husband and wife, mother and child, father and child are only empirical or mechanical—not meaningful and defining…

[wattsandroot]

Me when i see an Actor i know from one american show on another american show:

Me when i see an actor i know from a Canadian show on another Canadian show:

[borntolaw]

Onto Family Law

Finally got back to my routine and started with revising Hindu Law.

TOPICS COVERED :

Features of Personal Laws

Review of Personal Laws in light of Fundamental Rights

Kinds of Personal Laws

Sources and Background of Hindu Law.

Marriage, Right to Marry, Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, Nuptial Agreements

Introduction of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Applicability of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

[ivygorgon]

👰‍♀️Say NO to Child Marriages in America! Implement Standardized Marriage Age Laws

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS; STATE GOVERNORS & LEGISLATURES

2 so far! Help us get to 5 signers!

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the discrepancies and alarming loopholes in marriage age laws across the states and to advocate for action towards implementing a standardized marriage age of 18 nationwide, with strict provisions that prohibit underage marriage below 16 and set an age of consent not below 16. Additionally, I recommend setting a consent age gap provision that is no more permissive than at least 14 years old and up to five years older, further ensuring the safety and well-being of our youth.

It is alarming to note that four states—California, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma—currently have no official minimum age for marriage but require parental consent or court approval. This inconsistency in laws creates dangerous loopholes that could be exploited by individuals seeking to harm or exploit minors. Allowing underage marriage below the age of 16 poses serious risks, including increased vulnerability to exploitation and abuse.

I urge you to take immediate steps towards implementing a consistent and protective legal framework by advocating for standardized marriage age laws across the nation.

Thank you for considering this urgent matter. I strongly believe that uniform marriage age laws are essential to safeguarding the rights and safety of young individuals and preventing potential harm.

Together, we can say NO to child marriage and child exploitation!

📱 Text SIGN PQDHSX to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409