Managing a family schedule from two households can be quite a chore. Online parenting software may be the answer for some separated or divorced parents to communicate and co-manage their children’s schedules. The services, which are either internet based or downloadable, offer a wide range of options for parents to choose from. The most complex have photo sharing, family journals, time-tracking, expense logs and more. These are generally fee based services. Others are simply online calendars geared towards family planning and scheduling but may not meet the needs of parents who have a difficult time communicating with each other.

 

Our Family Wizard: This particular service is geared towards separated, divorced and living apart parents. All information saved to the site is backed-up and secure. This is a service that would be useful to parents who find that their challenge is communicating with one another.

 

o   Features:

The parent account allows access to:

Private and Shared Family Calendar

Message Board

Notifications and Reminder

Journal

Information Bank

Important Documents

Expense Log

Family Resource Section

E-Coupons

The child account allows each child their own account with access to:

Shared Family Calendar

Message Board

Create and View Journal Entries

Receive Notifications and Reminders

 

o   Price:

      $55.00 for six months (approx. $9.17/month)

      $99.00 for one year (approx. $8.25/month)

                              $179.00 for two years (approx $7.46/month)

 

ParentingTime.net: This is the home of OPTIMAL which is the Online Parenting Time Information Manager and Access Log. OPTIMAL is a one year subscription based service which is geared for custody arrangements. Its central focus is on the “Tracker” module which records and tracks parenting.

 

o   Features:

Custody calendar

Child Support Tracker

Private Message Center

Graphs & Statistics

Print & Export

Tasks & Notes

Time Tracker

Private Journal

‘At a Glance’ Homepage

Contacts & Address Book

Personal Preferences

Guest User Features

 

o   Price:

$149.95 for a 1-year unlimited access subscription billed yearly

 

JointParents.com: This service is marketed as having been developed by co-parents and is said to be easy to use and readily accessible. There is a Free 30 day Trial Period for interested users.

 

o   Features:

Custody Calendar (Reminders, recurring events, email approvals for custody changes; color coded parenting days)

Daily Routine (Household rules and routines)

Contact Manager (Allow others to access)

Diary (History of occurrences between co-parents and children)

Message Board

Medical Manager

Multiple Families (Manage children with one or multiple families)

Overnight Reporting (Displays # of overnights with child)

Photos

Expense Tracking (Enter and track expenses, view total owed, show paid/not paid, email notification)

o   Price:

30 day free trial available

$9.95/monthly payments

$99.50/annually (2 months free)

 

FamilyCrossings.com: This online service is not solely directed towards separated, divorced and living apart parents, but rather a service that provides each family with its own website. You can visualize family data with maps, time lines and tag clouds. Family Crossings offers both a free and subscription service.

 

o   Features:

Free: This version offers less storage space and has sponsor   advertisements visible. Families can access a number of features that could be helpful in family organizing and information sharing.

News

Photos

Calendar

Address Book

Live IM style chat

Gift Center

Storage – 150MB

Premium: Families have more storage space and no advertisements. There are also six more features than the free version. You can also add storage space if need be.

News

Photos

Calendar

Address Book

Live IM style chat

Gift Center

Family history

Family Database

Wish List

Family Polls

Special Offers

Games

Storage – 250MB

o   Prices:

The premium version is $9.95/month

 

CustodyToolbox.com: This is a downloadable Windows program that is designed for custody situations.

 

o   Features:

Calendar

Child Information

Journal

Parenting-time Report

To-Do List

Address Book

 

o   Price:

15 day free trial available

$49.95 to purchase the software

 

Cozi.com: This is a free online service that helps manage a family’s schedule. This is not geared specifically towards divorced, separated or living apart parents.

 

o   Features:

§  Family Calendar

§  Customizable Lists

§  Reminders & Messages

§  Mobile access

§  Journal

§  Photo collage

§  Outlook sync

 

o   Price:

§  Free

 

Crusco Law Office Law Clerk Marisa L. Ulloa contributed to this post.

 

I read a post today that got me thinking from Attorney Ryan McKeen at his A Connecticut Law Blog titled Is CT’s civil union statute constitutional? Attorney McKeen ponders whether the civil union statute in Connecticut is unconstituional because it does not allow opposite sex couples to enter into a civil union. It is an interesting question that may never be answered. It also begs the question, should there be some form of civil union for opposite sex couples?

If an unmarried, homeowning couple with a child breaks up, the complexity of disentangling after the relationship ends can be frustrating. If the couple cannot agree on how to separate their property and how to parent their child, they would have to go to three different courts to resolve all the issues. The couple would head to Superior Court or the Family Division for parenting and child support, to Probate Court to resolve the home issue, and file an equity action in Superior Court regarding any disputed personal property such as a family pet.

Wouldn’t some kind of legal relationship the couple could enter into make the breakup easier on the family? At the same time, opposite sex couples do have the option to marry and benefit from the rights that marriage entails, but they choose not to. What do you think?

Although the country’s attention was, for the most part, focused upon the presidential election on November 4th, there were several ballot questions across the country regarding same-sex marriage. The most high profile was Proposition 8 in California, a ballot measure that passed and  amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The passage of Prop 8 reverses In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage in the state this past June. Arizona and Florida also passed similar measures on November 4th, defining marriage as between one man and one woman with Prop 102 and Prop 2 respectively.

The election results highlight the vast divide throughout the country over same-sex marriage, with over twenty five states now banning same-sex marriage, two states allowing same-sex marriage and several states, including New Hampshire, allowing some form of civil union or domestic partnership. Additionally on a national level, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as it pertains to any Act of Congress or administrative rulings and regulations as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” With the wide disparity of laws from state to state, the inconsistency can leave families in legal limbo without a way to dissolve a legal relationship.

New Hampshire residents, thanks to the civil union statute, will not be left in legal limbo. If you have been married in another jurisdiction, or entered into a civil union, you may dissolve the relationship as though it were a civil union in New Hampshire.

I had a conversation today in which the person stated that most Guardian ad Litem’s are volunteers, and that it is very unusual to have a GAL who is paid for his services. I thought this topic was worth a blog post to clear up this misconception that seems to derive from the common mix up between a CASA and a GAL.

As discussed previously on this blog, a GAL is a professional appointed by the court to perform an independent investigation and to make recommendations to the court regarding the best interests of a child. A GAL may be appointed in all types of family law cases, from divorces to guardianships, and is paid for her services. GALs are not volunteers, although most GALs work for drastically reduced rates and work far more hours on a case than are billed.

On the other hand, a Court Appointed Special Advocate or CASA is a trained volunteer who serves as an advocate for children in abuse or neglect cases. An abuse or neglect case is a type of case brought to the court by the Division of Children, Youth and Families under the Child Protection Act to protect the health, safety and welfare of a child. Although a CASA’s role is very similar to that of a GAL, a CASA only works on abuse or neglect cases or derivative termination of parental rights.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court released In Re James N. on October 8, 2008 holding that the basis of a CHINS petition under the Child in Need of Services statute cannot be founded upon a delinquent act.

In 2007, the Mother filed a CHINS petition involving her 6 year old son James, who at the time was in DCYF’s custody. Mother alleged that he was a child in need of services for failing to obey the reasonable commands of his parent, guardian or custodian pursuant to RSA 169-D:2, II(b). The specific acts alleged in the petition were: threatening others with physical harm, threatening to set fire to a residence, harming his foster family’s dog, attempting to strangle his foster brother, head butting, biting, and placing glass “sharps” in others’ clothing.

At the hearing, James, joined by DCYF, moved to dismiss arguing that the alleged underlying facts are delinquent acts and may not be included in a CHINS petition. The court granted James’ motion finding that the petition failed because the acts alleged were delinquent acts.

The mother then filed four delinquency petitions alleging cruelty to animals, simple assault, and reckless conduct. James moved to dismiss arguing that a six-year old is presumed not to be competent to stand trial in delinquency proceedings and is presumed not to be capable of committing a crime due to his tender age. The court agreed with James and found that he could not consult with his attorney or have a rational understanding of the proceeding. Therefore, it would be a violation of his due process rights to make him stand trial.

The mother appeals to the NH Supreme Court and argues that the allegation of a delinquent act should not be fatal to a CHINS petition if the child cannot form the required mens rea (guilty mind). The court disagreed, and stated that the plain language of the statute does not allow delinquent acts to be included in a CHINS petition. Further, under the Mother’s interpretation the child would have to prove his guilt with respect to the act in order to show the act should be excluded from the petition. This would be an absurd result and the legislature would not pass an act leading to an absurdity. Additionally, the court points out that the definition of a child in need of services supports their interpretation because the definition does not overlap with the definition of a delinquent.

Crusco Law Office Law Clerk Marisa L. Ulloa contributed to this post.

The Identigene DNA Paternity Test Kit  is now sold in stores and online at Walgreens, Rite-Aid and CVS, which makes the test available at over 15,000 retail stores in 48 states. The test kit is sold for $29.99 and requires a do-it-yourself cheek swab. The DNA samples, along with consent forms, are then sent to the lab in a postage prepaid envelope and with payment for the additional lab fee of $119.00.  The confidential DNA test results are reported within three to five days by mail or online.  

However, parents should be warned that the do-it-yourself process may not be admissable in court. DNA testing for legal purposes requires coordinating specific specimen collection and chain-of-custody procedures with a disinterested third-party. There is an additional $200.00 fee for this process.

 Source Post: Diana L. Skaggs of the Divorce Law Journal   

 

An article caught my attention today in the Union Leader titled "Recession can lead to depression" by Jason Schreiber.  The article discusses the increased rate of domestic violence during tough economic times. Money is often the biggest stressor in a relationship, so it follows that during tough economic times, domestic violence will increase.

Local health experts say the tough economic times are taking a heavy physical toll as people struggle to cope with job losses, foreclosures and their own personal financial turmoil. Police are also seeing a jump in domestic violence.

"We’re going to homes where we haven’t been in the past for that issue," Plaistow Deputy Police Chief Kathleen Jones said.

She said police have seen a 10 percent increase in domestic cases over the past year.

Added financial pressures are causing tempers to flare and fights to break out, Epping police Lt. Michael Wallace said.

"I don’t think there are any social boundaries," he said. "I think it affects everyone. People we’ve never dealt with before are now all of a sudden experiencing emotions that they’ve never had before."

If you have are in danger from domestic violence, get help:

 

 

On October 8, 2008 the New Hampshire Supreme Court released an opinion for In the Matter of John Salesky and Jacqueline Salesky. The Court held that a guardian, appointed over the person and estate, may maintain a divorce action on behalf of that person with either the express authority of the Probate Court and as an equitable remedy to prevent an incompetent spouse from having no legal recourse to divorce.  

John and Jacqueline were married in 1983. In 2003, after Jacqueline had left to live with her daughter, John suffered a stroke and then named Jacqueline the co-trustee and co-beneficiary of his trust. John also created separate durable powers of attorney for healthcare, property and financial matters which named Jacqueline as his agent.

 

After John’s stroke, Jacqueline began draining and disbursing significant cash assets. John discovered this and at some time after that John and Jacqueline had an altercation where Jacqueline yelled “John, I don’t know what I’m going to do with you, I think I’m going to have to put you in a nursing home”. Sometime in early October 2004, John left Jacqueline and went to live with his brother and sister-in law (the Saleskys).

 

Later in October 2004, John filed a divorce petition on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Jacqueline objected to this and asked for the petition to be dismissed because John was not mentally competent to bring it. In April 2005 John had a full psychiatric evaluation and the report recommended that John receive assistance in making major decisions regarding his life. After this evaluation, the Saleskys petitioned the probate court to appoint them as co-guardians over John’s person and estate. The court denied Jacqueline’s request to appoint her guardian because the parties’ marital status was in the throes of dissolution and therefore appointing her guardian was a conflict of interest.

 

After a three day divorce trial, the court ultimately granted the petition for divorce stating that the Saleskys as co-guardians had the authority to maintain the action on John’s behalf and that irreconcilable differences caused the irremediable breakdown of their marriage.

On appeal, Jacqueline attacked the co-guardians ability to maintain a divorce action on several grounds:

 

1)      Jacqueline argued that the co-guardians did not have the authority to maintain the divorce action and that the superior court interpreted the probate court’s order to confer implied authority upon the Saleskys to maintain the divorce action.

 

The court determined that the plain meaning of the words used in the probate courts orders expressly granted the Saleskys as co-guardians the right to marry and divorce on John’s behalf. To hold otherwise would mean that both John and the Saleskys lacked the ability to exercise those rights.

 

The court also examined the letter of appointment for the Salesky’s where they are specifically granted “ the authority to exercise all of the rights and powers set forth in RSA 464-A:26, I and II” and under section I, specifically requires the guardians to “prosecute or defend actions, claims or proceedings in any jurisdiction for the protection of the estate’s assets.” Therefore, these documents together expressly conferred the right to divorce to the co-guardians.

 

 

2)      Jacqueline then argued that despite the probate court’s order the Saleskys could not prosecute the divorce action because the statute did not grant them that power.

The court looks at the language of the statute stating that RSA 464-A:25 sets out the general powers and duties of a guardian over a person, and RSA 464-A:26 sets out the general powers and duties of a guardian over an estate.

 

Both statutes include a catchall provision that says: “The court may limit the powers of the guardian… or impose additional duties if it deems such action desirable for the best interest of the ward.

 

The plain meaning of the catchall provisions is that the duties are not exclusive. These provisions expressly give the probate court the authority to impose “additional duties.” The only limit upon the additional duties is that those must be “desirable for the best interests of the ward.”

 

3)      Jacqueline also argued that the legislature could not have reasonably intended, as a matter of public policy, to grant probate courts the authority to allow guardians to maintain divorce petitions.

 

The court examined a number of cases holding a competent spouse would have absolute and final control over the marriage if a guardian could not maintain an action for divorce.  That kind of situation leaves the incompetent spouse without adequate legal recourse against potential abuse. In addition, the court points out that these policy concerns are evident in this case because while Jacqueline had withdrawn substantial funds from John’s accounts while acting under a power of attorney, the Saleskys were merely maintaining a divorce action that John had brought before he was found to be incompetent.

 

Crusco Law Office Law Clerk Marisa L. Ulloa contributed to this post.

 

Today the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in Kerrigan v. Commisioner of Public Health. Four years ago, eight same-sex couples sued the state of Connecticut, arguing that the statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage violated their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The trial court held that because the state allowed civil unions, the plaintiffs had not suffered a "constitutionally cognizable harm", and therefore found for the state.

In finding for the plaintiffs on appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that:

in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

 The Kerrigan ruling makes Connecticut the third state in the country, after Massachusetts (Goodridge) and California (In Re Marriage Cases) to allow same-sex marriage. Here in New Hampshire, the state has allowed for civil unions since January 1, 2008, and is one of nine states to offer some degree of domestic partnership or civil union.