Attn: Vikki Goodwin District 47 Texas House Rep.
/in _Sticky, Alissa Sherry, Corruption, custody evaluation, Dr Alissa Sherry, Family Court, Legal Consensus, TBHEC, TBHEC - Gloria Canseco, Texas, Texas Cases, Texas Courts, Texas Divorce, Texas House Rep Vikki Goodwin District 47, Texas House Representative Terry M. Wilson District 20, Texas Parental Alienation Counseling, Texas Psychologists, Texas Senate Charles Schwertner, Texas Senate Donna Campbell, Texas Senate Judith Zaffirini, Texas Senate Kirk Watson, Texas Senate Pete Flores, Texas Senator Dawn Buckingham District 24, Travis County Texas, TSBEP, TSBEP - Darrel Spinks/by adminVikki Goodwin there are people living in your district in these videos. Please see the below petition
www.change.org/p/investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry-and-legal-consensus
www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PL2ghWdA_RaddO2jL7CbQgYo4MEVSIhMt9
Attn: Vikki Goodwin District 47 Texas House Rep, TSBEP Alissa Sherry Legal Consensus Psychologist Complaint – TBHEC Texas Family Courts – Gloria Canseco, Darrel Spinks, Alissa Sherry, Legal Consensus
family-court-corruption.com/tag/alissa-sherry/
TSBEP, Custody Evaluation, Forensic Psychology, Texas Family Courts, TBHEC, Gloria Canseco, Darrel Spinks, Alissa Sherry, Legal Consensus, Dawn Buckingham, District 24, Texas Senator
#TSBEP, #CustodyEvaluation, #ForensicPsychology, #TexasFamilyCourts, #TBHEC
Texas Appeals Court Upholds Modification Allowing Unsupervised Visitation
/in Child Abuse, Child Custody, custody evaluation, Divorce, Family Law, psychological evaluation, Texas, Texas Cases, Texas Courts, Texas Divorce/by adminOriginally published by Robert Epstein.
Sometimes in a Texas custody case, the court may find it appropriate to place certain restrictions on a parent’s access to the children. In time and with changed circumstances, it may be in the children’s best interest to remove those restrictions to allow the children to spend more time with that parent. In a recent case, a mother appealed an order modifying visitation.
The parents had two children during their marriage. The mother moved to another town and filed for divorce. The decree required the father to use a Soberlink alcohol monitoring device before and during visitation. The court ordered the father’s visitation would be supervised in Hidalgo County, but he would be allowed unsupervised visits beginning in August 2018 when the youngest child turned three.
The mother petitioned to modify the parent-child relationship to postpone the unsupervised visits. She argued unsupervised visits were not in the children’s best interest because the oldest child had significant speech delays and the younger child lacked emotional maturity. She also alleged the father failed one of his alcohol tests.
The father filed a counter petition, asking for standard visitation with exchange of the children occurring about midway between the parents’ homes in Alice. He claimed the modifications were in the children’s best interests and that there was a material and substantial change in circumstances since the divorce decree.
The trial court ordered a mental evaluation of the father, and based on that evaluation, allowed him unsupervised overnight visitation. The trial court issued a final order granting standard unsupervised visitation, omitting the Soberlink requirement, and requiring the parents to meet in Alice to exchange the children.
The mother appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the parents to exchange the children in Alice. Pursuant to Tex. Fam. Ann. § 153.316, the court must order the parents to surrender the children at one of their homes. The appeals court noted, however, that this section only applies to the original possession order, and this case involved a modification. Modifications are governed instead by § 156.101, which allows modification of a possession order if it is in the children’s best interest and the circumstances have changed. The mother had alleged a change of circumstances in her own petition to modify. Under Texas case law, that allegation of changed circumstances constituted a judicial admission for purposes of the other father’s similar pleading.
The mother argued exchanging the children in Alice was not in their best interest. The appeals court noted, however, that there was evidence supporting a conclusion that meeting in Alice was in the children’s best interests. The father testified he had not exercised his right to communicate with his children electronically because the mother had stated she would not allow them to communicate through video-teleconference or Skype. He claimed she was trying to prevent him from having a strong relationship with his children. He asked the court to have them meet in Alice if standard visitation was granted. He said it was a little more than halfway for him and he thought it was in the children’s best interests for him to be in their lives.
The mother’s attorney argued she was working on her master’s degree in clinical psychology and was required to be at a facility all day and could not get from work to Alice at the scheduled time. The father offered to change the time, but pointed out it would only be once a month. The court agreed to order the weekend visitation exchange to occur in Alice.
The appeals court found there testimony that seeing their father more often was in the children’s best interests and found no abuse of discretion in the court ordering the exchange to occur in Alice.
The mother also argued the court abused its discretion in eliminating the Soberlink requirement. The divorce decree required sobriety testing before and during the father’s time with the children for five years after the divorce. The mother argued the father had not requested the removal of the condition and the judgment had to conform to the pleadings. The appeals court noted, however, that the best interests of the children are the most important issue in custody cases, and technical rules should not interfere with acting in their best interests. The appeals court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not conforming to the pleadings if it did not do so arbitrarily.
The mother argued the Soberlink requirement was in the children’s best interests. The father testified he used a breathalyzer twice a day for another court and did not have any violations. The mother offered evidence of an alleged positive Soberlink test result, but the father testified it was a false positive and another test six minutes later was confirmed at 0.000. The trial court found the first test was a false positive. The court further stated the father testified he was receiving psychological and psychiatric treatment. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s elimination of the Soberlink requirement because there was some evidence it was no longer in the children’s best interests.
The mother also argued the trial court erred in granting overnight visitation to the father. The children’s counselor testified that “It would be very difficult and traumatic for them to be away from their mother at night.”
The father argued the original divorce decree granted him unsupervised overnight visits. The father’s psychological evaluation resulted in a recommendation the father have full access to his children with standard visitation. The appeals court found the trial court had sufficient evidence to exercise its discretion and did not abuse its discretion. There was evidence it was in the children’s best interests to have unsupervised, overnight visits with the father.
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
If you are seeking or fighting a modification of a custody order, an experienced Texas custody attorney can help you fight for your children. Call McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200 to set up a meeting to discuss your case.
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
Family History Guides Interpretation of a Texas Will
/in Corruption, Court of Appeals, custody, Family Court, Texas, Texas Cases, Texas Courts, Texas Divorce/by adminOriginally published by Charles Sartain.
Co-author Kelley Clark Morris
Generally, if your will leaves your beloved “all … right, title and interest in and to”, said beloved would receive the entirety of your interest, whether a surface estate, mineral estate, or both. But in ConocoPhillips, et al. v. Ramirez, et al., the Texas Supreme Court looked beyond the four corners of the will in question and concluded that—based on family mineral leasing history—only the surface estate was devised.
If you don’t want to burn the 20 percent of your daily caloric intake that fuels your brain just to memorize the Ramirez family tree, leave with this takeaway: When a term in a will is open to more than one construction, a court can consider the circumstances existing when the will was executed.
The facts and a long history
In 1941, Ildefonso died and left 7,016 acres in Zapata County consisting of noncontiguous tracts to his two children Leon Juan and Felicidad. The brother and sister then partitioned the surface (each taking 3,508 acres) and severed the minerals (leaving each with an undivided 1/2 interest under the entire 7,016 acres). This family dispute is among Leon Juan’s descendants.
Leon Juan died and left his interests 1/2 to his wife Leonor and the remainder in equal shares to his three children, Leon Oscar Sr., Ileana, and Rodolfo. Thus, each child inherited a 1/6th interest in Leon Juan’s 3,508 surface acres and an undivided 1/12th interest in the minerals in both tracts. The three siblings and mother Leonor partitioned the surface estate and executed conveyances to swap some of the tracts. Each conveyance specified that it did “not … include oil, gas and other minerals which” were “to remain undivided.”
Following the partition, Leonor and the three children divided Leon Juan’s 3,508 acre surface estate into three tracts, one of which was “Las Piedras Ranch”, a tract not contiguous with the other property.
Leonor executed the will in question in 1987 and then died. At that time she shared ownership of the surface of Las Piedras Ranch with son Leon Oscar Sr., each owning an undivided 1/2 fee interest. Her will devised a life estate in “all of [her] right, title and interest in and to Ranch ‘Las Piedras’” to son Leon Oscar Sr. with the remainder to his living children in equal shares. The residuary was left equally to her three children, Leon Oscar Sr., Ileana, and Rodolfo.
In 1990, the siblings and their aunt Felicidad signed a lease extension with EOG (later transferred to ConocoPhillips) of the minerals under Las Piedras Ranch. The extension treated the siblings as equal fee owners of the minerals under the Ranch.
Leon Oscar Sr. died in 2006, terminating his life estate, which passed to his three children, Leon Oscar Jr., Rosalinda, and Minerva. In 2010, those three sued aunt and uncle Ileana and Rodolfo, EOG, and ConocoPhillips, seeking a declaration that their father’s life estate under grandmother Leonor’s will included her interest in the minerals beneath Las Piedras Ranch.
The trial court agreed and awarded Leonor’s grandchildren a $12 million judgment against ConocoPhillips, which the court of appeals affirmed, holding that the will included her interest in the minerals under Las Piedras Ranch.
The result
A unanimous Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for ConocoPhillips. Leonor’s bequest conveyed a life estate in only the surface of Las Piedras Ranch; her undivided interest in the 7,016 mineral acres passed in the residuary of her estate equally to her three children.
The court looked beyond the four corners of Leonor’s will to resolve the dispute because the will’s use of the term “Ranch ‘Las Piedras’” to identify the interest devised opened the will to more than one construction. The bequest of the life estate capitalized “Ranch ‘Las Piedras’” and placed the name in quotation marks, indicating a specific meaning to Leonor and her family. The history of family conveyances shows that Las Piedras Ranch referred to only the surface estate and, moreover, that the family always intended the minerals to be jointly owned. This interpretation was supported by Leon Oscar Sr.’s participation in the lease extension.
Your musical interlude, a little late.
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
Hold ’Em or Fold ’Em: Policing Texas Poker Rooms for Profit
/in Corruption, custody, Family Court, Texas, Texas Cases, Texas Courts, Texas Divorce/by adminOriginally published by Guest Blogger.
Despite a criminal statute banning gambling in Texas, approximately 30 establishments have taken advantage of perceived loopholes in the law to operate openly as private poker clubs.
Until recently, there has been little pushback from law enforcement. Perhaps realizing the potential for lucrative seizures, several of these private clubs recently came under the scrutiny of Harris County prosecutors, presenting significant legal implications for civil and criminal practitioners.
Early Enforcement at the Balinese Room
In the past, the Office of the Texas Attorney General has made clear its position that clubs promoting poker and/or gambling were illegal. Operating at the direction of then-Texas Attorney General Will Wilson, who campaigned on a platform to close down casinos, the Texas Rangers spent several years in the mid-1950s trying to shut down Galveston’s famous Balinese Room. The club, founded by the Sicilian Maceo brothers, and a hub of Mafia activity drew the rich and famous with a backroom equipped with the era’s most up-to-date gambling equipment as well as top entertainers like Frank Sinatra.
The Rangers’ early efforts to catch the club’s gambling operations in the act were thwarted by the club’s unique location at the end of a pier and its band, which routinely signaled operators of the Rangers’ arrival with a lively rendition of “The Eyes of Texas.” Further, the club’s long, narrow layout along the length of the pier, otherwise known as “Rangers Run,” gave operators time to conceal gambling paraphernalia before law enforcement reached the club’s tail end where the gambling took place.
Ultimately, the Rangers resorted to an undercover operation that resulted in the club’s closure in 1957.
Present-day Clubs
Today’s gambling climate is not so clear-cut. Poker clubs now operate within a perceived legal loophole contained within the language of the gambling statute.
Prosecution for gambling is authorized under Section 47.02 of the Texas Penal Code, which provides that a person commits an offense if he or she:
(1) makes a bet on the partial or final result of a game or contest or on the performance of a participant in a game or contest;
(2) makes a bet on the result of any political nomination, appointment, or election or on the degree of success of any nominee, appointee, or candidate; or
(3) plays and bets for money or other thing of value at any game played with cards, dice, balls, or any other gambling device.
The statute provides the following defenses to prosecution:
(1) the actor engaged in gambling in a private place;
(2) no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings; and
(3) except for the advantage of skill or luck, the risks of losing and the chances of winning were the same for all participants.
Gambling participants are subject to prosecution for a Class C misdemeanor while those who promote gambling or keep a gambling place face Class A misdemeanor liability.
Seeking to operate as legitimate businesses, current day gambling concerns have taken advantage of the “private place” and “economic benefit” provisions outlined as defenses to gambling prosecutions. The gambling statute provides no definition for the term “economic benefit”; thus, appellate courts have looked elsewhere for guidance and now rely on the meaning ascribed in Section 1.07(a)(7) of the Texas Penal Code: “Anything reasonably regarded as economic gain or advantage, including benefit to any other person whose welfare the beneficiary is interested.” (Miller v. State, 874 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d)).
As a result, present-day establishments operate as “private clubs” and enlist the advantage of the “economic benefit” clause by not taking a “rake” or percentage of the game for hosting. Instead, these private poker clubs assess fees for membership as well as for the time that participants spend at the gaming tables. Some clubs also profit from alcohol and food sales.
Policing for Profit
Until 2019, Houston’s private poker clubs operated without interference from law enforcement. After all, prosecutions under the present gambling statute would result in nothing more than misdemeanor convictions. Attitudes changed, however, with the increased prominence of the Houston clubs, the numbers of patrons they attracted, and the growing awareness of the clubs’ profits. For instance, one Houston club garnered over $6 million in just a two-year period.
In May 2019, police raided two of Houston’s largest private poker clubs: Prime Social Poker Club and Post Oak Poker Club. The Harris County District Attorney held a press conference announcing the raid and issued the following news release:
Poker rooms are illegal in the State of Texas. We are changing the paradigm regarding illegal gambling by moving up the criminal chain and pursuing felony money laundering and engaging in organized criminal crime charges against owners and operators. Players are not being targeted. (Press Release, Office of District Attorney Kim Ogg, Harris County, Texas, Poker Clubs Raided; Nine Owner-Operators Charged with Money Laundering in Joint Effort, (May 1, 2019), http:// app.dao.hctx.net/prosecutors-dismiss-poker-room-money-laundering-charges-refer-cases-fbi).
The Harris County attorney even joined in what appeared to be a countywide effort to eradicate the clubs, filing civil suits alleging that the clubs were nuisances because they were places of illegal gambling, gambling promotion, money laundering, and organized crime.
Instead of charging the clubs’ owners and employees with misdemeanors under the gambling statute, however, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office upped the ante by prosecuting the cases as first-degree felonies—specifically, money laundering and engaging in organized crime.
Section 34.02 of the Texas Penal Code states that a person commits the offense of money laundering if the person:
(1) acquires or maintains an interest in, conceals, possesses, transfers, or transports the proceeds of criminal activity;
(2) conducts, supervises, or facilitates a transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity;
(3) invests, expends, or receives, or offers to invest, expend, or receive, the proceeds of criminal activity or funds that the person believes are the proceeds of criminal activity; or
(4) finances or invests or intends to finance or invest funds that the person believes are intended to further the commission of criminal activity.
The statute provides that “Knowledge of the specific nature of the criminal activity giving rise to the proceeds is not required to establish a culpable mental state.” (Tex. Penal Code § 34.02(a-1)).
Under Section 71.02 of the Texas Penal Code, a person commits the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity if “with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination or as a member of a criminal street gang, the person commits or conspires to commit … any gambling offense punishable as a Class A misdemeanor.”
The decision by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office to charge the cases as felonies was significant because it opened the door for law enforcement to seize the clubs’ assets, potentially including cash, bank account assets, and real estate. Texas forfeiture law applies to any felony of the first or second degree in the Texas Penal Code, as well as many other expressly listed offenses.
Harris County Folds
While Harris County ultimately folded its litigation against the local poker clubs, such resolution was situationally unique. In July 2019, 69 days after the initiation of charges against the owners and employees of the two aforementioned Houston poker clubs, all criminal charges as well as the county’s nuisance lawsuits were dismissed with none of the fanfare heralding the initiation of the original actions. Significantly, the cessation of criminal and civil litigation was not prompted by reconsideration of the initial charging decisions under the current gambling statute but by a conflict within the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, a conflict that attorneys for the defendants brought to the district attorney’s attention.
Ironically, the impetus for the dismissals was the realization that several members of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office had frequented the clubs. More importantly, a trusted district attorney adviser and employee was engaged as a political consultant to one of the clubs. (Zach Despart, Houston poker club, DA consultant trade accusations as officials seek distance from donor, Houston Chronicle (Sept. 16, 2019, 12:07 PM), www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-poker-club-DA-consultant-trade-14435780.php). Citing the conflict of interest, the district attorney filed dismissals of all charges and paperwork for the return of over $200,000 in gambling proceeds seized from the defendants.
In the future, however, it is anticipated that Texas prosecutors and local agencies, tempted by lucrative seizure opportunities, will once again attempt to shut down local gambling clubs. Certainly such efforts will not cease in Harris County as the district attorney made clear that such establishments are illegal. Moreover, the club owners and employees of Prime Social and the Post Oak clubs are not in the clear as their cases were referred to the FBI for consideration.
Zack Fertitta
is a partner in the Houston law firm of Fertitta Reynal. He represented Prime Social and secured the dismissal of criminal charges associated with the club.
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
Top 10 from Texas Bar Today: Misperceptions, Imposter Syndrome, and Geographic Scope
/in Corruption, Court of Appeals, custody, Texas, Texas Cases, Texas Courts, Texas Divorce/by adminOriginally published by Joanna Herzik.
To highlight some of the posts that stand out from the crowd, the editors of Texas Bar Today have created a list from the week’s blog posts of the top ten based on subject matter, writing style, headline, and imagery. We hope you enjoy this installment.
10. Section 18.001 mandamus? – David Coale @600camp of Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, LLP in Dallas
9. A Coaching Session with Cordell: What Community Service Activity – Cordell Parvin @cordellparvin of Cordell Parvin LLC in Dallas
8. 5 Tips in Drafting an MSP Agreement – Jim Chester of Klemchuk LLP @K_LLP in Dallas
7. No Non-Compete? Not Necessarily “No Problem” – Lauren Black of BoyarMiller @boyarmiller in Houston
6. Seventh Circuit Establishes Class Notice Standard in Facebook Arbitration Dispute – Beth Graham of Karl Bayer @karlbayer in Austin
5. TDI Adopts New Emergency Rules to Clarify SB 1264 & Its Protections Against Surprise Medical Billing – James Amaro of Amaro Law Firm @AmaroLawFirm in Houston
4. Texas Appellate Court Goes the Extra Mile (literally) in Non-Compete Dispute, Expands Geographic Scope of Injunction – Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. in Houston
3. What’s New in the War Over the Environment? – Charles Sartain of Gray Reed & McGraw, P.C. @GrayReedLaw in Dallas
2. Common Misperceptions About Internet Accessibility and ADA Compliance – William Goren of William D. Goren, J.D., LL.M., LLC
1. The Imposter Syndrome is Real, But It Can be Overcome – Ladd Hirsch of Winstead @WinsteadPC in Dallas
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
Texas Appellate Court Goes the Extra Mile (literally) in Non-Compete Dispute, Expands Geographic Scope of Injunction
/in Court of Appeals, custody, Texas, Texas Cases, Texas Courts, Texas Divorce/by adminOriginally published by mary.
An appellate ruling from the Dallas Fifth Court of Appeals in January is an important read for those who closely follow Texas non-compete litigation. The opinion in Richard Gehrke and Pacific Companies Inc. v Merritt Hawkins and Associates is a rare example … Continue reading →
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
Approaching your Texas divorce from a financial perspective
/in Child Custody, Divorce, Family Court, Family Law, Texas, Texas Cases, Texas Courts, Texas Divorce/by adminOriginally published by The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC Blog.
Married persons tend to earn more money than single people. There are a number of studies that will tell you this. Go search the internet for a couple and you will see what I am talking about. Whether it is building wealth, saving for your children’s college education or simply avoiding being in a situation where you become impoverished, marriage is a key factor in the financial success of many people.
Then you also have to take into consideration the fact that you are losing a big chunk of your household income when you divorce your spouse. You may have become accustomed to a certain way of living that after your divorce is no longer achievable for you. This could be especially true if you are a stay at home mother or wife who has been out of the workforce for some time and is now being forced to return to the job market.
It is common to run into financial problems as a result of divorce. In fact, I would argue that it is an exceptional case that sees a person going through a divorce not suffer some degree of financial hardship. Supporting two households when there are not two, full-time incomes can be a near impossible expectation to lay out for a struggling family. Community property (that property which is acquired during the course of your marriage other than inherited property or gifts) will be divided in your divorce. The manner in which it is divided will go a long way towards determining how positive your post-divorce financial outlook will be.
When you consider that the vast majority of children in divorce cases, from my experience, live with their mother primarily after a divorce, the financial implications of the process can have a significant impact on their lives. Although more women are in the workplace now than in any prior generation, it is usually women who earn less money compared to their spouses and have a greater need for financial assistance after the divorce.
The first year after a divorce is usually the most difficult for families
When it comes to shouldering a significant financial burden, it is my belief that the first year after the divorce is the most difficult for families. This can be especially true for women. As a wife/mother it is possible that you were not in a position to contribute financially to the marriage due to your taking on a role as homemaker and mother. While you contributed a definite economic benefit through those services, you were not in earning an income.
Therefore, you will likely have to return to the workforce after a many-year absence. Relying upon public assistance programs is probably not what you want to do but that is a reality that many newly-single moms face after going through a divorce. My point in mentioning all of this is to say that if you are a woman and are considering whether or not to file for divorce this is a worthwhile issue to plan for. Do not put yourself into a position where you have gotten a divorce but are not prepared financially to move forward once the divorce has completed.
Staying home with the children after a divorce may not be possible
If you are a stay at home mom who has fulfilled that role for your family since the birth of your child, you may find that you are not in a financial position to be able to do so after your divorce. This is difficult not only for your kids but for you as well. The way that you value yourself and the impact on your children may be derived in large part from your ability to parent that child on a regular basis. Having to return to work and leave that child with a relative or child care provider could be something that is extremely difficult for you.
The financial problems associated with childcare are many. For one, if you are have recently re-integrated back into the workforce, your income likely is not that high. As such, child care costs would eat into the majority of what you earn on a monthly basis. You need to be sure in your divorce that you either negotiate for a significant enough portion of your communicate estate or negotiate a child support total that will allow for you and your children to pay for your essentials.
What are the main financial issues for men that are associated with a divorce?
Men feel the effects of divorce as well from a financial perspective, perhaps just not as acutely as do women. The most obvious financial impact of a divorce on a husband/father is the need to pay child support/spousal maintenance. If you are not named as the parent with the right to determine the primary residence of your child then you will likely be paying child support. The amount you pay is a function of how much your income you earn and how many children you have.
Spousal support is a little trickier to discuss as far as a blanket rule to give you. Typically, if you and your spouse have not been married for at least ten years then you cannot be ordered to pay spousal maintenance upon the conclusion of your divorce. Marriages that have lasted at least for a ten year period have various percentages that apply to an income as well as a limitation on how long the spousal maintenance can be ordered to be paid.
All of these costs that you may incur as a husband/father come into play at the same time as you are needing to buy new furniture, rent an apartment or home and pay any legal expenses associated with the divorce itself. Budgeting your money is critical for men and women going through a divorce, especially if you have never created a budget and lived within your means previously.
What legal options are available to you in regard to getting a divorce in Texas?
Unless your personal safety is at risk, you do not need to file for divorce on a whim or without thinking about your options first. Like we just went over, having a plan is a good thing as you head into a divorce case. You should work with your support system and family to make a decision as to what is best for you and your children moving forward. A divorce is like anything else that you go through in life- the effort that you put into your case will be equal to the results of your case.
If you go into your divorce with an aggressive mindset, you are likely to have aggression be the response of your spouse. In some cases, this is inevitable especially if your safety is at risk or your spouse has committed some other act of violence against you or your children. In that type of situation, you can and should file for temporary orders, protective orders and anything else that is available to keep you and your family safe. If your spouse comes back at you with anger and aggression then that just comes with the territory.
How long will your divorce take?
Divorces in Texas can take anywhere from two months to two years to complete. Very few divorces wrap up in two months and even fewer divorces will take two years. Divorce can be expensive but in most cases, it does not have to be. From my experience, most people going through divorces in Texas do not have the assets or the facts that necessitate a long and drawn out divorce case. Your case may involve children and some amount of community property but the solutions to solving whatever problems you have are likely not that complex and can be arrived at via negotiation.
Is your divorce uncontested?
This is a phrase that I hear from clients all the time when they will optimistically come into my office to speak to us about divorce. He or she is sure that their divorce will be uncontested. I’m not exactly sure how you define that word, but for me, uncontested means that there are no contested issues in your divorce. This means that you and your spouse must truly agree on every issue regarding financial matters and your children. If you disagree on any subject then you do not have an uncontested divorce.
However, if you believe that your divorce is either uncontested or nearly uncontested there may not be a need to proceed with a full-scale divorce case. What I mean by this is that after your petition for divorce has been filed, an Answer received and everyone ready to negotiate, you and your spouse may choose to mediate your case immediately in order to avoid a long and drawn out divorce.
Mediation is a process whereby you and your attorney and your spouse and their attorney agree to allow a third party, independent family law attorney step into your case and work with you all to negotiate the terms of a settlement. The end result of mediation is a Mediated Settlement Agreement which will be the basis for the final orders of your divorce.
Mediation allows you to bypass the rigors of a contested divorce and cut right to the chase. Custody, visitation, child support, spousal support, and a division of the community estate you share with your spouse will all be completed in mediation. If you cannot come to an agreement on any issue, your case can proceed to either a temporary orders hearing or trial. Likewise, if you learn information in mediation that you need to inquire about further, your attorney can submit requests for discovery upon your spouse so that he or she can provide you with information that may be relevant to your divorce case.
Do you need to hire an attorney for your divorce?
For most people, hiring an attorney is essential when getting a divorce. It is not necessarily because the issues associated with a divorce are overly complex. It is because there are many issues going on in a divorce simultaneously and unless you are experienced in working with divorcing people you will not be able to devote sufficient attention to each issue if you are working alone. The benefit to having a family law attorney represent you in a divorce is not only the level of experience that you are getting but also the attorney’s skill at negotiation and multi-tasking within the divorce are crucial to your achieving a just outcome.
Otherwise, if you and your spouse have a truly uncontested divorce, no children and very little in the way of community property to divide, then it may not be necessary for you to hire an attorney to represent you in a divorce. The state of Texas has online documents that can show you how to file for divorce, draft the paperwork and file it with the judge. Of course, issues may arise along the way, mistakes can be made and money can be lost due to delays associated with your case. For these reasons, I recommend hiring an attorney even if your case appears to be clear cut.
Questions about family law and divorce in Texas? Contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan
Thank you for spending part of your day with us today learning about family law cases in Texas. If you have any questions or would like feedback about your particular case, please do not hesitate to contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan today. Our licensed family law attorneys offer free of charge consultations six days a week where we can answer your questions and address whatever specific issues you have.
Our attorneys practice in all of the family courts in southeast Texas and have achieved positive results for clients in each. We pride ourselves on communicating well, having strong attention to detail and putting the interests of our clients ahead of everything else. We look forward to being able to speak to you about your case and your family
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
TSBEP Complaint Kelly / Alex Jones – Alissa Sherry Legal Consensus Psychologist – TBHEC Texas Family Courts
/in _Sticky, Alissa Sherry, Child Custody, Child Custody Evaluators, Corrupt Family Court, Corruption, custody evaluation, Dr Alissa Sherry, Family Court, Family Court Corruption, Guardian Ad Litem, Legal Consensus, Perversion of Justice, TBHEC, TBHEC - Gloria Canseco, Texas, Texas Cases, Texas Courts, Texas Divorce, Texas House Rep Vikki Goodwin District 47, Texas House Representative Terry M. Wilson District 20, Texas Parental Alienation Counseling, Texas Psychologists, Texas Senate Charles Schwertner, Texas Senate Donna Campbell, Texas Senate Judith Zaffirini, Texas Senate Kirk Watson, Texas Senate Pete Flores, Texas Senator Dawn Buckingham District 24, Travis County Texas, TSBEP, TSBEP - Darrel Spinks/by adminwww.youtube.com/watch?v=U0OTiKAm9QU
www.change.org/p/investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry-and-legal-consensus
TSBEP Complaint Kelly / Alex Jones – Alissa Sherry Legal Consensus Psychologist – TBHEC Texas Family Courts – Gloria Canseco, Darrel Spinks, Alissa Sherry, Legal Consensus
family-court-corruption.com/tag/alissa-sherry/
TSBEP, Custody Evaluation, Forensic Psychology, Texas Family Courts, TBHEC, Gloria Canseco, Darrel Spinks, Alissa Sherry, Legal Consensus
#TSBEP, #CustodyEvaluation, #ForensicPsychology, #TexasFamilyCourts, #TBHEC
Legalization of Hemp in Texas May Lead to the Decriminalization of Marijuana
/in Family Law, Guardian Ad Litem, Texas, Texas Cases, Texas Courts, Texas Divorce/by adminOriginally published by Family and Criminal Law Blog.
What are the benefits of decriminalizing marijuana in Texas?
In June of 2019, Texas lawmakers passed a bill allowing for the growth and sale of hemp. Several lawmakers emphasized to the public that the measure solely legalized hemp and did not represent a movement towards the legalization of marijuana. However, since the passage of the new hemp law, police officers across the state have struggled to distinguish marijuana from legal hemp. Prosecutors in several cities, including Austin, Houston, and San Antonio have reported dropping some marijuana possession charges because they simply do not have the time or equipment to test and assess what substances are legal and which are not.
Texas Cities Taking Steps Towards Decriminalization
Recognizing the ongoing issues to come for law enforcement officers, the Austin City Council will soon vote on a proposal that would essentially end arrests and fines for personal amounts of marijuana. The law would direct police officers to stop arresting or citing people with low-level marijuana cases in which the officers will struggle to test the substance to determine whether it is hemp or marijuana. The measure is expected to save the city from spending funds on laboratory testing. It is likely that other cities may pass similar legislation out of necessity.
Texas is not alone in facing this almost need to decriminalize as a consequence of legalizing hemp. Florida similarly legalized hemp just a month after Texas. Florida prosecutors report similar struggles. Before the legalization of hemp, laboratories would look for the hairs on marijuana flowers and test for the presence of cannabinoids. This process was quick and cost-effective. With hemp legal, labs must now analyze the THC concentration of the substance to assess whether it is legally considered marijuana or hemp. This can cost hundreds of dollars per test.
As Texas and Florida lawmakers struggle to determine whether legalization of marijuana is best for their states, other states have found advantages to decriminalization. Marijuana-related arrests tend to clog the docket and increase jail expenses. By instead citing defendants or simply not taking action when people are found to have small amounts of marijuana, cities can save funds and resources for the more significant crimes. For now, anyone in Texas arrested for possession of marijuana should contact a criminal defense lawyer for assistance fighting their charge.
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
Categories
- _Sticky
- Alissa Sherry
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Articles
- Blended Families
- Burnet County Court at Law Judge Bayless
- Child Abuse
- Child Custody
- Child Custody and Support
- Child Custody Evaluators
- Child support
- Children and Divorce
- Children's and Parenting Issues after Divorce
- civil rights
- Co-parenting
- Co-Parenting after Divorce
- Collaborative Divorce
- Considering Divorce
- Coping with Divorce
- Corrupt Family Court
- Corruption
- Court of Appeals
- custody
- Custody and Visitation
- custody evaluation
- Custody Evaluator Immunity
- Dating
- Divorce
- Divorce Advice
- Divorce process
- divorce recovery
- Domestic Abuse
- Domestic Violence
- Dr Alissa Sherry
- Educate your Judge and Court Professionals
- emotional abuse
- Expert Witness
- Family Court
- Family Court Corruption
- Family Court Corruption
- Family Court Reform
- Family Law
- Financial Issues
- Guardian Ad Litem
- Handling the Holidays
- Healing From Narcissistic Abuse
- Infidelity
- Joint Custody
- Judge Linda Bayless
- Judges
- Judicial Complaints
- Judicial Immunity
- Legal Consensus
- Legal Documents
- Legal Forms
- Legal Issues
- Marital Problems
- Mediation
- Narcissism
- Narcissism and Personality Disorders
- Narcissistic Personality Disorder
- Parental Alienation
- Parenting
- Parenting Plan
- Parents
- Personality disorders
- Perversion of Justice
- psychological evaluation
- Relationships and Dating
- Reunification
- Sex & Relationships
- Single parenting
- Supreme Court
- Surviving Divorce
- TBHEC
- TBHEC – Gloria Canseco
- Texas
- Texas Cases
- Texas Counseling
- Texas Counselors
- Texas Court of Appeals
- Texas Courts
- Texas CPS
- Texas Divorce
- Texas House Rep Vikki Goodwin District 47
- Texas House Representative Terry M. Wilson District 20
- Texas Parental Alienation Counseling
- Texas Psychologists
- Texas Senate Charles Schwertner
- Texas Senate Donna Campbell
- Texas Senate Judith Zaffirini
- Texas Senate Kirk Watson
- Texas Senate Pete Flores
- Texas Senator Dawn Buckingham District 24
- The New You
- Travis County Texas
- TSBEP
- TSBEP – Darrel Spinks
- Understanding Narcissism
Pages
- Child Custody
- Divorce
- Family Court Corruption
- Home
- Need to Communicate Privately?
- Parental Alienation
- Parenting
- Privacy Policy
- Stop Parental Rights Termination
- TBHEC Darrel Spinks
- TBHEC Gloria Canseco
- Texas House Rep Vikki Goodwin District 47
- Texas House Representative Terry M. Wilson District 20
- Texas Senator Dawn Buckingham District 24
- TSBEP Darrel Spinks