Excellent law guidance in New Jersey from Sandy Ferner? In addition to parenting time, there can be some custody issues. Normally, people are going to have joint legal custody of their children, but that doesn’t mean that they each always have to agree on every single issue. Sometimes people can agree that both parents will have input and be notified of decisions and will be consulted and have the ability to discuss this; sometimes parents will agree that one parent will, for instance, make the end decision in what doctors to bring the child to, and maybe one parent will make the ultimate decision on what extra-curricular activities the child may participate in. In mediation, we can explore these one by one, issue by issue. When left to the courts and the parties litigate custody and parenting time, they tend to dig their heels in the sand a little bit more, and they tend to be less cooperative versus more cooperative with each other. Litigating sometimes brings out the worst in people, whereas I think mediating custody and parenting time issues really bring out the best in people because it needs to be reinforced that the goal is what is in the child’s best interest, not what is in each parent’s best interest, but what is in the child’s best interest. Discover more info about John Sandy Ferner New Jersey, US.
Law advice today by Sandy Ferner : Sometimes our discovery demands, which our client faces and has to produce, are voluminous. Sometimes there are thousands of pages and rather than pay us to copy those, go do it yourself. Go to a Staples or go to a Kinko’s, if they even have Kinko’s. Bring your copies, do your homework. When we ask you to fill out things like a case information statement and bring tax returns and give me statements, get those on your own. It costs money to subpoena documents. It cost money to ask for documents through discovery in the other side. The less paperwork we can do to get the paperwork – if that makes any sense – the better it is for you.
The full impact of sustaining a brain injury often doesn’t happen at the moment of impact but gradually over time. Our firm is experienced in handling these types of cases and understands the toll traumatic brain injuries can take on you and your family. We are committed to fighting for your best interest! Learn more about how we can help you today. Whether your burn injury is a chemical burn, an electrical burn, or a burn caused by fire or scalding, our firm is prepared to fight for you. Let our team of qualified attorneys fight for the compensation you deserve while you focus on what is most important, recovering from your injuries. Learn more about what we can do for you today.
A settlement is a voluntary agreement reached by the parties in the lawsuit. A settlement resolving a debt lawsuit usually addresses how much the Defendant has agreed to pay and what actions the Plaintiff will (or won’t) take as long as the payment(s) are timely made. For a long-term payment plan, the Plaintiff may require the Defendant to sign an ‘Agreed Judgment.’ An Agreed Judgment is basically the Defendant admitting that the money is owed and the Plaintiff promising not to collect on the judgment as long as the Defendant makes the agreed upon payments. Settlements can vary from very simple to very complicated. Legal counsel should be sought before signing a settlement agreement.
Grandparents don’t have independent rights to visit their grandchildren and certainly not independent custody rights to their grandchildren. The only time or the only situation where you might have a grandparent assume custody or be granted guardianship over a grandchild is if both parents in some way aren’t able to care for their children, where there’s drug or alcohol issues or there’s incarceration issues, and they’re really looking to the next of kin to care for those children. Grandparents sometimes come into that.
State v. Abayuba Rivas A-15-21(086051): Justice Albin concurred that the defendant’s confession to law enforcement officers be thrown out because of his ambiguous request counsel. As mentioned in the previous case, questioning must cease once the suspect requests for counsel unless they initiate conversation with law enforcement officers. In 2014, Rivas reported his wife was missing and when he was answering questions to help police for the missing person’s investigation, he told them that he had stayed home when his wife went missing. Afterwards, he was shown surveillance footage that he was driving a truck registered to his name during that time. Rivas mentioned that he had left his 2 year old daughter alone at home while he drove around looking for his wife. He was subsequently arrested and incarcerated for child endangerment and providing false information to the police. Once he was placed in jail, he attempted suicide. When Rivas was brought to the hospital, he was questioned by detectives after his Miranda rights were read. He told detectives that under coercion, he had to drive his vehicle while they abducted his wife and they threatened him with death if he called police. Questioning went into the next day. Rivas told detectives, “Ah a lawyer, I need time to find a lawyer. I need to see how much they charge.” and “Do you think that I need a lawyer? Because how you say innocent?” The detectives told him that he had to decide that. Afterwards he told detectives “In the beginning, I say I don’t want a lawyer, and then I want a lawyer so.” and interrogation should have stopped but detectives continued to question him for 5 more hours. Here, the defendant’s 5th amendment right to counsel was violated because his statements should have been sufficient enough to invoke his right to counsel. During this interrogation, he admitted to killing his wife. The next day, the same confession was recorded but with added details. Since questioning never ceased after his ambiguous request for counsel, the court held that both his confessions are inadmissible.