Saturday, April 20, 2013

US Supreme Court Decision Results in Deportation For Many

The United States Supreme Court, in Chaidez v. U.S., rendered a decision that changed the fate of immigrants and lawful permanent residents throughout the nation who are awaiting deportation as a result of taking guilty pleas for certain crimes. The claim of Chaidez was based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Chaidez was a Mexican immigrant who was a lawful permanent resident for 20 years before pleading guilty to an aggravated felony. Chaidez' case took place in 2004 and in 2009 immigration sought to deport her. She filed a writ of coram nobis in federal court seeking to overturn her conviction, 5 years later, based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Her claim was the her attorney failed to advise her that a guilty plea to felony mail fraud would result in deportation. At the same time, the US Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky which held that defense attorneys are required to inform non-citizen clients of the immigration consequences of certain guilty pleas. The US Supreme Court, in Chaidez, rendered a holding that Padilla v. Kentucky created a "new rule" under the standards of Teague v. Lane and, as a new rule, Padilla does not reply retroactively to convictions prior to 2010. If you have been charged with a crime and are not a citizen, you should immediately seek counsel to advise you of the nature of the charges, the possible outcomes of your matter and whether deportation may occur. For more information on criminal charge in New Jersey superior or municipal courts visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. .

Sunday, April 14, 2013

U.S. May Retain Jurisdiction In International Custody Matters

International child custody matters are within the scope of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and dictates that the governing body returning a child to another country retains jurisdiction over the matter in certain cases. The International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) grants the United States concurrent jurisdiction and enables the United States to direct foreign courts to utilize Hague Convention protocol in deciding international custody matters. In, Chafin v. Chafin, a case where petitioner, a U.S. citizen, and respondent, a citizen of England, married in Germany and had a daughter while residing there. Petitioner was in the military and respondent relocated with the child to Scotland then Alabama as the petitioner was reassigned for military duty. While residing in Alabama, respondent filed for divorce, including custody. The respondent sought to return the child to Scotland. The district court found the child's "country of habitual residence", which is typically considered the location the child should be unless circumstances dictate otherwise, and granted respondent's request. Once in Scotland, respondent initiated custody proceedings. On review, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the continued pursuit of the matter by petitioner did not foreclose the U.S. from participation in the custody matter as jurisdiction of the U.S. courts was never extinguished by lapse of time or for other reason. Respondent was held to be within continued personal jurisdiction of the United States courts. If you are seeking to remove a child from or have a child returned to another state or territory, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on relocating with children, child custody, child support, enforcement, modification, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, custody or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

One Gun Law Does Not Violate Federal Act

New Jersey’s One Gun Law provides that “a dealer shall not knowingly deliver more than one handgun to any person within any 30-day period.” There is a provision exempting gun collectors, those inheriting guns and shooting competitors. In Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. State of New Jersey, plaintiffs contended the statute was in conflict with the Federal Toy Gun Act which prevents the individual states from interfering with sales of BB and other pellet-firing air guns other than to minors. They went further and challenged the exemptions for gun collectors and competitive shooters as being in violation of the due process clause. New Jersey’s one gun law was upheld by a federal appeals court as it is not a prohibition of the sales and is merely regulatory in nature in regard to sales of BB and other pellet-firing air guns. If you believe you are being wrongly prevented from purchasing or owning a gun or are facing gun charges you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on gun or weapon matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Shorter Waiting Periods for Marriage or Civil Union in NJ?

The NJ Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee approved legislation that does away with the 72 hour waiting period for a marriage license. The move by the legislature is intended to give New Jersey a competitive advantage against other states as a wedding destination. The legislation A-1335S-2106 also permits couples seeking marriage or civil union licenses to obtain them in the municipality where the ceremony is to occur where presently the licenses may only be obtained in the municipality where at least one party lives. Presently the surrounding states of Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware and Maryland have waiting periods of 24 hours or more. This legislation would most likely benefit New Jersey's financially ailing Atlantic City as well as beach and scenic areas. For more information on civil union, marriage, domestic partnership, pre-nuptial agreements, post-nuptial agreements, palimony agreements, dissolution, divorce, child support, custody, parenting time/visitation, adoption, modifications, alimony, palimony or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Parent Not Required to Pay For Child's College

In Edwards v. Edwards, father was granted a reduction in child support over objection of the mother, who was parent of primary residence, who also cross-moved for reimbursement of the child’s college tuition. The parties’ Property Settlement Agreement, entered in 1991, required each parent to contribute to college expenses of the children based on the parent’s ability to pay. The maternal grandfather established a $46,000 college trust for the child which provided for 3 years of education before the funds were exhausted. The child was able to obtain a partial scholarship and some loans but the amount did not meet his needs for the fourth year of education, his first at New York University film academy. The maternal grandfather provided the balance under the condition of repayment by the mother and the father. However, the father was completely unaware of the payments by the maternal grandfather and never committed to repayment of said loans. The judge below considered the factors set forth in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982) and found that the father did not have sufficient income to contribute to the child’s education and refused to compel the father to pay for college or repay the loan to the maternal grandfather. The New Jersey Appellate Court upheld the decision finding the economic situation of the father did not give rise to an ability to pay and the parties’ Property Settlement Agreement clearly set forth college contributions would be based on ability to pay. If you are seeking a modification of child support or alimony, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child support, custody, parenting time/visitation, adoption, dissolution of a civil union, marriage or domestic partnership, modifications, alimony, palimony or other family or juvenile law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.