Bridgeport, CT Metro Family Law Blog

In recent years, Connecticut has seen a rise in the number of pro se litigants. According to statistics from Connecticut's Judicial Branch, as cited in the Connecticut Post, between 2005 and 2009, the number of people choosing to represent themselves in civil litigation rose by more than double, from 12,356 to 26,252. This includes a 35 percent increase in the number of self-represented individuals in family law matters.

With this influx of "do-it-yourselfers," two websites are seeking to help these non-lawyers through the process.

A New York judge has ordered that a Long Island mother make her two children available to talk to their father via Skype, an online video conferencing service, as a condition of her move to Florida.

This is the first time such a condition has been made on a case in New York, the New York Law Journal reports. But last year, the New York Times reported that a number of states have begun allowing for "virtual visitation," giving judges the option to keep non-custodial parents in contact with their children via e-mail, instant messaging and Web cams.

In the New York case, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo, in Baker v. Baker, ordered that the mother, at her own expense, "will see to it, prior to re-location, that the Respondent, as well as the children, are provided the appropriate internet access via a Skype device which allows a real time broadcast of communications between the Respondent and his children."

The couple has been divorced since 2008 and the mother, who is unemployed, is planning to move to Florida where she can live with her parents and find work.

In granting the mother's request over the father's objections to his children moving, Garguilo noted that common sense makes clear that a move aimed at finding a better way to support the family is necessary.

I had no idea what skype was until my 15 year old niece from Florida came to visit this summer.  She used skype to maintain contact with her boyfriend.  That may be an acceptable alternative to going out on a date.  But I have concerns about using skype for visitation or parenting time.  While the judge in this case may have been well-intentioned there is simply no substitute for  face to face, hands on parenting time with ones child.   I agree that there may be circumstances when this is the only way to maintain some form of parenting time but I would hope these cases are rare.   How does a parent help with homework, throw a baseball or give a hug with skype?   

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/an-end-to-gay-adoption

Connecticut allows for same sex couples to adopt children.   However, this was not always the case.  Prior to 2000 Connecticut prohibited same sex couples from adopting.  In 2000, Puiblic Act 00-228 "An Act Concerning the Best Interest of Child in Adoption Matters" was passed.  This Act authorized a single parent of a child to add his or her partner as an adoptive parent regardless of their gender or marital status. 

In 2001, Margaret Mueller was diagnosed with cancer. According to the Stamford Times, a pathologist reviewed samples of tissue and diagnosed Mueller with cancer of the appendix.

However, doctors Iris Wertheim and Isodore Tepler of Stamford Hospital diagnosed and treated her for ovarian cancer. Though diagnosed as cancer free in 2003 by Dr. Tepler, Mueller's cancer spread to other parts of her body. She underwent extensive surgeries and procedures, finally succumbing to her cancer in January of 2009. Experts who testified in the case stated that she would have lived another 10 years if she had been diagnosed correctly.

Connecticut has allocated 1.75 million to allow Connecticut domestic violence shelters to stay open 24 hours per day.  Connecticut was one of only five states that did not provide for shelters to be open around the clock.

There is also a pilot program in courts in Bridgeport, Danielson and Hartford that will track family violence offenders by using electronic monitoring.

Every year, distracted drivers kill approximately 6,000 people and injure 500,000 more in the United States, according to the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is working to combat this problem through a pilot program that combines stepped-up enforcement of state texting-while-driving laws with a highly visible ad campaign encouraging drivers not to use mobile devices while driving.

Phone in One Hand. Ticket in the Other.

Like the "Click It or Ticket" ads, the "Phone in One Hand. Ticket in the Other" campaign aims to change the behavior of people by conveying the fact that certain actions are not safe while driving.

In response to growing indifference toward the danger of texting and phone use while driving, the DOT selected Hartford, Connecticut, and Syracuse, New York, as locations for its anti-distraction pilot program. The DOT gave each city a $200,000 federal grant matched by a $100,000 state grant to step up enforcement of laws banning hand held mobile phone use while driving.

The Current Ban on Texting While Driving

Many states, including Connecticut, already have laws in place prohibiting texting while driving. Despite these laws, at any given time, 11 percent of all people driving on the road are using phones. This continuing and troubling trend of using phones while driving is a contributing factor in the high number of traffic deaths caused by distracted driving in the United States. In fact, people who use hand held devices while driving are four times more likely to cause serious accidents than people who do not.

In Connecticut, the law:

• Requires drivers over the age of 18 to use a hands free device when making a phone call while driving
• Prohibits anyone from texting while driving
• Bans the use of any phone or mobile device while driving for any person under the age of 18

The DOT will use the results of this pilot program to model anti-distraction programs in other cities across the nation. It hopes that with continued enforcement of existing laws, passage of new laws and an aggressive ad campaign, people will put down their phones and pay attention to driving.

Marriage equality is a divisive subject across the United States, but never more so than now. In Connecticut, six hopefuls are vying for the attorney general seat in the next election, and each has recently solidified his or her position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, prevents recognition of marriage equality on the federal level. It also gives states the right to not recognize same-sex marriage; in other words, even though a same-sex couple might be considered married in Connecticut, the marriage is not necessarily recognized in other states.

Many people feel that DOMA is unconstitutional in that it restricts the rights of some Americans that are granted to others. DOMA also limits the federal benefits given to same-sex couples, such as tax breaks, that are available to heterosexual married couples.

Since Connecticut and Massachusetts are two of the very few states that have legalized same-sex marriage, the Attorney General candidates were asked to clarify their position on Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's lawsuit that attempts to overturn DOMA on constitutional grounds.

The Democratic attorney general candidates have announced their support of Coakley in her desire to overturn DOMA. While the Republican candidates have been more tepid in their response, they agree that their job as attorney general would be to support and uphold Connecticut law -- to stand behind Connecticut residents in their desire to maintain legalization of same-sex marriage.

In the ever-changing legal landscape, it is important to keep current on changes in legislation and legal decisions. At the Brian D. Kaschel Law Office, I always keep up-to-date on changes in the law to better serve my clients.

I know that keeping you informed about the legal issues that affect your life is an important part of being a lawyer. The purpose of this Blog is to inform you about a wide range of legal topics, including family law, personal injury, probate and juvenile court matters.

Also, I want to hear from you. I invite you to share your opinions, questions and concerns on the topics discussed in this Blog.

I have always strived to provide my clients with individualized, attentive legal service. With this Blog, I hope to be able to continue that personal approach to the practice of law.

Please contact my firm today online or by telephone at 866-603-8810 to discuss your specific legal issue.