Earlier this week Connecticut Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman announced the state police’s plan to crackdown on distracted driving. In continuation of a federal pilot program, both Connecticut and New York will be sending out state and local police in full force the first two weeks of April, looking for drivers using handheld phones.
Use of a handheld phone while driving is illegal in Connecticut – and has been for the last six years. But despite the law, it seems that many Connecticut drivers continue to talk and text on handheld devices while behind the wheel.
In early April, state and local police will be stopping drivers who are talking on handheld phones or texting while driving. And drivers will no longer be driving away with just a warning. “There are higher fines that are going to be given out,” said Wyman. “We’re no longer going to forgive the first time that you’re caught.”
Fines might not be the only repercussions that drivers face, as officers can take away handheld cell phones from individuals who are caught using it while driving.
The goal of the crackdown is to determine whether increased enforcement will actually prevent texting while driving and, in turn, reduce car accidents due to distracted driving.
Increased enforcement efforts as part of the federal pilot began in Connecticut in 2010. In the last year, law enforcement officers in Hartford, West Hartford and East Hartford have cited 6,900 drivers for talking on cell phones and another 348 drivers for texting.
Source: Conn. police to crack down on distracted driving; Connecticut Cracking Down on Cell Phone Drivers
You proposed. She accepted. You gave her an engagement ring. Then things took a turn for the worse. Eventually the wedding is cancelled.
Who keeps the engagement ring? A recent Bridgeport Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the man.
The woman argued that the ring was a gift and therefore should not be returned. She was partially right. The prevailing view is that the ring is a gift -but a “conditional” gift. The condition? The eventual marriage between the parties. So if the marriage does not occur then the condition is not met. As a result, the ring should be returned.
The decision did not seem to take “fault” surrounding the breakup into account. This makes sense for two reasons:
1) No fault is the modern trend in terms of handling most family matters; and
2) The court would spend a lot of effort, resources and time to determine fault for the termination of an engagement. Such an approach would not be efficient given that common law contract principles could settle the dispute.
Please contact me if you have a dispute over the engagement ring or other pre-marital property.
I often get phone calls from those who feel they were defamed. They are typically upset that someone made a negative statement about them. However, defamation requires more than a negative statement.
The statement must be false. If the statement is true, a defamation case will fail.
In addition, the statement must cause damage to someone’s reputation. Damages are often difficult to prove and to quantify.
A recent Connecticut case illustrates these elements. A landlord was called a “slumlord” at a public meeting. However, the landlord admitted that there were always complaints about the buildings he leased. A newpaper reporter testified that the landlord had a reputation as “notorious slumlord.” The landlord failed to prove that the statement calling him a “slumlord” was false. Therefore, the landlord could not prevail on that part of his defamation case.
The landlord was also called an arsonist. However, the court found that the statement did little to harm the landlord’s business reputation and only awarded him $1.
A claim of defamation must be analyzed very carefully. It is important to weigh the costs involved, the likelihood of success and the potential amount of recovery.
In addition, suing for defamation will generate a public a record of the case. This may in turn create unwanted publicity to the statement(s). By suing, you may create a larger audience to learn about what someone said about you. This may be an unwelcome and counterproductive result.
One would think that a DCF Investigation would reduce the future risk of abuse or neglect to those children whose parents were investigated. Not so according to a recent study.
The study examined the records of 595 similiarily situated children from ages 4 – 8. Of those children, 164 were part of a family that was investigated by Child Protective Services. Four years later, the researchers interviewed all 595 families to compare the investigated families to the non-investigated families. The researchers specifically looked at indicators for abuse and neglect such as family functioning, caregiver education and support.
The findings? Child Protective (DCF) Investigations had little or no effect in reducing the risk for future abuse or neglect.
The likely reason? A DCF investigation focuses on a short-term (acute) problem. DCF often fails to address the long term (chronic) issues by offering and supportive ongoing services for families in need. If DCF used this approach, it would reduce certain risk factors within families which still exist long after the original DCF Investigation is closed.
Heres the NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/12child.html?_r=2&emc=eta1
Feedback welcomed.
Divorce mediation in Connecticut is a process in which a divorcing couple attempts to resolve their outstanding issues with the assistance of a neutral third party (divorce mediator). A divorce mediator is typically an attorney with a family law background and training in dispute resolution.
Divorce mediation may or not be appropriate for your case.
Why Mediation?
1) Mediation sessions usually take place in the mediator’s office. The setting is more relaxed and informal than appearing in court in front of a judge.
2) Promoters of mediation usually market the process as being less expensive than a litigated divorce. This may be true in some cases but not true in others. The answer turns on the extent of the litigation. A fully contested divorce involving custody of children, significant assets, property claims and other financial considerations will be expensive by most standards; especially if the case ultimately goes to trial. However, if the case is litigated in a cost effective manner and does not proceed to trial (uncontested divorce) the legal fees may be less than protracted mediation.
3) There is more family privacy in mediation. Obviously, the sessions are not open to the public as most court proceedings are. In addition, the negotiations are confidential.
4) Some courthouses have a heavy docket of family cases. Therefore, mediating your issue(s) may provide a more timely resolution rather than enduring litigation.
Why not Mediation?
1) Both spouses need to participate in a cooperative and meaningful way. If one spouse is opposed (or even reluctant) to mediation it probably will not be effective. In addition, if a spouse refuses to be transparent with their finances mediation will not work.
2) The dynamics of the relationship may prevent mediation. For example, if the level of animosity is high or if one of the spouses is violent or abusive you should plan on proceeding to court rather than mediating.
3) A mediator is not a judge. The mediator makes recommendations; that’s it. A mediator cannot make orders nor can the mediator make demands of either of you. If you are looking to have your position validated or you want the mediator to “take sides” do not go to mediation.
4) The mediator’s objective is to achieve a settlement. The settlement may or not be favorable to you. The mediator is not an advocate for a particular position; instead the mediator is trying to settle the case. In an effort to get a deal done your position may be compromised. Always have an attorney review any proposal before agreeing to it. Better yet, have an attorney guide you throughout your mediation process.
5) In the end, mediation can actually cost you more money. Mediation is not binding. Mediation costs money. There are no refunds in mediation. So if one spouse refuses to participate further in mediation or if a spouse refuses to sign the proposed Agreement you lose all the time and money invested. Then you have to spend even money to litigate on top of the money you spent on the failed mediation. Instead, had you litigated to begin with you could have saved yourself thousands of dollars.
Please contact me to discuss divorce mediation in Connecticut.