A bill in the Connecticut Legislature looks to allow certain Connecticut municipalities (those with more than 48,000 people) to install red light cameras at intersections. The cameras would watch for cars running red lights. The drivers of those cars would then be ticketed approximately $50.
The bill has started a public debate that weighs safety with civil rights.
Some cities favor the bill because it would help them enforce traffic laws and bring in revenue. Safety advocates say the bill would promote safe driving and help reduce Connecticut auto crashes.
Others believe that the bill is a “revenue-generating initiative” that infringes on the public’s civil rights. The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Connecticut said that red light cameras violate the 14th Amendment because they don’t give defendants notice that they violated the law or offer them adequate defense.
There is even an argument that the cameras will increase rear-end car accidents at intersections because they force people to come to an abrupt stop.
Accidents at intersections
According to a study by the NHTSA, approximately 40 percent of all crashes are intersection-related accidents. There were 2.3 million intersection-related accidents in 2008 alone. Most (96 percent) of these accidents were caused by negligent drivers, many of whom simply failed to pay attention.
Rear-end collisions are common at intersections, but even more common are accidents involving drivers turning left. Often, accidents are caused when a driver turns left at a yellow light while a car going the other direction speeds through the light.
In 2008, drivers running red lights caused 762 deaths and at least 165,000 injuries. Furthermore, at least half of the individuals who were killed in red-light running accidents were innocent drivers or walkers hit by the driver running the red light.
According to a 2004 study by the NHTSA, 97 percent of U.S. drivers see red light running as a major safety threat. We will have to wait to see if the Legislature passes Connecticut’s red light camera bill and, if it does, whether it reduces the number of red-light accidents.
Source: Litchfield County Times, “Connecticut Debate Over Cameras to Catch Those Who Run Red Lights Rages On,” Jordan Fenster, Mar. 12, 2012.
Five Ways To Tell If Your Husband Is Hiding Assets – Forbes
Two points:
1. The article speaks only of husbands hiding assets. I understand that historically the husband was typically the higher (or sole) earner and therefore the spouse primarily responsible for accumulating assets. But here is an invite to join the rest of us in the 21st century. Hiding assets is an “equal opportunity” game fueled by greed and distrust and by no means limited to husbands.
2. I do not agree that hiding assets is easy to do – at least not if you take an active role in the finances from the beginning of the marriage. Pay attention when things are going well. It will make it much easier to get a handle on finances when divorce is on the horizon.
Just read a great article from fellow family law attorney Henry Gornbein setting forth seven things clients should never say to their divorce lawyer.
Henry Gornbein: Things You Should Never Say To Your Divorce Lawyer
A few thoughts:
These “things” are not unique to divorce law. Many of these points apply equally as well to most types of litigation.
I especially agree with the notion that revenge has no place in divorce litigation (thing #1). Those seeking payback (angry litigants) will likely be disappointed in how little the “system” cares about meting out vengeance. In fact, it often backfires – particularly with child custody.
In addition, taking legal advice from friends and/or relatives is not good for your health (point #3). Every case is different. The variables are countless. I am sure those close to you are well intentioned. However, relying on them or comparing your case to theirs will just leave you frustrated and second-guessing matters unnecessarily.
Finally, I will add my own “thing” to never do. Mislead. Withhold information. Engage in any form of deception. You get the idea. Examples include: filing an inaccurate Financial Affidavit, not telling your lawyer the “real” truth”, testifying falsely at a deposition or during a court hearing and hiding income or assets. Get caught engaging in any of these behaviors and you are ruined. And your lawyer will not be able to pick up the pieces.
A collaborative divorce is designed to be less contentious than a traditional, litigated divorce. In fact, both parties in a collaborative divorce sign an agreement that they will not participate in any court or adversarial action. They further agree to engage in “good faith” negotiations and to provide full, honest and open disclosure of all information to reslove issues.
Is your divorce appropriate for the collaborative process?
Reading the article below may help you decide.
Three common tax issues arise with children and divorce:
1. Dependent child exemption. As a general rule, the custodial parent is entitled to claim the dependency exemption. The custodial parent is defined by the IRS as the parent whom the child lived with for the greater number of nights during the year.
Note – joint legal custody (i.e. joint decision-making) is not relevant for purposes of determining the exemption. It is physical (residential) custody that counts.
However, the custodial parent can give this exemption to the non-custodial parent by signing IRS Form 8332. It is often a point that is negotiated during the divorce process. For example, parents may alternate the claiming the child or, in the case of multiple children, one parent claims Jane and the other claims John.
2. Child care credit – also known as day care credit. Only the custodial parent can use this credit. Therefore, unlike the dependency exemption, it cannot be assigned to the noncustodial parent.
3. Child tax credit. This tax credit may be worth as much as $1,000 per qualifying child depending on one’s income. Several factors must be satisfied to claim this credit. At a minimum, the taxpayer must be able to claim the child as a dependent.
I have seen a dramatic increase in clients inquiring about custody of their pet(s). Under Connecticut law, pets are considered property – like a house, car or other asset.
Therefore, the term “pet custody” is somewhat misleading. Unlike issues concering children, the judge is not required to take into account the “best interest” of the pet. Furthermore, I am not aware of any contested cases where the judge awards custody to one party and visitation to the other party. As such, it is really the judge deciding ownership – not custody.
Finally, since a pet is property, there is no possibility of filing a motion to modify the award of ownership.
Divorce lawyers see increase in pet custody cases – Spokesman.com – March 3, 2012.