Friday, January 31, 2020
The editor of Marriage and Divorce in America: Issues, Trends, and Controversies, a two-volume encyclopedia set, seeks contributors. This set will combine authoritative encyclopedia entries, insightful essays, and illuminating primary documents to provide a sweeping overview of the historical evolution, current characteristics, and social, economic, and political impact of both marriage and divorce in America.
Users of this resource will gain valuable insights into broad trends changing the landscape of American society, such as divorce rates, delayed marriages, and trends in marriage and divorce among various socioeconomic groups. Entries will range from 500-1,500 words.
For a list of available potential topics and more information, please email Jaimee L. Hartenstein, Ph.D., CFLE
Thursday, January 30, 2020
From Naomi Cahn (GW), writing for Forbes:
Emma (name and identifying details changed) was married to a man in the military for many years. During that time, he repeatedly abused her and their children. She reported the abuse to the police and to the military.
When she went to court, she had recordings of her husband’s threats against her. But a court decided to award custody of their children to the father.
Why? The father claimed parental alienation, that Emma was alienating the children from their father by false claims that he was abusing them.
The term “parental alienation” comes from the work of child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in the 1980s to explain what he saw as a shocking number of child sexual abuse allegations in custody litigation. Gardner claimed that many of these abuse allegations were fabricated by vengeful or pathological mothers.
But his theory has been subjected to strong criticism, such as that from Jeffrey Edleson, former director of the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse and professor and director of research at the University of Minnesota School of Social Work, who said in 2009 that, “PAS is essentially composed of unsubstantiated claims; there’s no science behind it.”
Read more here.
The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead on Monday for one of President Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, allowing his administration to implement a rule denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future.
The justices, on a 5-4 vote, granted the administration's request to lift a lower court's injunction that had blocked the so-called public charge policy while litigation over its legality continues. The rule has been criticized by immigrant rights advocates as a "wealth test" that would disproportionately keep out non-white immigrants.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Hargrove would tell her story multiple times in the House Office Building on Tuesday, as she joined with lawmakers and advocates pushing for Maryland to establish a felony strangulation law.
Hargrove said she wanted lawmakers to understand what it feels like to be strangled, “to not know whether you’re going to wake up.”
Stella Hargrove, a domestic violence survivor, chokes back tears in the House Office Building on Tuesday after telling her story of abuse, including strangulation, at the hands of her ex-husbaMnd.
Under current Maryland law, strangulation can be charged as a first-degree assault ― which says “a person may not intentionally cause or attempt to cause serious physical injury” with loss of bodily functions or a substantial risk of death ― but prosecutors say the cases are difficult to prove in court.
Read more here
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
From Daily Maverick/ MSN
The Legal Resources Centre (LRC), obtained judgment in the Durban High Court on 24 January 2020, on behalf of Ms Agnes Sithole and the Commission for Gender Equality, in a challenge to the application of sections 21(1) and 21(2) (a) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, which perpetuated the effect of the now-repealed section 22(6) provision of the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927.
Sithole, the first applicant, acted in her own and in the public interest on behalf of all affected South African women, whose right to property and financial security in marriage was in issue in this case. There are approximately 400,000 women affected by the provisions of section 22 (6) of the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927.
Sithole is 72 years old and entered into a civil marriage with her husband nearly 50 years ago. At the time, all African couples were married under section 22(6) of the Black Administration Act as were Mr and Ms Sithole. During the course of their marriage, Ms Sithole worked hard to support and elevate her family, and her four children are fiercely loving and protective of their mother.
Read more here
Monday, January 27, 2020
From Daily Press
The General Assembly is slated to vote on two bills this week that would loosen restrictions on abortion, something Democrats including Gov. Ralph Northam have made a priority now that they control the legislature and the governor’s office for the first time in decades.
The bills, sponsored by Sen. Jennifer McClellan and Del. Charniele Herring, would eliminate the requirement that a women get an ultrasound before an abortion to determine the fetus’ gestational age and wait 24 hours after the ultrasound to get the abortion. It would also eliminate the requirement that the woman be offered an ultrasound image and the opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat.
The bill also allows licensed physician assistants and nurse practitioners — not just physicians — to perform the abortion, and eliminates the requirement that women sit through mandated counseling that opponents called “biased.”
Last year, a federal judge in Richmond upheld the law that says only physicians could perform first-trimester abortions
Read more here
Taxation and Gender Equality Conference: Research Roundtable and Policy Program
As the Organizers and members of the Academic Advisory Committee we are pleased to issue this Announcement and Call for Contributions to an event that will be held on September 14 and 15, 2020, in Washington, DC, to explore the interaction between tax law and gender equality. The goal of the Conference, which is sponsored by the Tax Policy Center, the American Tax Policy Institute, the American Bar Foundation, and, subject to the final approval of their boards, the Tax Section of the American Bar Association and the American College of Tax Counsel, is to shine a spotlight on gender issues in taxation and to bring consideration of gender impacts into mainstream discussions surrounding the enactment and administration of tax laws. The intended scope of the Conference is broad, focusing not only on gender issues in U.S. tax law but also on gender issues in the tax laws of other countries; it will consider all taxes, whether income, consumption, transfer, wealth, or other national-level taxes, as well as subnational taxes.
The Conference will begin on Monday, September 14, 2020 at the Washington, DC, offices of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman with a research roundtable featuring principally academic papers. The research roundtable will follow the format typical of academic conferences, providing ample time for conversation among participants.
The second day of the Conference, Tuesday, September 15, 2020, will be held at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, also in Washington, DC. It will consist of a policy-oriented program of panel discussions bringing together academics, practicing attorneys, economists, policy makers, legislators and others to consider issues related to gender and taxation and to consider strategies for incorporation of gender-related concerns into everyday tax policy discourse. At least one panel will feature the recent work undertaken by the National Women’s Law Center exploring the relationship between taxation and gender (see https://nwlc-ciw49tixgw5lbab.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NWLC-Tax-Executive-Summary-Accessible.pdf).
We are now seeking participants interested in contributing either to the research roundtable or to the policy program (or to both). Participants can be legal academics, economists, legal practitioners, government officials, policy researchers, or others with an interest and expertise in tax law and its administration. Contributors from the United States as well as other countries are welcome.
Scholars, analysts and policymakers of all levels of seniority and from all disciplines are invited to submit proposals for consideration for inclusion in panel discussions. We expect that for each day of the program, there will be approximately 5-10 speaking slots available. Contributions to be presented at the research roundtable should be works in progress, not published (or committed to publication) prior to the conference. Contributions to be presented as part of the policy program may be works in progress or may be work published (or committed to publication) prior to the conference. A brief description of possible panel topics to be addressed in the policy program is provided below; please understand that this listing is intended to provide directional guidance on possible panel and research paper topics and should not be viewed as limiting the potential issues to be addressed.
Those interested in presenting at either the research roundtable or the policy program portion of the Conference should send an abstract of no more than 500 words describing their proposed presentation, an indication of whether the proposal is for the research roundtable or the policy program, and a copy of their CV to Alice Abreu at email@example.com. If the proposed panel presentation is based on a published or soon-to-be-published work, please also attach a copy or draft of the work. Expressions of interest are due by March 15, 2020. The Academic Advisory Committee expects to notify accepted participants by May 1, 2020. Accepted participants should submit circulation drafts of the work to be presented no later than August 14, 2020. Selected participants may be invited to publish their completed papers in The Tax Lawyer or may choose to publish elsewhere. (The Tax Lawyer is the flagship scholarly journal published by the Tax Section of the American Bar Association and is published in cooperation with the Graduate Tax Program of the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; it has a robust circulation both in print and through electronic access).
Limited funding may be available for reasonable travel expenses of those selected to present their work; in your expression of interest please indicate whether you will need financial assistance to participate in this event. There is no fee for attending the conference. The conference will be webcast and is open to members of the public.
We look forward to hearing from many interested potential contributors.
Organizers: Julie Divola (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and American Tax Policy Institute), Elaine Maag (Tax Policy Center), and Alice Abreu (Temple Center for Tax Law and Public Policy and American Tax Policy Institute)
Academic Advisory Committee: Alice Abreu (Temple), Bridget Crawford, (Pace) Anthony Infanti (Pittsburgh), Ariel Jurow Kleiman (San Diego), and Stephen Shay (Harvard)
POSSIBLE DISCUSSION TOPICS
The following is a representative list of panel topics for the policy program. Final panel topics will be determined based upon the abstracts received in response to this Call for Contributions.
- In general: A review of the positive and negative (intentional and unintentional) impacts of tax laws on gender equality, including a broad discussion of the form such tax laws can take (e.g., the marriage penalty, deductions or exemptions for entrepreneurial efforts, consumption vs. income taxes, wage withholding taxes, pink taxes, corporate tax expenditures).
- Impacts of U.S. tax laws on gender equality. Possible topics for separate panels include:
- Specific issues under the TCJA.
- A comparisons of gender equality issues as reflected in the tax reform proposals advanced by the current presidential candidates.
- One or more topics covered in three interrelated reports prepared by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) that examine the federal tax code with a focus on gender and racial equity and explore policies to make the tax code work for everyone. (See (i) The Faulty Foundations of the Tax Code: Gender and Racial Bias in Our Tax Laws, (ii) Reckoning with the Hidden Rules of Gender in the Tax Code: How Low Taxes on Corporations and the Wealthy Impact Women’s Economic Opportunity and Security and (iii) The Faulty Foundations of the Tax Code: Gender and Racial Bias in Our Tax Laws at https://nwlc.org/resources/gender-and-the-tax-code/.) The papers were prepared by NWLC in collaboration with Groundwork Collaborative, the Roosevelt Institute, and the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality.
- Impact of U.S. tax administration (including collection and other enforcement efforts) on gender equality (e.g., innocent spouse relief).
- Discussion of the economic impact of tax laws that influence gender equality (e.g., distributional effect on how income is distributed between the sexes and allocative effect on how paid and unpaid labor is allocated between the sexes). General discussion of the connection between gender equality and economic growth.
- Examination of tax systems in countries that have historically been more thoughtful than the United States on the question of taxation and gender equality, including measures such countries have taken to advance the issue. For example, the German Technical Cooperative has a program to support OECD partner countries in their efforts to reform tax policy and tax administration to avoid or eliminate gender bias.
- Examination of the impact of tax laws on gender equality in developing countries. For example, the International Centre for Tax and Development with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done research in this area.
- Use of gender-neutral language in the tax law and government publications and encouraging equivalent use of names that suggest male, female, and indeterminate genders and the accompanying pronouns.
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Indiana must list same-sex parents on their child’s birth certificate, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday in a 10-page opinion that took 32 months to issue.
The case, Henderson v. Box, is easy to resolve under Supreme Court precedent. In his decision for a unanimous panel, Judge Frank Easterbrook explained that Indiana’s parentage scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples. When an opposite-sex couple has a child, the law grants a “presumption of parenthood” to the father and lists him on the birth certificate. But when a same-sex couple has a child, the law denies that presumption and forces the second parent to undergo the arduous, expensive process of adopting their own child. Thus, when a woman married to a man uses a sperm donor, her husband is deemed the child’s father. When a woman married to a woman uses a sperm donor, by contrast, her wife is denied legal parenthood. Moreover, a child born to married opposite-sex couples are deemed to be born “in wedlock,” while children born to same-sex couples are considered to be born “out of wedlock.”
Read more here.
Saturday, January 25, 2020
From Naomi Cahn (GW), writing for Forbes:
In the private sector, telework is rising. As many as 43% of all employees spend at least some time working remotely, at a location that differs from their coworkers.
Yet, the Washington Post reported earlier this month that the federal government is seeking to limit telework at a number of agencies because of worries that employees are “slacking off.”
There are lots of semi-truths about telework —and work/life balance — and there are lots of ways that workers can respond to the challenges of telecommuting.
Read more here.
Friday, January 24, 2020
From U.S. News
The Vermont Legislature has given final approval to a bill that would guarantee workers as many as 12 weeks of paid family leave, but its future is uncertain.
The Vermont House gave final approval to the billion Thursday after lawmakers in the chamber agreed to a version given final approval by the Senate this month.
Read more here
From AP News
The Trump administration is imposing new visa rules aimed at restricting “birth tourism,” in which women travel to the United States to give birth so their children can have U.S. citizenship. The regulations, which take effect Friday, address one of President Donald Trump’s main political priorities.
The regulations seek to chip away at the number of foreigners who take advantage of the constitutional provision granting“birthright citizenship” to anyone born in the United States, a particular peeve of Trump’s. Under the new rules, pregnant applicants will be denied a tourist visa unless they can prove they must come to the U.S. to give birth for medical reasons and they have money to pay for it or have another compelling reason — not just because they want their child to have an American passport.
Read more here
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Israel signed an agreement with Russia on Wednesday that precludes LGBTQ parents from adopting Russian children. While the agreement does not spell this out, it notes that adoptions will be done in line with the laws of both countries. Since in Russia LGBT parents are barred from adopting children, this will now apply to Israelis seeking to adopt in Russia.
Before the signing of this agreement, Russia was the only country allowing Israelis to adopt children, with the procedure being managed by the Ministry of Social Affairs.
Read more here
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
From Journal Review
Federal appellate judges closely questioned attorneys for the government and Native American tribes Wednesday over whether a law meant to preserve Native American families and culture unconstitutionally intrudes into state adoption issues.
It was the second time in a year that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was considering the future of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act. A three-judge panel of the appellate court upheld the act in August .
Opponents of the law — including non-native families who have tried to adopt American Indian children — sought and got a full court re-hearing. Sixteen judges heard the latest arguments.
Aside from strictly legal issues, the case sparks strong emotions. Matthew McGill, representing families challenging the law, told the court that one set of would-be adoptive parents had a child “pried out of their arms because she was not an Indian.”
Outside the courthouse, Rosa Soto Alvarez, of Tuscon, Arizona, held onto the flag of the Pascua Yaqui tribe. She said the ICWA helped her and her three siblings get adopted by a Native American family after her mother's suicide when she was 11.
“Because I grew up in a Yaqui home, and knowing our culture and tradition, I was elected to be in tribal leadership,” said Alvarez, a member of the tribal council.
Read more here
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
A bill is set to be passed in the West Virginia House of Delegates to change when a child can talk and give a preferred outcome in a custody case.
The proposal by Delegate Geoff Foster would allow a child of any age to speak in a hearing if the judge believes they are mature enough. Currently, the child must be at least 14 years old to even be considered fit.
"We've got an arbitrary number in our family court system that says basically a child's opinion doesn't matter whether the judge thinks they are of sufficient mindset of maturity to make a relevant decision," Foster said.
The bill would allow a child more options in a tough situation, Foster said. Most often, a child wants to spend as much time with both parents as possible.
"Children do best when they have contact with both parents," psychologist Dr. Timothy Saar said. "Very young children need to have very frequent contact going back and forth. Older children can do a little bit better with longer times between visitation. But it is important that there is communication between the children and both sets of parents."
Read more here
Friday, January 17, 2020
From ABA Journal
Judges aren’t supposed to represent clients, but that didn’t seem to stop William Edwards, who sits in Westchester County, New York.
According to a State of New York Commission on Judicial Conduct determination released Jan. 10, Edwards on three separate occasions appeared as an attorney for his daughter in Albany County Family Court. The appearances took place between November 2015 and April 2016, with two of the three matters involving petitions for protection orders.
The commission found that Edwards’ conduct was close to warranting removal, but because he had admitted that his behavior warranted public discipline, and the body was confident that he’d follow judicial conduct rules going forward, censure was appropriate.
Read more here
Thursday, January 16, 2020
From The Associated Press
New York has become the 10th state to allow adopted adults unrestricted access to their original birth certificates, a step that will help some people investigate their family histories.
A new law effective Wednesday does away with restrictions dating back to the 1930s that required an adoptee to seek a hard-to-get court order to access original birth records.
Those rules had originally been intended to protect the privacy of parents who relinquished their children. But attitudes about the rights of adopted individuals have shifted, while social media and DNA technology have made it easier for long-separated relatives to connect.
Read more here
From The Texas Tribune
Three Texas towns recently voted in favor of anti-abortion ordinances, extending the reach of a campaign to create “sanctuary cities for the unborn” across the state.
The city councils of Big Spring and Colorado City — with populations around 28,000 and 4,000, respectively — voted Tuesday for a version of the controversial ordinance, which started popping up in small towns in East Texas last year. The ordinance aims to outlaw abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court makes it possible to do so. It also grants family members of women who have abortions the ability to sue the provider for emotional distress.
Read more here
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
From the Des Moines Register:
A Kansas man has asked an Iowa court to grant his motion for trial by combat so he can meet his ex-wife and her attorney "on the field of battle where (he) will rend their souls from their corporal bodies."
He asked the Iowa District Court in Shelby County to give him 12 weeks "lead time" in order to source or forge katana and wakizashi swords, as first reported by the Carroll Times Herald.
"To this day, trial by combat has never been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States," Ostrom argues in court records, adding that it was used "as recently as 1818 in British Court."
Read more here.
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
From National Review
The bill, called the “Roe Act,” defines “mental health” in the exact same expansive language that the Supreme Court used in the Roe v. Wade companion case Doe v. Bolton: “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the person’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” This lenient definition essentially allows for abortion on demand up until the moment of birth.
The Roe Act also would permit abortion after viability if a doctor deems the unborn child “incompatible with sustained life outside the uterus.” Though the right to abortion is already protected by the Massachusetts state constitution, this legislation would enshrine that right in law as well.
The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research group, frequently ranks Massachusetts as only a “middle-ground” state for abortion rights, chiefly because the state still requires minors to obtain parental consent before seeking an abortion. The new legislation would change that, allowing any woman — or, as the bill puts it, “pregnant person” — to obtain an abortion as long as she has given informed consent. Twenty-one states currently require parental consent for minors, eleven require only parental notification, and five require both parental notification and consent.
Read more here