RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CHILDREN’S REMOVAL

The Court of Appeals in J.C. v. D.C. decided on December 27, 2018, addressed and analyzed the District’s CFSA (Child and Family Services) policy of removal of the children from parental home based on medical report of possible abuse and began the process of scrutinizing the constitutionality of such removals and the limits thereof. Factually, the parent (J.C.), had brought her child (8 months old) to the Children’s Medical Center for vomiting, retching, and acting uncharacteristically irritable. The child was diagnosed with old and new bleeding in the front left region of her head (subdural hematoma), along with “retinal hemorrhages”
Read More

DC DIVORCE AND AWARD OF ALIMONY — HOW AND HOW MUCH AWARDED …

In a divorce proceeding involving legal determination of the child support, and alimony obligations, the court will reach a global ruling while considering compelling elements enumerated in the Statute pertaining specifically to alimony but the decision will not be in vacuum. The Statute specifically provides order of alimony when “just and proper” factoring the listed legal elements that the court balances as well as all the relevant factors necessary for a fair and equitable award: (1) ability of the party seeking alimony to be wholly or partly self-supporting; (2) time necessary for the party seeking alimony to gain sufficient education or training
Read More

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STALKING STATUTE: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION

The Court of Appeals in Beachum v. US decided on December 20, 2018, analyzed and ruled on whether the DC Stalking Statute as written was constitutional. Section 22-3133 (a)(3) in pertinent parts provides that: It is unlawful for a person to purposefully engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific individual . . . [t]hat the person should have known would cause a reasonable person in the individual’s circumstances to: (A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person; (B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or (C) Suffer emotional distress. The appellant argued
Read More

RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: REVERSAL DUE TO ERROR IN LAW

The Court of Appeals in Solon v. US decided on November 29, 2018, reversed a disorderly conduct conviction as it disagreed but the trial court’s statutory interpretation. Solon had intermingled with the Climate Movement March carrying signs in support of the administration and generally causing agitation and stir among the demonstrators. She was ultimately put under arrest and charged with disorderly conduct as well as two assault charges again two individuals. The DC disorderly conduct statute (D.C. Code § 22-1321 (a)(1) provides: in any place open to the general public, . . . it is unlawful for a person to
Read More

DC CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION & VARIATIONS

Generally the DC Courts are inclined to confer and extend jurisdiction to litigants rather than declining it. This blog details some of original, continuing, and non-conventional child custody jurisdictional parameters and scope. Initial child-custody jurisdiction District has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination under one of the three criteria: 1 )  The District is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding and if the child is currently absent from the District, a parent or
Read More

REVERSAL DUE TO FAULTY JURY INTRUCTIONS: RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION:

The Court of Appeals in Coley v. U.S., decided on November 15, 2018, reversed several felony convictions due to faulty jury instructions by the trial judge. Initially during the jury polling, one of jurors expressed disagreement with the verdict, which was announced to be unanimous. The trial judge appropriately at that time instructed the jury as such and according to the Jury Instruction 2.603: “[I]n the poll of the jury, it’s become apparent that you may not have reached a unanimous verdict. Now, for this reason I’m going to ask you to return to the jury room for further consideration
Read More

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) v. TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER (TPO): DC FAMILY LAWYER

Although the Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) and the Temporary Civil Protection Orders (TPO) sound similar, the eligibility, process and enforceability of the orders are vastly different. To be eligible to file for TPO/CPO one must meet either the interpersonal violence, intimate partner violence, or the intrafamily violence criteria. Interpersonal violence is defined as an act or a criminal offense that is committed or threatened to be committed upon a person: With whom the offender shares or has shared a mutual residence; or Who is or was married to, in a domestic partnership with, divorced or separated from, or in a
Read More

CRIMINAL & CIVIL CONTEMPT IN DC: DC FAMILY LAWYER

The contempt powers of the court are divided into both criminal and civil contempt. Generally criminal contempt is reserved where there is willful and blatant violation of court order where as the civil contempt is reserved for non-compliance or neglect of a court order. In another word: Criminal contempt is a violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. And the Civil contempt: is a sanction imposed by the court to enforce compliance with a court order or to compensate a party for losses or damages caused by noncompliance with a court
Read More

NEAR ACT IN DC: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: DC ASSAULT LAWYER

The Court of Appeals in Coleman v. U.S. decided on October 11, 2018, affirmed simple assault convictions against the police officers as well as affirming the trial’s court denial of the self-defense claim. Coleman was questioned by the police officers during a routine traffic stop regarding his tinted car windows. The stop escalated and Coleman both resisted arrest, and assaulted the police officers. He was charged with APO, Assault on Police Officer. The government at trial dropped the Assault on Police Officers (APO) charges to Simple Assault to eliminate the jury demandable offense to non-jury bench trial, which they typically
Read More

ALIMONY PAYMENTS AND THE NEW TAX CODE: DC DIVORCE LAWYER

Tax changes promulgated with introduction of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) in 2017 will affect large groups of population, including couples finalizing their divorce in 2019. Beginning January 1, 2019 the paying spouse will no longer be able take deduct alimony, and the recipient spouse will not need to report alimony as income. That is, the alimony payments will be treated same as child support payments. In short, all agreements made or orders entered from that date forward, the party paying alimony will not be able to deduction such payments on his/her tax return. The receiving party will not declare the
Read More