Parenting is hard work. It is also rewarding. People probably do not give a lot of thought to parenting being hard work because everyone has parents and most people end up having kids. Also, the rewarding parts of parenting often make the hard parts seem worth it.
Showing posts with label family law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family law. Show all posts
Friday, April 19, 2013
Friday, March 9, 2012
Advice for bigamists
Bigamists should not use Facebook. Or at the very least, bigamists should not friend their wives on Facebook. That is the lesson that Alan O'Neill, a Pierce County, Washington corrections officer is allegedly learning the hard way. Because of Facebook, Officer O'Neil is accused of committing bigamy.
According to a report in the Tacoma, Washington News Tribune, in 2001 Officer O'Neill (whose last name at the time was Fulk) married a woman the paper refers to as "Wife No. 1." In 2009, Officer O'Neill stopped living with Wife 1 but neither he nor she filed for divorce. Although the paper doesn't mention it I assume that it was during the 2001-2009 period that Officer O'Neill and Wife No. 1 became Facbook friends.
According to charging documents cited by the paper, in December 2009, Officer O'Neill changed his last name from Fulk to O'Neill. Later that month he allegedly married a woman the paper identifies as "Wife No. 2." Although the paper doesn't mention it Officer O'Neill apparently was Facebook friends with Wife No. 2.
It would be an interesting case of life imitating art if Wife No. 1 discovered Wife No. 2 because she was reenacting the final scene of "The Social Network." Unfortunately, that is not how Wife No. 1 discovered Wife No. 2. Instead, Facebook's "people you may know" feature suggested that the two women should be friends because they were both friends with Officer O'Neill.
Apparently, Wife No. 2's Facebook profile photo was of her and Officer O'Neill standing next to a wedding cake. Wife No. 1 saw this and called her mother-in-law. The paper quotes court records as saying that an hour later Officer O'Neil arrived at Wife No. 1's apartment where he allegedly admitted that he and Wife No. 1 were still married in response to being asked if they were divorced. Officer O'Neill allegedly told Wife No. 1 not to tell anybody about the dual marriages and said he would fix the problem.
It will not surprise anyone familiar with William Congreve to learn that Wife No. 1 did not do as Officer O'Neill suggested. Instead, Wife No. 1 alerted the authorities and now Officer O'Neill is on unpaid administrative leave as he awaits a March 22, hearing date to answer the charge of felony bigamy.
The paper quotes the attorney prosecuting Officer O'Neill as saying “It’s not the crime of the century, but it is a crime.” This, of course, could presumably be said of every crime but one. In any event, Officer O'Neill's troubles are a reminder that when one stops a romantic relationship with someone, one should probably not keep them as Facebook friends.
According to a report in the Tacoma, Washington News Tribune, in 2001 Officer O'Neill (whose last name at the time was Fulk) married a woman the paper refers to as "Wife No. 1." In 2009, Officer O'Neill stopped living with Wife 1 but neither he nor she filed for divorce. Although the paper doesn't mention it I assume that it was during the 2001-2009 period that Officer O'Neill and Wife No. 1 became Facbook friends.
According to charging documents cited by the paper, in December 2009, Officer O'Neill changed his last name from Fulk to O'Neill. Later that month he allegedly married a woman the paper identifies as "Wife No. 2." Although the paper doesn't mention it Officer O'Neill apparently was Facebook friends with Wife No. 2.
It would be an interesting case of life imitating art if Wife No. 1 discovered Wife No. 2 because she was reenacting the final scene of "The Social Network." Unfortunately, that is not how Wife No. 1 discovered Wife No. 2. Instead, Facebook's "people you may know" feature suggested that the two women should be friends because they were both friends with Officer O'Neill.
Apparently, Wife No. 2's Facebook profile photo was of her and Officer O'Neill standing next to a wedding cake. Wife No. 1 saw this and called her mother-in-law. The paper quotes court records as saying that an hour later Officer O'Neil arrived at Wife No. 1's apartment where he allegedly admitted that he and Wife No. 1 were still married in response to being asked if they were divorced. Officer O'Neill allegedly told Wife No. 1 not to tell anybody about the dual marriages and said he would fix the problem.
It will not surprise anyone familiar with William Congreve to learn that Wife No. 1 did not do as Officer O'Neill suggested. Instead, Wife No. 1 alerted the authorities and now Officer O'Neill is on unpaid administrative leave as he awaits a March 22, hearing date to answer the charge of felony bigamy.
The paper quotes the attorney prosecuting Officer O'Neill as saying “It’s not the crime of the century, but it is a crime.” This, of course, could presumably be said of every crime but one. In any event, Officer O'Neill's troubles are a reminder that when one stops a romantic relationship with someone, one should probably not keep them as Facebook friends.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Step on no pets
The Mercury News in San Jose, California has a story about an emerging field in family law practice - custody disputes over pets.
According to the article, 25% of respondents to a survey by the 1,600-member American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers said that pet custody cases have increased noticeably since 2001. Breakups in same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships are among reasons pet custody fights have become more common.
The article quotes family law attorney David Pisarra, who says pet custody cases have grown as much as 15 percent in his office over the last five years. Mr. Pisarra not only litigates these cases, he lives them. Mr. Pisarra shares custody of his dog with his now remarried “ex.” The article says that the ex's remarriage has “introduced a step-dog” in addition to the dog the “ex” shares with Mr. Pisarra. I use the term “ex” because that is what the article uses. The article is vague as to the gender of the “ex.” The article is unclear as to whether Mr. Pisarra's marriage was a traditional marriage or a same-sex marriage (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Mr. Pisarra has even written a book about “co-parenting a pet with an ex” titled “What About Wally.”
Lest our readers think that the article or this post are simply infomercials for Mr. Pisarra, the article also quotes Silvana Raso, a New Jersey family law attorney, for the proposition that people have begun viewing pets as family members rather than possessions. As a result, Ms. Raso says, people are willing to fight for custody of a pet in a way that people would not have during the Neolithic age known as the Twentieth Century. The downside to this, of course, is situations where one spouse uses the pets as a weapon. Ms. Raso had a case where an estranged wife killed her client’s two dogs.
Obviously, it is a good thing when people like Mr. Pisarra and his “ex” are able to amicably work out a custody/visitation arrangement for pets. Conversely, I feel safe in saying that killing a pet as a way of punishing a spouse is a terrible idea and, I suspect, illegal just about everywhere. Neither of these observations are what prompted me to write this post.
The reason I wrote the post is that it illustrates my belief the law is wonderful because there is always something new to learn. To quote Solon, thanks to the law “I grow old ever learning many things.” It had never occurred to me that custody arrangements for pets would be an actual thing. It also never occurred to me that “step-dog” is a thing. However, this may be because “step-dog” isn’t a thing. A search of the term on Google and Bing suggests the term isn’t used by anyone other than the writer of the article. Finally, it also hadn’t occurred to me that one consequence of the rise of gay marriage is that reporters have not figured out what terms to apply to former spouses in same-sex marriages (which is not to say that Mr. Pisarra was in a same-sex marriage. The article's use of "ex" simply made me think of the issue).
According to the article, 25% of respondents to a survey by the 1,600-member American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers said that pet custody cases have increased noticeably since 2001. Breakups in same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships are among reasons pet custody fights have become more common.
The article quotes family law attorney David Pisarra, who says pet custody cases have grown as much as 15 percent in his office over the last five years. Mr. Pisarra not only litigates these cases, he lives them. Mr. Pisarra shares custody of his dog with his now remarried “ex.” The article says that the ex's remarriage has “introduced a step-dog” in addition to the dog the “ex” shares with Mr. Pisarra. I use the term “ex” because that is what the article uses. The article is vague as to the gender of the “ex.” The article is unclear as to whether Mr. Pisarra's marriage was a traditional marriage or a same-sex marriage (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Mr. Pisarra has even written a book about “co-parenting a pet with an ex” titled “What About Wally.”
Lest our readers think that the article or this post are simply infomercials for Mr. Pisarra, the article also quotes Silvana Raso, a New Jersey family law attorney, for the proposition that people have begun viewing pets as family members rather than possessions. As a result, Ms. Raso says, people are willing to fight for custody of a pet in a way that people would not have during the Neolithic age known as the Twentieth Century. The downside to this, of course, is situations where one spouse uses the pets as a weapon. Ms. Raso had a case where an estranged wife killed her client’s two dogs.
Obviously, it is a good thing when people like Mr. Pisarra and his “ex” are able to amicably work out a custody/visitation arrangement for pets. Conversely, I feel safe in saying that killing a pet as a way of punishing a spouse is a terrible idea and, I suspect, illegal just about everywhere. Neither of these observations are what prompted me to write this post.
The reason I wrote the post is that it illustrates my belief the law is wonderful because there is always something new to learn. To quote Solon, thanks to the law “I grow old ever learning many things.” It had never occurred to me that custody arrangements for pets would be an actual thing. It also never occurred to me that “step-dog” is a thing. However, this may be because “step-dog” isn’t a thing. A search of the term on Google and Bing suggests the term isn’t used by anyone other than the writer of the article. Finally, it also hadn’t occurred to me that one consequence of the rise of gay marriage is that reporters have not figured out what terms to apply to former spouses in same-sex marriages (which is not to say that Mr. Pisarra was in a same-sex marriage. The article's use of "ex" simply made me think of the issue).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)