The Canadian government has passed a new citizenship law that resolves a variety of issues about Canadian citizenship (Bill C-37). Buried in that law is a provision that has passed unnoticed, until now, which puts limitations on the Canadian citizenship rights of some internationally adopted children. Recent articles in the National Post, the Globe & Mail and the Ottawa Citizen have brought these provisions to the attention of the adoption community.

Although this new law will come into effect on April 17, 2009, I hope it is not too late for adopting parents to express their views (read Comments from adopting parents so far. Also read Complex Citizenship Laws Anger Adopting Parents). The provisions of the new law are complex, so I have set out a series of questions and answers at the end of this article, which I hope will clarify the finer points of the new rules.

A good way to begin understanding the issues is to read the newspaper articles “Critics Fear Two-Tier Citizenship” and “Citizenship Changes Could Create Inferior Citizens”. For the perspective of Robin Hilborn of Family Helper, see “Canadian law denies citizenship to children of foreign adoptees”

Essentially the legislation provides that the children of some internationally adopted children will not have a right to Canadian citizenship. In practice, this is likely to affect only a small proportion of all adopted children. What upsets adopting parents, however, is the notion that their children will have a lesser class of citizenship. In effect, the children are being discriminated against. Adopting parents do not want to feel that their children are second-class citizens.

Adopting parents in Canada are losing their tolerance for being discriminated against. Resentment at the inherent discrimination against adopting families built into the EI legislation has been simmering for the past decade (for a detailed description of the discrimination which adopting parents feel about this subject, see our earlier Spotlight, “Adoption in the Workplace”). Now a new law that discriminates against their children is going to have a galvanizing effect on the adoption community.

The Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, 2008, begins with the following words:

“The Citizenship Act, under which CIC grants citizenship to eligible newcomers, affirms that all Canadians have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities whether they are citizens by birth or naturalization.”

That will change as of April 17, 2009. In an attempt to solve the problem of Canadian citizenship being handed down generationally to people who don’t actually live in Canada, the government has reduced the citizenship rights of some internationally adopted children, and effectively created a lesser class of citizenship for them. Was this really necessary? It feels like a sledgehammer was used to kill a flea. Could not a more elegant solution have been found to actually deal with the perceived problem?

The Report of the Senate Standing Committee, which reviewed Bill C-37, states:

“Such a distinction would grant citizenship to a first generation born outside Canada while denying it to their children and subsequent generations were they to be born abroad. Such a provision strikes your Committee as arbitrary and unfair.”

The Committee also added: “Rather, the Committee urges the government to ensure that all aspects of new citizenship legislation are Charter-compliant and consistent with Canadian values”.

As a result of concerns by the Immigration Department about the confusion surrounding the new law, it recently issued a clarification.

In a published response to the concerns of adopting parents, the Minister states:

“Critics have entirely missed the point of how changes to our citizenship law, which come into effect on April 17, 2009, will protect the value of citizenship.”

I don’t think that is true. Adopting parents probably do understand the concerns that the government has about protecting the integrity of Canadian citizenship. It is the specific solution, which the government has come up with that they are protesting.

It is an insult to adopting parents to say that their children now have a lesser class of Canadian citizenship. The government needs to rethink these provisions and find a solution that does not put limitations on the rights of citizenship for internationally adopted children. The government should find a solution which fits the actual problem. This article is a call to action for adopting parents. Adopting parents who wish to make their views known to the government should do so immediately. Prior to doing so, however, please read the questions and answers set out below. The law is quite technical and there is already confusion about who the law would apply to. This is not helped by the government’s own website, which is not clear. If, after reading the article and the new rules, additional questions arise that should be asked in the list below, please send them to me and I will add them to the article.

For the purposes of this article, I will use the terms Class A citizenship to refer to full-rights citizenship and Class B to refer to the new, lesser-rights citizenship.

Q1. Who does the new law apply to?
A. The new law applies to adopted children who receive their citizenship abroad, pursuant to the new direct citizenship provisions enacted in Canada on December 23, 2007. [See also Q10 below]

Q2.Who is not subject to the new rules?
A. The new rules do not apply to the following:

(a) adopted children born in Canada;

(b) Internationally adopted children who come to Canada on a permanent resident visa and subsequently obtained Canadian citizenship after their arrival in Canada. Up until now this has been the situation of most (but not all) children adopted overseas and brought to Canada. They will not be affected by the new rule, despite what it says on the Canada Immigration website.

The web posting “New Citizenship Rules” states:

“This limitation will also apply to foreign-born individuals adopted by a Canadian parent. The adopted children of Canadian citizens will be considered to be the first generation born abroad. This means that:

If a person born outside Canada and adopted by a Canadian parent has a child outside Canada, that child will not be a citizen by birth;……..”

This information is misleading. In a clarifying email from the Ministry of Citizenship & Immigration (which doesn’t seem to be posted anywhere at the moment), an official makes it clear that the restriction on obtaining Canadian citizenship only applies to situations described in the above quote and where the parent of the child born outside of Canada originally was granted Canadian citizenship overseas pursuant to the new 2007 direct to citizenship route. This misstatement on the government website has caused some parents to believe that the new law will apply to their children, when in fact it will not.

(c) The new law will not apply to children who would normally fall into the Class B citizenship definition, but whose parent is working overseas with the Canadian government (Federal or Provincial) or serving overseas in the armed forces. Instead, these children will have Class A citizenship. However, children whose parents are working for Canadian corporations, the United Nations, who are on vacation, or who are otherwise travelling outside of Canada do not get this exemption and will have Class B citizenship. This is a distinction which is hard to justify. If you work for one kind of employer your children are Class A citizens, and if you work for a different kind of employer your children are Class B citizens. Surely there is a better way to sort this out.

Q3. W
hat is the most serious consequence of this new law?
A The most serious consequence that is evident at this time is that a child born overseas to an adopted person has a reasonable chance of being a “stateless individual” (this would be the adopting parents’ grandchild). This leads to a number of questions:

(a) Why would this happen? – Only some countries grant citizenship to a child born in their country (Canada and the USA being examples of countries that do that). Many countries rely on the citizenship of the child’s parents or some other criteria. The child would be born stateless if they did not derive a citizenship through either parent and they are also born in a country where birth on soil does not give access to citizenship. As a stateless person, the child would have no obvious way to come to Canada.

(b) Is there a remedy? – A child of a Canadian who was born stateless abroad would have the option of applying for a grant of citizenship on the basis of statelessness. The amended Citizenship Act has provisions for granting citizenship to stateless children of Canadian citizens, but the child must first live in Canada for three years. This stateless child would have neither a passport nor a right to enter Canada, so it is not even clear how the child could travel to Canada to establish residence. One can only hope that there will be a benevolent immigration officer overseas who has empathy for the predicament that the Class B Canadian citizen finds himself in, and will grant the stateless child some sort of visa to come to Canada. This event will be 20, 30 or 40 years into the future. It is hard to predict what the world will look like then in terms of population and pressures on the Canadian immigration system. What will immigration officers say to a Class B Canadian citizen in 30 years who wants to bring their stateless child back to Canada? Adopting parents today will be the grandparents of that child. We can all hope it’s a sympathetic response.

(c) Any born-abroad Canadian adopting parents could immediately face the problem outlined in (b) above. Again, this is because the provisions of the new law apply to children born outside of Canada as well as to those adopted.

Q4. What happens if my adopted child has Class B Canadian citizenship and gives birth to a child overseas?
A That child, your grandchild, will not acquire Canadian citizenship. He or she may be eligible to be sponsored as a permanent resident, and then apply for citizenship as soon as he or she becomes a permanent resident.

Q5. How does it work for subsequent generations? Do they have Class A or Class B Canadian citizenship?
A Generational Chart Showing Whether Descendants have Class A or B Canadian Citizenship Rights:

Parents Child

First
Generation (Adopting Parents)

Second
Generation
(your adopted child)

If this child receives Canadian Citizenship overseas under the 2007 law, he/she will have Class B Canadian Citizenship

Third
Generation
(your grandchild)

If the child of the adopted child above is born outside of Canada, he/she will not be entitled to automatic Canadian Citizenship. The child may apply to enter Canada on a Permanent Resident Visa. If he/she subsequently obtains Canadian Citizenship, then it will be a Class A Citizenship.

Fourth Generation
(your great-grandchild)

The child of this Class A citizen parent, if born inside Canada, (the Adoptive Parents’ great-grandchild) will have Class A Citizenship.

Q6. Can I do anything to avoid this new law if I am going to adopt a child in the future?
A Yes you can. Do not use the new direct citizenship route for children adopted overseas. Only use the old route of applying for a permanent resident visa for the child, and after the child is landed in Canada apply for Canadian citizenship. This child will have a Class A Canadian citizenship.

Adopting parents report that they are consistently advised by Canada Immigration officials to use the new direct citizenship route. Anyone considering which route to follow should read our previous Spotlight – Citizenship for Adopted Children: Canada’s New Law for 2008. In addition, adopting parents should obviously think about whether they wish their children to have Class B Canadian citizenship, and what effect that might have on their grandchildren.

Q7. Does the new law contravene the Charter of Rights?
A I don’t know. The government has not invoked the “Notwithstanding Clause” under the Constitution of Canada, so the Charter does apply to this legislation. In the 1998 McKenna case, the Canadian Human Rights Code was used to say that it was discriminatory to adopted children not to be able to obtain citizenship overseas. It was this case that 10 years later finally led to the new citizenship law of 2007 permitting just that. On the other hand, adopting parents were not successful in invoking the Charter of Rights to overturn the inherent discrimination in the EI legislation in the 1997 Schafer case. It does seem likely that eventually someone will challenge this notion of Class B citizenship for adopted children under the Charter of Rights. A Charter challenge could also come based on discrimination against persons born abroad to Canadian citizen parents.

Q8. Are the new rules retroactive?
A Section 3 (4) of the Citizenship Act states:

“Subsection (3) does not apply to a person who, on the coming into force of that subsection, is a citizen.”

What does this clause mean? It means that if you are a citizen on the day the new law comes into force, then you will not lose your citizenship. Unfortunately, the Immigration Department is interpreting this to mean that a person will not lose their Canadian citizenship, but the new provisions will change the quality of your citizenship.

So, for the adoption world, the law will be retroactive and will have the following two results:

(a) Children who have been adopted and obtained their Canadian citizenship overseas since December 23, 2007 will have their Canadian citizenship downgraded from Class A to Class B on April 17, 2009. This will come as an unhappy surprise to Canadian adopting parents, who have pursued the direct citizenship route as a result of non-stop directions from Canada Immigration officials to adopting parents to take the new route; and

(b) Adopting parents who were born outside of Canada. Any adopting parents in this category will have their citizenship changed from Class A to Class B on April 17, 2009. As a result, when they adopt overseas, their children are not entitled to direct Canadian citizenship. Their only route will be to sponsor the child as a landed immigrant, obtain a permanent resident visa, and subsequently apply for Canadian citizenship.

A CIC official has verbally confirmed that these provisions are retroactive. We have requested that the government confirm to us, in writing, that the law is not retroactive. We will update this section when we receive the government’s written answer.

Q9. Does this new law only apply to adopted children?
A No, in addition to adopted children, the new rules apply to children born outside of Canada, unless their parent(s) fit within a specific definition. In addition, Bill C-37 (the new law) also deals with many other citizenship issues unrelated to adoption.

Q10. If I am adopting parent who was born abroad to Canadian parents, can I adopt overseas?
A You can adopt, but if you are single you will not be able to use the direct citizenship route. Your child will have to be admitted to Canada with a PR Visa. The reason for this is that the new law applies to children of Canadians born to Canadians overseas, as well as to those adopted overseas. However, if you are married to a Class A Canadian citizen, then you will be able to use the direct citizenship route.

Q11. Is there any “patch” that the government could use to repair this law?
A The application of the new law should be sus
pended until the adoption community has a real chance to have input, and perhaps a better solution is found. One suggestion being proposed would provide an exception to the new law if the adopted child lived in Canada for a certain unspecified period of time. In other words, the child would start with Class B Canadian citizenship, and if the child eventually qualified by living in Canada for a certain period of time, they would graduate to Class A Canadian citizenship. Whether this would be a satisfactory solution for Canadian adopting parents remains to be seen.
Note: These concerns are not limited to children adopted abroad, but also apply to children born abroad. The implications of this law are likely to be seen more immediately for born-abroad Class B citizens than adopted-abroad Class B citizens.

Q12. Why was the adoption community in Canada not consulted before this law was brought into force?
A The adoption community in Canada was unaware of these new rules until articles appeared in the press in mid-January, 2009. How did this happen? – Bill C-37 received royal assent on April 17, 2008. It comes into force on the first anniversary of that date, April 17, 2009. For over a year preceding the passing of the new law, the government consulted with various interest groups who could be affected by changes to the Citizenship Act. It does not appear to have been made clear, however, that a Class B citizenship would be created for children adopted overseas. On December 13, 2008, the regulations under this new Act were published in the Canada Gazette, and provided for a 30-day comment period. Unfortunately, this comment period extended over the Christmas and New Year’s vacation and expired in early January. Buried in the comment attached to the Canada Gazette was the statement , “The aforementioned limitation will also apply to foreign-born persons adopted by a Canadian parent”. It was only when these proposed regulations were published that one person noticed this and has been raising an alarm for the past few weeks.
Surely, if the Government of Canada was going to do something as dramatic as create Class B citizenship rules for adopted children in this country, it is incumbent on them to really bring this to the attention of adopting parents, the Adoptive Families Association, the Provincial Adoption Bureaus, Adoption Agencies across Canada, and the Adoption Council of Canada. It is incredibly dismissive of the adoption community to have been treated in this manner by the government.

Q13. What can I do to stop this new law?
A Perhaps nothing. The new law (Bill C-37) has been passed, given Royal assent, and the regulations under it are in force. Some parents are currently considering filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. And, of course, someone with deep pockets could take a Charter of Rights challenge to try to have the law declared unconstitutional. On the other hand, perhaps adopting parents in Canada can speak out with one voice and object to what has happened. Adopting parents in Canada represent a potent political force. To date, this has been largely untapped. It is time that the Canadian adoption community make its influence felt. There is no reason why we cannot have an Adoption Caucus of MPs and Senators who listen to what’s important to the adoption community in Canada. The natural focus of these efforts could be the Adoption Council of Canada, which can harness some of the tremendous energy and opinions of adopting parents in this country. Hopefully, this issue of Class B Canadian citizenship for some internationally adopted children will provide a focus for adopting parents to work together.

In the meantime, parents who wish to comment on what has happened should contact their Member of Parliament and the Adoption Council of Canada.

Some people have described Charles Darwin as the “father of modern biology”. Whether this is true or not, is of course a matter of opinion, but it is certainly true that Darwin’s idea, of evolution by natural selection, is one of (arguably the main) the key foundation stones of modern biological sciences.

The year 2009 marks the bicentennial anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth in 1809, and as a result there are currently many celebrations and commemorations of Darwin’s life and work going on. Is however a great pity is that among the general public, although many people have heard of Charles Darwin and know that he has something to do with the theory of evolution, many do not know really know what his work was about.

Many people wrongly believe that the theory of evolution attempts to explain the origin of life, and that Darwin was the creator of this theory. Neither of these is true. The theory of evolution is not about how life first appeared (this is a different field of study known as “abiogenesis”), but rather is about how successive generations of organisms change over time. Additionally, Darwin was by no means the first person to propose an evolutionary theory, or even the transmutation of species (how one species evolves into another), but rather was responisble for providing a mechanism and an explanation (known as “natural selection”) by which evolutionary processes work.

The main concept behind natural selection is actually surprisingly simple (although it does have complex and fascinating implications) – that organisms with heritable traits that are helpful to successful reproduction, will tend to predominate over organisms without such beneficial heritable traits, and thus, over successive generations, beneficial heritable traits will tend to become more common in any population. To explain this concept, Darwin used an analogy of selective breeding – pigeon breeders, over just a few centuries, have been able to produce a great variety of different domestic pigeons by selecting for particular heritable traits – and similarly he argued that nature, over many millions of years, could produce a great variety of different organisms, by its own form of selection.

Among some religious people, Darwin’s ideas, and even the idea of evolution, remains highly controversial. Among the scientific community, the principle of evolution, as well as related facts such as the great antiquity of the Earth, were already commonplace by Darwin’s time. Darwin’s theory of evolutionary (namely natural selection), however was for many years only one several competing evolutionary theories – it was only by the 1930s, when Darwin’s ideas were combined with those of Gregor Mendel in what is known as the “modern synthesis”, that it began to be recognized that natural selection was indeed the driving force behind evolution.

In the state of Oklahoma there are a few options for couples who are looking for a divorce. The first option is called limited divorce and is similar to what is known as a trial separation in other states. Limited divorce will take away the rights for the couple to live together but will not affect any other legal status. So, from a legal standpoint the couple is still considered married, but not living together. This leaves the door open for the couple to possibly get back together in the future.

Another option for divorce in Oklahoma is called absolute divorce. This option is for those who have experienced marital misconduct or other statutory causes that interfere with a healthy relationship. This is an option for those who wish to end their marriage all together. This option is for those who wish to close all doors, and not even have the option of getting back together in the future. The one condition for this option is that the couple must remain residents of the state of Oklahoma for at least six months for the divorce to take effect.

The third available option is called a ‘no-fault’ divorce. This option was first enabled in the state of Oklahoma and allows a couple to end a marriage without revealing any public information on why the relationship failed. This option allows for a small amount of privacy which can make difficult times seem a little bit easier.

Each one of us possesses all the tools to have all that we desire in our lives through intentionally applying the Law of Attraction. So can you imagine what it would be like to be a child of the Law of Attraction; to apply the Law of Attraction intentionally from childhood? Think of how wonderful life would be, and life’s bumps would seem less potent.

Children naturally live the LOA until they begin to communicate and are told by others what is right and wrong for them. So how do you raise a child to understand and apply the Law of Attraction without encouraging and creating a little monster with no manners? Just because you are teaching them to apply the LOA doesn’t mean you let them get away with everything because you thing you might be encroaching upon their world.

Children are like the intuitive mind. That is where they live until we show them the logical mind. We continually teach them about the logical mind and what we perceive is right or wrong, and parents teach their children what to be afraid of and what dangers there are through their own life perceptions. Your children get this passed on to them, just like it was passed on to you.

But how wonderful would it be to teach our children how to use their intuitive minds as well as the logical mind while putting more emphasis on the intuitive? Let’s teach our children how to create without fear so when they grow up that is all they know. They could become the great creators of their lives and have all they desire…love, gratitude, joy, health, financial abundance, relationships, career, just like they would want it. And just like you want it for them.

Every one of us carries baggage of some sort and even if we aren’t responsible for it, our children will most likely inherit the same baggage. But if they are equipped with the tools to teach them how to release their baggage early on, they will avoid dragging a baggage cart through life. Let’s teach our children the Law of Attraction now so they can have a Law of Attraction lifetime of intentional creation.

Children learn by example. The best thing you can do for your child is to show how to live life joyously and be grateful for their lives. By observing how you live through the Law of Attraction, your child will begin to create perceptions of life. Make sure you are applying the Law of Attraction intentionally so they will ‘perceive’ how life works. Then when they become adults, they will apply the LOA effortlessly.

You will have shown them how to live life gratefully, effortlessly, and with love through the Law of Attraction.

Divorce in Ohio is controlled by O.R.C (Ohio Revised Code) 3105. Under Ohio Law, a divorce legally terminates a marriage. This accomplished when one of the spouses files a Complaint for Divorce. The complaint lists the specific reasons for the need to divorce. The other spouse is required by law to respond to the complaint. many times the issues can be resolved through negotiation. If the issues can not be settled to the satisfaction of all parties, the divorce will proceed to a jury trial in front of a Judge and / or Magistrate.

Ohio Grounds for Divorce

Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C.) 3105.01 defines the causes or “grounds” for divorce in Ohio. It reads as follows:

The court of common pleas may grant divorces for the following causes:

(A) Either party had a husband or wife living at the time of the marriage from which the divorce is sought;

(B) Willful absence of the adverse party for one year;

(C) Adultery;

(D) Extreme cruelty;

(E) Fraudulent contract;

(F) Any gross neglect of duty;

(G) Habitual drunkenness;

(H) Imprisonment of the adverse party in a state or federal correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint;

(I) Procurement of a divorce outside this state, by a husband or wife, by virtue of which the party who procured it is released from the obligations of the marriage, while those obligations remain binding upon the other party;

(J) On the application of either party, when husband and wife have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation;

(K) Incompatibility, unless denied by either party.

A plea of res judicata or of recrimination with respect to any provision of this section does not bar either party from obtaining a divorce on this ground.

Representing yourself in a Florida divorce is possible if you have correct information about your rights, the law and court procedures. You need to get it right the first time. Changing a Final Judgment is not always possible. If you make a mistake it can cost thousands of dollars for attorney’s fees to fix it. This article will provide you with information about your property rights in a Florida divorce.

If you don’t educate yourself about your rights, you could agree to accept much less than what you are entitled to. One recent divorce forum had this posting:

When I got divorced I didn’t fight for his business. He makes $200k/yr and I’ve been a stay at home mom. I had a premarital IRA but I cashed it in when his business needed money. Now I get 2k/mo alimony but I want to buy a house and don’t have enough money. Someone told me that if I have my boyfriend move it, I’ll lose my alimony. Help!

By not including the value of the marital business in Equitable Distribution, this woman shortchanged herself and her children. Now she’s in distress. Don’t let that happen to you.

Is There a Formula for Equitable Distribution?

“Equitable Distribution,” Florida’s property division process, starts with a 50/50 split of marital assets and debts, but in some situations an equal split may not be fair or equitable. There is no set formula for unequal splits. For example, one of you may decide to take more of the assets along with the loans on those assets because you can afford to do so. Unequal splits are unusual when cases go to trial.

Florida courts have ordered unequal splits when

One spouse is disabled and the other is employed One spouse is needed to care for a disabled child One spouse spoke little English, had no formal education and never worked One spouse hasn’t worked for years, the other is nearing retirement
As you can see, the situations for unequal distribution are not typical situations. Since Florida law starts with a 50/50 split of “marital assets and marital debts” and unequal splits are unusual, most couples will use the 50/50 formula.

What is “Marital?”

“Marital property” or “marital assets” include anything you spent money on during the marriage and still have – things like houses, cars, boats, televisions, dishes. Your “stuff” is called personal property. If you own property/house/dirt, it is called “real property.”

“Marital debts” or “marital liabilities,” like marital assets, are the loans you signed for during the marriage – things like mortgages, student loans, credit cards. With a few exceptions, everything you get or borrow is “marital” from the time you said “I do,” until you sign a Marital Settlement Agreement or file the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, whichever comes first.

If property is titled only in one spouse’s name, it may still be marital property if purchased with marital money. For example, some couples each have a car in individual names. If those cars were bought/leased during the marriage, they are “marital assets.” Even some non-marital assets can become marital as discussed below. The forum writer missed this opportunity in her case.

Action Tips:

Your first step is to list all your marital property on a chart. Show its current value, what and who you owe for it. Make a column to show who is on the title or deed and another to show which of you will receive each one in the divorce. This is time consuming but it will give you all the information you need for the Financial Affidavit and your trial or your Marital Settlement Agreement.



When making your chart, if you own real property, have credit card debt or other recorded loans, have any joint property, you need to list all your property (include all the owners) and all your debts with some identifying information for them. With concerns over identity theft, show only the last 4 digits of your loan and account numbers in the Financial Affidavit or Marital Settlement Agreement. For the real property, give the address and the complete legal description from your deed on a sheet labeled with your name and case number, if you have one already.

Non-Marital Means It’s Mine, Right?

Well, maybe. Non-marital assets and liabilities belong only to one of you and aren’t divided in the Equitable Distribution process. There are five categories of non-marital assets/liabilities under Florida law:

Assets or liabilities you had before the marriage. Inheritances and other gifts, even during the marriage. Any income received from non-marital gifts unless you relied on or used that income as a marital asset. Assets defined as non-marital in a written agreement (pre nuptial or post nuptial agreement) A liability obtained by forgery of one spouse’s name by the other spouse. The forging spouse is responsible for that liability.
In deciding Equitable Distribution, a court will only consider “marital” assets and liabilities. Non-marital assets come into play primarily with alimony determinations.

Be careful. “Non-marital” can become “marital.” When you have non-marital assets/liabilities but mix them with marital assets, by depositing your inheritance check into a joint marital account for example, you may have “co-mingled” these assets so that they aren’t considered non-marital anymore. The forum writer changed her non-marital retirement account into a marital asset when she used it in the family business.

Another non-marital/marital problem can arise when you have used your non-marital asset to generate money during the marriage. For example, you owned a house with a mortgage before you got married. While married, you used you paycheck to pay the taxes and some of the mortgage. When you rented the house after your marriage, you deposited the rent payments into a joint marital account. There is a special formula for giving you credit for your original investment. This area can be a minefield and you will want some professional advice if the two of you can’t decide on a fair way to divide co-mingled property.

It is possible to represent yourself in a Florida divorce. To be sure that the marital property and debt are divided fairly, you need to know what property is “marital” and what its value is. Making a chart of all your property will help you in the Florida divorce process and will make calculating the equitable distribution or property division easier.

Child custody battles, and the ensuing oversight of law enforcement in the child’s upbringing, can feel like unwarranted intrusion into family matters. However, child custody laws are designed with the child’s well being in mind and, where warranted, most children will benefit from state intervention. The primary aim of any child custody judgement is to secure the safety and wellbeing of the child, for this reason alone child custody laws protect and safeguard kids.

Child custody judgements come in a variety of forms which generally depend upon the makeup of the family and the circumstances of the judgement. Lets take a look at the two most common court judgements and ask: How do child custody laws help kids?

- Joint custody. In the event that both parents or guardians of a child or children demonstrate a willingness and practical ability to care for the children jointly a judge will favour a joint custody ruling. This decision essentially awards both parents / guardians joint legal and physical custody of the children, and is therefore subject to the partners agreeing some kind of schedule to share time with the kids.

- Sole custody. In the event that joint custody is objectionable due to geography, accommodation or, in extreme cases, forms of abuse or lawlessness by one or both guardian’s; sole custody will be awarded to one parent, or grandparent. This entails the guardian taking full legal and physical responsibility for the child. To off-set this, a judge may award visitation rights to the absent parent or, if the separation is amicable, will advise the couple to establish their own visitation schedule.

The use of these two key judgements, when combined with the visitation rights consideration, provides a simple but powerful set of rules to govern a parent’s access to their children. It should be remembered that a judges prime directive is to take whatever action is most beneficial (or least damaging) to the child and so will always favour a joint custody decision if it is practical and safe.

Child custody laws are, by their nature, enforceable by the court. This adds another level of protection to the child in that once a court decision has been made, a parent can petition law enforcement to take action if the terms of the ruling are being ignored.

This can take many forms, such as: A parent who has lost legal custody of their child demanding time beyond their visitation agreement. A legal guardian not fulfilling their duties to protect and care for the child. A partner not fulfilling their half of care for the child if a joint custody agreement has been reached, and so on.

In any situation where child custody is considered by a judge, the primary factor that all other concerns are weighed against is the overall welfare of the child in any given scenario. It should be clear then, that whatever custody arrangement is chosen, the choice is likely to be the most beneficial one for the child.

Employment law is a very complex area. Therefore, if you find yourself in a dispute with oyur employer, or an employee, it is vital that you seek professional legal advice.

If you need help and advice on the laws affecting employees and employers, then there are plenty of places to turn to. The following article examines some of the most popular sources of advice for employment law.

Employment Law Solicitors

Employment law solicitors are best placed to offer effective law advice for employers and employees and for this reason, they are many people’s first port of call. However, they will often charge for this advice, and for this reason, many people may choose to first explore other, sources of legal advice.

Trade Unions

In the U.K. there are many Trade Unions who can offer you excellent employment law advice. Most industries have a dedicated Trade Union, and this might be the best place to go if you are dealing with an issue which is specific to your profession. If you are not a member of a Trade Union, however, don’t panic. There are plenty of other places you can go for employment law advice.

ACAS

ACAS stands for the ‘Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service’ and is an independent public body of the Government with the intention of offering legal advice and settling disputes between employers and employees.

Contrary to popular belief, ACAS is not a Trade Union and is totally impartial. Through conciliation and arbitration, ACAS helps parties to resolve disputes and achieve a satisfactory outcome for all parties involved.

Citizens Advice Bureau

The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) offers free, confidential and impartial legal advice as part of its range of services. The aim of this employment law advice is twofold. Firstly, The CAB sets out to help individuals with the problems and issues they may face in their jobs. Secondly, their intention is to improve the policies of companies which affect workers.

With a trained team of advisers in every local branch, the Citizens Advice Bureau can offer impartial legal advice and negotiate directly with both the employer and the employee involved in the dispute.

Now you know where to get help. If you need advice and assistance, and want to make sure that your complaint is listened to by your employer, then isn’t it time you spoke to an experienced employment law professional, who can make sure that you get all the support and guidance you need for your case?

A family law attorney can help any family with the various problems that arise throughout the lifetime of a family. Those problems can be divorce, child custody, child support, child visitation, domestic violence, marital assets, spousal support, restraining orders and much more. A family is the foundation of the United States and sometimes families just don’t get along and need to split up.

Divorce is defined as the ending of a marriage in the presence of a court to the extent that the man and woman are no longer legally bound to each other by the same last name. A divorce is not legal unless it is certified by the court and in some jurisdictions of the country, one party or the other must prove fault in the divorce case. A family law attorney can help with divorce proceedings. Going through a divorce can be physically and emotionally draining for everyone involved, including the children, if there are any.

Divorce involves more than just the division of debt and the distribution of property between the two people involved. Divorce also involves deciding on child custody, visitation rights, child support and spousal support. All of this can be done with the help of a family law attorney. Going through a divorce without the helping hand of a lawyer can be a daunting task and can be ultimately impossible to obtain success. The lawyer will be able to help his or her client in regards to what decisions need to be made.

Child custody is one of the most disheartening battles during a divorce because the husband and wife will use different methods of making the other look unfit to care for the children. Many people make up stories of physical and emotional abuse to tell the judge in a child custody battle. This is when a lawyer would be needed. A lawyer can help the person being accused of these horrible actions get through the allegations and present their case in an appropriate manner.

Child and spousal support are not one in the same. Child support is payments that must be made by one half of the couple in a divorce case to the other half of the couple. Child support is to be used for the child’s education, clothing, food, school supplies, medical bills for the child and any other necessities that the child needs to live by. Spousal support on the other hand is payments made to one spouse by the other after a divorce case has been completed. Spousal support goes towards medical bills, legal bills, food, clothing, transportation needs and much more.

If the person who is supposed to be sending the payments refuses to do so or forgets to send them they can be fined by the court or can even face time in jail. A family law attorney will be able to help the party involved in the divorce case receive their payments of spousal support or child support if they are not coming through regularly. All matters involving family law can be resolved with the help of an attorney.

A well known author named Theodore Sturgeon once said “Ninety Percent of Everything is crap.” This became known as Sturgeon’s law and is even quoted in the Oxford dictionary. Sturgeon’s law is alive and well when it comes to the Internet and the mortgage advice you find online is no exception. Here are several tips to help you separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to online mortgage advice.

I recently read an article online offering suggestions on how one could save money when refinancing. The article suggested that you should concentrate your efforts on finding a mortgage broker that worked on a non-commission basis. The author stated that non-commission loan representatives are less likely to overcharge you and have your best interest at heart when refinancing. While this sounds like good advice, it’s actually complete rubbish. If a mortgage company or broker tells you they work on a non-commission basis, you are guaranteed to pay too much refinancing with that company. Calling someone a “Non-commission loan representative” is just a slick marketing trick to gain your misplaced trust.

Here’s what that author doesn’t understand about the mortgage industry. Mortgage loans are simply retail products, just like televisions. Just as an electronic store marks up the price of your TV, the mortgage company or broker marks up your interest rate without telling you. This is in fact, how mortgage companies and brokers make the majority of their profits. It’s not commission; they make money from retail markup. You’re already paying origination points to this company for the new loan, so why should you pay double?

Here’s a summary of how it works. You qualify for an interest rate based on your credit and the details of your application. That interest rate is not set by the mortgage company; it comes from the wholesale lender. The mortgage company receives a written guarantee of your rate from that wholesale lender. Your mortgage company turns around and provides you a separate written guarantee for a higher interest rate. This markup by the mortgage company is called Yield Spread Premium. Homeowners that learn to recognize Yield Spread Premium when refinancing their mortgage loans can avoid paying it.

Can you see how the advice this author gave in their article could result in overpaying for a new mortgage loan? To learn more about mortgage refinancing while avoiding bad advice, costly mistakes, and Sturgeon’s law, register for a free mortgage guidebook.