Written on
January 24, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
AZCentral explains the difference between loving and liking your child.
Gregory Ramey writes (excerpt):
There are some things, even in the emotional security of a therapy session, that are very difficult to discuss. I have rarely met a parent who did not have a fundamental love and care for his or her child. However, I have met a number of parents who, with great guilt and embarrassment, acknowledge that they simply don’t like their child.
When parents talk with me about not liking their child, it is usually because of one of the following reasons:
My child reminds me of my ex-spouse. . . . It is hard for some parents to look beyond superficial characteristics and appreciate the unique personality of their child.
I have nothing in common with my child. . . . The early teen years are an especially high-risk time when this alienation may occur.
My child embarrasses and disappoints me. . . . The love may always be present, but how can you really like someone who is nasty and mean?
These are hard situations to talk about, and even harder to change. What I’ve learned from successful parents is the need to continue to reach out to your child at all ages. Find something, almost anything, that can help connect you to his or her world. With that connection will usually come an appreciation and liking for the type of person your child is becoming.
Posted in Families/Children 
No Comments »
Written on
January 23, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Time Magazine’s January 19, 2004 issue seeks the “Marriage Savers,” a “new breed” of relationship therapists
Richard Corliss and Sonja Steptoe write (excerpt):
Lately, however, a new breed of therapist and “marriage educator” is shaking up the profession. These therapists reject the passive, old-style therapies that emphasize personal growth over shared commitment and take a more aggressive, hands-around-the-neck approach to saving marriages. “They feel therapists have been too quick in calling an end to relationships and having people move on,” says University of Chicago sociology professor Linda Waite. The new breed also advocates premarital skill training and early intervention in problems–learning the ropes before tying the knot. “It’s like a vaccination,” says Waite, “instead of having to do surgery when something goes wrong.”
***
Sadoff, a clinical social worker trained in PREP, explains the method to the Lewises and a younger couple sharing the session. They are to agree to set aside a time each week to talk over their problems. These discussions must follow certain rules, which can be posted on the refrigerator door. “The word I is allowed,” Sadoff says. “You is not.” The partners take turns talking, without interruption. The speaker makes brief statements, which the listener must paraphrase to show he understands what was said. There are also time-outs, which allow one partner to leave the room for an emotional break. . . .
***
[D]uring arguments, couples in stable relationships have five times as many positive factors present as negative ones. “In relationships that were working, even during conflict, there was a rich climate of positive things, such as love, affection, interest in one another, humor and support. Couples in unstable unions had slightly more negative factors than positive.”
Conflict is endemic in a relationship, Gottman says, but adds–with peculiar precision–that “only 31% of conflicts get resolved over the course of a marriage. The other 69% are perpetual, unsolvable problems.” His insight: don’t bother trying to fix the unfixable. Spend your energy on selecting a mate with whom you can manage those inevitable annoyances, then learn how to manage them. To admit some problems can’t be solved is the first step toward finding a larger solution. Says Gottman: “We try to build up the couple’s friendship, their ability to repair conflict and to deal with their gridlock.”
The Gottman technique usually involves a $495 two-day workshop, followed by nine private therapy sessions costing $1,260, which Gottman recommends as a supplement. These attempt to conquer the four most common, corrosive negative factors in unstable unions: criticism (You never … You always …), defensiveness (Who me? I’m not defensive), contempt (You’re too stupid to realize how defensive you are) and stonewalling (I’ll just let it blow over). Gottman says 85% of stonewallers are men.
***
Schnarch argues that the main issue for most troubled couples “isn’t their lack of communication skills. If spouses aren’t talking to each other, they are still communicating. They each know they don’t want to hear what the other has to say. But communication is no virtue if you can’t stand the message. We help people to stand the message.” He says couples don’t get that from conventional therapy, which tends to pathologize relationships rather than work with their strengths. In the Crucible system, “we don’t treat people like they’re sick. We speak to the best in people, not their weaknesses. We’re about developing resilience and standing up for yourself.” People in a troubled marriage say they have grown apart. Schnarch says it’s the opposite. “They’re usually locked together, emotionally fused. More attachment doesn’t make people happier, and it kills sex.”
Schnarch uses the word crucible in two senses: metallurgical (a strong cauldron) and metaphorical (a test or trial). Both definitions can aptly describe the state of marriage. So in his therapy it’s out with the elevator-music approach to saving marriages, in with the hard rock and harsh truths. Dare to tear apart the fuzzy, flabby, ego-suppressing dual personality that is your marriage and find your inner you. That effort will create a stronger individual, one who can deal with a partner with more integrity and authenticity.
***
To re-create a sense of connection between the couple, the EFT therapist creates an environment in which both spouses feel safe talking about their feelings, needs and fears. Like Suzanne and Tom, most couples are pleasantly surprised to hear that the feelings behind apparently hostile behavior are not rejection but a need to connect with their partner. Without that emotional security, Johnson says, all the communication skills in the world won’t rebuild a relationship. “You can teach people communication skills up the wazoo,” she says, “but if they’re afraid of losing the person they depend on, they don’t use them.”
***
“Traditional approaches ask people to look at the past and figure out why they’re stuck,” says Weiner-Davis, whose graduate degree is in social work. “But that insight generally leads people only to be experts in why they’re having a problem–and novices in what to do about it. People on the brink of divorce do not have the luxury of time to take this journey backward. They need an instant injection of hope.” Weiner-Davis encourages a dose of what she calls “real giving”–asking couples to realize what their partner needs in certain situations and provide what he needs regardless of whether the giver understands it. For example, if your spouse prefers to be alone when he’s upset, allow him quiet time, even if you prefer to talk when you’re upset.
Weiner-Davis’ action-oriented scheme suited Roth and Meredith. “It’s really freeing to just focus on the solution and clear out all the muck,” says Meredith. Weiner-Davis encourages couples to identify what they want the marriage to look like, then list actions they can take–dinner out once a week, playing tennis or golf together, help with the housework–to achieve those goals. “The concept of real giving is so simple, but it really gets at the heart of how to make a relationship work,” says Meredith.
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
Written on
January 23, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
AZCentral addresses the problem of children not liking their parents.
Gregory Ramey writes (excerpt):
In spite of such turmoil, children overwhelmingly feel toward their parents the same way parents feel toward their children – an intense bond of love.
However, some children don’t like their parents. These young people never seem to emotionally connect with one or both of their parents.
Teens talk about having nothing in common with their parents, feeling like an outsider in the family, or wondering if their parents ever really wanted them.
***
I’ve never had much clinical success in trying to figure out the cause of the problem when children don’t feel emotionally connected to a parent. Instead, I ask both the parent and child to put aside the past and focus on the present. Get to know each other. Do some things together. Make an effort to reconnect.
Many parents are willing to make that effort, but some teens are not. They speak endlessly about their friends and fantasize how life will be perfect when they are away from their parents. There will come a time when these teens learn what parents already know. Friends are fine but can be fleeting; family is forever.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 22, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Pine Rest Christian Health Services (616.455.6500) is sponsoring a Parenting Conference in Grand Rapids on Saturday, February 7, 2004. The morning sessions run from 8:30 am to 12:15 pm. The event is free, open to public and being held in the new Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Arts and Worship at Grand Rapids Christian High School. There are 26 different workshops to choose from. These breakout presentations include:
Scott Shaw, Children of Divorce: How to help them get back on track
Brett May, Parenting Children with Attention Deficit Disorders
Phil Nienhuis, The Marriage-centered Family
Mary Copeland, Resources for Parenting
Mary Clark, Single Parenting
Posted in Something Different No Comments »
Written on
January 22, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Time Magazine’s January 19, 2004 issue seeks to understand how our love lives shape our minds, bodies and souls.
Jeffrey Kluger writes (excerpt):
“More and more in our field, we don’t even talk about sex anymore,” says anthropologist Gil Herdt, director of the Program in Human Sexuality Studies at San Francisco State University. “We talk about sexuality. It’s something that involves the entire person, the whole life course, not just the sexual acts.”
Marrow agrees and takes the notion even further with the belief that human sexuality is a form of communication as much as it is of procreation. Nearly all creative acts are at least in part communicative. Songs are written to be sung to somebody else; pictures are painted to be hung for somebody else. Is it any surprise that sex–an act infinitely more intimate than any type of art–is also a creative way of communicating complex ideas and deep feelings? “The biologists think the biology comes first,” Marrow says. “I think consciousness is the first part of sex, and exploring that consciousness with another person is one of its purposes.” If Marrow is right, it’s no wonder that poetry and music are often included in the business of romance, if only to make that message richer.
Of course, artistry–even something as small as a well-chosen greeting card or a romantic setting for dinner–may open the sexual door, but something else must keep it from closing again. What sustains a physical relationship after the early romantic rounds end is something more nuanced than seduction and more enduring than passion. Often it’s something as wonderfully ordinary as stability. Partners who maintain a robust sex life are simply more likely to remain partners than those who don’t, something almost any couple knew long before the sex researchers thought to quantify it. If it is hard to be physical with a mate you’ve stopped loving, it can be equally hard to get to that cold point with a person with whom you still share the intimacy, exclusivity and, especially, vulnerability of sex. This is particularly true as the intoxication of a new relationship begins to fade and partners start to notice flaws they were too romantically tipsy to see before.
Not only does the relationship benefit from a steady sex life, but so can the physical and emotional health of the partners themselves. Research suggests that married people may live longer than singles, that happily marrieds do best of all, and that couples who remain at least somewhat sexual, even into their dotage, report a better level of satisfaction both with their relationships and with their lives as a whole. Certainly, it’s hard to say if people who start off happy and satisfied simply have more sex or if it’s the sex that makes them happy and satisfied. Whatever the answer, it’s clear that human beings would not be fully Homo sapiens–at least not as we’ve come to understand ourselves–without the great, mysterious, preposterous pageant of our sexuality.
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
Written on
January 22, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Sun Herald reminds us that kids appreciate respectful speech.
Gregory Ramey writes (excerpt):
Words are extremely powerful. Words can hurt, soothe, excite or calm. Our language can convey disdain and disrespect, or courtesy and civility.
Let’s say you object to another person’s point of view. You can say, “Your ideas suck” or “I disagree with your ideas.” When you are very upset at your spouse, does it matter whether you say, “Shut up” or “Let’s not talk about this right now”?
It really does matter how you express your thoughts and feelings. Words are a reflection of good manners, and some words are better than others. Good manners help us get along with each other. They indicate a thoughtful and courteous way of relating to each other. They show respect for another person.
We live in a culture that seems so focused on encouraging people to express their feelings. Aren’t there times when we shouldn’t express the intensity of our feelings, and instead communicate in more moderated and muted tones? Maybe adults and young people need to stop expressing their feelings in whatever way feels right at the moment.
I’ve been very strict with this language rule in working with a number of young people of various ages and backgrounds. Here’s the good news: Young people respect such expectations and change their behavior accordingly.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 21, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Checklists
THEME AND THEORY OF CASE:
1. What it is:
a. Perspective you want the trier-of-fact to view case from.
b. Your position and approach to the evidence to be presented.
c. Persuasive theme integrating case.
2. What it does:
a. Reminds you what is important, what is not, and why.
b. Persuades the trier-of-fact to accept one of several disputed versions of case.
c. Unifies trial.
3. Benchmarks of a good theory:
a. Be grounded in strong facts and fair inferences based, as much as possible, on uncontested facts.
b. Be consistent with all uncontested facts.
c. Provide a basis to explain away in a plausible manner as many unfavorable facts as possible.
d. Have common-sense appeal which is readily acceptable by a trier-of-fact.
e. Not be based on wishful thinking about any phase of the case.
4. Construction:
Identify the legal and factual issues in the case.
Analyze evidence supporting your position.
Analyze evidence supporting your opponent’s position.
Compare the evidence and pinpoint the critical areas.
Think how to exploit your strong points and your opponent’s weak points.
Think how to “shore up” your weak points and your opponent’s strong points.
Come up with tentative theory.
Check theory against benchmarks.
Revise theory if necessary.
Consider your opponent’s probable theory.
Revise theory if necessary.
Discuss theory with others.
Revise theory if necessary.
5. Theme:
Summarize your theory in one sentence.
Weave into each phase of the trial.
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy No Comments »
Written on
January 20, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The surcharge on past due support (MCL 552.603a) has been as amended. The Friend of the Court charge as of January 1 and July 1 of each year will “be calculated at 6-month intervals at an annual rate of interest equal to 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the 6 months immediately preceding July 1 and January 1, as certified by the state treasurer. The amount of the surcharge shall not compound. “
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes No Comments »
Written on
January 20, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Daily Telegraph explained how a woman gave birth to two “unrelated” sons.
Roger Highfield writes (excerpt):
Although the woman, “Jane”, conceived them naturally with her husband, tests to see if she could donate a kidney suggested that somehow she had given birth to somebody else’s children.
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr Margot Kruskall, of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre in Boston, Massachusetts, showed that Jane is a chimera, a mixture of two individuals – non-identical twin sisters – whose cells intermingled in the womb and grew into a single body.
Dr Kruskall believes the most likely explanation is that Jane’s mother conceived non-identical twin girls, who fused at an early stage of the pregnancy to form a single embryo, according to a report published today in New Scientist.
For some reason, cells from only one twin dominate in Jane’s blood – used for tissue-typing. In her other tissues, however, including her ovaries, cells of both twins live amicably alongside each other, hence the apparently impossible genetics of her three sons.
One son came from an egg derived from the twin whose cells dominate Jane’s blood, while his brothers came from eggs derived from the other twin’s cells.
Around 30 similar instances of chimerism have been reported, and there are probably many more who will never discover their unusual origins. Most chimeras probably go through life unaware of their unusual constitution.
Posted in Something Different No Comments »
Written on
January 19, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The New York Times highlights the hazards of dating when you have a teenage daughter.
Jay Allison writes (excerpt):
Lillie: Is she one of the first five people I would guess? Is she Madonna or Britney Spears? Is she my English teacher? Does she have a gut? Is she good at poker? What’s on her iPod? Do you even know her last name? Does she have any scars?
Jay: You haven’t asked if she has a tattoo.
Lillie: Well, does she? Does she know you have a long hair on your nose? Does she work in public radio? Does she know whom she’s messing with? Does she wear glasses? Is she a pothead, an alcoholic, a psycho? Does she play games with your heart? Did you watch the sun set over a lake? Did the night watchman catch you hooking up? Does she wear hats? Does she know Britney Spears? Can she get me tickets? Is she good for things like that?
Jay: It was just a date, you know. . . .
Lillie: She’s not a Yankees fan, is she? Is she one of your old girlfriends, like the freckly one from ”Indiana Jones”? Does she kiss on the first date? Would she like me? Is she taller than me?
Jay: I’ll tell you one thing. We drove on Route 35, I’m not saying what state that’s in, and there was no one around, and it was late at night and rainy. We stopped the car and turned up the radio and danced in the road.
Lillie: High five! Well, as long as she makes you happy, Pa, I can’t hate her too much. . . . I can still egg her car, though.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 19, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
BBC reports on the exam fears of English children (excerpt):
Eight out of ten secondary school pupils worry about exams, a report by a children’s charity suggests.
The NSPCC also found that 10% were so concerned by problems at school that they were anxious about leaving home in the morning.
Meanwhile, a third of the 750 children interviewed across the UK said they were always worried about something.
***
Having nobody to discuss problems with was worrying for 47% of the young people questioned.
Parents and friends were criticised for not being supportive enough.
Problems such as abuse and bullying were also being kept hidden by a reluctance to talk, the NSPCC said.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
Written on
January 16, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Michigan Court of Appeals is publishing RYAN v RYAN (January 15, 2004, Case No. 240695). The decision is noteworthy for the breadth of issues covered and the comments regarding second-guessing a fit parent’s decisions.
Kelly writes (excerpt):
***
II. Mootness
“A case is moot when it presents only abstract questions of law that do not rest upon
existing facts or rights.” B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359; 586 NW2d
117 (1998). Generally, this Court need not reach moot issues or declare legal principles that
have no practical effect on the case “unless the issue is one of public significance that is likely to
recur, yet evade judicial review.” Federated Publications, Inc v Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 112; 649
NW2d 383 (2002). Because this case was dismissed and plaintiff has since reached the age of
majority, the issues presented on appeal no longer rest upon existing facts or rights. But we
address the issues nonetheless because we find them of public significance likely to recur, yet
evade judicial review.
***
III. “Divorce” from Parents
The trial court’s September 19, 2000, ex-parte order and the order appointing the
guardian ad litem, entered pursuant to plaintiff’s complaint for divorce8 are void because the trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an action for “divorce from parents,” a claim
unrecognized in Michigan.
***
IV. Emancipation Petition
The trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s
emancipation petition because it was defective on its face and lacked factual support. Although
the trial court did not deny defendants’ motion, but instead granted Benedict’s motion to dismiss
without prejudice, we conclude that the trial court should have granted defendants’ motion for
summary disposition and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
***
V. Abuse and Neglect
Defendants’ also argue that the trial court improperly exercised its jurisdiction by
ordering plaintiff into temporary placement. We agree. Not only did the trial court err in failing
to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine if probable cause existed to authorize the petition,
MCR 5.965, it denied defendants the right to a trial on the allegations in the petition, MCR
5.972.
***
VI. Conclusion
We are deeply troubled that this matter was allowed to proceed in the trial court for as
long as and in the manner in which it did. Based on improperly filed documents filed by an
attorney without authority to act on plaintiff’s behalf, the trial court, in a fundamental
misunderstanding or disregard of its proper role, stripped defendants of their basic constitutional
rights to manage and care for their child without state interference. All of the orders entered
completely ignored that, absent a showing of parental unfitness, the state may not interfere with
an intact family.
We reverse and remand this case to the trial court with the direction to enter an order of
dismissal with prejudice in favor of defendants and vacate all previous orders. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes 1 Comment »
Written on
January 15, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Money mixes marriage and money in its discussion of financial goals. Gerri Willis writes (exceprt):
For help getting started, here are today’s five tips.
Tip 1: No secrets
Many couples can talk about religion, sex, and what they are going to name their kids. But often they’re far less open about money, which is frequently cited as a reason for divorce. . . .
Start by having small conversations. Not just one big one. And do it on your leisure time. Don’t try to fit it in on the way to work or when you both come home and are exhausted.
Tip 2: To combine or not to combine?
***
Figure out as a couple what your joint expenses are as well as how you want to save and how you want to spend your money.
If you are a younger couple without a lot of assets, a joint account can work well. . . .
But if you’re an older couple or going into a second marriage, separate accounts may make sense. . . .
A third option is to have a joint account for some expenses (joint savings and living expenses) and separate accounts for individual spending money. . . .
Tip 3: Things change
***
That’s why, in addition to monthly money meetings with your spouse to keep abreast of near-term financial issues, you should discuss your big money picture at least once a year.
***
And take time to discuss the “what ifs.” What if one partner loses his or her job? What if one wants to go back to school? What if someone gets a job in another part of the country? Will the other spouse be willing to pack up and move?
Tip 4: Forget gender roles
***
Whatever your situation, don’t buy into the notion that money equals power in a marriage . . . .
Remember, marriage is a team effort. So keep an open line of communication with your spouse to discuss your expectations and fears.
Tip 5: Discuss tough topics [estate planning, credit cards for women, prenuptial agreements]
Posted in Finances/Tax No Comments »
Written on
January 15, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The issue of domestic violence and mediation is addressed in virtually all mediation books and training materials. In his book, Mediating Child Custody Disputes, Donald Saposnek highlights the vigorous debate on this issue. He lists the competing arguments:
Concerns of critics of mediation–power imbalance, unfairness, safety, coercion, intimidation.
Supporters of mediation–better than litigation when safety precautions used, screening, separate waiting rooms, separate arrival/departure times, use of caucus methods, presence of support persons, safe terminations, trained and skilled mediators.
In his book, The Fundamentals of Family Mediation, John Haynes rejects a blanket prohibition (excerpt):
I reject the argument that abused women are not entitled to mediate because I believe that mediation gives all clients more control, and certainly an abused spouse needs all means to gain control over her own life. There is no evidence that the legal route provides any better control for the abused spouse. She gives control of her case to her attorney and a county prosecutor who decide for her. She must still deal with all of her fears and aching desire to get the divorce over and done with as quickly as possible. Every person contemplating divorce must negotiate a separation agreement. That is a requirement the state places on every married couple. People should opt to negotiate the separation agreement as a free choice.
Posted in Mediation/ADR No Comments »
Written on
January 14, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
A photo “fairy tale” essay summarizes a relationship book’s tips, punctuated with photographs, into 5 tips for changing your attitude (excerpt):
1. Make a list. When you find yourself feeling critical of your beloved, sit down and make a list of “All the Things I Still Love About My Mate.” This will remind you of why you first fell in love.
2. Start spreading the news. At least once a day, compliment each other. Because everyone loves to hear good news.
3. Learn what to say. (And how to listen.) When it comes to communication, men and women have different needs. Men need to hear they’ve done a good job. So remember to compliment him for things he does. (Even if he doesn’t do them that well.)
Women need to feel their man is listening. Men can help by learning the “Mantra for Men” and practicing it often, saying to themselves, again and again… Just listen, don’t give advice. Just listen, don’t give advice. Just listen, don’t give advice. The results can be amazing.
4. Learn to soothe frayed nerves. When your partner is having trouble coping—either with the world or with you—don’t shout, don’t pout, don’t run away. Just turn to your mate and lovingly say… “Honey, what do you need from me… right now?”
5. Give a little more. Instead of trying to get your way, try to give a little, then give a little more. Learn to think more “We” than “Me.”
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
Written on
January 14, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Checklists
COURTROOM PREPARATION OUTLINE:
1. Prepare theory of case.
2. Develop theme.
3. Prepare closing argument.
4. Identify each factual component of closing argument.
5. Decide which fact sources you will use at trial (documents, direct examination testimony, cross examination testimony).
6. Prepare cross-examination.
7. Prepare direct examination.
8. Prepare opening statement.
9. Prepare objection strategy.
10. Prepare trial notebook.
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy No Comments »
Written on
January 13, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently applied the presumption for service by mail in LYONS v COATES (January 8, 2004, Case No. 242666). The memorandum opinion affirmed summary disposition against a party who claimed the motion papers were never received, contrary to the proof of service on file (excerpt):
Documents properly addressed and placed in the mail are presumed to reach their destination. Crawford v Michigan, 208 Mich App 117, 121; 527 NW2d 30 (1994). “This presumption may be rebutted by evidence, but whether it was is a question for the trier of fact.” Stacey v Sankovich, 19 Mich App 688, 694; 173 NW2d 225 (1969). Plaintiff denied receipt of the papers but presented no evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt. The mere denial of service is insufficient to rebut the presumption. Cf. Ins Co of North America v Issett, 84 Mich App 45, 49; 269 NW2d 301 (1978); James v James, 57 Mich App 452, 454; 225 NW2d 804 (1975). Under the circumstances, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion.
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes No Comments »
Written on
January 13, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
Recent changes to the Michigan Rules of Evidence include:
Expert testimony (1/1/2004)
MRE 702–amended to emphasize the trial judge’s gatekeeping role in excluding unproven expert theories and methodologies. See Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, 526 US 137 (1999).
Bases of expert testimony (9/1/2003)
MRE 703–amended to exclude opinions based on facts or data not in evidence. See MRE 1101 amendment.
Friend of the Court (FOC) reports (9/1/2003)
MRE 1101–amended to allow trial judges to consider FOC reports prepared pursuant to MCL 552.505(1)(g, h).
Posted in Procedures/Rules No Comments »
Written on
January 12, 2004
by
Scott Bassett
One of the least well-kept secrets of law office word processing is that Microsoft Word saves as hidden information a great deal of data about who created a document, who modified it and when, and what those modifications were. If the recipient of one of your Word files knows where to look, he or she can learn a great deal more than you want to reveal. When you send legal document to a client or opposing counsel for review, your best bet is to convert it to an uneditable “image” format such as PDF (Adobe Acrobat). But if you need to send it in Word format, make sure your case, client, and career are not jeopardized by the hidden information, called “metadata” that is transmitted with that document.
Until now, effectively stripping metadata required that you buy a third-party utility such as Metadata Assistant from Payne Consulting Group. Last week Microsoft finally stepped up to the plate and offered a free utility of its own to strip metadata from Word and Excel documents. The catch is that it works only with Office XP and Office 2003. If you are using an older version of MS Office (such as 2000 or 97), the additional law-firm friendly features in Word XP and Word 2003 make an upgrade more than worthwhile anyway. The new tool is called the Remove Hidden Data Tool. It is available as a free download from Microsoft here. By the way, it only works with the Windows XP operating system. This is yet another reason to ditch you old Windows 98 or ME dinosaur and buy something more modern, speedy, reliable, and efficient.
Posted in Technology 1 Comment »
Written on
January 12, 2004
by
David C. Sarnacki
The New York Times reports on households with “Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home.” Ginia Bellafante writes (excerpt):
In assuming those roles, demographers say, the two are part of an emerging population of gay men who are not only raising children but are also committed to the idea that one parent should leave the workplace to do it. Of 9,328 same-sex couples with children whose census returns were randomly selected for analysis by the Census Bureau, 26 percent of the male couples included a stay-at-home parent, said Gary Gates, a demographer with the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington. That figure is one percentage point more than for married couples with children and four percentage points higher than for female couples, said Mr. Gates, who performed the analysis for this article.
The percentage of men who stay at home is significantly smaller among married heterosexual couples, Mr. Gates said.
The obstacles of finding surrogate mothers and of discriminatory adoption laws that favor heterosexual couples have led some gay men to pursue parenthood with fervor.
“Being a planned gay father is such a project in itself,” said Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University and a senior scholar at the Council on Contemporary Families, a research organization. Often, Professor Stacey said, gay fathers or those aspiring to be “remain very judgmental of parents who don’t stay home.”
To some gay men, the idea of entrusting the care of a hard-won child to someone else seems to defeat the purpose of parenthood.
***
Same-sex couples with a stay-at-home parent are doing this even though census figures show that their median household income, $35,000, is lower than the $45,000 for a heterosexual married couple with a stay-at-home parent, Mr. Gates of the Urban Institute said.
The 2000 census found that there were some 60,000 male couple households with children in America, and close to 96,000 female couple households. Those figures are about 20 percent of all male couples and a third of all female couples.
Rob Calhoun and his partner refinanced their home in suburban Atlanta when Mr. Calhoun quit his job as a social worker to stay home with their baby daughter. “We really couldn’t afford it,” Mr. Calhoun said.
Sociologists, gender researchers and gay parents themselves say that because gay men are liberated from the cultural expectations and pressures that women face to balance work and family life, they may approach raising children with a greater sense of freedom and choice.
They may also not fear stigmatization in these new roles, said Ellen Lewin, chairwoman of the women’s studies department at the University of Iowa. Professor Lewin is the author of “Lesbian Mothers” (Cornell University Press, 1993) and is working on a study of gay fathers.
Conversely, feminism’s legacy may leave lesbians more ideologically committed to equality in their relationships, said Christopher Carrington, a professor of sociology at San Francisco State University and the author of “No Place Like Home” (University of Chicago Press, 2002), which examines how gay and lesbian couples divide household labor.
Posted in Families/Children No Comments »
