11
Jan
2012

Think Before Posting on Social Networks

Everyday millions of people log into their favorite social networking sites to start their day, catch up during the day and end the day visiting with friends, business associates or looking for new contacts. What we are all doing is giving and receiving information about ourselves and others! A recent Pew Report states that 50% of the U.S. population uses social networking websites on a regular basis and 26% of the 50+ population engages in social networking!

Other interesting facts from Pew Reports: the U.S. 18-29 year-olds use their cell phone for the internet compared with 49% of 30-49 year-olds and 21% of 50+ users. The popularity of texting, taking pictures or video is increasing the use of social networking sites for all ages. These users of social networking and messaging services post information without much discretion or future perception as to what is said and how this information can legally be used against them down the road.

The Ten Most Popular Social Networking Sites of 2012 - taken from Hitwire.com (1/7/2012)
1.  Facebook, 64.28% visits share
2.  You Tube, 19.57% visits share
3.  Twitter, 1.48% visits share
4.  Yahoo!Answers .96% visits share
5.  Tagged, .75% visits share
6.  Linkedin, .67% visits share
7.  Pinterest.com, .48% visits share
8.  MySpace, .44% visits share
9.  Google+, .42% visits share
10.  MyYearbook .39% visits share

You should exercise careful thoughtful judgment when posting on social networking sites.
Think before your post! Could this post , which is one click away to immortality, be potentially damaging to you, others you care about or business relationships?

In today’s world, many lawyers are asking very specific questions to their clients concerning email addresses, use of social networking sites and types of personal information the client has posted about themselves, or information publicly disclosed from other people’s social networking. Many lawyers now ask their clients to stop using or to deactivate their social networking sites during their litigation process. Better safe than sorry!

The use of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) is now starting to be addressed by the U.S. Government and many states regarding usage for legal issues. The Federal Rules have been recently amended to mention ESI and set up a framework on dealing with this information. The new rules include ESI to email, web pages, word processing files, computer databases, and just about anything that is stored on a computer. The definition of ESI also includes traditional email, instant and text messaging, voice mail, personal webmail, blogging and other new emerging technologies. Potential relevant information from any of these sources must now be preserved by litigants in the federal courts. Just remember what you do or say online can and will be used against you and distorted since “you said it”!

5
Jan
2012

Texas Child Support Guidelines

Under the Texas Family Code §154.125 the guidelines for child support are as follows:

(a) The guidelines for the support of a child in this section are specifically designed to apply to situations in which the obligor’s monthly net resources are not greater than $7,500 or the adjusted amount determined under Subsection (a-1), whichever is greater.

(a-1)  The dollar amount prescribed by Subsection (a) above is adjusted every six years as necessary to reflect inflation.  The Title IV-D agency shall compute the adjusted amount, to take effect beginning September 1 of the year of the adjustment, based on the percentage change in the consumer price index during the 72-month period preceding March 1 of the year of the adjustment, as rounded to the nearest $50 increment.  The Title IV-D agency shall publish the adjusted amount in the Texas Register before September 1 of the year in which the adjustment takes effect.  For purposes of this subsection, “consumer price index” has the meaning assigned by Section 341.201, Finance Code.

(a-2)  The initial adjustment required by Subsection (a-1) shall take effect September 1, 2013.  This subsection expires September 1, 2014.

(b)        if the obligor’s monthly net resources are not greater than the amount provided by Subsection (a), the court shall presumptively apply the following schedule in rendering the child support order: 

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
BASED ON THE MONTHLY NET RESOURCES OF THE OBLIGOR 

1 child              20% of Obligor’s Net Resources
2 children          25% of Obligor’s Net Resources
3 children          30% of Obligor’s Net Resources
4 children          35% of Obligor’s Net Resources
5 children          40% of Obligor’s Net Resources
6+ children        Not less than the amount for 5 children

Depending on the number of other children an obligor has a duty to support, the percentage of child support may be lower.  For example, if the obligor was previously married and has 1 child to support in the previous marriage, the amount of support paid for one child before the court decreases to 17.50 percent.  See the chart below.

 

                          Multiple Family Adjusted Guidelines  (% of Net Resources)

                   Net Monthly Resources X Percentage Below
                  = Monthly Child Support Obligation

 

 

 

Number
of other children
for whom
the obligor has a duty
of support

Number of Children Before the Court

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

40.00

40.00

1

17.50

22.50

27.38

32.20

37.33

37.71

38.00

2

16.00

20.63

25.20

30.33

35.43

36.00

36.44

3

14.75

19.00

24.00

29.00

34.00

34.67

35.20

4

13.60

18.33

23.14

28.00

32.89

33.60

34.18

5

13.33

17.86

22.50

27.22

32.00

32.73

33.33

6

13.14

17.50

22.00

26.60

31.27

32.00

32.62

7

13.00

17.22

21.60

26.09

30.67

31.38

32.00

 Net resources are determined by deducting the following from the obligor’s income: 

  1. Social Security Taxes;
  2. Federal Income Tax based on the tax rate for a single person claiming one personal exemption and the standard deductions;
  3. State Income Tax;
  4. Union Dues (if such deductions are being withheld); and
  5. Expenses for Health Insurance Coverage for Obligor’s Child(ren) (if such deductions are being withheld).
30
Dec
2011

Interstate Jurisdiction – Multi State Confusion in Child Custody Disputes

Child custody issues can be difficult for the parties involved at any time, but when the custody case crosses a state line, Dallas family law attorney Mark Nacol warns that many more conflicts and problems may arise.

Most states follow a uniform law regarding determination of appropriate state jurisdiction in custody matters known as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and related statutes laws which enforce or set procedures regarding proper jurisdiction such as the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.  Texas has adopted these statutes. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act defines which state has or may maintain jurisdiction in a particular case and often mandates that other states recognize decisions handed down by the state determined to have jurisdiction.

The Act states, among other things, that a court may rule on custody issues if the Child:

  • Has continually lived in that state for 6 months or longer
  • Was living in the state before being wrongfully taken elsewhere by a parent seeking custody in another state
  • Has an established relationship with people (family, relatives or teachers), ties, and attachments in the state
  • Has been abandoned: or is safe in current state, but could be in danger of neglect or abuse in the home state

There are a number of core factors involved in determining which state is appropriate to initiate or maintain an existing suit.  Usually, there are only two states involved, but it is possible to have more than two states involved in cases where there is a frequent moving of the parties and or the children.  Generally, any state in which one of the parties and the child has continually resided for a year may establish venue to commence a lawsuit.

The Nacol Law Firm PC represents parents trying to enforce these laws; cases where there is a need to persuade courts to apply the specific, narrow exceptions to these general rules in order to have custody cases heard in the most convenient forum in which the most evidence is available; cases where the child’s home state or other basic questions need to be clarified, and cases where a parent has violated or has been falsely accused of violating these laws.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »