Immigration and Family Law Blog

Spike in Recession-Proof Marriages

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:38:00 GMT

Grave financial times have typically been busy times for California divorce lawyers. Any Los Angeles family law attorney will tell you that many marriages will collapse under the strain of financial troubles, like those brought on by the recession. However, a new report by the University of Virginia shows that a small percentage of marriages have not only survived the onslaught of the recession, but have actually thrived.

According to the National Marriage Report by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, although many American couples have found their marital bonds weakened under stress since the recession, others have managed to strengthen their commitment to their marriage vows as a result of their financial troubles. Not only have many couples found that the recession has strengthened their commitment to each other, but among those couples who were considering a divorce before the recession, many couples have actually postponed their plans for a divorce.

According to the report, approximately 29% of married Americans said that the recession had brought heavy financial stress on their marriages. However, the same percentage of Americans said that the decision had caused them to deepen their commitment to their marriage. Approximately 38% of those Americans who were planning a divorce before the recession, said that the recession caused them to put aside their plans.

The analysts also rated the respondents as being at a high risk for divorce on a scale of 0 to 10. About 16% of married Americans who said that the recession has caused great financial stress also had a high divorce rate, compared to just 7% of those couples who did not believe that the recession has caused great financial stress.

Some of the most common economic worries among couples were being able to pay bills (34%), and make mortgage payments (12%). Interestingly enough, the recession is most likely to damage those marriages in which the partners do not have a college degree.

Recession's Impact on Child Support

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:40:00 GMT

The recession has had an adverse impact on child support payment collections in California. Child support payments fell in 2009. Statistics for 2010 won't be out for months, but Los Angeles divorce lawyers believe that with the economy still stagnant, those collections were down last year too. According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Offices of Child Support Enforcement, this decline has been seen around the country.

This decline in child support collections has been seen even though states have enhanced their ability to collect child support checks on behalf of custodial parents. That's because of high unemployment rates, leading to a drop in child support payment checks. Noncustodial parents are also becoming more successful at obtaining court-ordered payment reductions.

According to official estimates, both the state and federal governments collected approximately $26.4 billion in child support payments in 2009. That is down about .7% from a year earlier. In fact, this is the first drop since records began to be maintained in 1976.

In California, $2.3 billion was collected in child support payments in the fiscal year 2010. That is a 1% drop from one year earlier. According to the California Health and Human Services agency, approximately 57.7% of California's child support cases were in arrears at some point during 2010. That is an increase from 56.2% for the previous year.

There was also a decline in California child support payments through wage withholding. These account for about 60% of all child-support payments. Such payments dropped 5.5% from the previous year. Payments taken from unemployment checks increased dramatically by 62%, reflecting the state of the economy last year.

Los Angeles Judge Rules in Favor of Jamie McCourt

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:26:00 GMT

It’s the divorce case that has riveted not just California divorce lawyers, but also Los Angeles Dodgers fans and baseball fans around the country. Last week saw the latest twist in that drama, as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge found in favor of Jamie McCourt by throwing out a postnuptial agreement that favored her husband Frank McCourt.

According to a tentative ruling by Judge Scott Gordon, the agreement that would have divided the couple's assets did not meet the requirements of California law. The agreement in question was a postnuptial agreement that would have transferred ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers solely to Frank McCourt. In September, the case involving McCourt and his ex-wife Jamie went to trial. According to Frank McCourt, it was his wife’s idea to have the postnuptial agreement in order to protect her assets from liabilities associated with the purchase of the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1994. However, Jamie McCourt alleges that she would never have knowingly and willingly given up her rights to the major league baseball team.

At the center of the mess is the issue of whether there was ever a meeting of the minds over the fate of the Dodgers. The parties produced different versions of the prenuptial document. The attorney who drafted the document admitted that he switched a page of the agreement after the agreement was signed and without notifying either party of the change. This lawyer claims he did this to make sure that the agreement reflected the intention of both parties. However, the judge has found a serious problem with the fact that this page was switched without informing the parties concerned.

California Anti-Immigrant Group Pushes for Arizona-like Law

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:12:00 GMT

If an anti-immigration group in California has its way, the Golden State could soon have its own version of Arizona's draconian anti-immigration laws. According to California’s Secretary of State, supporters of the initiative that is based on Arizona's controversial law can soon begin gathering signatures to allow the measure to be placed on the ballot in 2012.

The initiative is being promoted by Michael Erickson, who is the chairman of the Support Federal Immigration Law Committee. The initiative needs signatures from about 433,971 registered voters in order to qualify for the ballot. Further, those votes would have to come in by April 21, 2011. If all goes well for the Support Federal Immigration Law Committee, the measure could come up for vote as early as February 2012.

Just like the Arizona laws, the proposed California measures would require that state and local law enforcement officers determine the immigrant status of any person they have reason to suspect is in the country illegally. The determination of the person's immigrant status must be done right at the scene of the stop or detainment. According to the proponents of the bill, a measure like this is important because of a possible increase in illegal immigration after the implementation of the Arizona law.

Already, there has been plenty of criticism about the measure. Both California immigration lawyers and immigration rights supporters have come out strongly against the measure. Like the Arizona laws, this seems to be just one more attempt to divide what has historically been a culturally diverse state, and pit communities against each other. While no one would deny that there is a serious need for immigration reform in this country, it's unclear how these proposed California measures would support reform.

California Supreme Court Rules Undocumented Immigrants Eligible for Reduced Tuition

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:07:00 GMT

In a move that is bound to add to the controversy revolving around federal versus state control of immigration issues, the California Supreme Court earlier this month ruled that undocumented immigrants are entitled to reduced in-state tuition at the state's public colleges and universities.

The Court was ruling in the matter of Martinez v. Regents, which challenged a 2001 California state law. Under that law, the California Immigrant Higher Education Act, a student who completes two years of high school in California and receives a high school diploma is eligible for in-state tuition rates at the state’s public colleges and universities. These students are eligible for reduced tuitions, regardless of their immigration status.

The decision means that deserving students in California will continue to have access to reduced in-state tuition rates, regardless of their immigration status. Immigration lawyers and immigration rights advocates have widely welcomed the state's ruling, and believe that it will empower students who do not have legal status, thanks to the federal administration’s failure to pass the DREAM Act. The California Supreme Court decision could also have nationwide ramifications. Immigrants in other states that have similar laws, like Texas and Kansas, could also follow the California court ruling.

Criticism towards the ruling has already begun. Anti-immigration groups say that the state will be required to pay for tuition for illegal immigrant students, even as it grapples to deal with higher education budget cuts. As far as California immigration attorneys are concerned, this is comparing apples and oranges. Students, who have done well in high school, are eligible to study in California's universities, and when these students find that they are not eligible to go to college because of their legal immigrant status, it can be devastating to their motivation levels. No one wins if we prevent a category of high school students from being eligible for college tuition merely on the basis of their immigrant status.

California Senator Intervenes to Temporarily Halt Deportation

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:08:00 GMT

California immigration lawyers, advocates and members of the undocumented immigrant community in California have been closely following the case of Steve Li, the San Francisco community college student who is awaiting deportation. This week, Li was granted a temporary reprieve when California Sen. Deanne Feinstein introduced legislation that would halt his deportation proceedings.

20-year-old Li was expected to be separated from his parents and sent back to Peru where he was born. Li has no contact with that country, apart from the fact that it is his country of birth. He moved with his parents to San Francisco when he was 12 years old. Li did not know he was in the country illegally until he was arrested in September by immigration authorities. The parents, who are Chinese by origin, have been ordered to return to China, where they had lived before they traveled to Peru.

Now Sen. Feinstein has taken the unusual and extraordinary step of preparing private legislation that would block Li's deportation. As a California immigration lawyer will tell you, it is quite rare to have a sitting senator interfere in a private case. It’s obvious that Sen. Feinstein believes that a case like this involves not just Li's future, but also the futures of other children of undocumented immigrants.

This is not a permanent solution to Li’s problems. The legislation would only temporarily block proceedings, and give Li time until Congress begins to consider legislation that would create a path to citizenship for children of undocumented workers who attend college in the country or enlist in the military. California immigration lawyers have strongly supported such a proposal that would give these children, a legal and clear cut path to permanent residency.

Supreme Court Considering Challenge to Discriminatory Citizenship Law

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:52:00 GMT

The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to a federal statute that seems to discriminate between unmarried American mothers and fathers when deciding questions of citizenship. However, even after the court delivered an oral argument on Wednesday, it doesn't seem to Los Angeles immigration lawyers that we are any closer to an answer.

The statute makes a distinction between unmarried American men and unmarried American women while deciding automatic transfer of citizenship to their children born outside of the U.S. It was challenged by Ruben Flores-Villar, a man who was born in Mexico in 1974, but raised in San Diego by his unmarried American father. He was denied citizenship and deported. Under federal law, if citizenship is to be automatically transferred from an unmarried father to a child, the child must have been born to an American father who has lived in the country for 10 years. Out of these 10 years, five must have been after the age of 14. These rules apply to those who were born before 1986. In Flores-Villar’s case, his father had only been 16 years old when he was born. So, Flores-Villar could not qualify for citizenship.

In the case of unmarried mothers however, the laws are much more lenient. An unmarried American woman must only have lived in the country for one year before the birth of a child in order for the child to be granted American citizenship. The laws have been changed since 1986, to shorten the period that an unwed father must have lived in the country from 10 years to five years. However, the requirements for unwed women have remained the same.

It is this discrimination based on gender of the unwed parent that Flores-Villar is challenging. The Supreme Court will have to decide on the challenge, and based on the comments of the justices, it seems unlikely that the Court will do anything about it. The majority of justices seemed to believe that this is a power that belongs to Congress and not the Court.

Immigration Reform Bill to Focus on Enforcement & Integration

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:34:00 GMT

New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez has introduced a new immigration reform bill that will include enforcement of current immigration laws, integration efforts and labor protection policies.

The bill is called the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010, and it’s being co-sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman, Patrick Leahy-D Vermont. The bill was introduced last week, and it aims to lay out a clear map, through which undocumented workers can become permanent residents. Approximately 11 million undocumented workers will be covered under the legislation.

The bill aims to, among other things, increase enforcement of federal immigration laws. This will include heavier penalties for criminal offenses committed by immigrants, as well as stronger requirements for tracking entries and exits at American borders. Besides, the bill proposes stronger standards for detention, including ensuring that American citizens are not unlawfully detained. The bill would also require better conditions at detention facilities. There has been plenty of focus recently on the condition of detention facilities. These places have been the scenes of human rights and sexual abuse of women immigrants.

Senator Menendez's bill will also call for better worksite enforcement. This will include the establishment of an employment verification system that will allow employers to determine if the worker they are planning to hire, has all his immigration papers in order. This means that an employer will not be able to hire undocumented workers innocently. The bill will require for a system like this to be established within a period of five years.

The bill will also establish an immigration commission, whose main aim will be to determine the impact of immigration on the economy, as well as on matters of national security. The commission will also consider the labor needs of the country and compare them with the number of visas that have been issued.

More specifically for California immigration lawyers, there'll be a focus on integration efforts and English-speaking classes to allow non-English speaking immigrants to integrate better with the mainstream population.

Jobs with the Lowest Divorce Rates

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:15:00 GMT

Are people in certain occupations more likely to need California divorce lawyers? A new study certainly seems to indicate so. The study which has been published in the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology compared divorce rates with at least 500 different occupations. It has some interesting insights into the way our choice of career can impact an individual's personal life.

According to the study, dancers and choreographers have some of the highest divorce rates, while engineers seem to be right at the other end of the spectrum, with some of the lowest divorce rates. Dancers and choreographers are followed by bartenders with a 38.4% divorce rate, and massage therapists with a 38.2% divorce rate. They kept company with telephone operators, casino workers and nurses. Among the occupations with the lowest divorce rates, were optometrists with a 4% divorce rate, clergymen with a 5.6% divorce rate, and podiatrists with a 6.8% divorce rate.

This study doesn't really provide a complete picture of the divorce scene in America. For instance, the study only looked at those persons who were married at the time of the census. It didn't consider whether the person had been divorced previously, and had remarried. It also doesn't draw any conclusions about whether the stresses of certain jobs cause marriages to break down, or whether people who have personalities that may place them at risk for bad relationships are drawn to certain professions. It's important to understand that there might not even be any link here.

However, it is a fact that stress can impact your personal life and marriage. A clergyman has a job that could be much less stressful than, say, a nurse’s job. This study presents some tantalizing glimpses of how occupations can affect individual personal life, but has few answers.

Sharp Drop in Flow of Undocumented Immigration to US

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:36:00 GMT

The dismal state of the economy is probably doing a better job of halting the flow of undocumented workers to the US than Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s threats.

According to a study by the Pew Hispanic Center, there has been a drop in the influx of unauthorized workers to the United States since 2007. The numbers plunged to 300,000 immigrants between 2007 and 2009, from about 850,000 a year between March 2000 and March 2005. That means that the number of undocumented immigrants in the US actually declined from 12 million in 2007 to about 11 million in 2009.

The biggest factor contributing to this fall was the dismal job market in the US. The recession has hit the construction industry and other sectors that are employment magnets for Hispanic laborers, especially hard. Hispanic immigrants already in the US are struggling with their own economic woes, and their tales of hardship have made it across the border to relatives and friends in Mexico and Latin America.

The numbers are likely to fall further in the months ahead. Hundreds of National Guardsmen have begun arriving in Arizona to step up enforcement at the borders. Besides, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has confirmed that the federal administration will double the number of drones flying surveillance over the southern border by January 1st. Undocumented workers will now find it harder and more expensive to cross the border, and hence, there is likely to be a further drop in those numbers.

The one thing that California immigration lawyers agree on is that it’s the economy that's impacting immigration, and not tighter border security measures. There's little demand for additional labor in the US, and the incentive for laborers to risk their life and limb by crossing the border without documentation, has been reduced considerably.

Welcome to Our Blog

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:27:00 GMT

Russakow | Ryan | Johnson is pleased to announce the start of our new Immigration & Family Law Blog here at www.immigration-family-attorneys.com.

Blogs are a great way of sharing information with people on a variety of topics, and we hope you find this to be a useful resource for information on Immigration Law, Family Law & related subjects.