How does the Spanish legal system determine cases of vicarious abuse? According to this article in Spanish, the Spanish legal system recognizes instances of vicarious violence (violencia vicaria) in cases in which a person abuses or even kills their child in order to emotionally abuse their partner (or possibly only in cases in which a male partner abuses their child in order to harm their female partner). As noted in the article, there have been a number of convictions for vicarious abuse. Of course, there are other reasons why some people might hurt their children, such as part of a pattern of abuse toward the children unrelated to spousal abuse, for the purpose of collecting life insurance money, as part of sexual abuse, and so forth, so presumably there exist certain criteria in the Spanish legal system to distinguish these cases. What are the legal standards in Spain for classifying abuse or violent crimes against children as vicarious violence?
The article seems to state the legal standard which I repeat here in a Google Translate version: The former Government delegate for Gender Violence, Miguel Lorente , defines vicarious violence as &quot;violence that, when it seeks to hurt and harm women, instead of doing it directly, seeks to harm people who have special meaning for them.&quot; Harming a child or other person with special meaning to the true target of the violence is, of course, already a serious crime in Spanish law. A finding that the crime was a form of vicarious violence is a sentencing enhancing finding of fact by the court that makes a convicted defendant eligible for what U.S. lawyers would call &quot;life in prison with possibility for parole&quot; even though Google Translate provides a more literal translation from the Spanish of the words used to describe the enhanced sentence for which someone becomes eligible if this is established. Of course, there are other reasons why some people might hurt their children, such as part of a pattern of abuse toward the children unrelated to spousal abuse, for the purpose of collecting life insurance money, as part of sexual abuse, and so forth, so presumably there exist certain criteria in the Spanish legal system to distinguish these cases. Other than the legal definition set forth above, there does not appear to be any further legal guidance for the courts in determining if this sentence enhancing fact has been established. It is merely a question of fact for the judges on the court to determine based upon the evidence presented at trial by the prosecution and reasonable inferences from that evidence. Lawyers for the defendant can argue that this sentence enhancer should not apply because one of the different motives in the quoted material from the question was the actual or predominant motive, and the prosecution can argue that it was indeed vicarious violence, and then the judges have to decide whether they think that the prosecution has met its burden of proof to establish this motive and impose the enhanced sentence (which is authorized, but not required, even if it is established). This isn't going to be the easiest point to make in a typical case for the defendant. Usually, the defense is primarily going to be trying to cast doubt upon whether the prosecution has met its burden of showing that the defendant is guilty of the underlying crime at all, and, for example, having the defendant testify that he did it because he was a pedophile, rather than to hurt his wife is not going to help him all that much. Instead, I would expect that the usual approach of the defendant's lawyer would be to argue that the prosecution's evidence, if believed, supports a prosecution theory of the case that, for example, this murder was about insurance money and not about intimidating the defendant's wife. Another way the the defense could fight this sentencing enhancing claim at trial would be to argue that the specific evidence of the prosecution offer to show the defendant's alleged vicarious violence motive isn't credible in all of the ways the one generally casts doubt on the credibility of evidence in a court case. For example, the defense might offer evidence from a different witness than one offered by the prosecution that cast's doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's witness. Or, the defense might ask (or have the judges in the case ask) questions of the witness who is the key witness on the vicarious violence motive issue, that casts doubt on that witnesses' own testimony (perhaps by pointing out contradictions in the testimony or that the witnesses couldn't have been where the witness claimed to be in earlier testimony). Also, it doesn't appear that vicarious violence has to be an either/or question. Nothing in the definition of vicarious violence suggests, for example, that a defendant can't both have a motive to collect insurance money, and a motive to intimidate the child's mother, at the same time, &quot;killing two birds with one stone&quot; so to speak.
It isn't that uncommon to do something similar to this, which is called a &quot;test case&quot;. One of the more familiar examples of this kind of litigation conduct is the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. There have been test cases, for example, that involved important questions of E.U. jurisdiction in civil law countries as well.
Intent matters here, but yes. Alice could be considered guilty of either Second-Degree Murder or Manslaughter, though the latter is far more likely. Texas has no laws condoning assisted suicide that could absolve Alice. Second-degree murder requires the following: The defendant intentionally and knowingly caused the death of another person The defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual This is tenuous, but it could be argued this way if Alice intended to cause Bob's death. It certainly meets the second criteria: shooting oneself constitutes serious harm and giving a firearm to someone who has stated an intent to kill themself is reckless. It's more likely that Alice would be charged with manslaughter. The only definition is: A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual. As discussed above, giving someone who has announced an intent to kill themself a loaded gun is reckless. Alice's actions resulted in Bob's death.
In 50/50 custody you have the right to stand your ground to ensure the safety and well being of your children. You do not need to involve police unless it is an emergency. &quot;911 Operator, what is the emergency&quot;. Only call them when you feel your children are in grave danger. For example, you know for sure that the other parent is drunk and driving, or the other parent is drunk and on the ground unable to move and the child is in danger, etc. If you involve the police over your partner excessive drinking than, and they find that she was not excessively drinking, you will face false accusation charges and her lawyer will try to make you look like the bad guy trying to take away her children. how drunk does my ex have to be for me to deny a drop-off? Is it entirely based upon outward signs or blood-alcohol level? You should not search for drugs or alcohol, or administer tests, as to avoid the accusation of an illegal search. You can, however, based on your judgment of common sense assess the situation and see how drunk (s)he is and make your decision based on that circumstances. Make a 1-page log to document the date, time, situation description (3-5 sentences of what you see and why you make that decision.) It would be wise to have a witness around, so write down the person name as well for reference, (NOT MANY PEOPLE LIKE TO BE WITNESSES, But you can write down the people names that you know were around that incident.) Don't tell your partner that you are making the log. Suprise them in the court when you have a full page of incidents due to drinking. Am I correct in assuming that in order to protect myself from being accused of denying visitation, that (in the future) I need to involve the police if I suspect her of being intoxicated? *Always protect yourself! Be Your Own Advocate. * Don't involve the police unless its am emergency, read the first comment above. If I involve the police, do I need to be sure that she is extremely intoxicated in order to avoid a &quot;false alarm&quot;? (Obviously, this scares me as I'd prefer she didn't drink at all) This drinking incident is alarming itself. However, you should consult with your family law attorney. I would say that document five issues if it exceeds 5 in one month than filing a motion with the court to adjust the drinking problem, and that you request the child to be with you 60/40 custody. You must be able to demonstrate that you have the time, commitment and resources to take over the 60/40 custody. What options do I have, if any, if she drinks around him in her own home? Is she within her legal right as long as she doesn't get in a car, doesn't pass out or does something blatantly abusive? File a motion to adjust the custody, speak with your family law attorney.
First off: if someone in DHS is telling you this, your first, best, and really only option is to get advice from an attorney specializing in family law. Regardless of what we tell you here, without representation you will have a hard time with officials who believe otherwise. That said: I don't find anything exactly matching what you describe. The Uniform Adoption Code (AR Code § 9-9-200 (2014)) does not specifically address sibling groups at all. Adoptive parents do have rights to streamlined adoption of a sibling of a child they already adopted, under the Streamlined Adoption act (AR Code § 9-9-701 (2014)). In the section related to Placement of Minors (AR Code § 9-28-108 (2014)), however, is likely what the case worker was describing. Subsection (b) (2) reads, in part: (2) When it is in the best interest of each of the juveniles, the department shall attempt to place: (A) A sibling group together while they are in foster care and adoptive placement This is discussing foster care and adoptive placement, of course. I think the key wording is When it is in the best interest of each of the juveniles; that would be your argument (that it is not in their best interest). I see a 2011 case, for example, discussing a sibling group of four children not entirely different from yours; while there are not children with special needs, there is a child with major behavioral issues, and one of the (three) foster parents is considering adopting one of the children and "would be open" to considering others, but clearly isn't expecting to be required to do so. Note: I am not a lawyer, and particularly not one specialized in family law This is based on my reading of the 2014 Arkansas code. That is almost 2 years old. That said, I don't see any news articles or similar discussing limitations in sibling group placement in Arkansas recently, which is the sort of thing that usually would get attention. That said, this has also been something that HHS has been trying to encourage states to push for &ndash; more sibling group placement and awareness of sibling group issues &ndash; so it's entirely possible something could have changed.
The general rule is that the ability to have a valid divorce has nothing to do with where the marriage was entered into, or the citizenship of the parties. Usually, any jurisdiction with sufficient contacts with either member of the couple has jurisdiction to enter a divorce. Hence, generally, people get divorced in the place that they live. The problem in this scenario is step 5. I think that it is highly likely that the U.S. Embassy is simply wrong, unless there is some serious irregularity in step 4. An annulment after four years of marriage, as opposed to a divorce, is highly irregular and would not be allowed in the vast majority of jurisdictions. But, maybe there are facts and circumstances that make it otherwise. This fact pattern, while it on one hand sounds like a "for a friend" question based on real facts, also sounds like some important details that may be outcome determinative have been omitted.
Usually, but not always. In California, this is governed primarily by the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1713-1724. The general rule is that the judgment of a foreign court in a country with a legitimate legal system (like New Zealand), that had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject-matter, is enforceable through a summary process that does not reconsider the merits of the foreign money judgment, if the person seeking to enforce the judgment can establish those facts. See § 1716(a)-(b). But there are many exceptions to the general rule. See §§ 1715(b) (taxes, fines, penalties, some domestic relations judgments), 1716(c) (seven grounds for procedural irregularities, a ground for public policy exceptions, and certain defamation judgments). Section 1717 of the Act provides for certain exceptions to the exceptions. There are also federal law exceptions in addition to those in the act, including one applicable to foreign defamation case judgments. But these laws rarely have much practical effects beyond the California statute in cases involving purely money judgments that are governed by the California statute. Injunctive and other non-monetary relief granted by a foreign court is less frequently enforceable, and when it is, is not governed by a simple, summary statutory process from this statute. Special rules apply, in particular, to foreign child custody judgments. The summary process, when there is no other pending case in California between the parties is as follows: &quot;If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought as an original matter, the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action seeking recognition of the foreign-country judgment.&quot; § 1718(a). It is legally possible to file and prosecute a case like this one pro se in California, and it is unlikely that an in person hearing would be required in a case like this one. Usually, one could prevail in motion practice or with a remotely conducted hearing (especially in the COVID era). Whether an in person evidentiary hearing was required in a case like this would depend a great deal on the nature of the defense to recognition of the foreign judgment asserted. But, the better practice would be to hire a California lawyer to handle it for you. Typically, the cost of doing so would be the filing fee, the cost of serving the judgment debtor with process, and something on the order of $1000-$3000 in legal fees. So, it would be much less expensive than a full fledged new lawsuit, but would be too expensive to be practical in the case of a small claims sized judgment in most cases.
Habitual offender laws are written such that they represent distinct crimes. In your given example, the trier of fact will be asked to judge two distinct crimes: Did the defendant rob the bank Did the defendant break the habitual offender act An example from California, Penal Code Section 193.7 defines habitual offenders for traffic offenses: A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 191.5 that occurred within seven years of two or more separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, of, or Section 23152 or 23153 of, the Vehicle Code, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, shall be designated as an habitual traffic offender subject to paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 14601.3 of the Vehicle Code, for a period of three years, subsequent to the conviction. The person shall be advised of this designation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 13350 of the Vehicle Code. The conviction of being an habitual traffic offender is applied an underlying statute's sentencing guidelines. In the case of California's Vehicle Code 14601.3(e)(3): Any habitual traffic offender designated under Section 193.7 of the Penal Code or under subdivision (b) of Section 23546, subdivision (b) of Section 23550, subdivision (b) of Section 23550.5, or subdivision (d) of Section 23566 who is convicted of a violation of Section 14601.2 shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for 180 days and by a fine of two thousand dollars ($2,000). The penalty in this paragraph shall be consecutive to that imposed for the violation of any other law. In this case, there is enhanced sentencing if one is convicted of the crime of driving under a suspended or revoked license if the person is also convicted of being an habitual traffic offender. The jury instruction template used when determining if an enhanced sentence is warranted requires that the defendant be found guilty of the underlying crime as well as the additional allegation of the sentencing factor: If you ﬁnd the defendant guilty of the crime[s] charged in Count[s] _________________[,] [or of attempting to commit (that/those) crime[s]][ or thelesser crimes[s] of ], you must then decide whether[, for each crime,] the People have proved the additional allegation that &lt;insert description of enhancement, sentencing factor, or factual issue>. [You must decide whether the People have proved this allegation for each crime and return a separate ﬁnding for each crime. To prove this allegation, the People must prove that: &lt;Insert elements required.> The People have the burden of proving each allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. If the People have not met this burden, you must ﬁnd that the allegation has not been proved. The person in your example is not being punished again for the first crime; they are being sentenced to a year for robbing the bank the second time and receiving a sentencing enhancement of a year for breaking the habitual offender statute.