All posts by BowTieLawyer

Matthew operates the Thompson Law Firm, pllc, a Mississippi based Family Law firm emphasizing; Divorce, Child Custody, Child Support, Modification, Contempt and Appeals, handling family law cases throughout Mississippi. (601) 850-8000 Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms www.BowTieLawyer.ms

Mississippi Senate Bill 2319: It’s a Crime to Discharge Genetic Material Without Intent to Fertilize!

Mississippi Legislators are in the news again!

Senator Bradford Blackmon introduced a bill, known as the “Contraception Begins at Erection Act.”

This proposal makes it a crime “for a person to discharge genetic materials without the intent to fertilize an embryo”

Penalties escalate from a first offense warranting a $1,000.00 fine to the third and subsequent offenses warranting a $10,000.00 fine, per (dis)charge.

The law excepts donations/sales to facilities for future fertilization and for discharges with the use of contraceptive measures…

Blackmon provided WLBT News a statement, “All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation. This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me.”

Senate Bill 2319

AN ACT TO ENACT THE CONTRACEPTION BEGINS AT ERECTION ACT; TO DEFINE TERMS; TO PROVIDE THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO DISCHARGE GENETIC MATERIAL WITHOUT THE INTENT TO FERTILIZE AN EMBRYO; TO PROVIDE FOR CRIMINAL PENALTIES; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

     BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:

     SECTION 1.  (1)  This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Contraception Begins at Erection Act.”

     (2)  It shall be unlawful for a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.

     (3)  Upon conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be fined:

          (a)  One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) for a first offense;
          (b)  Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00) for a second offense; and

          (c)  Ten Thousand Dollars (10,000.00) for a third or subsequent offense.

     (4)  This section shall not apply to the discharge of genetic material:

          (a)  Donated or sold to a facility for the purpose of future procedures to fertilize an embryo; and

          (b)  Discharged with the use of a contraceptive or contraceptive method intended to prevent fertilization of an embryo.

     SECTION 2.  This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2025.

Clearly, this is not a serious bill and was done to generate discussion.

Matthew Thompson is a family law and civil litigation attorney in Mississippi and keeping an eye on the 2025 Legislative session.

NOT SO FAST! How Mississippi House Bill 1089 Affects Radar Laws for Sheriffs

Mississippi House Bill 1089

There is proposed legislation to allow the Sheriff’s department to have the use of radar. It may come as a surprise that most Sheriff’s departments do not and are not allowed to use radar speed sensing devices.

The current law is based, in part, on the concern and stigma of speed traps as revenue generators for unincorporated areas.

The propsoed legislation seeks to AMEND SECTION 63-3-519, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO AUTHORIZE ANY COUNTY SHERIFF OR DEPUTY SHERIFF TO UTILIZE RADAR SPEED DETECTION EQUIPMENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

  The Current law states;

     63-3-519.  It shall be unlawful for any person or peace officer or law enforcement agency, except the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol, to purchase or use or allow to be used any type of radar speed detection equipment upon any public street, road or highway of this state.  However, such equipment may be used:

          (a)  By municipal law enforcement officers within a municipality having a population of two thousand (2,000) or more according to the latest or a previous federal census upon the public streets of the municipality, but in no case where the latest federal census population for the municipality is less than one thousand five hundred (1,500) * * *.

          (b)  By any college or university campus police force within the confines of any campus wherein more than two thousand (2,000) students are enrolled * * *.

          (c)  By municipal law enforcement officers in any municipality having a population in excess of fifteen thousand (15,000) according to the latest federal census on federally designated highways lying within the corporate limits

Proposed, new legislation includes:

          (e)  By any county sheriff or deputy sheriff upon the county roads of their respective county with board of supervisors approval.  Such approval shall be voted on and approved by a majority vote, and the approval shall be spread upon the board minutes of the county.

    …

     SECTION 2.  This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2025.

Will this pass? Is this about public safety and protecting and serving? Is this necessary? Or, is this about generating revenue? Will it be abused if passed?

Matthew Thompson is a family law and civil litigation attorney in Mississippi and is keeping an eye on proposed legislation this session.

Child Testimony, the Court and YOU

A child testifying is an often discussed issue between parents and attorneys in child custody cases.

When parents are getting a divorce the child usually knows more than their parents think. The child most likely witnessed fights, bad conduct and sometimes even dangerous conduct.

In Mississippi law, the leading authority is Jethrow vs. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270 (Miss. 1990). This case lays the groundwork that the Court should use when assessing child testimony. The basic premise is, as follows;

  • A child witnesses of tender years*, 12 and under for testimony purposes, testifying is subject to the discretion of the Judge. (*this tender years is different than the “tender years” doctrine favoring a mother when a child is very young, under 2-3).
  • Before allowing such testimony the Judge “should satisfy himself that the child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently, and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.”

Before excluding the testimony of a child witness of tender years in a divorce proceeding, the chancellor at a minimum should follow the procedure required by Crownover v. Crownover, 33 Ill.App.3rd 327, 337 N.E.2d 56 (1975):

  • The first hurdle is whether the child is competent to testify.
  • The Judge should confer in camera (meaning in the Judge’s chambers/office) with the child and determine whether or not the child’s testimony should be heard
  • The Judge has considerable discretion in conducting proceedings of this type, meaning it’s a judgment call.
  • The court should not, however, reject outright proposed testimony of a child in custody proceedings, where the omission of such crucial testimony might be harmful to the child’s best interests.
  • The trial court should take great pains to have an in camera conference with the child to determine the competency of the child,
  • and determine the competency of any evidence which the child might present.
  • The court should determine whether the best interests of the child would be served by permitting her to testify, or
  • Whether the child should be sheltered from testifying and being subjected to a vigorous cross-examination.
  • The Judge should report the essential material matters developed at the in camera conference on the record.
  • The Court should state the reasons for allowing or disallowing the testimony of the child, and
  • The Court should note the factual information which the court developed from the conference with the child which would be considered by the court in its ultimate determinations in the case.

Generally, the testimony of a child called as a witness in a divorce case should not be excluded for reasons other than competency, or evidentiary defects, or for the protection of the child. (24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, A 415). There should not be a summary refusal to inquire as to the competency of the child to testify and also of the competency of the proposed testimony of such child in a change of custody proceeding.

imgres.jpg

“We reiterate that parents in a divorce proceeding should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so except in the most exigent cases. The reason and wisdom behind this precaution need no amplification. We also hold, however, as we must that no parent can be precluded from having a child of the marriage in a divorce proceeding testify simply because of that fact.” Jethrow v. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270, 274 (Miss. 1990)(emphasis added).

A child testifying should be avoided, however if it cannot be avoided the above process will likely be used by the Court to determine if and how the child will testify.

Matthew Thompson is a Child Custody Litigation Attorney in Mississippi.

Winning by a WALK-OFF Grand Slam! MRA over Hartfield 15-13.

CAUTION: Your speakers may burst…and you’ll have a smile on your face.

MRA Softball won in a do or die situation Thursday night at a standing room only crowd at their home campus of Madison Ridgeland Academy.

The Patriots, who have been every thing from the Bad News Bears to the New York Yankees (this season and this game!), shocked Hartfield Academy and silenced their crowd with a stunning come-from-behind victory.

The win by MRA forces a game 3, in the best-of-three series, for the 6A MAIS State Championship!

Game 3 is Saturday at 11:00 am at Hartfield and will be streamed LIVE on MRA’s YouTube and MRA’s WSN Streaming Channel (2).

Hear Patrick Wooten and Matthew Thompson make the call as MRA grabs Victory from the jaws of Defeat!!

#MRASoftball #MRAAthletics #MRA

Don’t Make Your Problems BIGGER!

We all run into problems from time to time and sometimes we are even responsible for those problems…

But, one great practice tip is to not make those problems bigger.

If you are doing the WRONG thing, stop! If you are making bad decisions, make better decisions. If your judgment is compromised, acknowledge it and choose better.

Doubling down on the bad and wrong decisions is not a good path forward.

Also, your decisions may be hurting other people. Think about that. A problem you created or you contributed to may hurt someone else. It may hurt an innocent, unintended person.

Its never too late to do the right thing.

Two Family Law BILLS Died in Committee

Mississippi legislation kicked around 2 significant ideas for changes in Family Law. Both failed to become law in the State.

This “was the year” for Irretrievable Breakdown, Mississippi’s answer to No Fault Divorce.

In MS, you do NOT have a right to a divorce. You either have to have fault grounds that you can prove to the satisfaction of the Chancellor or have an agreement with your spouse to ALL issues. 48 other states have a No Fault Divorce process. MS does not.

Thirteenth. Upon application of either party, the court may
grant a divorce when the court finds there has been an
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that further attempts
at reconciliation are impractical or futile and not in the best
interests of the parties or family.

Secondly, a Joint Custody bill was proposed. There were several iterations of this legislation, but the gist of it was that the Court was to assume that Joint Physical Custody was in the best interest of the child when parents could not agree (and, even if they could) and if the Court found Joint Physical Custody was not in the best interest of the child it had to state why. (There were some issues with the proposed legislation as it was drafted, but this Bill found some traction and was discussed and bandied about for weeks…ultimately to no avail).

(2) * * * (a) There shall be a presumption, rebuttable by a
preponderance of evidence, that joint custody and equally shared
parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If the court
does not grant joint custody and/or equally shared parenting time,
the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which
maximizes the time each parent has with the child and ensuring the
best interest of the child is met.
(b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant
legal and/or physical custody to one parent.

Both bills failed and there are limited changes to MS Family Law. A blog for another day.

Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in MS and is in favor of some common sense changes in Mississippi Law.

Kentucky Man “fakes” death to avoid Child Support…fails.

Jesse Kipf thought it better to be declared dead than pay his ex-wife child support.

jesse-kipf-2

After amassing an arrearage in excess of $100,000.00 dollars, Kipf infiltrated a number of state data bases, and using stolen physician’s credentials, created a death certificate for himself.

He would have gotten away with it too, except he wasn’t dead.

Now, in addition to the back child support he will have to pay nearly another $80,000.00 in fines, fees and restitution for the damage he caused when hacking the State and other systems.

On top of all of this, he still owes child support going forward. Mississippi will also incarcerate persons for refusing to pay child support.

Kipf is scheduled to be sentenced April12 for his crimes.

Matthew Thompson is a Child Support lawyer in Mississippi and advises client’s to NOT fake their own death to avoid paying child support.

Potential Change in Divorce Law?

Another legislative session another attempt to align MS family law with 48 other states…a change that is needed.

Pending legislation seeks to make changes to existing divorce law in Mississippi. House bill No. 1046 proposes to to amend Sec. 93-5-1 to delete the requirement of willful and obstinate from the ground of Desertion and provide a new 13th ground of Irretrievable Breakdown.

Thirteenth. Upon application of either party, the court may
grant a divorce when the court finds there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that further attempts at reconciliation are impractical or futile and not in the best interests of the parties or family
.

Fourth. * * * Continued * * * desertion for the space of one (1) year.

This is needed in MS law as we are 1 of 2 states in the Country that does not recognize a person’s right to a divorce. Mississippi law has created a financial blackmail niche area of practice. This occurs when a party does not have provable grounds for divorce and the other party will not consent. It happens more than you’d think.

Also, opponents indicate this will somehow open divorce floodgates in Mississippi. I contend it will not. MS has the 13th highest divorce rate in the country despite the most stringent laws.

Similar efforts have previously failed every year. Below are just a few blogged here.

2023, 2022, 2021, 2015

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and supports common sense changes in Family Law in Mississippi.