It’s that time of year again. Proposed law/legislation is being kicked around by the State Legislature.
House Bill No. 11, proposed by Representative Arnold, seeks “TO PROHIBIT THE APPLICATION OF SHARIA LAW IN DIVORCE AND CHILD CUSTODY CASES; TO AMEND SECTION 11-63-1, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THE PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF SHARIA LAW IN COURT ORDERS.”
To date, this scribe is unaware of any Court’s using, applying or considering Sharia law in the State of Mississippi, as same would be contrary to the MS Constitution anyway.
Of interest, the Bill includes that a Mississippi Court “shall not enforce a foreign law that violates the Mississippi Constitution, any laws of this state, the United States Constitution, any laws or ratified treaties of the United States and the territories of the United States * * *.”
The Bill likewise bars enforcement of ” (b) Any order by a court, arbitrator, administrative agency or other adjudicative, mediation or enforcement authority that seeks to enforce foreign law in violation of paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) shall be void.”
So far, it’s basically saying MS Court’s will not honor foreign laws or Orders that violate MS law or Constitutional law or are based on factors contrary to MS law/US Constitutional considerations. Makes sense.
However, the Bill includes one other tidbit that could prove to have unintended consequences, “In Sections 11-7-301 through 11-7-309 “foreign judgment” means any judgment, decree or order of a court of the United States * * *. The term “foreign judgment” shall not mean or include any judgment, decree or order from any jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories, or any judgment from another state or territory of the United States that applies law from a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories.
This last paragraph seems to invalidate any “foreign judgment” that was not secured within the U.S.
Why do you care? Is that foreign Adoption, which is a Judgment, valid?
That “foreign” quickie Divorce in Haiti or the Dominican Republic? Are they valid?
Up and until this Bill, Mississippi and the United States have routinely recognized foreign judgments IF they were obtained in a procedural and substantive manner consistent with that foreign entities jurisdiction and law. This is called Comity and it’s a necessary legal concept.
Does HB. No. 11 unintentionally seek to overturn Comity? I argue that it certainly may and that’s no laughing matter!
Matthew Thompson is a Family law attorney and has handled multiple matters that involve foreign decrees and clients from all over the world.
For years Doctors have enjoyed the saying “I’m sure your WebMD is just as good as my actual M.D….
Self-diagnosing running rampant…
Well now ChatGPT has made everyone a lawyer.
Need a brief in response to a summary judgment motion?
In mere seconds a fully typed, cited and “winning” brief is at your fingertips.
Only, there’s just one problem…
It’s fake! The cites are fake. The rulings are made up and the cases and courts may not even exist.
Recently BigLaw and small firms have been swept up in AI legal malfeasance. It’s making the rounds and the news.
A federal judge has even been the target of an inquiry when a ghost ruling appeared with fictitious parties, fake facts and bad law! The order vanished and was replaced with a corrected one.
So be careful out there. We can no longer believe the news, the internet or our own eyes.
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney that cites Westlaw and text books, such as Mississippi Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody, with forms.
Mississippi Courts have not historically favored Joint Custody. A new Bill would require a presumption of Joint Custody is best for a child, that would have to be overcome if a parent doesn’t agree…
Senate Bill 2484 seeks to amend the current custody statute 93-5-24, as follows: “
(2) * * * (a) (i) There shall be a rebuttable presumption 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 ensures the best interest of the child is met. (ii) The presumption created in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. A court that does not award joint custody with equally shared parenting time shall document the reasons for deviating from the presumption. (b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant legal and/or physical custody to one (1) parent.”
This is an interesting Bill and in theory how Custody determinations should begin anyway. However, it goes further than current law in creating a rebuttable presumption and then requiring documenting the reasons for deviating from the presumption if the court does not grant joint physical custody and/or equally shared parenting time.
Matthew Thompson is a child custody lawyer and believes mom and dad coparenting and working together is what’s best for the child. A set schedule based on the child, with flexibility when warranted is what is best…
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.
“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.
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.
You do NOT have to Like it, Share it or Tag a Friend, but you do have to leave a clever comment/ family law blog idea to WIN!
This contest is entirely subjective. My office will compile the comments/ideas and pick a winner. You then can retrieve your YETI Hopper. *(Bow Tie not included).