Cyberbullying: Is it Happening to Your Kids?

http://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying happens when kids bully each other through electronic technology. Find out why cyberbullying is different from traditional bullying, what you can do to prevent it, and how you can report it when it happens.

BE FOREWARNED, THE CA EDUCATION CODE HAS SIGNIFICANT MORE IMPACT OVER
STUDENT BEHAVIOR THAN WITHOUT USING THE EDUCATION CODE. WHILE SCHOOLS ARE
SUPPOSED TO ALWAYS HAVE CYBERBULLYING EDUCATION, SOME SCHOOLS SUCH AS
MIDDLE SCHOOLS, HAVE SHIRKED THEIR DUTIES LOCALLY.  EXPELLING CHILDREN DOES NOT
MEAN SCHOOLS ARE DOING ALL THEY CAN DO.  CHILDREN NEED TO LEARN RIGHT FROM WRONG.

What is Cyberbullying?

Cyberbullying is bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.

Prevent Cyberbullying 

Parents and kids can prevent cyberbullying. Together, they can explore safe ways to use technology.

Report Cyberbullying 

When cyberbullying happens, it is important to document and report the behavior so it can be addressed.

Intentional Violation of Court Order under PC 273.6

 Penal Code 273.6 PC -- Intentional and knowing violation of court protective order. 

    (a) Any intentional and knowing violation of a protective order, as defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code, or of an order issued pursuant to Section 527.6, 527.8, or 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. 

    (b) In the event of a violation of subdivision (a) that results in physical injury, the person shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. 
        However, if the person is imprisoned in a county jail for at least 48 hours, the court may, in the interest of justice and for reasons stated on the record, reduce or eliminate the 30-day minimum imprisonment required by this subdivision. In determining whether to reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment pursuant to this subdivision, the court shall consider the seriousness of the facts before the court, whether there are additional allegations of a violation of the [California restraining] order during the pendency of the case before the court, the probability of future violations, the safety of the victim, and whether the defendant has successfully completed or is making progress with counseling. 

    (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall apply to the following court orders: 
           (1) Any order issued pursuant to Section 6320 or 6389 of the Family Code. 
           (2) An order excluding one party from the family dwelling or from the dwelling of the other. 
           (3) An order enjoining a party from specified behavior that the court determined was necessary to effectuate the order described in subdivision (a). 
           (4) Any order issued by another state that is recognized under Part 5 (commencing with Section 6400) of Division 10 of the Family Code.

    (d) A subsequent conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a), occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) and involving an act of violence or "a credible threat" of violence, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 139, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or in the state prison. 

    (e) In the event of a subsequent conviction for a violation of an [California protective] order described in subdivision (a) for an act occurring within one year of a prior conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) that results in physical injury to a victim, the person shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than six months nor more than one year, by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
            However, if the person is imprisoned in a county jail for at least 30 days, the court may, in the interest of justice and for reasons stated in the record, reduce or eliminate the six-month minimum imprisonment required by this subdivision.
            In determining whether to reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment pursuant to this subdivision, the court shall consider the seriousness of the facts before the court, whether there are additional allegations of a violation of the [California restraining] order during the pendency of the case before the court, the probability of future violations, the safety of the victim, and whether the defendant has successfully completed or is making progress with counseling. 

     (f) The prosecuting agency of each county shall have the primary responsibility for the enforcement of orders described in subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (e). 

     (g)        (1) Every person who owns, possesses, purchases, or receives a firearm knowing he or she is prohibited from doing so by the provisions of a [California] protective order as defined in Section 136.2 of this code, Section 6218 of the Family Code, or Section 527.6 or 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, shall be punished under Section 29825. 
                  (2) Every person subject to a protective order described in paragraph (1) shall not be prosecuted under this section for owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm to the extent that firearm is granted an exemption pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or subdivision (h) of Section 6389 of the Family Code. 

      (h)     If probation is granted upon conviction of a violation of subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), the court shall impose probation consistent with Section 1203.097, and the conditions of probation may include, in lieu of a fine, one or both of the following requirements: 
              (1) That the defendant make payments to a battered women's shelter or to a shelter for abused elder persons or dependent adults, up to a maximum of five thousand dollars ($5,000), pursuant to Section 1203.097. 
              (2) That the defendant reimburse the victim for reasonable costs of counseling and other reasonable expenses that the court finds are the direct result of the defendant's offense. 

       (i) For any order to pay a fine, make payments to a battered women's shelter, or pay restitution as a condition of probation under subdivision (e), the court shall make a determination of the defendant's ability to pay. In no event shall any order to make payments to a battered women's shelter be made if it would impair the ability of the defendant to pay direct restitution to the victim or court-ordered child support. 
               Where the injury to a married person is caused in whole or in part by the criminal acts of his or her spouse in violation of this section, the community property may not be used to discharge the liability of the offending spouse for restitution to the injured spouse, required by Section 1203.04, as operative on or before August 2, 1995, or Section 1202.4, or to a shelter for costs with regard to the injured spouse and dependents, required by this section, until all separate property of the offending spouse is exhausted.")

Many clients make the mistake of hiring what they think is the biggest gun in town only to find that their Family Law Lawyer is routinely overworked, inaccessible,

Online Bullying by Kids-- "Cyberbullying"..........Is It Legal?

We recently were made aware that a high school minor child was going to be interviewed by the Police.
  In most cases, it is recommended that the child not blurt out anything (because after all a juvenile cannot just run off the school grounds so is not allowed to just walk away from the school..) so it is probably best that your kids be told in advance (by parents)  that they need to FIRST call a parent, say they want an attorney,  inform the principal of the school, and not make statements without the parent present. So at least then if the "police" insist on interviewing the child, more than one other adult can be present.

[We recently were notified on this issue because the police wanted to interview the child; the police officer was informed the parent wanted to be present; instead of allowing the parent to be present, the police went to his office and said he was going to file a warrant!!]  We seriously doubt that any warrant would go very far, but this is just an example of how things can spiral out of control.

The interview mentioned above, was for the alleged purpose of interrogation of the child when another person had accused child of sending out or sharing a picture of some other kid in a bathing suit, but this picture had been placed by the child wearing the bathing suit, to another to begin with.

We all realize once something goes online, there is little to no privacy. While laws involving cyberbullying are somewhat convoluted, basically there is recourse in many instances, and one can file a civil harassment or administrative claim, and file a notice with the Dept. of Education for failure to comply with some necessary steps by having them investigate the child's claim with the school.

For example at a high school in another state--- kids bullied another kid with learning disabilities and physically assaulted him. IF these same kids had taken pictures and posted them online, then what we just talked about (the reporting) could involve cyberbullying and the school involved is in even worse trouble. In fact, Federal law can be involved if racial and or other topics are involved:

Although no federal law directly addresses bullying, in some cases, bullying overlaps with discriminatory harassment when it is based on race, national origin, color, sex, age, disability, or religion. 

When bullying and harassment overlap, federally-funded schools (including colleges and universities) have an obligation to resolve the harassment. When the situation is not adequately resolved, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division may be able to help....

https://www.stopbullying.gov/get-help-now/index.html

What should a school do to resolve a harassment complaint?

• Appropriate responses will depend on the facts of each case.
• School must be an active participant in responding to harassment and should take reasonable steps when crafting remedies to minimize burdens on the targeted students.
• Possible responses include:
  • Develop, revise, and publicize:
    • Policy prohibiting harassment and discrimination
    • Grievance procedures for students to file harassment complaints
    • contact information for Title IX/Section 504/Title VI coordinators
  • Implement training for staff and administration on identifying and addressing harassment
  • Provide monitors or additional adult supervision in areas where harassment occurs
  • Determine consequences and services for harassers, including whether discipline is appropriate
  • Limit interactions between harassers and targets
  • Provide harassed student an additional opportunity to obtain a benefit that was denied (e.g., retaking a test/class).
  • Provide services to a student who was denied a benefit (e.g., academic support services).

New 2016 Judicial Council Form Changes

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2016-07-01PublishersListAprMtg.pdf

How Attorney Saved Client Many $$ Thousands $$ in Litigation Expense --- with One Letter!

When couples split up and are not married and have no domestic contract or partnership or other qualified written agreement, just about anything can happen. 

As an example, consider how much money was saved when attorney drafted a demand letter after one party attempted to take advantage of the other party in a real estate situation involving approximately $902,541 in real estate, by welching on her promise; to be honest, attorney was not 100% sure that the letter would solve the problem, since the other party had been carrying on her behavior over at least, a 2 year time frame................

Law Firms Inside Wal Mart-- Georgia and Missouri...........!!!

---

BUSINESS OF LAW

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/wal-mart_law_firms_are_already_in_the_us/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=navigation&utm_campaign=most_read

Law firms are already inside some 

US Wal-Marts

POSTED JUN 21, 2016 01:15 PM CDT

BY VICTOR LI

---

When Evan Kaine, a personal injury attorney in Atlanta read a story in the May 2016 issue of the ABA Journal about Axess Law opening up offices in Wal-Mart in Canada, he remembered reading a line about whether these firms would soon be in your backyard.

“My reaction was: ‘Yes it is going to be in your backyard,’” Kaine says. “In fact, it already is.”

His firm, Kaine Law, has offices inside three Atlanta-area Wal-Marts. Kaine says that he opened his first Wal-Mart office in 2012 before expanding to two additional stores last year.

Like many lawyers, Kaine had seen the statistic about how 80 percent of all low-income Americans have unmet civil legal needs. To that end, he came up with the idea to set up shop in an area where most of those underrepresented people shop.

Kaine says his offices are full-service, although he emphasizes that he has built up relationships with a number of other local firms that specialize in different areas of the law and often refers work to them. In fact, he estimates that he only keeps about 20 percent of the cases that come into the Wal-Mart offices. Kaine says the Wal-Mart offices operate on a fixed-fee basis and even offer a number of free services, including a basic last will and testament and notary public services.

“It’s about being able to offer a service to the community,” he says. “We have to minimize the stigma of expensive attorneys.”

There’s a reason why Kaine’s Wal-Mart offices have received very little publicity. “We kept it quiet for a number of reasons,” he says. “The legal industry does not welcome change, and we wanted to make sure our model was sustainable before we went public with it.” Indeed, he’s kept such a low profile that when The Law Store opened offices inside Wal-Marts in Joplin and Neosho, Missouri, on June 1, they believed that they were the first firm in America to do it.................

When Judges are Biased Against a Party??

Unfortunately, it does happen.  But never in 20+ years have we ever seen a case (until now) where a Judge simply ignores the evidence, and simply awards whatever the mediator says, despite an obvious breach of the local rules/or laws governing mediators and evidence.

A key part of due process, is to give the process that is due....essentially in Family Law mediation, there should be NO evidence submitted to mediator that is NOT also served upon the other party ahead of time, with a proof of service to all parties. Although we do not claim to know the family law in other states outside of California, it would seem quite prejudicial to (a) take evidence and then (b) never show it to opposing party, and then (3) throw out the evidence or give it back to the party who tendered it, and not have a record of the evidence--and THEN -- for Judge to use that evidence in awarding custody to the person who gave the evidence, by claiming the petitioning party did not overcome the presumption of joint custody?  This would be the case since Judge rubber stamped the recommendation, which obviously relied upon the evidence never shown to the non custodial parent, which also caused the mediator to not even interview the minor child.

At long cause,  judge ignored the argument of due process and ignoring the local rules. This was after custodial parent had caused the long cause hearing to drag on for months, because custodial claimed an attorney would be obtained but never got one; at each trial setting, custodial would choose a date that ended up being changed.

Nevertheless......the losing party then continued the vigil to gain custody notwithstanding the ridiculous ruling. Of course an appeal was out of the question because even if client wanted to engage an appeal, it would take so long that it would not be worth it.

Instead, client remained vigilant to actually follow the court's crummy order of several hours a week visitation, supervised.  In meantime, the custodial parent continued to mess up on whatever that parent was supposed to do. About 6mo later, with documented evidence, the custodial parent decided to give up and just abandon the kids to the party wronged by the last order.  Rather than attempting mediation again, and risking another bad mediator decision or biased Judge, the non custodial parent let the bad parent just hang her/himself. It was not surprising that the custodial parent had filed three TROs, none of which had stuck.

In our view, by allowing such a blatant evidentiary wrong to make a case for one parent, it was obvious that this was bias, as the non custodial parent even had a written letter from CPS stating that the children had been harmed by someone who was with the custodial parent and CPS was investigating (but not filing charges yet...)  And, that the custodial parent was engaging in sexual acts in hotels in front of the minor children. But judge said, that was old news?  WTH??!!  The police wanted non custodial to do an ex parte. Oh yes, that would have fallen on deaf ears if the judge won't even look at a CPS letter or all the withhold notices from the District Attorney.

This goes to show that every case is usually different, and what might work normally in one case is not necessarily going to work in all cases.
NOTE:  Attorney is very aware that 170.6 can be used, however this judge had heard the case prior to this attorney taking the case; judge taking testimony prior so essentially client was precluded from using that tactic. Attorney dropped out of case purposely to see if Judge would treat client differently; at the last motion, Judge actually ruled that CWS and an investigation would take place; it did take place and client was given 50/50 timeshare which he wanted.