By WendySL August 13, 2016
I was so pleased with the positive advice I was given and all of the kindness with which I was treated during a difficult time. Highly recommend ...read more
By Donna Jean Rains July 20, 2016
The best there is and fast too! Have nothing to say but good! Without their help would of never got SS benefits! I Highly recommend Smolich &Smolich! ...read more
By jsimes November 11, 2014
They made my case look easy with how well everything was handled. I was very professionally represented. If need be, I would call them again in a heartbeat. ...read more
ProPublica and NPR released acritical and devastating critiqueof the systematic gutting of the workers compensation system that has taken place over the last 20 years, with a particular focus on the reduction of benefits in California that has happened courtesy of the decision-makers in Sacramento. Benefits are more necessary than ever for injured workers who can't get the assistance workers' compensation is supposed to provide. Although access to private insurance has improved under Obamacare, this is a benefit that the congress seeks to roll back. The federal government is also less generous with Medicare assistance. Medicare will not allow a transfer of care from any case where another insurer has liability without first being given the right to approve and modify any settlement of future medical rights. Even if you have medicare and want to close your workers' compensation case, (or your auto accident case), you need medicare's approval to sell out your rights to future medical care in most cases, a process that takes months. Medicare requires that the estimate of your future medical care costs be paid by the insurer liable for your claim and requires that the money is 'set aside" for the estimated medical treatment. After the set aside money is spent on medical treatment, then Medicare will again allow the expense. Where the estimate for a "set aside" is very high (according to medicare), the settlement of a case can be deterred. Many workers' compensation cases can't be closed out because of high costs of "possible" future medical care. And even though the projected costs are high, the worker's compensation insurer may in fact deny most if not all of the projected treatment under the Utilization Review process. To compound the problem, fewer and fewer doctors are willing to treat workers' compensation patients. And even if an injured worker has private insurance, many doctors will not bill a private insurer for treatment that is possibly the liability of a workers' compensation insurer. In general, injured workers can't use medicare for treatment of a work injury without proving to Medicare that the treatment is denied, and even if Medicare or a private insurer accepts the expense of treatment, often doctors are insecure about whether they will get paid or whether they are violating the law by billing another insurer for treatment for a work injury. Injured workers are penalized by a denial of medical care because the rules are complex and the law seems to favor a denial of care, not the right to reasonable and necessary medical treatment. This is a worrisome trend, and thefew bright spotscoming out of Sacramento are not enough. ...read more
By Law Office of Roy C. Levin March 27, 2015
Custody, Visitation and Parental Kidnapping California State Family Court, divorce attorneys and law enforcement authorities know, in parental kidnapping cases, a parent’s motive and malice count very little, because the definition of parental kidnapping depends almost entirely on geography. A parental kidnapping takes place when one parent deprives the other of custody and visitation by moving outside the jurisdiction of the Family Court in which agreements were filed. Some states draw a distinction between kidnapping and abduction, making abduction the more serious offense by attaching recklessness and endangerment to the act of transporting a child across state lines. Both definitions assume that one parent deliberately chose to deprive the other parent of his or her legal rights. Standard Custody and Visitation Arrangements Most California custody and visitation agreements grant “joint legal custody” to parents so that they can discuss and resolve issues related to the children’s well-being. Most agreements stipulate that parents must agree on the children’s healthcare, education, sports and activities; they usually stipulate that parents will share exceptional medical and educational expenses. Standard agreements award “physical custody” to one parent—in the vernacular, he or she is “the custodial parent.” The non-custodial parent has “reasonable” rights to visitation, and some agreements establish strict visitation schedules. Child support typically is proportional to the time the child spends with each parent. Both parents are entitled to the court’s protection when one willfully violates the terms of their agreement. Naturally, one parent cannot block the other parent’s relocation for job reassignment, promotion or other legitimate employment purposes; in general, parents cannot interfere with one another’s choice of residence as long as both provide for the children’s well-being and meet the visitation requirements. When a parent relocates, however, both parents should protect their custody and visitation rights by renegotiating their agreement. When parents travel, a little common sense can prevent a great deal of heartache. Non-custodial parents should eliminate suspicion and detention when they travel, especially when they travel internationally, by carrying notarized permission letters from the custodial parent. The letters must specify terms and conditions consistent with the traveler’s itinerary; all-purpose permission letters have very little force. Statutes and Treaties The federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act limits parents’ ability to move from one state to another for the sake of evading legally binding custody and visitation agreements. The act deals extensively with jurisdictional issues, and it does very little to define or determine when a criminal or tortuous act has taken place. In its simplest interpretations, the PKPA says that one state may not interfere with enforcement of another state’s “custody determinations.” In practical terms, the statute prevents parental kidnapping by establishing that custody and visitation orders cross state lines with children and their parents. The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act supplements and reinforces the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. According to The Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “The UCCJEA is designed to deter interstate parental kidnapping and to promote uniform jurisdiction and enforcement provisions in interstate child-custody and visitation cases.” Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have adopted the Act which “requires State courts to enforce valid child-custody and visitation determinations made by sister State courts.” The Act does establish two alternate criteria for jurisdiction over custody cases: (1) If a child has resided for more than six months in a state, its courts may establish jurisdiction, or (2) if a child has not resided in a state for more than six months since issue of the original “custody determinations,” the court with closest connection to the child may assert jurisdiction. The Hague Convention Treaty establishes similar reciprocity between nations that have ratified it. The much-publicized 2012 Kelly Rutherford custody dispute clearly indicates, however, reciprocity cannot take precedence over citizenship issues. A New York judge granted temporary “residential” custody of the couple’s two children to their father because the United States refuses to reinstate Daniel Giersch’s visa. Therefore, Giersche cannot honor the terms of the couple’s agreement. Giersch’s visa issues have nothing to do with the quality of his parenting; the judge in the case declared both Rutherford and Giersch “are good parents.” Still, in order to satisfy the terms of the couple’s visitation agreement, Rutherford must see her children in France. Effective Response to Parental Kidnapping or Abduction When your ex-partner takes your children in violation of a court order or without your permission, you immediately should contact law enforcement officials and your divorce attorney. Especially if you feel your children’s safety and health are endangered by your ex’s action, pursue every remedy the law allows. If your children are young, law enforcement officials may issue an “Amber Alert,” and they may charge your ex with multiple felonies when they apprehend him. In general, do everything the law allows to return your children home safely. ...read more
By Law Office of John V. Montero December 22, 2012
Modification of California Divorce and Child Support Agreements In California, Family Courts consistently apply two fundamental principles as they settle divorce and custody disputes: kids are first primary concern, and the courts hold both parents responsible for the children’s support. Second, because stability and continuity are essential to children’s well-being, the courts try to minimize upheaval in “the custodial home.” These fundamental principles remain constant even as parents’ and families’ circumstances change. In all divorce and custody disputes, children’s well-being prevails over all other considerations. The Family Code explicitly states, “The guidelines seek to place the interests of the children as the state’s top priority. The Courts’ decisions not only protect children against substantial reduction in their quality of life, but also assure custodial parents receive enough support to “improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children.” Second, the courts try to establish fair and reasonable visitation and payment schedules so that custodial parents and the children can count on non-custodial parents’ compliance. The Family Code says either parent may petition the Court for a modification of divorce or custody settlements when “a material change in circumstances” takes place. “Material change” is deliberately ambiguous, allowing for either dramatic improvement in a parent’s situation or a parent’s serious financial hardship. Six situations commonly prompt petitions for modification: · One or both parents’ remarriage.Most divorce decrees declare that remarriage does not automatically establish grounds for modification, but two situations frequently trigger disputes. In one, the ex-husband remarries and takes-on responsibility for his new partner’s children. Even if she receives support from her former partner, the new husband struggles to make ends meet. The strain inspires his request for a change. In these situations, the courts generally are reluctant to grant modifications, because the man remains responsible for supporting his own children. In the other situation, an ex-wife marries a man with considerably more money than her ex-husband. The ex-husband petitions for modification on grounds that the ex-wife’s circumstances have dramatically improved. The courts are reluctant to grant modifications in these situations, too, because the woman may enjoy the use of her new husband’s money, but his assets remain his sole and separate property and therefore remain under his exclusive control. · Substantial Change of Employment or Working Conditions.If either partner receives a promotion accompanied by a significant salary increase, the court typically will modify support agreements in light of the change. If the non-custodial parent remains unemployed for a significant length of time, the court may order continuing payments totaling one-half of his or her disposable income, but it may grant relief from arrears derived from the discrepancy between unemployment and the person’s regular income. The Family Court generally modifies visitation schedules according to changes in a parent’s work schedule or changes in the children’s school hours or participation in youth activities. · Relocation.The Court generally modifies visitation schedules to accommodate parents’ changes of residence, but it may have no power to enforce the changes if a parent moves out of California or out of the United States. In general, one parent cannot stop the other from relocating, but a parent may seek the court’s guarantee of visitation, and in some cases the court also will order the relocated parent to provide the means for regular visitation. · Military Call to Active Duty and Deployment.The law makes ample provision for reducing or deferring child and spousal support payments when an ex-spouse is called to active duty. In fact, the California Family Code makes specific provisions for just about every possible consequence of call-up and deployment. Although the court remains concerned about ex-spouses’ and children’s well-being, it generally seeks to relieve active duty military personnel of unnecessary stress and complication. · Change of a Parent’s Condition.The court willingly modifies visitation and custody orders when a parent engages in behavior that endangers the children; it is especially sensitive and responds to abuse and neglect that result from alcohol or drug abuse. However, the court is equally responsive to the wishes of parents who have completed rehabilitation and provide compelling evidence of their recovery. Most modifications take effect on the date the Family Court approves them, but the law does allow for retroactive modifications when exceptional circumstances warrant them. The law says modifications may be retroactive unless a prior order or stipulation specifically prohibits retroactive changes. In a few rare cases, parents who have received support may have to repay some of the money they have received, or they may have to redistribute property and assets to provide adequate repayment. Although you may request a modification without an attorney’s assistance, Family Court officials very strongly recommend you consult an attorney before filing. An attorney will assess your case and determine whether or not your request meets the court’s requirements; an attorney especially will help you determine whether or not your petition serves your children’s best interests as well as your own. Because the court has power to demand payment of court costs and attorneys’ fees from losing litigants, consultation with a family law practitioner may save you not only time and aggravation but also a great deal of money. In the state of California, John Montero is an attorney who specializes in divorce and child custody issues. Contact his office at: 916.641.7977 for an appointment to discuss your ...read more
By Law Office of John V. Montero December 03, 2012
Getting a legal internship can help boost your career by giving you the much needed experience to place on your resume. A job canidate that has just left school but has several intern experiences under his belt will have a better chance getting a new position in a law firm than a job canidate that doe... ...read more
Low income people sometimes have a difficult time receiving legal help. Many do not know they have the opportunity to receive free legal help. Some of these services available to them are by public service charities, volunteer lawyers and law student clinics. People seeking information on these progra... ...read more
