>Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

>

A judge ruled that a Florida law that has banned adoptions by gay men and lesbians for over three decades is unconstitutional.

Judge, Cindy S. Lederman: “The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption,” “The law violated equal protection rights for children and their prospective parents.”

A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office said the state would appeal, and the case is likely to end up before the State Supreme Court.

Florida is the only state with a law prohibiting gay men and lesbians — couples and individuals — from adopting children. The Legislature voted to prohibit adoptions by gay men and lesbians in 1977.

Some states, like Mississippi and Utah, effectively bar adoptions by same-sex couples through laws that prohibit adoption by unmarried couples. Arkansas voters passed a similar measure.

Full Article and Source:
Florida Gay Adoption Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

More information:
The Fight Over Gay Adoption Heats Up

Judge strikes down Florida ban on adoption by gay parents

Judge overturns Florida ban on adoption by gays

See also:

Banning Unmarried Couples

Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

A judge ruled that a Florida law that has banned adoptions by gay men and lesbians for over three decades is unconstitutional.

Judge, Cindy S. Lederman: “The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption,” “The law violated equal protection rights for children and their prospective parents.”

A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office said the state would appeal, and the case is likely to end up before the State Supreme Court.

Florida is the only state with a law prohibiting gay men and lesbians — couples and individuals — from adopting children. The Legislature voted to prohibit adoptions by gay men and lesbians in 1977.

Some states, like Mississippi and Utah, effectively bar adoptions by same-sex couples through laws that prohibit adoption by unmarried couples. Arkansas voters passed a similar measure.

Full Article and Source:
Florida Gay Adoption Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

More information:
The Fight Over Gay Adoption Heats Up

Judge strikes down Florida ban on adoption by gay parents

Judge overturns Florida ban on adoption by gays

See also:

Banning Unmarried Couples

>Subsidized Guardianship

>

Junior speaks in front of U.S. representatives and senators about child welfare act

Rob Johnson was selected to speak by the North American Council on Adoptable Children at a reception in front of 147 House Representatives and 27 U.S. Senators because of his presentation skills and his personal experience with subsidized guardianship.

Subsidized guardianship is when family members are compensated for caring for their relatives who would otherwise be in the foster care system.

While growing up, Johnson experienced the foster care system before moving in with his aunt, who became his legal guardian. Johnson said the foster system did more harm than good. His move into subsidized guardianship with his aunt turned things around.

Johnson thanked the attendees for the passing of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. The bill deals with improving the situations in which foster children find themselves.

Johnson: “I saw that a lot of children in the foster system were going through so much stuff and the system wasn’t working. By passing this bill, it will help other youth in foster care move to permanent families through subsidized guardianship, adoption or reunification.”

The act passed the House on Sept. 17, 2008, and the Senate on Sept. 22. President Bush signed the act into law on Oct. 7.

Source:
Student speaks to U.S. Congressmen

See also:
New Law Supporting Relative Guardianship

New Legislation Passed

Subsidized Guardianship

Junior speaks in front of U.S. representatives and senators about child welfare act

Rob Johnson was selected to speak by the North American Council on Adoptable Children at a reception in front of 147 House Representatives and 27 U.S. Senators because of his presentation skills and his personal experience with subsidized guardianship.

Subsidized guardianship is when family members are compensated for caring for their relatives who would otherwise be in the foster care system.

While growing up, Johnson experienced the foster care system before moving in with his aunt, who became his legal guardian. Johnson said the foster system did more harm than good. His move into subsidized guardianship with his aunt turned things around.

Johnson thanked the attendees for the passing of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. The bill deals with improving the situations in which foster children find themselves.

Johnson: “I saw that a lot of children in the foster system were going through so much stuff and the system wasn’t working. By passing this bill, it will help other youth in foster care move to permanent families through subsidized guardianship, adoption or reunification.”

The act passed the House on Sept. 17, 2008, and the Senate on Sept. 22. President Bush signed the act into law on Oct. 7.

Source:
Student speaks to U.S. Congressmen

See also:
New Law Supporting Relative Guardianship

New Legislation Passed

>Preventing Forced Mandatory Arbitration

>

S. 2838, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2008, is aimed at preventing nursing homes from forcing new patients to sign contracts agreeing to mandatory arbitration in the event of any disputes.

The legislation, introduced in April by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), is a narrowly targeted measure that would protect nursing home residents, one of our nation’s most vulnerable populations, from losing the right to hold long-term care facilities accountable in court for negligent and abusive care.

Currently, many facilities require residents or their responsible family members to sign contracts that include pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements, meaning that any dispute between the resident and the facility will automatically be subject to arbitration.

By agreeing to the contract before a dispute ever arises, they are unwittingly signing away their constitutional right to have their case heard by an impartial judge or jury.

Additionally, arbitration agreements require that all parts of the legal process remain confidential. As a result, long-term care facilities are often not held publicly accountable for their substandard care.

Following is a list of those who testified. Click the names to read their presentations.

●David Kurth, Burlington, WI

●Alison Hirschel, President, National Citizen’s Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, East Lansing, MI

●Kelley C. Rice-Schild, CNHA, Executive Director, Floridean Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Miami, FL

●Ken Connor, Esq., Wilkes and McHugh, PA, Washington, DC

●Stephen J. Ware, Professor of Law, University of Kansas

Full Article and Source:
Bill to Stop Nursing Homes from Forcing Mandatory Arbitration Gets Senate Hearing

See also:
Nursing Home Arbitration Bill Approaches Senate Markup

Panel hears nursing home bill testimony

A Right-to-Lifer and the GOP’s Nursing Home Dilemma

Gov Track: S. 2838: Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act

Preventing Forced Mandatory Arbitration

S. 2838, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2008, is aimed at preventing nursing homes from forcing new patients to sign contracts agreeing to mandatory arbitration in the event of any disputes.

The legislation, introduced in April by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), is a narrowly targeted measure that would protect nursing home residents, one of our nation’s most vulnerable populations, from losing the right to hold long-term care facilities accountable in court for negligent and abusive care.

Currently, many facilities require residents or their responsible family members to sign contracts that include pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements, meaning that any dispute between the resident and the facility will automatically be subject to arbitration.

By agreeing to the contract before a dispute ever arises, they are unwittingly signing away their constitutional right to have their case heard by an impartial judge or jury.

Additionally, arbitration agreements require that all parts of the legal process remain confidential. As a result, long-term care facilities are often not held publicly accountable for their substandard care.

Following is a list of those who testified. Click the names to read their presentations.

●David Kurth, Burlington, WI

●Alison Hirschel, President, National Citizen’s Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, East Lansing, MI

●Kelley C. Rice-Schild, CNHA, Executive Director, Floridean Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Miami, FL

●Ken Connor, Esq., Wilkes and McHugh, PA, Washington, DC

●Stephen J. Ware, Professor of Law, University of Kansas

Full Article and Source:
Bill to Stop Nursing Homes from Forcing Mandatory Arbitration Gets Senate Hearing

See also:
Nursing Home Arbitration Bill Approaches Senate Markup

Panel hears nursing home bill testimony

A Right-to-Lifer and the GOP’s Nursing Home Dilemma

Gov Track: S. 2838: Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act

Preventing Forced Mandatory Arbitration

S. 2838, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2008, is aimed at preventing nursing homes from forcing new patients to sign contracts agreeing to mandatory arbitration in the event of any disputes.

The legislation, introduced in April by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), is a narrowly targeted measure that would protect nursing home residents, one of our nation’s most vulnerable populations, from losing the right to hold long-term care facilities accountable in court for negligent and abusive care.

Currently, many facilities require residents or their responsible family members to sign contracts that include pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements, meaning that any dispute between the resident and the facility will automatically be subject to arbitration.

By agreeing to the contract before a dispute ever arises, they are unwittingly signing away their constitutional right to have their case heard by an impartial judge or jury.

Additionally, arbitration agreements require that all parts of the legal process remain confidential. As a result, long-term care facilities are often not held publicly accountable for their substandard care.

Following is a list of those who testified. Click the names to read their presentations.

●David Kurth, Burlington, WI

●Alison Hirschel, President, National Citizen’s Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, East Lansing, MI

●Kelley C. Rice-Schild, CNHA, Executive Director, Floridean Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Miami, FL

●Ken Connor, Esq., Wilkes and McHugh, PA, Washington, DC

●Stephen J. Ware, Professor of Law, University of Kansas

Full Article and Source:
Bill to Stop Nursing Homes from Forcing Mandatory Arbitration Gets Senate Hearing

See also:
Nursing Home Arbitration Bill Approaches Senate Markup

Panel hears nursing home bill testimony

A Right-to-Lifer and the GOP’s Nursing Home Dilemma

Gov Track: S. 2838: Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act

>Senior Citizen Protection Act

>

Bill Mitchell, a pension lawyer, unveiled his proposal for a new federal statute, the Senior Citizen Protection Act. One aspect of the law would help seniors protect their investments from predatory financial advisors.

Mitchell: “We want to have a provision that puts a fiduciary standard on those advisors. A fiduciary standard that is similar to that that is imposed on trustees for federally protected pension plans. And that standard requires that folks provide for diversification and provide for liquidity. And that guards against the danger of seniors being put into highly risky and highly dangerous investments.”

A second component of Mitchell’s proposal seeks to protect the liberty of elders from predatory guardians and stems from lessons he learned from the case of Adele Fletcher.

Mitchell is proposing a federal standard that a person who is not a family member must get court approval for a pre-need guardianship. In the case of Adele Fletcher, such a guardianship was set up by Fran Lang, who did what Mitchell called “a second shocking thing.”

In his proposed legislation, Mitchell would require that transcripts be made of guardian hearings. It would also give federal attorneys the authority to go after guardians and attorneys who violate the trust of their wards.

Full Article and Source:
Bill Mitchell proposes plan for seniors while criticizing Bilirakis

Mitchell proposes plan for seniors – Listen Here

See also:
Adele’s Nightmare

Senior Citizen Protection Act

Bill Mitchell, a pension lawyer, unveiled his proposal for a new federal statute, the Senior Citizen Protection Act. One aspect of the law would help seniors protect their investments from predatory financial advisors.

Mitchell: “We want to have a provision that puts a fiduciary standard on those advisors. A fiduciary standard that is similar to that that is imposed on trustees for federally protected pension plans. And that standard requires that folks provide for diversification and provide for liquidity. And that guards against the danger of seniors being put into highly risky and highly dangerous investments.”

A second component of Mitchell’s proposal seeks to protect the liberty of elders from predatory guardians and stems from lessons he learned from the case of Adele Fletcher.

Mitchell is proposing a federal standard that a person who is not a family member must get court approval for a pre-need guardianship. In the case of Adele Fletcher, such a guardianship was set up by Fran Lang, who did what Mitchell called “a second shocking thing.”

In his proposed legislation, Mitchell would require that transcripts be made of guardian hearings. It would also give federal attorneys the authority to go after guardians and attorneys who violate the trust of their wards.

Full Article and Source:
Bill Mitchell proposes plan for seniors while criticizing Bilirakis

Mitchell proposes plan for seniors – Listen Here

See also:
Adele’s Nightmare

Proposed Sealing of Court Records

The Rules of Judicial Administration Committee has filed with the Florida Supreme Court a report and proposed amendments to rule 2.420, Public Access to Judicial Branch Records, addressing the sealing of circuit and county court records in criminal cases.

The Committee proposes adoption of new rule 2.420(e), Request to Make Circuit and County Court Records in Criminal Cases Confidential, as well as several minor changes to subdivisions (c), Exemptions, and (d), Request to Make Circuit and County Court Records in Noncriminal cases Confidential. In addition to the Committee’s proposals, the Court sua sponte has drafted proposed amendments to rule 2.420 addressing the sealing of appellate court records in both non-criminal and criminal cases and addressing several additional matters.

The court invites all interested persons to comment on the proposed amendments, which are available online here.

An original and nine paper copies of all comments must be filed with the court on or before January 15, 2009, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the address below, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case:

Judge Judith Kreeger

Chair, Committee on Access to Court Records
c/o Steve Henley
Office of the State Court Administrator
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee 32399-1900

The committee chair has until March 16, 2009, to file a response to any comments filed with the court.

Source:
Amendments to rules governing access to judicial branch records

See also:
Panel offers rules on which court records should be available online

Proposed amendments dealing with sealing court records and documents

In Re: Sealing of Court Records and Dockets