web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

How to talk to your kids about divorce (and when to get help)

Westlake Legal Group Divorce-Feature How to talk to your kids about divorce (and when to get help) psychology parenting marriage kids Family Features Family divorce counseling chantilly
© fizkes / stock.adobe.com

It’s not just taking off the ring.

As Amy Poehler puts it in her book Yes Please, “Imagine spreading everything you care about on a blanket and then tossing the whole thing up in the air. The process of divorce is about loading that blanket, throwing it up, watching it all spin and worrying what stuff will break when it lands.”

Often times one of the things couples are worried about, beyond the marriage itself, are their kids. When it’s time to let them know that you’re taking steps toward separation, how do you tell them?

We spoke to Kristi Guadagnoli, Psy.D. and co-owner of MindWell Psychology in Chantilly, about how divorce can be managed with everyone’s best emotional interests in mind. Highlights from our conversation are below.

What would be your first step when talking about a divorce with your children?
It always has to start with the parental communication. Parents need to be having really in-depth conversations about what kinds of messages they will be giving to the children. For couples navigating divorce, there tends to be more animosity especially, in terms of communication, but if you can agree on how you are going to talk about it, you can also agree on the reasons why the divorce is happening in the first place. If parents are having a difficult time agreeing on why the divorce is happening, they should seek out a counselor to practice discussing what decision they’re making and the impact it’s going to have.

What would you say to divorcees who may be against getting help?
A lot of folks say they don’t need to see a therapist because they’re splitting up, but they’re really going to be connected for their whole lives because of the children. And studies have shown that the better they deal with the divorce determines how well their children will do in the future. And there’s so much more that you can get help with than just that initial discussion and understanding your children’s emotions. You can figure out how you’re going to navigate splitting logistics, finances and unexpected challenges. And the better your communication is from the beginning, the smoother the whole situation will be.

What should not be discussed about the divorce around children?
Anything that is an adult-based issue should only be discussed with adults. Pick-ups and drop-offs should be pleasant, and kids should not be communicating for their parents. That can happen frequently when the kids are still living in the house with both parents. And remember that it’s painful for both the adults and the children. As an adult, you want to have a safe space, and if you aren’t working out your own feelings, you could empty them out into your children.

Even after the initial conversations or after the divorce is finalized, how do you keep communication lines open between you and your children?
I am a firm believer in family dinners and having that time to connect and really talk about the day with your kids, even if it’s about current events in the world, what’s going on at school and getting a daily check-in. This would be a great place to check in on how they’re doing emotionally and make sure they can communicate their feelings to you. If they can’t, it’s important to note that kids that shutdown continue to shutdown, and kids who open up tend to keep opening up as long as you continue to encourage communication.

What do you suggest to do if what your child has to say is hard to hear?
Part of being a parent is being able to hear what they have to say to us. We have to have the tolerance. We have to be able to say we’re sorry and that we don’t know exactly what we’re doing sometimes, but that we’re going to try harder. There is no perfect parent. And when you let them know that you’re trying to be better and that they are heard, it teaches them that they can speak about their feelings in a situation where they are hurt, angry, upset, etc. Kids also model themselves after what you do as a parent. If they have access to empathy where they know how to listen and can actually hear what people are saying, they can model themselves after that.

What do you do if you think your child needs counseling services?
They may need their own space to understand what’s happening because they don’t have the verbal understanding yet to explain it outright. When kids are really young, sometimes the more expressive things in therapy can be helpful. Any Google search should be able to bring up someone in the area, and make sure it’s someone who is close to you and convenient. If they’re not, the will to get the help tends to drop and you’re less likely to continue going for help.

For more information on MindWell Psychology, visit mindwell.us. // 14110 Robert Paris Court, Chantilly

Want more family and health stories? Subscribe to our weekly newsletters.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Woman Fearful for Her Life Turns Over Her Estranged Husband’s Guns to the Cops. She Gets Arrested for Grand Theft

Westlake Legal Group courtney-irby-arrested-theft-SCREENSHOT-620x369 Woman Fearful for Her Life Turns Over Her Estranged Husband’s Guns to the Cops. She Gets Arrested for Grand Theft Violence Uncategorized law joseph irby Guns Front Page Stories Featured Story divorce crime courtney irby battery Allow Media Exception

[Screenshot from Rep. Anna V. Eskamani via Twitter, https://twitter.com/AnnaForFlorida/status/1142441348676706304?]

 

An odd case, indeed — one on about which I’d like your opinion.

Florida couple Joseph and Courtney Irby were going through a rough divorce.

On June 14th — having just completed a divorce hearing — the two got into a fierce argument. As Courtney was leaving the courthouse, Joseph rear-ended her; she was on the phone with the cops, and he was trying to run her off the road.

Allegedly, of course..

That resulted in Joseph being taken into custody and held overnight for domestic aggravated battery.

Purportedly fearing for her life, Courtney did some proactive protectin’ — she went to Joe’s apartment, searched and found his guns, and took ’em with her.

Ain’t nobody shootin’ her!

She drove the firearms to the Lakeland Police Department and told the boys in blue she didn’t trust her soon-to-be-ex-husband to turn them in.

She explained that she’d taken them from his residence, which resulted in this from the officer:

“So, are you telling me you committed an armed burglary?”

Add to that grand theft of a fiream.

The cops called Joseph at the jail, and he said he’d like to press charges.

Courtney was arrested.

She spent 5 nights in jail.

Strange case…or is it? There’s been a bit of public outcry over a woman afraid for her life taking matters into her own thievin’ hands. Some believe she shouldn’t be punished.

That group includes Democratic state Rep. Anna Eskamani:

What do you think? Should Courtney be prosecuted? She indeed took things from another person’s residence; but they were not fully divorced…are the guns half hers? What about the protection element of all this?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts in the Comments section.

Joseph and Courtney are due back in divorce court on July 16th. I’m sure a fun time will be had by all.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Burger King Gets Shut Down For ‘Cultural Insensitivity,’ & It Only Proves Even More What The World Is Missing

Upping The Idiot Ante: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Comes Up With A New Excuse For Her Blaccent

WATCH: Insane WWE-Style Fight Explodes In The Middle Of A Casino. But The Hulkamaniac Gets A Surprise

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Woman Fearful for Her Life Turns Over Her Estranged Husband’s Guns to the Cops. She Gets Arrested for Grand Theft appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group courtney-irby-arrested-theft-SCREENSHOT-300x179 Woman Fearful for Her Life Turns Over Her Estranged Husband’s Guns to the Cops. She Gets Arrested for Grand Theft Violence Uncategorized law joseph irby Guns Front Page Stories Featured Story divorce crime courtney irby battery Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

No, Women are Not Happier Being Unmarried Despite What a Misinformed Study Shows

Westlake Legal Group traditional-marriage-620x413 No, Women are Not Happier Being Unmarried Despite What a Misinformed Study Shows study single parents misinformation Media marriage Happiness Front Page Stories divorce Culture children Allow Media Exception

Right now the mainstream media is circulating a study that showed women are happier being single or divorced than they are being married, however, some experts are saying that the study has been completely misunderstood, and the current conclusion is literally fake news.

It all started when a professor of behavioral science at the London School of Economics, Paul Dolan, was giving a presentation on his book “Happily Ever After.” Dolan was discussing his findings on data from an American Time Use Survey from which he gathered his findings.

Within the survey asked whether there was a spouse present or absent. According to the findings, women said there wasn’t one around, and answered subsequent questions about how happy they were. Dolan took the data he saw and came to a conclusion.

“We do have some good longitudinal data following the same people over time, but I am going to do a massive disservice to that science and just say: if you’re a man, you should probably get married; if you’re a woman, don’t bother,” said Dolan.

The Guardian was in the room during Dolan’s presentation and off it went, spurring on a whole host of articles from various media sites like the New York Post and The Independent, proclaiming that women and marriage just don’t mix. It circulated like wildfire.

However, as some looked into the data itself, they realized that Dolan simply misunderstood the findings because he misunderstood the question.

UVA Professor W. Bradford Wilcox quickly pointed out where Dolan went wrong.

“…Dolan appears to have misread ATUS survey questions regarding whether or not spouse was in the household to refer to whether or not the spouse was present for the interview–and thereby drew incorrect conclusions about marrieds’ happiness, especially wives’ happiness,” tweeted Bradford.

To back up the fact that Dolan reached the wrong conclusion, he posted the findings from a study by the General Social Survey by the Institute for Family Studies, which showed married people being far more happy than divorced or single people by leaps and bounds.

Adjunct professor and time use researcher Gray Kimborough also called out the spread of misinformation based on Dolan’s misinterpretation of the information, by noting that the numbers Dolan cites weren’t even part of the ATUS interview, but were asked of couples by a CPS interview some months prior. A closer look at the question shows that the survey was asking if a spouse was present in the room during the time of the asking.

“These are the values that the marital status variable takes,” tweeted Kimborough. “When I calculate mean “happiness” values over these, they roughly line up with the book figure. So it isn’t measuring a spouse’s presence for the interview, or even for any activities–just presence *in the household*.”

The General Social Survey by the Institute for Family Studies does provide more of a look into the happiness levels of those who are married vs. those who are divorced or never married. The study was conducted over a period of eight years from 2010 to 2018, giving us a near decade of information to work with.

“The story is straightforward: married respondents are much happier. And consistent with prior research, parents are a little less happy than non-parents, provided they are unmarried. In addition, the results don’t look that different when limited to female survey respondents,” said the IFS in their study.

The IFS even found that unhappiness is much higher in divorced or single people, specifically those who have children.

So the truth is that marriage does make people happier. Children do reduce the happiness factor, but only slightly, and married parents are still far and away happier than those who are divorced or single, especially when children are involved in their lives.

The media got it wrong again, and now we’re left with the question of why the media was so ecstatic to report the false narrative that marriage makes women miserable.

 

 

The post No, Women are Not Happier Being Unmarried Despite What a Misinformed Study Shows appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group traditional-marriage-300x200 No, Women are Not Happier Being Unmarried Despite What a Misinformed Study Shows study single parents misinformation Media marriage Happiness Front Page Stories divorce Culture children Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bill Maher to Democrats: Impeach Trump or stop talking about it

Westlake Legal Group BillMaher Bill Maher to Democrats: Impeach Trump or stop talking about it The Blog real time with bill maher President Trump Melania Trump impeachment HBO divorce Bill Maher

Bill Maher has some advice for Democrats in Congress: “Do something” or just “stop talking about it” when it comes to all the talk of impeaching President Trump. Maher outlined a couple of ways for Democrats to remove Trump from the White House. One way was reasonable, though ultimately impractical, and the second way was just nonsensical.

During his HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher Friday, Maher voiced an opinion much like that of many Trump supporters and conservatives – either go ahead and start the impeachment process or drop it. For more than two years, some Democrats have made clear their intentions to impeach Trump as a way of nullifying the last presidential election. It began back in 2017 when two Democrats tried to initiate the process in the House of Representatives, Rep. Al Green and Rep. Brad Sherman. The drumbeat for impeachment has slowly grown with time. When the Mueller report was released, finding no evidence of collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign, Democrats latched onto the obstruction of justice charges listed in the report. Mueller did not recommend moving forward and prosecuting the president but did leave that part of his report dangling, apparently in an effort to toss it to Congress. Mueller punted on the obstruction of justice charges. Now it is almost impossible for a Democrat to appear on a cable news show without being asked about impeachment. Rep. Green even went so far as to say that he’s afraid that if Democrats don’t move to impeach President Trump, he will be re-elected.

Democrats are facing a turning point. Do they go forward and accelerate the impeachment process in Congress and please their base? Or, do Democrats keep their powder dry and wait it out until the 2020 presidential election? Either choice alienates a portion of the party membership. The far left and party loyalists are the ones who will get out and vote in the primary races. The moderates and Independent voters are not interested in putting the country through impeachment. Speaker Pelosi and Democrat leadership in the House know impeachment is a political loser for the party that initiates it. Recent polling shows a lack of interest in impeachment from Independents and Republican voters, the voters that Democrats must convince to vote for a Democrat candidate in 2020. Simply put, impeachment is not at the top of voters’ priorities.

The latest Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey found that 65 percent of respondents oppose impeachment proceedings. A majority of Democrats polled, 56 percent, support impeachment, however, only 32 percent of independents and 14 percent of Republicans are in favor.

A majority of respondents, 58 percent, said it’s time to turn the page on the Russia investigations, including 60 percent of independents, although two-thirds of Democrats want to see further investigations.

Impeachment ranks fourth on the list of priorities voters have for the Democratic-controlled House, behind addressing the status of immigrants in the country illegally, stimulating the economy and strengthening ObamaCare.

So, in this case, Bill Maher is right. Democrats are faced with making the decision between beginning the impeachment process or letting it go. It’s time that the decision is made. What to do, what to do.

Maher offered a second way to remove the president and that involves First Lady Melania Trump. This is the nonsensical option I mentioned above. He said Melania could leave her husband and take their son, Barron, with her.

“Melania Trump must do what dozens of buildings around the world have done and take the Trump name off,” Maher said during tonight’s New Rules segment. “President Hellboy has proved to be impervious to facts, reason, shame and the law, but maybe if you left him for another man he would implode on his own.”

He went on: “You can end this reign of terror and all you have to do is channel your Taylor Swift and walk out the door: Kick him to the curb, slap away that hand for good.”

And: “No more public embarrassment, no more porn stars, no more stealing your make-up. Tell him, ‘I’m leaving you and I’m taking our child.’ He would be stunned.” Then in his Trump voice: “We have a child?”

Maher went on to suggest that Melania buddy-up with her friend Jerry Hall, a.k.a. Mrs. Rupert Murdoch, because both of their husbands are ruining the world, you know. As an added bonus, he included a reference to Game of Thrones. I don’t watch the show so I’ll leave the relevance of the reference to those who do.

“You two have a lot in common,” Maher said, appealing directly to the wives. “Your husbands are ruining our world.” Murdoch, he suggested, is doing to the world what Jerry left Mick for doing to “anything that moved.” But Maher was more graphic.

The comedy bit worked its way toward Maher’s more serious point when he lambasted Trump and Murdoch’s Fox News as being on an “insane feedback loop” (like “that couple who keeps giving each other herpes”).

And for good measure, there was a Game of Thrones reference: Murdoch and Trump, Maher said, are like the Night King, “only instead of commanding an army of brain dead zombies…okay, they’re exactly like that.”

It should be noted that Maher brought in some truthful questioning of Rep. Tim Ryan, one of 347 Democrats running to be the party’s nominee in the 2020 Democrat primary. The Ohio Democrat was caught off-guard when Maher talked about feeling owned by the woke crowd on social media. The host said whoever is willing to stand up to the Twitter mob will be victorious at the polls.

“I’m looking for the Democrat who’s gonna stand up to the Twitter mob. Are you willing to do that, to stand up to the people who are ‘woke?’” Maher asked, which sparked applause. He reacted, “Look at that, even an LA audience wants to stand up to the woke.”

The HBO star later pointed to recent polling from the Morning Consult that showed 65 percent of adults say “people should be able to say what they really think, even if it offends people,” 81 percent say “people are offended to easily” and that only 10 percent of Twitter users are responsible for 80 percent of all tweets.

“It’s not who we are, it’s not who liberals are,” Maher said. “The Democrat, I’m telling you, who stands up to that clack will win,” adding “my vote anyway.”

As the congressman launched into standard Democrat talking points downplaying the success President Trump’s policies have brought to the U.S. economy, Maher pushed back.

But Ryan stood his ground. “I know where the economy is going,” he told Maher.

“Where?” the host asked.

“Right now, nowhere,” Ryan answered.

The liberal comedian then, intentionally or not, went to bat for Trump.

“C’mon, the economy’s not horrible,” Maher told Ryan. “Four-point-four percent is the unemployment rate in Ohio. It’s kinda hard to run against the economy in Ohio, isn’t it?”

“No,” Ryan responded, “because the average wage has only gone up 20 bucks a week.”

At that point, Maher reminded Ryan that Trump has been president for more than two years and he’ll be running on his success with the economy. Ryan may not be willing to admit it but Americans vote with the economy in mind. On this issue alone, President Trump clearly has the edge in the upcoming election. Sometimes Bill Maher gets it right.

The post Bill Maher to Democrats: Impeach Trump or stop talking about it appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group BillMaher-300x159 Bill Maher to Democrats: Impeach Trump or stop talking about it The Blog real time with bill maher President Trump Melania Trump impeachment HBO divorce Bill Maher   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Potemkin legislation

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-04-17-at-07.25.35 Potemkin legislation Work Women and equality Women wages Treasury ToryDiary Stella Creasy MP sport Sam Coates (The Times) Sajid Javid MP rent Public Sector Northern Ireland NHS Local government and local elections Local Elections (general) Liz Truss MP Julian Assange jobs James Brokenshire MP immigration housing Home and family Highlights healthcare Health football Family and relationships exports employment Elizabeth Truss MP Economy DUP divorce disability Diane Abbott MP David Gauke MP David Blanchflower Conservatives Abortion

The ten most recent subjects covered by the Conservative Party’s Twitter feed are as follows: record employment, the provision of free sanitary products in primary schools, Conservative councils recycling more than Labour ones, more statistics about work and wages, record women’s employment, workers’ rights, an exports increase, more disabled people in employment, an end to no fault evictions, Conservative councils fixing more potholes than Labour ones, banning upskirting, funding more toilets at motorway service areas to help people living with complex disabilities, Sajid Javid criticising Diane Abbott over Julian Assange, kicking out racism in football, and a new law to protect service animals.

One might pick out three main themes, local election campaigning aside.

The first is the vibrancy of Britain’s jobs market and the country’s robust recent record on employment.  The aftermath of the Crash and the Coalition’s slowing of public spending growth, a.k.aa “austerity”, didn’t bring the five million unemployed that David Blanchflower believed possible.  The Government has to keep shouting about our employment rates because people have got used to them.  A generation is growing up that cannot remember the mass unemployment of the 1980s.

Then there are a battery of announcements aimed disproportionately at younger women voters, who were more likely to switch to Labour at the last election.  Those of a certain disposition will argue that some of these are trivial, and that women and men both want government to get on with addressing big issues: Brexit, health, the economy, immigration, education and so on.  But part of the point of banning upskirting, say, or providing more free sanitary products is gaining “permission to be heard”, in order to make some voters, in this case younger female ones, more receptive to what Conservatives are doing more broadly and widely.

Which takes us, third, to law-making – not admitttedly the only means, or even necessarily the main one, by which government can act, but indispensable none the less.  Under which category we find a new law to protect service animals and the proposed end to no fault evictions, about which James Brokenshire wrote on this site recently.  The two may seem to have nothing in common but, on closer inspection, tell part of the same story.

Namely that, as Sam Coates keeps pointing out, the Government can’t get any plan which is remotely contentious through the Commons.  Only the most uncontested ideas, such as providing police and other service dogs with more protections, can make it through the House. And this new service animals measure isn’t even Government leglislation.  It came about through a Private Members Bill tabled by Oliver Heald and then backed by Ministers.

Meanwhile, the proposal to end no fault evictions isn’t contained in a Bill at all.  The headline on gov.uk about the plan refers to an “end to unfair evictions” and “the biggest change to the private rental sector for a generation”.  But the text of the announcement refers to “plans to consult on new legislation” and refers to an earlier consultation, on Overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector, to which it has now published a response.

As with housing, so with divorce.  On ConservativeHome today, Frank Young makes the point, in his article on the Government’s plans to ensure that no fault divorce can take place more frequently, that “it remains to be seen if the Justice Department’s enthusiasm for new legislation will be matched by government business managers and the ability of the current government to get any legislation through”.  For David Gauke has unfurled not a new Bill, but a White Paper.

Ditto Liz Truss’s announcment on a £95,000 cap on exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs. “Six-figure taxpayer-funded public sector exit payments to end,” gov.uk’s headline declares.  The sub-heading is more candid than the one beneath the housing headline.  “A consultation has been launched outlining how the government will introduce a £95,000 cap to stop huge exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs,” it says.  The Treasury confirms that legislation will be required.

Now think on.  As Sam goes on to say, Theresa May’s successor may take against these ideas or indeed all of them.  In which case, they will doubtless be quietly put to sleep.  And that successor may be in place soon.  (Regretfully, we have to add: as soon as possible after European Parliament elections, assuming these happen, please.)

Conservative MPs don’t want a general election.  Nor do we.  But the more one ponders the state of this Parliament, the more one sees why one is the natural solution to this impasse – and would be knocking on the door, were it not for the Fixed Terms Parliament Act.  These recent announcements are Potemkin Legislation.  They cannot be put to the Commons without risk of them being amended out of their original intention.

Nor can the Government legislate easily elsewhere.  Consider any proposals affecting women – to take us back to near where we started.  Up would pop Stella Creasy, looking for a means of changing the abortion laws in Northern Ireland.  Which would further strain the Conservatives’ relationship with the DUP, such as it is.  Prepare, when Brexit isn’t before the Commons, for many more Opposition Days.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Potemkin legislation

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-04-17-at-07.25.35 Potemkin legislation Work Women and equality Women wages Treasury ToryDiary Stella Creasy MP sport Sam Coates (The Times) Sajid Javid MP rent Public Sector Northern Ireland NHS Local government and local elections Local Elections (general) Liz Truss MP Julian Assange jobs James Brokenshire MP immigration housing Home and family Highlights healthcare Health football Family and relationships exports employment Elizabeth Truss MP Economy DUP divorce disability Diane Abbott MP David Gauke MP David Blanchflower Conservatives Abortion

The ten most recent subjects covered by the Conservative Party’s Twitter feed are as follows: record employment, the provision of free sanitary products in primary schools, Conservative councils recycling more than Labour ones, more statistics about work and wages, record women’s employment, workers’ rights, an exports increase, more disabled people in employment, an end to no fault evictions, Conservative councils fixing more potholes than Labour ones, banning upskirting, funding more toilets at motorway service areas to help people living with complex disabilities, Sajid Javid criticising Diane Abbott over Julian Assange, kicking out racism in football, and a new law to protect service animals.

One might pick out three main themes, local election campaigning aside.

The first is the vibrancy of Britain’s jobs market and the country’s robust recent record on employment.  The aftermath of the Crash and the Coalition’s slowing of public spending growth, a.k.aa “austerity”, didn’t bring the five million unemployed that David Blanchflower believed possible.  The Government has to keep shouting about our employment rates because people have got used to them.  A generation is growing up that cannot remember the mass unemployment of the 1980s.

Then there are a battery of announcements aimed disproportionately at younger women voters, who were more likely to switch to Labour at the last election.  Those of a certain disposition will argue that some of these are trivial, and that women and men both want government to get on with addressing big issues: Brexit, health, the economy, immigration, education and so on.  But part of the point of banning upskirting, say, or providing more free sanitary products is gaining “permission to be heard”, in order to make some voters, in this case younger female ones, more receptive to what Conservatives are doing more broadly and widely.

Which takes us, third, to law-making – not admitttedly the only means, or even necessarily the main one, by which government can act, but indispensable none the less.  Under which category we find a new law to protect service animals and the proposed end to no fault evictions, about which James Brokenshire wrote on this site recently.  The two may seem to have nothing in common but, on closer inspection, tell part of the same story.

Namely that, as Sam Coates keeps pointing out, the Government can’t get any plan which is remotely contentious through the Commons.  Only the most uncontested ideas, such as providing police and other service dogs with more protections, can make it through the House. And this new service animals measure isn’t even Government leglislation.  It came about through a Private Members Bill tabled by Oliver Heald and then backed by Ministers.

Meanwhile, the proposal to end no fault evictions isn’t contained in a Bill at all.  The headline on gov.uk about the plan refers to an “end to unfair evictions” and “the biggest change to the private rental sector for a generation”.  But the text of the announcement refers to “plans to consult on new legislation” and refers to an earlier consultation, on Overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector, to which it has now published a response.

As with housing, so with divorce.  On ConservativeHome today, Frank Young makes the point, in his article on the Government’s plans to ensure that no fault divorce can take place more frequently, that “it remains to be seen if the Justice Department’s enthusiasm for new legislation will be matched by government business managers and the ability of the current government to get any legislation through”.  For David Gauke has unfurled not a new Bill, but a White Paper.

Ditto Liz Truss’s announcment on a £95,000 cap on exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs. “Six-figure taxpayer-funded public sector exit payments to end,” gov.uk’s headline declares.  The sub-heading is more candid than the one beneath the housing headline.  “A consultation has been launched outlining how the government will introduce a £95,000 cap to stop huge exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs,” it says.  The Treasury confirms that legislation will be required.

Now think on.  As Sam goes on to say, Theresa May’s successor may take against these ideas or indeed all of them.  In which case, they will doubtless be quietly put to sleep.  And that successor may be in place soon.  (Regretfully, we have to add: as soon as possible after European Parliament elections, assuming these happen, please.)

Conservative MPs don’t want a general election.  Nor do we.  But the more one ponders the state of this Parliament, the more one sees why one is the natural solution to this impasse – and would be knocking on the door, were it not for the Fixed Terms Parliament Act.  These recent announcements are Potemkin Legislation.  They cannot be put to the Commons without risk of them being amended out of their original intention.

Nor can the Government legislate easily elsewhere.  Consider any proposals affecting women – to take us back to near where we started.  Up would pop Stella Creasy, looking for a means of changing the abortion laws in Northern Ireland.  Which would further strain the Conservatives’ relationship with the DUP, such as it is.  Prepare, when Brexit isn’t before the Commons, for many more Opposition Days.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Michelle Obama Insults Divorced Dads While Attacking Trump

Westlake Legal Group michelle-obama-620x349 Michelle Obama Insults Divorced Dads While Attacking Trump Stephen Colbert Politics michelle obama Front Page Stories Featured Story Fathers donald trump divorce democrats children Allow Media Exception

Former First Lady Michelle Obama dropped a pretty ridiculous comparison to life under the Trump administration to divorced fathers on Monday.

While during an interview with Late Show host Stephen Colbert, Obama said that the United States is like a teenager after a nasty divorce. We’re currently living under Trump, which Obama compared to staying with a divorced dad, which according to her is a detrimental thing in the long run.

“We come from a broken family, we are a little unsettled,” Obama said. “Sometimes you spend the weekend with divorced dad. That feels like fun but then you get sick. That is what America is going through. We are living with divorced dad.”

Colbert himself proceeded to mock divorced dads as well, making it seem as if they’re completely neglectful of their children’s safety, as well as show significantly less care for them over their own needs.

I’d first like to point out that if this was a stereotype of divorced mothers along the same lines, the amount of outrage would register on Richter scales across the globe. However, since it’s fathers — an entity considered far less important, and even damaging in some instances, by the left — this is okay to laugh about.

Many fathers work very hard to provide the best for their children and suffer the absence of their children in the process. Fathers are an absolute positive to a child’s development despite what we’re told, and casting them in a negative light helps no one.

However, this is a gross mischaracterization of not only fathers but men in general, and is just one of a deluge of attacks regarding men by the left over the recent years.

Attacking your political enemies is a given, and both sides do it all the time. However, Obama engaged in blatant sexism, at least by their own standards. Again, if this had been said about women, there would be endless news reports, think pieces, and marches in the street.

The post Michelle Obama Insults Divorced Dads While Attacking Trump appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group michelle-obama-300x169 Michelle Obama Insults Divorced Dads While Attacking Trump Stephen Colbert Politics michelle obama Front Page Stories Featured Story Fathers donald trump divorce democrats children Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Robert De Niro Give’s ‘Em the Trump Treatment at Divorce Court: Press are ‘Scumbags’

Westlake Legal Group robert-deniro-newspaper-face-court-cropped-SCREENSHOT Robert De Niro Give’s ‘Em the Trump Treatment at Divorce Court: Press are ‘Scumbags’ Uncategorized Tom Brokaw Robert De Niro New York Movies Meryl Streep martic scorsese manhatta supreme court Hollywood grace hightower Front Page Stories Entertainment divorce democrats Ben Stiller Allow Media Exception

 

 

Actor Robert De Niro had some strong words for those who bring America its news Tuesday amid his return to divorce court in New York.

The 75-year-old star of some of my favorite movies kept a newspaper in front of his face as he prepared to further hash things out with his estranged wife of 20 years, Grace Hightower.

At the center of the proceedings: their 7-year-old daughter.

This isn’t the couple’s first rodeo, as noted by People:

De Niro filed for divorce in 1999 and engaged into a custody dispute over their son. The pair eventually smoothed things over and the divorce was never finalized.

In November 2004, the two renewed their vows in front of an A-list crowd such as Martin Scorsese, Meryl Streep, Ben Stiller, Tom Brokaw and others.

Outside the Manhattan Supreme Court, a photographer for the New York Post asked Bob how he was doing.

His response was curt:

“Hi, scumbags. Hi, scumbags.”

De Niro has given audiences some fantastic entertainment over the years — some of my favorites are Goodfellas, Godfather Part II, Casino, Meet the Parents, and the terrific Sleepers.

Over the last few years, he seems to have invested himself in spreading division and ugliness, ironically in his efforts to fight what he perceives to be Trump’s divisive vileness (here and here).

It seems to me that his strategy isn’t best. In my opinion, vitriol is powerless against itself.

Here’s to hoping a man who’s enthralled so many will unite audiences again. And speaking of unity, I wish his family well in the proceedings — which De Niro himself initiated — especially for the sake of the couple’s young daughter.

What are your favorite De Niro films? I’d like to know. Please share your recommendations in the Comments section below.

-Alex

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

See 3 more pieces from me: Lesbian Couple Identifying As Straight Couple Prepares To Transition 5-Yr-Old Son Into A DaughterStraight Texas Couple Identifying As Gay Male Couple Conceive A Baby Boy, But They’ll Never Do It Again, and WATCH: 6 Taco Bell Employees Savagely Beat Up Customer & His Girlfriend After 45-Minute Wait.

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.





 

 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Robert De Niro Give’s ‘Em the Trump Treatment at Divorce Court: Press are ‘Scumbags’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group robert-de-niro-priest-sleepers-SCREENSHOT-300x144 Robert De Niro Give’s ‘Em the Trump Treatment at Divorce Court: Press are ‘Scumbags’ Uncategorized Tom Brokaw Robert De Niro New York Movies Meryl Streep martic scorsese manhatta supreme court Hollywood grace hightower Front Page Stories Entertainment divorce democrats Ben Stiller Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Life Insurance Beneficiaries and Divorce

Guest post by Makeda Fikremariam

Commonly the Supreme Court doesn’t hear cases regarding domestic relations, but Sveen v. Melinchanged that pattern. Mark Sveen had been married to Kaye Melin for 10 years when they divorced in 2007. During their marriage, Sveen had made Melin his primary beneficiary on his life insurance. Also during that time, in 2002, Minnesota passed the Revocation-upon-divorce statute which automatically removes an ex-spouse from the insurance once the owner has passed. The complication arose because Sveen had passed in 2011, but his insurance was signed before the statute was in order and Melin was still listed. The argument became, does applying the statue after the contract was signed violate the Contract Clause?

 

This was passed to the Supreme Court as the lower courts disagreed on who should remain listed on the policy. The District Court sided in favor with the children, naming them the primary beneficiaries,while the 8th Circuit agreed with Melin. There’s a two step process in determining the constitutionality of this application. However, the Supreme Court felt that it didn’t violate the first step as the statute did not impair the pre-existing contractual goal and expectations. They also noted that the statute serves as a default, as the policyholder could submit a form to retain their ex-spouse. Justice Gorsuch, in his dissenting opinion, was against this point as he found that the law should redirect owners to ensure attentiveness in regards to their policy. He also noted that there are people who wish to keep their ex-spouses listed for a variety of reasons. For more information, please read Naomi Cahn’s piece in the George Washington’s Law Review: https://www.gwlr.org/sveen-v-melin/.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New Tax Law Eliminates Alimony Deduction

For divorcing couples, alimony was a deduction that the payor could deduct from his/her taxes.  However, with the new tax bill, starting in 2019, alimony will no longer be deductible.

The result of this change may make spouses reluctant to pay, and will hurt those spouses who depended on the income of the wage earning spouse. Another side effect will be timing – one side may want to rush the divorce before 2019 and the other side may want to delay.

 

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com