• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ElleMD

  1. So you share a biological parent or parents? Those parents, we will call them John and Mary, lost custody of their younger child, who spent time in foster are until being adopted by Bill and Betty. The 15 year old is now pregnant and is afraid Bill and Betty will kick her out, give her "back", or take the baby. If they truly adopted her, no, they can not just "give her back or kick her out. They also can not do anything with the baby without your sister's permission, however they are under no obligation to support said baby. This girl needs to forget about Mary as she is legally a stranger, but does need to talk to Bill and Betty to come up with some kind of plan and logistics. While the baby won't automatically be taken by the foster care system simply because of the age of the mother, there are certainly other factors which could lead to that outcome.
  2. What do you mean you are the owner and he is the co-owner? Who's name is on the deed? If you have a court order for support, and he is violating that order, file with the court.
  3. You abused at least one child. Nothing changes that. You don't mention how long ago this was, nor do you mention anything you have done since then to ensure it does not happen again. If you have sought counseling, taken parenting classes, and shown that you have changed, talk to a family law lawyer about filing to amend your current order. It is not about you. It is about the children and their safety.
  4. No, your employer could expect that in applying for a position at a medical facility, you were already familiar with and able to comply with HIPAA.
  5. It wasn't the sister who was diagnosed, it was the father of the sister.
  6. Actions of a landlord have no bearing on a divorce. Neither of them own the property. A divorce decree isn't binding on a landlord so the court can't force a party to rent to one spouse or the other. The purpose of a divorce is to show that there is cause to sever the marital relationship and to equitably (in accordance with state law) divide the assets of the marriage. A rented apartment is not an asset of the marriage.
  7. Couple of things you need to realize. This is the woman you chose to marry and to create children with. You selected this woman to be their mother. It is largely irrelevant that you now regret that decision or showed poor judgement. Both of you have equal rights to the children until and unless, the extremely high burden for termination of those rights has been met and a court orders it. Until then, you both must follow the current order to the letter. If there is a good reason to amend the order, or one party is not abiding by the order as written, back to court you go. Who else she created children with, her use of government benefits, any other crimes she might have committed (with few exceptions such as when the offense directly endangers the children), her health, and what happens with her other kids is irrelevant. This is true of both parents, not just mothers. If you have credible evidence she is abusing or neglecting your kids, contact the police or CPS as appropriate. You really need to hire an attorney. Your kids are worth whatever it costs. Check with local law school clinics or legal aid resources in your community.
  8. So your former extramarital partner showed up at your door with an out of state court order and a police officer? If you weren't at the hearing or whatever took place before a judge, how do you know what he shared? It sounds like we are only getting part of the story, but whatever happened is beyond the scope of a message board. The mother really needs to consult a family law attorney.
  9. Yes, the owners of the home can follow the usual process to evict a tenant. You don't mention the state so you will have to google the process yourself. A PPO is separate from an eviction. The involve different courts and different parties. If the PPO was granted, it appears there was cause. Hubby had a chance to challenge it in court and either did not, or did not do so effectively. That is neither here nor there, but it suggests there is more to the story. Will what effect the divorce? The PPO? Anything is possible but "bad" is subjective and not everything that makes someone look "bad" alters their legal rights in a divorce.
  10. Not to sound callous but your child care obligations and what you witnessed at the age of 4 are not the concern of the police who are trying to solve a crime. There was good reason to stop you as your not terribly common vehicle was in the area where a crime was committed and was described by witnesses as the get away car.
  11. You use a lot of terms that do not mean what you seem to think that they mean. You also do not seem to fully understand how estates work, the "value" of paper, or what the courts can and can not do. Any policy, investment, account, or pension with a named beneficiary is NOT part of the estate unless it was specifically left to "estate" or a living beneficiary does not exist. Period. That is not up for debate. The insurance company, financial institution, or retirement plan administrator will notify the appropriate beneficiary and handle the payout. "Paper" is not required on the recipient's end. You can shred all the bank statements or copies of the policy documents you want, it does not change a thing. None of this requires a lawyer of any kind. If your sister was of sound mind and had not been declared incompetent, you are going to find it all but impossible to have her designations overturned. Jerk sis was free, as were you and anyone else who knew her, to request to be made beneficiary. It was always your sister's right to deny that request. Pressuring a weak willed person into doing what you want them to do isn't illegal. If Mom and sis would rather give in to the requests of one person than argue with them, that is their right. If the court opened probate in X county, they had jurisdiction to do so. It is not like being the executor or beneficiary of an estate requires one to spend inordinate amounts of time at the court house. Even if the case moved to a different county, it would not change the executor, the ability of the lawyer to guide the executor, nor change who would share in the estate. If we were talking about different states, yes, those things could change based on venue. If we are talking about two counties in the same state, it does not. The only part of the estate that the rest of you might be entitled to would be what did not have a named beneficiary or co-owner, and remained after the debts of the estate had been paid. You are entitled to an accounting of the estate. It isn't clear if you have requested that of the court or executor or not. So far you have not indicated anything that constitutes fraud or unethical behavior in the legal sense. It is also unclear what you did prior to the death. Did you regularly visit and care for the sister, or leave that to the controlling one? Have you taken Mom to a lawyer she chooses to create her estate plan? Did you do this for your sister? Did you petition the court to be the executor of the estate with all that entails? It is not enough to just say that you don't want Sis to be named. If she is the only one who steps up, the court will name her. She certainly isn't going to be removed because of her personality. From a judge's perspective, this is the one who stepped in to care for the ill sister, took her into her home, and helped her manage her affairs. Waiting until after she is gone to claim there must have been fraud or undue influence rings a bit hollow.
  12. There is clearly a whole lot more to this story than your brother innocently being at the apartment he rents and lives at, his roommate calling police, and your brother being arrested for trespassing. It's like fixating on whether or not Bernie Madoff had an overdue library book. Your brother needs a lawyer and he needs to tell the WHOLE story to that lawyer. You, are not entitled to information about any of it beyond what is already public record. There is only so much about an investigation that the police or prosecution is going to share with your brother. The reasons for that should be obvious.
  13. You cite the laws for non-profit entities. Is your HOA a non-profit?
  14. None of us can guarantee that an application for asylum will be granted, no matter who is President. The current ban is also not fairing well in the courts.
  15. A DNA test might not be required. Paternity can be established without it. What do you mean "he got a judge to sign full custody"? You were at the hearing or trial and have a copy of the order?
  16. Your JAG buddy is sending you a not so subtle hint to reconsider your actions. Take it. I'm sorry your mother is terminal but that has nothing to do with trees that may belong to your neighbor. A survey is always a good idea, no matter how agreeable you think the neighbors might be.
  17. "Administrator" doesn't have a legal meaning. It could mean she is taking it upon herself to take care of the sister's affairs, or it could mean that the court actually appointed her the executor of the estate. I'm not sure why the county makes a difference to you. Are you willing to be the executor? It is also unclear why you feel you should have been consulted on your sister's change of residence if you were not the one caring for her, or why you feel the sister should have consulted you before designating beneficiaries on any policies or pensions. You were certainly free at any time to have that conversation with her. You need more than speculation that the sister who stepped in to care for your sister and her affairs in her final months actually engaged in some sort of manipulation or fraud. You can not use the courts to conduct a fishing expedition. The presumption is that your sister intended the beneficiaries designated to be the beneficiaries, and it is not uncommon to designate the one who served as caregiver over others. How do you know who was listed as beneficiary previously? If there was no will, then you *could* be entitled to part of the estate, as was outlined in my previous link.
  18. Nothing you describe is legally actionable. Most of what you express is simply unfortunate timing; the anniversary of a family death, friends happening to be at the gas station where he was transferred from one car to another, the arrest taking place at your home, etc. The trooper didn't have to allow him to drive home first. It was a courtesy that he wasn't arrested on the spot and the car towed to the house- with you being billed for the cost. The rest is a defense in the event of a trial. It is beyond the scope of an officer's job to look at evidence such as an alibi for the original charges, or parse out if he has the correct "John Smith". He can't interview witnesses to the crime on the spot. The officer can not and should not discuss the nature of the charges leading to the warrant, though the odds are that he does not even have that information. All he knows is that there is a man caught speeding, with the same name, with outstanding warrants, fitting the same vague description (same race, close in age, bald, facial hair, etc.). Your husband has every right to be mad at his uncle. If the uncle hasn't been turned in, I would certainly make sure the police knew of his whereabouts. Your husband does need a criminal defense attorney to help sort out this mess. This is not a DIY project, and I would not assume the charges will automatically be dropped.
  19. Wow, am I ever glad I am not your neighbor. Cut down or touch your neighbor's trees, especially because you want a better view and you can expect any number of unpleasant outcomes. We have no way of predicting what your neighbor will do. I strongly suggest you get a survey done and establish who owns the trees. If you just purchased there should have been a survey and boundary map provided or available. This seems like something that should have been determined before purchase as trees growing is a fact of nature and the situation was entirely foreseeable.
  20. You are only 63 and have great grandchildren? Or was that a typo? It doesn't really matter who Moosie, Lisa or Elizabeth are. YOU allowed a bunch of kids to be in a house with drugs. By the age of 63, you should be well aware that this is illegal and a horrible environment for children. Did you really think the police were going to believe you knew nothing about what was going on in your home? You knew there was illegal activity and children were being affected by and exposed to this and you allowed it to continue and enabled the behavior. That makes you guilty. They don't have to believe that a 63 year old is so naive as to have no idea drugs are in the home and that you had nothing at all to do with it. For all they know these were your drugs and you are blaming someone not there to get yourself out of trouble. So yes, arresting you was proper. Taking you to the hospital in handcuffs was for your own safety and theirs. Your state of dress at the time is not their fault. Nor is the taxi that apparently took hours, and the fact that you didn't bother to call one of these various mentioned children/grandchildren/neighbors to come get you is irrelevant. Would you have preferred the police leave your house wide open and unsecured? All this happened nearly 2 years ago so it is unclear what you expect to do about it now.
  21. The customer, if the OP even knows who it is, might be liable in a civil suit for damages, but the customer is not going to provide health care as requested by the OP. The after the fact cost might be part of such a suit, but if there have been no medical bills to date, those non-existent bill couldn't be part of the suit. It is questionable that a random customer could even be identified 2 years later and it isn't certain there is any liability. No details are provided as to how this accident was caused by a customer. As you are well aware, WC is "no fault", which is not at all true in a civil case. If the OP is looking for someone to authorize medical treatment now, the only option is the WC carrier. Personal health insurance likely will not cover the treatment if it is revealed this happened as part of a work injury. It would be exceedingly rare for any policy to pick up the cost of treatment another insurance carrier is responsible for. I shouldn't have used the phrase "exclusive remedy" as that does have a specific meaning under WC, but the WC carrier is the only party who would have any obligation to cover the cost and authorization of health care related to the claim.
  22. Illegal isn't quite the correct word. There is also no set definition of "contract employee" so you will have to specify what you mean by that term.
  23. I'm not sure why you wouldn't have moved these priceless (to you) heirlooms to a secure location where you had control over them when you moved out. It was not your roommate's responsibility to store your items for months. It sounds like you were not in regular contact, nor did you have any plans to move your items within a reasonable amount of time. I could see leaving some items for a few days or a few weeks until you could arrange for a mover, but if more than 10 months had passed without a word from you, it appears that you abandoned your belongings and weren't even in a hurry to pay her back for expenses she incurred storing your things. Why would you think that she should be out a single dime to store your belongings? You can get change at your local 7-11, so there really in no excuse not to have paid her the full amount due.
  24. If this should have been a WC claim, it is unclear why you would have waited 2 years to do anything about it. 3rd degree burns are not a DIY health matter. WC would be your exclusive remedy if you are still within the time frame to file.
  25. Though poorly worded, I believe the question you are trying to ask is why the secretary would be concerned others might find out who spilled the beans if it was legal for her to share information about an arrest. We would have no way of knowing. It could be she shared additional information that was not public record. Could be part of an investigation or case that the office was trying to keep out of the spotlight. An investigation may be ongoing or the nature of the charges of a sensitive nature. Could be internal policy not to share things that are learned at work. There is no good reason for the secretary to be gossiping about others or discussing current cases outside those with a business need to know.