Comments for Lexington Family Law

Comment on Voluntary versus Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights by Em

Em — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:50:59 +0000

Please let me introduce you to a fabulous new concept in business advertising on the internet. It’s PlanetBuzz.com.

Please go to the site to find out if your complimentary ad already appears or you can just hit GO to get into the site. If you don’t see your ad, please create a “Sign On” to register and generate at least a quick ad. There are numerous categories in the law/legal field and in your area to choose from. You can always go back in at any time and update it. Remember to use promo code “mm1051” under place new ad.

Also, the video on the site is very helpful in explaining the process. The site is scheduled to go live to the public very soon. Please pass this “opportunity” along to anyone else who you think would like to take advantage of a fabulous opportunity.

Comment on Primary Residential Custodian: A misnomer by JAMES SAVAGE

JAMES SAVAGE — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:16:38 +0000

I AM WANTING TO SEE IF YOU WOULD EMAIL ME THE STANDARD VISITATION SCHEDULE OF CHILDREN OF JOINT CUSTODY IN THE STATE Of Kentucky. Also what the standard child support would be on 2 kids me making $13.99 an hour 49 hour week. i already pay $118.00 every 2 weeks on one daughter already. i dont know if they take that in considiration. my mailing address in po box 3185 mount vernon, ky 40456.

Comment on Paternity Pandemonium III by Diana L. Skaggs

Diana L. Skaggs — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:12:53 +0000

Greg, very thought provoking post. Diana

Comment on Paternity Pandemonium by Paternity Pandemonium III « Lexington Family Law

Paternity Pandemonium III « Lexington Family Law — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:48:19 +0000

[...] After reflecting on the recent decision in J.N.R. v. O’Reilly that I posted on here and here, I recognized a troubling conundrum in the law. I will expound with a hypothetical [...]

Comment on Primary Residential Custodian: A misnomer by CLINTON GOINS JR

CLINTON GOINS JR — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:47:21 +0000

I CURRENTLY HAVE BEFORE ME A PETITION FOR JOINT CUSTODY OF MY TWO DAUGHTERS. THE PETITIONER IS THE MOTHER OF MY TWO DAUGHTERS. THE AGREEMENT IS LESS THAN 1/3RD OF A 8.5X11 PAGE. IN WHICH, BY PART I DISAGREE WITH. FROM MY READING OF YOUR WEBSITE, I BELIEVE I WOULD BENEFIT FROM A CONVERSATION WITH YOU OR A DESIGNATED RESPONDENT OF YOUR LAW FIRM. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF MY COMMENTS. CLINTON GOINS JR.

Comment on Paternity Pandemonium by Paternity Pandemonium II « Lexington Family Law

Paternity Pandemonium II « Lexington Family Law — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:37:23 +0000

[...] Pandemonium II I wanted to post a brief follow-up to Paternity Pandemonium. Mr. Rhoades wrote a comment to that post that I encourage everyone to look at. I also wanted to [...]

Comment on Paternity Pandemonium by James

James — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:39:38 +0000

As the REAL father and REAL party in interest of the above case, I think it is a sad day when a Court denies an individual possessing a fundamental liberty regarding his child the due process afforded under the U.S. Constitution. The Kentucky Supreme Court would not allow the Court of Appeals record to be supplemented, which would of added 2 additional court ordered DNA tests, the sworn testimony of the mother acknowledging paternity to biological father, and a Family Court directive ordering paternity to biological father , which took place while no SCOKY stay was in place. It seems absurd that Kentucky’s highest court has said the Family Court which they established has no jurisdictional authority over paternity issues. Justice Noble wisely noted in her disenting opinion that the majority opinion required I prove my claims before even being heard effectively slamming the doors of the Court in my face. This is all so very odd considering the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in Santosky v. Kramer.

Real Father James Rhoades

Comment on Lessons in family law: appeals, bankruptcy & garnishment by Garnishment: where business law & family law intersect « Bluegrass Business Law

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:25:50 +0000

[...] lessons related to family law exist in the underlying facts and procedure and can be found at this post at Lexington Family Law blog. Suffice it to say that a doctor, Andrew, with his own practice went through a bitterly fought [...]

Comment on The other child support law by Child support in Dependency, Neglect and Abuse actions « Elusive Justice

Child support in Dependency, Neglect and Abuse actions « Elusive Justice — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:18:05 +0000

[...] Posted by elusivejustice on January 11, 2008 If you would like a smattering of “let’s help poor people” optimism in the midst of boring child support and policy talk involving dependency, neglect and abuse actions, check out this post at the Lexington Lawyer blog. [...]

Comment on Why I use Counselor at Law rather than Attorney at Law: by Loren

Loren — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:06:37 +0000

I realize I’m responding to an older post, but I’m a new lawyer in Kentucky hanging a shingle and I’ve been researching this question. While I agree with the practice of using attorney and counselor, why use “at law”? Why not “attorney and counselor”? Is this a Kentucky requirement or common practice?