Day: December 18, 2019

Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors Provides The Best Family Lawyers For Vaughan Ontario

Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors Provides The Best Family Lawyers For Vaughan Ontario

Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors Provides The Best Family Lawyers For Vaughan Ontario

Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors, a law firm based in Vaughan, Ontario, Canada, has announced that they always focus on providing the best family lawyers for clients to address the specific issues that are most concerning for them. The family law firm also wants to add that their knowledge and experience are vital in helping clients deal with all of their family issues while helping them navigate through the complex legal system and procedures. They have handled hundreds of cases that prove they are the best family lawyers for people in Vaughan and neighbouring areas.

“One of the main challenges some clients have with their family lawyer is that their legal representative is often unavailable, and unable to answer questions when required. We will never leave you with questions unanswered. Our clients know that when they turn to us, they receive a quality of service unparalleled across the local legal field,” says a spokesperson for Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors.

He continues, “We’re committed to providing you with a communication-focused service in which you receive the full attention and experience of our trusted family law lawyers. We are available around the clock to guide you and secure the ideal result from your case.”

The family law services provided by Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors can be broken down into various categories. These include child support, separation, divorce, spousal support, child custody, matrimonial, domestic contracts, and prenuptial agreements.

One of the types of attorneys the firm can provide are prenuptial agreement lawyers. This is for couples who are planning on getting married. While such couples expect to be happily married for the rest of their lives, it is also a good idea to be prudent in protecting themselves regardless of what would happen in the future. The prenuptial agreement will provide the plan to be followed in the event that a separation would take place. It provides the details of how the marital assets will be allocated, including a plan for the custody of the children. This is essential, especially for high net worth individuals, to enter into prenuptial agreements to ensure asset protection.

When it comes to legal separation, people can turn to Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors because of their comprehensive understanding of the changing laws affecting separation and divorce. They also have experience working with those who were in same-sex relationships and those in opposite-sex relationships to make sure that their legal rights are protected under Canadian law. They have already provided their services to thousands of clients go through the separation process, and their expertise has been found to be unparalleled.

And then, there is divorce. An experienced lawyer is required for individuals to achieve that peace of mind in the realization that they have attained the ideal result for them when going through divorce. The lawyers at Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors will consider with the client all of the possible paths to resolution, including mediation, negotiation, or arbitration.

There is also the matter of child support, which must be considered when couples separate. The obligation to pay for child support to a dependent child is mandatory under Ontario law. The lawyers at Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors can help their clients with this obligation to ensure that the child has a secure future. In Ontario, there are both provincial and federal Child Support Guidelines to be followed and the lawyers are knowledgeable about this.

And then there is also the matter of child custody when a couple separates. The firm has a child custody mediation team who strives to develop out-of-the-box solutions to minimize conflict and make sure that the child will have a healthy relationship with each party. Their skills and experience with regards to child custody are also unparalleled in the area.

Those who are interested in getting the services of a divorce lawyer can check out the Mazzeo Law Barristers & Solicitors, call them on the phone, or contact them via email. Their office hours are from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday.

For more information please contact us at any time:

Family Lawyer Vaughan Divorce Law Office

3300 Hwy 7 Suite 904
Vaughan, Ontario L4K 4M3

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (905) 851-5909
Fax: (905) 851-3514
Price Range: $000 – $000


 







5/5 stars –
based on 3 reviews

source https://www.mazzeolaw.ca/family/family-law/mazzeo-law-barristers-solicitors-provides-the-best-family-lawyers-for-vaughan-ontario/

By The Wall of Law December 18, 2019 Off

Kate Purchase jumps from office to Office

Welcome to a sneak peek of the Maclean’s Politics Insider newsletter. Sign-up at the bottom of the page to get it delivered straight to your inbox.

Know thyself: Eyes rolled in a lot of economics departments when Justin Trudeau unveiled his second-term cabinet last month, which included for the first time a minister of middle class prosperity. Few phrases are as freighted yet ambiguous as “middle class” since no one ever really agrees on who counts as middle class, even if politicians can’t stop using it to pander to voters. After Mona Fortier, the first minister to hold the portfolio, failed to actually define what the term means  — “I define the middle class where people feel that they can afford their way of life” — it was Trudeau’s turn to explain its meaning. So, at last, from the man himself, what does middle class mean, and who is in it? “Canadians know who’s in the middle class,” he said as unhelpfully as his middle class minister, “and know what their families are facing and we focus more on the actual issues.”

Here are a couple of stories from the Maclean’s archive that explain why the term middle class is so popular with politicians and why it’s so difficult to nail down its meaning:

When one door closes, Windows opens: While we’re on the subject of Trudeau messaging, Kate Purchase is on her way out from the prime minister’s office to take a job at the maker of Office, as in Microsoft, where she’ll be executive director of communications. She announced her departure in a tweet — “Bittersweet to announce that I’ll be leaving @JustinTrudeau’s office next week for a new adventure. It’s been a wild and inspiring ride, but when you get the call to join @Microsoft to work for @satyanadella – you jump!” — which was deleted without explanation. (Maybe it was the enthusiasm about ditching a job working for Canada’s prime minister to answer a higher calling from an American tech giant that clanged.)

Just don’t look down: The Trudeau government’s energy and environment tightrope walk was on full display Tuesday, with federal lawyers defending the right of the Trans Mountain pipeline project to go ahead in one courtroom, while in another, federal lawyers passionately defended Trudeau’s climate change-fighting carbon tax. At the Federal Court of Appeal government lawyers argued that Ottawa’s consultation with Indigenous groups over the pipeline project was meaningful and that a legal challenge by four Indigenous groups hoping to halt Trans Mountain should be dismissed. Meanwhile three provinces to the west in Alberta’s Court of Appeal another federal lawyer fighting the province’s carbon tax challenge warned “the context of this case is the greatest existential threat of our time” and that setting emissions standards “is a matter of national concern that only Parliament can address.”

The race is still not on: At some point the Conservative Party will launch its quest to replace Andrew Scheer, and when it does that leadership race is expected to be short. But for now there is still no set date, no set rules and no set price of admission. Which is why potential candidates have been hesitant to commit to leadership bids publicly — though a source close to Rona Ambrose told CTV News she’s thinking it over and weighing factors like her health, freedom, family time and privacy since she “never imagined going back to politics.”

@repost Family Law Center

Via How to Fight Alimony

source https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/kate-purchase-jumps-from-office-to-office/

By The Wall of Law December 18, 2019 Off

In reversal, border agents allow sick 7-year-old to enter US

HOUSTON — A 7-year-old child who is unable to contain her own waste due to a congenital illness and who had been refused entry to the United States three times was finally allowed into the country Tuesday, after U.S. border agents exempted her and her mother from the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy.

The reversal came after U.S. Customs and Border Protection received inquiries from The Associated Press and other media about the case.

Federal authorities have sent more than 50,000 migrants — including people who crossed the border legally — back over the border to wait for their court dates in Mexican border cities under the Migrant Protection Protocols.

The girl was born in Honduras with colon problems and has had several surgeries since birth. Her mother told the Associated Press that they left Honduras in hopes that they could receive better medical treatment in the U.S.

They crossed the border without authorization. According to a doctor who later examined the girl, she developed a fistula while in CBP detention between her colon and her skin while in detention, which caused her stool to leak. She wears a diaper.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection declined to comment on the girl’s case.

Global Response Management, a non-profit that runs a sidewalk clinic for people living in Matamoros, Mexico, says border agents took the girl to the emergency room of Valley Baptist Medical Center in Brownsville. She was briefly seen and then returned with her mother to Matamoros.

The Associated Press is identifying the mother by only her first name, Isabel, and withholding the daughter’s name at their lawyers’ request because they fear for their safety.

For the last several days, Isabel and her daughter had been living in one of the hundreds of tents in Matamoros, where as many as 2,000 migrants sleep in a camp with limited access to food, water, and medical care, and where some people sleep near toilets overflowing with feces. Isabel says they shared their tent with another woman and her two children.

A letter from Global Response Management says the girl is “at great risk of possible systemic infection.”

She “should not be living in the harsh environment of a refugee camp,” the letter reads.

Border agents can exempt migrants from “vulnerable populations,” which has in practice included people with serious illnesses. But immigration lawyers say agents have wrongly excluded many sick people, leaving them to wait for months in the shelters or squalid encampments that have cropped up next to the border. In one case this year, border agents took a woman who was 8 1/2 months pregnant to a hospital in the U.S., where she was given an injection to stop premature contractions. They then sent her back to Mexico.

Since their expulsion under the “Remain” program, Isabel and her daughter had asked the border guards at the main bridge connecting Brownsville and Matamoros three times to exempt them from the program. They had their first court hearing Monday and were sent back to Mexico, and told to return again in March.

That changed on Tuesday, when a CBP official contacted one of the family’s attorneys to say they would get another chance at the bridge. Isabel and her daughter were taken inside CBP’s office on the U.S. side and eventually released to their attorneys, who took them to a hotel.

“It shouldn’t take literally a village of lawyers and advocates four attempts over the course of a week and several hours of waiting for the U.S. to take responsibility and fix what occurred because of the conditions in CBP detention,” said Kim Hunter, a lawyer with the advocacy group Project Corazon.

As her daughter watched “A Charlie Brown Christmas” on a hotel television, Isabel wept with joy and thanked her lawyers.

“I don’t have any words for the support they gave me and my daughter,” she said.

___

Freelance photographer Veronica G. Cardenas contributed to this report from Brownsville, Texas.

Nomaan Merchant, The Associated Press

@repost Domestic Arrangements

Via Dissolution of Marriage

source https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/12/17/in-reversal-border-agents-allow-sick-7-year-old-to-enter-us/

By The Wall of Law December 18, 2019 Off

Kansas court considers parental rights of ex-LGBTQ partners

TOPEKA, Kan. — Some LGBTQ people in Kansas who wanted to raise children born to unmarried partners they couldn’t legally marry can be denied contact with the children when the couples split up. An attorney on Tuesday urged the state’s highest court to make that far less likely to happen.

The Kansas Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases, each brought by a woman who was the unmarried partner of another woman who became a mother through artificial insemination. The couples broke up; the biological mothers eventually kept their former partners from the children and married other women after the U.S. Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal across the nation in 2015.

Kansas’ highest court ruled in a 2013 case involving a lesbian couple that under state law, an unmarried partner legally can be considered a parent of a non-biological child. However, the couple in that case had a written agreement about parenting, while the women in the later cases did not, leading trial-court judges to rule against them.

Valerie Moore, a Kansas City-area attorney representing both women seeking access to children, argued that the law — traditionally used to force absent, unmarried men to support children they father — does not require a formal written or verbal parenting agreement. Instead, she said, it’s enough that people hold themselves out as parents.

In effect, Moore argued that the women should have rights similar to that of divorced parents who move out of ex-spouses’ homes. She argued that denying her clients access to the children is unfair because Kansas didn’t allow them to marry before the children were born.

“These children entered the world with two parents,” Moore told the justices during arguments in one of the cases. “We’re just asking for that to continue.”

In more than 30 states, including Kansas, laws or court decisions either allow “second-parent” adoptions by unmarried partners or grant some parental rights based on a partner’s involvement parenting or in consenting to a partner’s artificial insemination, according to data compiled by the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The 2013 state Supreme Court decision makes Kansas “somewhat more progressive” than other states, said Cathy Sakimura, the centre’s family law director.

“Kansas actually has very good law, I think, and really should be protecting a wide range of families,” Sakimura said. “I think it’s just not as clear as it could be to people because it’s not in the actual (legal) code.”

However, Kansas Supreme Court justices questioned Moore about whether adopting her position could grant parental rights to adults who have few ties to non-biological children. Justice Carol Beier suggested that granting others parental rights could be “in tension” with a biological parent’s “constitutional right to raise a child” as he or she sees fit.

Adam Hall, a Lawrence attorney representing one of the biological mothers, said requiring a verbal or written agreement provides families with certainty and warned that adopting Moore’s position could disrupt children’s and biological mothers’ lives later.

“There’s also a considerable danger that there will be substantial litigation,” he told the justices.

In both cases, the women and the children are referred to only by their initials.

In one case, out of Butler County outside of Wichita, T.F. and K.L. were together seven years before T.F. gave birth to a girl in 2013. They split in 2014 and K.L. sought the right to see the girl.

In the other case, from Crawford County in southeast Kansas, E.L. and M.S. broke up about a year after E.L. gave birth to twin boys in 2015. M.S. covered $30,000 in medical, day care and other expenses and continued to see the boys for months after the split, but the judge concluded she’d not been a parent by having an affair and acting inappropriately.

Tom Witt, executive director of the LGBTQ-rights group Equality Kansas, said it’s atypical but “not rare” for a former same-sex partner to be denied contact with a child.

“This is absolutely one of the reasons there was a fight for marriage equality,” Witt said. “If these people were living as common law couples, they met all the requirements of common law couples, then the judge and courts should be treating them as though they’re married or were married.”

___

Follow John Hanna on Twitter: https://twitter.com/apjdhanna

John Hanna, The Associated Press

@repost Family Court Lawyers near Me

Via Divorce Lawyers near Me Free Consultation

source https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/12/17/kansas-court-considers-parental-rights-of-ex-lgbtq-partners/

By The Wall of Law December 18, 2019 Off

Kansas court considers parental rights of ex-LGBTQ partners

TOPEKA, Kan. — Some LGBTQ people in Kansas who wanted to raise children born to unmarried partners they couldn’t legally marry can be denied contact with the children when the couples split up. An attorney on Tuesday urged the state’s highest court to make that far less likely to happen.

The Kansas Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases, each brought by a woman who was the unmarried partner of another woman who became a mother through artificial insemination. The couples broke up; the biological mothers eventually kept their former partners from the children and married other women after the U.S. Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal across the nation in 2015.

Kansas’ highest court ruled in a 2013 case involving a lesbian couple that under state law, an unmarried partner legally can be considered a parent of a non-biological child. However, the couple in that case had a written agreement about parenting, while the women in the later cases did not, leading trial-court judges to rule against them.

Valerie Moore, a Kansas City-area attorney representing both women seeking access to children, argued that the law — traditionally used to force absent, unmarried men to support children they father — does not require a formal written or verbal parenting agreement. Instead, she said, it’s enough that people hold themselves out as parents.

In effect, Moore argued that the women should have rights similar to that of divorced parents who move out of ex-spouses’ homes. She argued that denying her clients access to the children is unfair because Kansas didn’t allow them to marry before the children were born.

“These children entered the world with two parents,” Moore told the justices during arguments in one of the cases. “We’re just asking for that to continue.”

In more than 30 states, including Kansas, laws or court decisions either allow “second-parent” adoptions by unmarried partners or grant some parental rights based on a partner’s involvement parenting or in consenting to a partner’s artificial insemination, according to data compiled by the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The 2013 state Supreme Court decision makes Kansas “somewhat more progressive” than other states, said Cathy Sakimura, the centre’s family law director.

“Kansas actually has very good law, I think, and really should be protecting a wide range of families,” Sakimura said. “I think it’s just not as clear as it could be to people because it’s not in the actual (legal) code.”

However, Kansas Supreme Court justices questioned Moore about whether adopting her position could grant parental rights to adults who have few ties to non-biological children. Justice Carol Beier suggested that granting others parental rights could be “in tension” with a biological parent’s “constitutional right to raise a child” as he or she sees fit.

Adam Hall, a Lawrence attorney representing one of the biological mothers, said requiring a verbal or written agreement provides families with certainty and warned that adopting Moore’s position could disrupt children’s and biological mothers’ lives later.

“There’s also a considerable danger that there will be substantial litigation,” he told the justices.

In both cases, the women and the children are referred to only by their initials.

In one case, out of Butler County outside of Wichita, T.F. and K.L. were together seven years before T.F. gave birth to a girl in 2013. They split in 2014 and K.L. sought the right to see the girl.

In the other case, from Crawford County in southeast Kansas, E.L. and M.S. broke up about a year after E.L. gave birth to twin boys in 2015. M.S. covered $30,000 in medical, day care and other expenses and continued to see the boys for months after the split, but the judge concluded she’d not been a parent by having an affair and acting inappropriately.

Tom Witt, executive director of the LGBTQ-rights group Equality Kansas, said it’s atypical but “not rare” for a former same-sex partner to be denied contact with a child.

“This is absolutely one of the reasons there was a fight for marriage equality,” Witt said. “If these people were living as common law couples, they met all the requirements of common law couples, then the judge and courts should be treating them as though they’re married or were married.”

___

Follow John Hanna on Twitter: https://twitter.com/apjdhanna

John Hanna, The Associated Press

@repost Lawyer for Divorce Case

Via Divorce Solicitors

source https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/12/17/kansas-court-considers-parental-rights-of-ex-lgbtq-partners/

By The Wall of Law December 18, 2019 Off