Keeping Our Kids Safe Online

Jun 20, 2023 | Family Law

As we become more of an electronically-connected society (and, when is that increase ever going to end?) potential dangers to our children, via the internet, are enhanced. Our children spend more and more time online, for activities such as their schooling, gaming, socializing, and other group meetings. In fact, according to the FBI, “(t)he internet, for all of its benefits, also gives criminals and predators an easy way to reach young people.”[1]

The FBI most often sees crimes against children begin when an adult:

  • Forges a relationship with a young victim online and then later arranges to meet and abuse the child; or,
  • Coerces a child into producing sexually explicit images or videos through manipulation, gifts, or threats—a crime called sextortion.” [2]

The FBI suggests that “(t)he most important advice for parents is to have open and ongoing conversations about safe and appropriate online behavior.”[3] Other advice to consider:

  • Educate yourself about the websites, software, games, and apps that your child uses.
  • Check their social media and gaming profiles and posts. Have conversations about what is appropriate to say or share.
  • Explain to your kids that once images or comments are posted online they can be shared with anyone and never truly disappear.
  • Make sure your kids use privacy settings to restrict access to their online profiles.
  • Tell your children to be extremely wary when communicating with anyone online whom they do not know in real life.
  • Encourage kids to choose appropriate screen names and to create strong passwords.
  • Make it a rule with your kids that they can’t arrange to meet up with someone they met online without your knowledge and supervision.
  • Stress to your children that making any kind of a threat online—even if they think it’s a joke—is a crime.
  • Report any inappropriate contact between an adult and your child to law enforcement immediately. Notify the site they were using, too.” [4]

Overall crime has dropped in the USA, over the last few decades.[5] This trend, however, does not speak to the new and increasing ways that our children find themselves to be vulnerable. My parents shooed us out-of-the-house, to play all day. Since this was way before the existence of cell phones and locator devices, they had absolutely no idea where we were at any given period of time when we were out of their sight. And, yet, we felt safe, because we were exposed to only our neighbors and local town or city folk.

Today we have a more mobile society, so many of us do not know our neighbors. That fact keeps us from being able to trust their motives and intentions. And so, we often feel the need to be more vigilant regarding our kids, their whereabouts, activities, and safety.

Sometimes, despite that vigilance, parents feel like they need more protection, such as a court order, when a specific threat of harm materializes, through another’s words and/or actions. Thankfully, there are legal remedies available to protect our family members, including our children, from those dangers. Contacting a Family Lawyer, to discuss those legal remedies, is often the first step in obtaining peace of mind.

 

 

[1] https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/protecting-your-kids

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20for,the%20early%201990s%20to%202010.;

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-crime-decline/477408/

Copyright © 2024 Heiman Law Firm. All Rights Reserved. Website by Butler I. T. and Higher ADvantage

What are Parents’ Options Regarding School Re-Openings

Jul 15, 2020 | Child Custody

As the normal school year rapidly approaches us (as of this writing), many parents are rightly concerned about how to safely, and yet effectively, allow their children to resume their education. According to a recent University of Texas poll[1], a full 65% of Texas parents believe that it would not be safe to return their children to school now. And, that same poll, found that Texans are less approving of all levels of government and state and national leadership as the pandemic worsens in the state. Id. So, while the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) directed on July 24, 2020[2] that “communities should make every effort to support the reopening of schools safely for in person learning in the fall”[3],  many Texans have discussed, often on social media, alternatives that they hope will be safer than a normal reopening. Among the most-discussed of those ideas are traditional home schooling (which may be available to those families who have the luxury of a parent remaining home, full-time, to instruct their children), to hiring tutors for one or more families (often called “learning pods”). For other parents, it seems more important to have their children attend their schools virtually, so that they might retain social connection with their classmates, friends, and familiar school officials.

Some parents are making arrangements to either work remotely, and thereby, be available for their children, as they learn at home; or, take their children with them, to wherever they will be working[4]. Others are considering hiring a nanny or college student to monitor the children, while those kids attend school virtually. In either case, the goal is to limit children’s exposure to others, while still having them learn.

Since the 2020-2021 School Year has not yet begun (again, as of the time of this writing), it is likely that some of these approaches will be deemed more, or less, effective than others. And, as that occurs, some approaches will be either dropped or modified, in an attempt to make them better. Additionally, new approaches will probably be developed.

For those children who will be returning to their schools this Fall, the CDC suggests that exposure be limited to a select group of people for each student. This procedure is called “cohorting.” In describing this procedure, the CDC tells us that “Cohorting forms groups of students, and sometimes teachers or staff, that stay together throughout the school day to minimize exposure for students, teachers, and staff across the school environment. Ideally, students and staff within a cohort would only have physical proximity with others in the same cohort. This practice may help prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, by limiting cross-over of students, teachers, and staff to the extent possible…[5]” This procedure should be available for children who either attend school full-time (on a traditional basis), or part-time, through a “hybrid” model, in which kids attend their schools on certain days, as remote learn on others.

School Year 2020-2021 will, in all likelihood, be memorable for both parents and children, because of its uniqueness. The challenging nature of this school year is instigating the creativity of parents and school officials, as we all try to ensure that our children can learn, socialize and play, in a safe and effective manner. This topic may be one that we return to further discuss as events develop.

1 https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/it-safe-or-unsafe-send-your-child-school-june-2020#overall

2 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/reopening-schools-faqs.html.

3 Judging by its statements about children returning to school, by in July, 2020, the CDC seemed to be significantly less concerned about the health threats posed by that return than they were in March, 2020.
Download PDF here https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/Schools-Decision-Tree.pdf

4 Obviously, this arrangement works better for parents who work in an office setting, rather than in a factory, construction site, oil field or ranch.

5 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/reopening-schools-faqs.html

Copyright © 2024 Heiman Law Firm. All Rights Reserved. Website by Butler I. T. and Higher ADvantage

Coronavirus: Can Texas force Parents to Quarantine Their Kids (and themselves)?

Mar 6, 2020 | Child Custody, Family Law

It was reported earlier this week that with the number of Covid-19 corona virus cases increasing, the 11 regional presiding judges in Texas earlier this week began appointing judges within their respective region to be available to process cases where infected people refused to self-quarantine. The Texas Office of Court Administration[1] is in charge of this project. When can someone be forced into quarantine, and what are the criteria for making that decision? That is what we will discuss today.

Since there have been no reported cases in Texas where a person infected by the Covid-19 coronavirus has refused to self-quarantine, this week’s actions are merely precautionary. According to personnel at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas who I spoke with on March 5, 2020, they have previously had to require patients infected with tuberculosis to be quarantined, when those patients refused to self-quarantine themselves. So, the potential refusal of a patient infected with Covid-19 to self-quarantine should not be surprising.

The Communicable Disease Prevention and Control Act[2] provides the procedures, jurisdiction, and requirements, to force someone to be quarantined against that person’s will.

That act provides that “(t)he state has a duty to protect the public health. Each person shall act responsibly to prevent and control communicable disease.”[3] That act expressly provides that the individual may be isolated or quarantined in an appropriate facility and shall obey the rules, orders, and instructions of the department or health authority while in isolation or quarantine.” and, that during a “emergency or an area quarantine,” such persons may be forcibly treated.[4] So, the question remains about when can that can happen.

Our District Courts have jurisdiction of these cases,[5] and get involved with them when a health authority requests a “court order for the management of a person with a communicable disease” by filing a sworn application through “a municipal, county, or district attorney.”[6] Part of that application includes a medical evaluation and/or a copy of any administrative order finding “reasonable cause to believe that an individual is ill with, has been exposed to, or is the carrier of a communicable disease,”[7] which authorized the forced quarantine of a person prior to seeking the court order.

When an application for management (quarantine) of a person is filed, the court must appoint each individual a “an attorney to represent (him or her) not later than the 24th hour after the time” that the application is filed.[8] Then, the court must set a hearing for at least 3 days, but no more than 14 days, later, unless either a quicker hearing, or a delay (“continuance”), is requested by the individual.[9]

Prior to that hearing, the state may request that the person be held in protective custody.[10] That is done by the filing a motion and affidavit stating that there is reason to believe that the person meets the criteria to mandate quarantine upon that person.[11]

On the basis of that motion and affidavit, the court may issue an order for protective custody of the person, prior to the hearing on the application for management (quarantine), if the court determines that “the health authority or department has stated its opinion and the detailed basis for its opinion that the person is infected with or is reasonably suspected of being infected with a communicable disease that presents an immediate threat to the public health; and that the person fails or refuses to comply with the” requested quarantine).[12] The person may be apprehended and transported to a designated facility, to remain until a hearing occurs.[13]

The next step in the process is setting, and notifying, the person and his or her attorney of a “Probable Cause” hearing,[14] to determine whether there is probable cause to hold the person until a final hearing can be had.[15] This hearing must occur “not later than 72 hours after the time that the person was detained under the protective custody order.”[16] The person who is the subject of the proceeding may introduce evidence to challenge the allegations made against him or her.[17]

At the conclusion of the Probable Cause hearing, “The magistrate or master shall order that a person remain in protective custody if the magistrate or master determines after the hearing that an adequate factual basis exists for probable cause to believe that the person presents a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others to the extent that the person cannot remain at liberty pending the hearing on the application.”[18]

With those preliminary matters taken care of, the court can then consider the underlying application for management of the person who is the subject of the case. At that hearing, in order to prevail, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person:

  • is infected with or is reasonably suspected of being infected with a communicable disease that presents a threat to the public health;
  • has refused or failed to follow the orders of the health authority if the application is for inpatient treatment; and
  • meets the applicable criteria for orders for the management of a person with a communicable disease.”[19]

Unless the state can meet that high burden of proof, the person must be immediately released.[20]

The goal of protecting public health must be balanced with the individual liberties of people. To prevent state health authorities from over-reacting, and thereby, wrongly depriving us of our freedoms, the laws regarding quarantine provide numerous safeguards. The state cannot arbitrarily decide to quarantine people. Instead, they can only do so when they have sufficient evidence to support that action.

 

[1] According to its website, “The Office of Court Administration (OCA) is a unique state agency in the Judicial Branch that operates under the direction and supervision of the Supreme Court of Texas and the Chief Justice.

Our mission is to provide resources and information for the efficient administration of the Judicial Branch of Texas.”

 

[2] HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE TITLE 2. HEALTH SUBTITLE D. PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND REPORTS OF DISEASES CHAPTER 81. COMMUNICABLE DISEASES

[3] Subchapter G, Sec. 81.002 of the Communicable Disease Prevention and Control Act (hereinafter “the act”)

[4] Sec. 81.009(a)

[5] Sec. 81.157 & 81.151.(b) of the act

[6] Sec. 81.151(a) of the act.

[7] Sec. 81.083(b) of the act

[8] Sec. 81.153(a) of the act

[9] Sec. 81.154 of the act

[10] Sec. 81.161 of the act

[11] Sec. 81.161 of the act

[12] Sec. 81.162(a) of the act

[13] Sec. 81.163 of the act

[14] Sec. 81.164 of the act

[15] Sec. 81.165(a) of the act

[16] Sec. 81.165(b) of the act

[17] Sec. 81.165(d) of the act

[18] Sec. 81.166(a) of the act

[19] Sec. 81.171(a) of the act

[20] Sec. 81,171(b) of the act

Copyright © 2024 Heiman Law Firm. All Rights Reserved. Website by Butler I. T. and Higher ADvantage

Parenting with a High-Conflict Ex (Part 4)

Feb 23, 2019 | Child Custody, Family Law

Initial Steps That You Can Take

In the first three articles of the series, we have discussed things to do, along with what to avoid, when attempting to parent a child(ren) with someone who is disrespectful, rude, or dismissive of you and your parenting preferences. A review of those articles (Part 1 , Part 2, and Part 3 of this series) will bring you up-to-speed on good ground rules and practices that you should be using, if you find yourself in this situation.

Additional Help for You

When dealing with a high-conflict person, it is reasonable to expect that some level of parental conflict will likely remain, since such people tend to be relentless in their demands for unilateral control of their children. You must decide whether that level of conflict is manageable and, thus, acceptable; or, whether more needs to be done to manage the situation. If you decide that you would like for more to be done to resolve the conflict, then an often-effective process is to have the court appoint a Parent Facilitator (a neutral, third-party expert) to work with the parents on identifying problems, and implementing solutions.[1]

Court requirements of the Parents

When the court appoints a Parent Facilitator, both parents are Ordered to attend meetings with the Parent Facilitator, and to meaningfully participate in the facilitation process. This is important, because the high-conflict parent will almost certainly resist having anyone else discuss parenting issues with him or her. They usually are convinced that they know best, and anyone trying to discuss parenting with them is “interfering.”  And so, they should be ordered by the court to attend, and to meaningfully participate in that process.

What if One Parent Refuses to Participate?

If one of the parents, usually the high-conflict one, refuses to follow the court’s Order, then what happens? One advantage of a Parent Facilitator over a Parent Coordinator is that the Parent Facilitator will be required to submit reports to the court, which will discuss: his or her efforts to schedule facilitation meetings with the parents; whether progress is being made in those meetings; whether the process should continue, and so on.[2] Knowing that to be the case, both parents usually will be motivated to attend meetings, discuss parenting issues, and work on implimenting solutions, so that the Parent Facilitator’s report will not reflect a lack of participation by that parent (although the high-conflict parent will initially probably “discuss” how the other parent is bad or wrong, and how that other parent should just accept and appreciate the wisdom of the high-conflict parent). The court, of course, has various remedies to mandate that either its Orders are followed, or significant consequences occur, such as a finding of contempt-of court, and/or a change to the Orders pertaining to the parents and child.

When can a Parent Facilitator be Appointed?

The Texas Family Code provides that in order for a court to appoint a Parenting Facilitator, the court must determine that the case is either a high-conflict one, or that there exists good cause for such appointment. And, as with all Orders pertaining to children, the court must find that   that the appointment is in the best interest of the child. This determination by the court may be made following an agreement of the parties presented to the court, or after a hearing is set, and testimony, along with other evidence, is presented to the court.

Conclusion

Today, we discussed the basics of having a neutral, third-party expert, a Parent Facilitator, assist the parties manage their parenting relationship when it is high-conflict. In the next post, we will delve into the specific procedures and techniques used in that process, and what you can expect to occur in Parent Facilitation.

[1] State such as Texas allow judges to make these appointments in certain circumstances (one of those circumstances is when the case is found by the court to be high conflict.

[2] The other difference between the two (2) positions is that a parenting facilitator may also monitor the parties’ compliance with court orders.

Copyright © 2024 Heiman Law Firm. All Rights Reserved. Website by Butler I. T. and Higher ADvantage

Parenting A Child With A High Conflict Ex (Part 3)

Oct 23, 2018 | Child Custody, Divorce, Family Law

When a romantic relationship ends, whether by divorce or otherwise, parents often find that their residual emotions spill over into their dealings with one another as they try to work together to parent their children. This can, obviously, pose difficulties in a shared child custody arrangement. We have previously discussed techniques which you can use to mitigate conflict when attempting to co-parent with someone who cannot, or will not, treat you politely and with respect. A review of those articles (Part 1 and Part 2 of this series) will give context to the information which we are discussing today.

One of the recommended techniques to resolve this conflict is putting in place (ahead of time) a method for resolving parenting disagreements outside of court. That way, disagreements can be resolved relatively quickly, easily, and inexpensively. To be successful, that method must consider, and be respectful of, each parent’s, thoughts, views, and wishes about the decision to be made. It can, then, be supported by the court, if challenged by a disgruntled parent who thinks that he or she should be able to unilaterally make decisions about the child or children.

Examples of decisions which parents might disagree about are educational decisions, such as whether to “hold a child back” in a particular grade for a school year; whether to enroll the child in Advanced classes; which electives a child will take; or, whether to have your child “skip” a grade. Other examples are medical decisions, such as whether to have a child start taking medication, say for ADHD or clinical depression; or to start counseling, or undergo surgery or other medical treatment.

One effective dispute resolution method involves writing into the court order a “tie-breaking” procedure, whereby the parents would present their disagreement to someone whom they have previously agreed is a logical person to weigh-in on the matter at hand. The parents might agree, for example, that if they cannot agree on one or more educational decisions for their child, they will allow the child’s school Principal to cast the tie-breaking vote on the decision, after conferring with the child’s teacher, counselor, nurse, or other personnel relevant to that decision.

Similarly, for medical decisions, the parents might agree in advance, or the judge may order, that the child’s Primary Care Physician will cast the tie-breaking vote regarding these decisions. The doctor would first consult with the child, each parent, and any other relevant healthcare professional (such as a medical specialist), prior to making the decision.

Those professional people casting the tie-breaking votes presumably have the child’s best interests at heart. And, they can look at these decisions through their professional education, training, and experiences, without having to wade through the emotional baggage between the parents. Ideally, this process results in a high likelihood that a reasonable decision will be made for your child.

We have been using these types of tie-breaking procedures for our clients since the 1990’s. Over those many years, we have found that these types of tools often keep high- conflict parents from getting “stuck” when trying to make those important decisions for their child which will, inevitably, arise from time-to-time; and, doing so, without our clients having to rehire us to go back to court over the decision.

When a disagreement on a parenting decision occurs, having a process in place which allows a dispassionate professional person to assist in the decision-making, allows stability for the child to occur.

 We appreciate your attention to this article,and would welcome any questions or comments about it which you may wish to send to us from this website. That is all for now. Plan for potential problems with co-parenting, so that you can keep doing what is the very best for your kids!

Copyright © 2024 Heiman Law Firm. All Rights Reserved. Website by Butler I. T. and Higher ADvantage