Jane Doe is a fictional divorce, and for most divorce lawyers, his game sounds familiar. Her husband, John Doe, has repeatedly and mediocrely nicknamed Jane's youngest daughter to provide primary accommodation care. He claims to cook for most of their daughters. Eat, wash clothes, read to them... The fabricated list continues. Few witnesses can object to him because he maintains a convincing appearance for his family and friends. The only third-party witness who knew the truth was the client and daughter, and Jane Doe's lawyer refused to provide these things to young girls. witness. Her lawyer said, "Children's testimony is usually unacceptable."
Like many divorced parents, Jane Doe may have lost her custody because her lawyers did not know that recent legal developments opened the door for children to testify. In 2010, the Supreme Court of Washington in the State v. SJW case, 170 Wn.2d 92 clarified that children can be presumed to testify in court. As the court wrote: "In a particular case, a six-year-old child...may be more capable than another adult to testify; no court should assume that a child is incapable of giving evidence based on age... ...[W] e believes that the court should assume that all witnesses are eligible to testify, regardless of their age. "The court smeared its opinion in comparable federal law.
At the 2011 Law on Evidence-Based Evidence-Based Legal Education in Snohomish County, commentator Carl Grange said that witnesses over the age of four are often able to weather the challenges of Washington's competitiveness. One spectator member said responsibly that if the lawyer tried to file a statement from an older child, then there would be no family law in the Snohomish County "the Commissioner would leave a dignified lawyer". Other participants shared the reservations made by the voice viewers on the child's testimony. Clear practical and public policy issues give local courts and practitioners sufficient reasons to avoid child testimony, especially at family law hearings where the parties submit evidence through a statement.
However, the SJW case, Federal Law and Tegland's comments indicate that the perceived value of child testimony is overcoming many of the other provisions and jurisprudence. Utah lawyer Eric Johnson wrote the following for his child deposits: "The real reason people don't want their children to deposit is because they are young, later lacking experience and childish, smart and avoiding It's much more difficult. People who don't want their children to store their belongings will damage the situation of those who oppose the child's deposition because their testimony often has real evidence.
Good or bad, the testimony of trying to provide young children is coming soon. Divorce lawyers in Snohomish and Washington states should be prepared.
Orignal From: Child Witness in Family Law: Use of Child Witness Divorce Cases in Snohomish County, Washington State
No comments:
Post a Comment