Recent Study Reveals That Combat Assignments Increase the Probability of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse By Military Members
A recent study published by The Review of Economics and Statistics concludes that combat assignments increase the probability of intimate partner domestic violence and child abuse by active-duty military members. Resul Cesur of the University of Connecticut Finance Department and Joseph J. Sabia of San Diego State University Department of Economics, claim to have produced the first study to consider the effect of war service on domestic violence. While they admit that several studies exist which explore the effect of war and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder on violent crime in general, they assert that none exist which focus specifically domestic violence. To access the complete study click here.
In their research, the authors looked at the effect of assigning servicemen of identical rank and occupation to combat deployments vs. non-combat deployments. The results indicated that active-duty members who served in combat zones had an increased probability of subsequent domestic violence, as compared to those who were assigned to non-combat areas. In addition, those who served in combat zones also showed a decrease in trust of their partner at home and … Read More... “Domestic Violence Within Military Families Probable Says Study”
As a general rule, the payment of child support and visitation are two completely, separate issues in the eyes of the Court. Visitation rights are granted where it is in the “best interest of the child” to have such in place. They are not dependent upon the amount or payment of child support. Likewise, child support is determined according to the Child Support Guidelines and has very little to do with visitation. As a result, paying child support does not entitle a parent to visitation. And, if a parent has court-ordered visitation, it cannot be withheld because they have failed to pay their child support. However, in a recent case out of New York, the Appeals Court there held that support payments should have been suspended where the child was not required to abide by the ordered visitation schedule.
On September 5th, we posted a blog article about the necessity to be clear and precise in your divorce or dissolution documents if you chose to include a college expense provision. Truthfully, since my two sons have already graduated from college, I have not paid close attention to these escalating costs.
No doubt, in the last few weeks or so, you’ve encountered the name Kim Davis in conversation around the water cooler or dinner table. It is also of little doubt that you’ve confronted staunch opinions regarding the Kentucky clerk of court who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
With the importance of higher education becoming more apparent every day, it is not uncommon for divorcing couples to decide to provide for their children’s college expenses. In Ohio, like many other states, domestic relations courts cannot ordera parent to pay these costs because the duty of support generally ends once a child reaches the age of 18 (or in some situations at 19) . Nevertheless, the parties can negotiate a division of the college expenses and incorporate it into a separation agreement.
Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court held that an individual’s right to marry a person of his or her choice to be a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. This ruling, highly publicized and long-anticipated, sparked expansive debate regarding Same-Sex Marriages across the country as citizens struggled to adapt their personal and professional lives in accordance with the Court’s intent to equally expand the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Not long after, small businesses engaged in the “wedding industry” – perhaps, most notably a bakery in Colorado – announced that due to personal beliefs, they would not extend their services to same-sex couples that wished to marry. Debate and litigation continues to develop as courts begin to unearth whether the personal beliefs of business owners to essentially engage in discrimination violate the Supreme Court’s holding.