Coverage of Genetic Sexual Attraction Case

Ignorance abounds when it comes to Genetic Sexual Attraction, as evidenced by both many of the journalists writing about the Mistie Atkinson case and certainly the people commenting on the stories. Outlets all over the word have covered the story, most just reprinting versions of the same two or three articles. [I am bumping this up because a news outlet decided to print this story as if it just happened.]

Here it is at dailymail.co.uk. The headline?

Mom who made sex tape with son, 16, is jailed for four years... but says it was just a case of 'genetic attraction' after they were reunited after 15 years apart

That makes it sound like she was making a video to show others.

Mistie Rebecca Atkinson, 32, was sentenced to four years and eight months behind bars in Napa County Superior Court, California on Wednesday.

It came after she was found in a Ukiah, California motel room with the 16-year-old boy, who had recorded his mother giving him oral sex on his phone.

 So he recorded it.

Here's the coverage at nydailynews.com.

Here is it at newsone.com.

Here it is at ktvu.com.

Even a site called eastafricanmoviedatabase.com printed the article.

Seamus O'Riley blogged the NY Daily News article.

Here is one of the comments...

equinox displayed complete ignorance of GSA... 

When is a rose not a rose? Incest by any other name smells so sweet. Let's play innocence by semantics today! 

Must be nice to be so sure that nobody else could possibly experience something you haven't.

And there were several comments from people who said she must have intended to assault him from the start. After all, why else would a woman care about seeing the person to whom she gave birth? Ignorance abounds.

Here is the inquisitr.com coverage, and the kolotv.com coverage, and the bossip.com coverage, where she is called crazy. Finally, see this blog for the same sort of thing, where she os called "sicko."

This was most certainly not incest in the sociological sense. She was not the boy's guardian. She did not raise the boy. She should be treated no more harshly than any other 32 year-old woman who does the same things with a 16 year-old boy in the state of California. If anything, the sentences in GSA cases that don't involve violence should be more lenient and focus on counseling.

Read more »

Posted in: California,consanguineous,courts,family reaction,GSA,incest,law,mother-son,myths,prejudice,prosecution,reunion

OMG! Gay Wedding! Boycott!

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is sponsoring a same-sex wedding to take place atop a float in the coming Rose Bowl Parade. And that has some busybodies very upset.

Karen Grube, of San Diego, said the Tournament of Roses should remove the AHF float from the parade. She has also called on corporate sponsors to remove their support of the parade if the wedding goes on as planned. And, she has set up a Facebook page seeking support for her cause. “Gay marriage is illegal in over 30 states, why would they promote something that is blatantly illegal?” Grube said. “That’s just stupid.” The 2014 Rose Parade is the first where gay marriage has been legal in California, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that deemed Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Grube also said she didn’t think the Tournament should be involved in a group’s “political agenda.” “It used to be a family thing, to get up on New Year’s Day morning and watch the parade,” she said. “It no longer is.”

Here's the Facebook page for the boycott.

Read more »

Posted in: California,gay weddings,religion,Rose Bowl Parade

Dear Utah, Love California

Via Memeographs.

Read more »

Posted in: California,LDS,religion,Utah

Six Californias

The drive to break up California is reaching new heights of crazy with the Six Californias website, which features little more than the above graphic and an email contact. Still, the site is being excitedly passed around in Teabagistan.  Today the Verge tells us that the Six Californias plan is the brainchild of venture capitalist Tim Draper:

While the state of Silicon Valley hires more overseas engineers, Draper imagines, a new "South California" could simultaneously crack down on immigration. "West California" could cater laws to Hollywood and defense contractors, and "Central California" could focus on farming and water rights without city slickers getting in the way. But Draper is serious about the idea. He believes he can get the the proposal on California's ballot next November. The venture capitalist already submitted a five-page proposal to the California Attorney General, and he hopes to embark on a grassroots campaign to raise the nearly one-million signatures it would require to put the idea to a preliminary vote next year. At a press conference on Monday, he joked that he would spend "as little as possible" of his own money on the campaign, but suggested that he would personally fund the first step. "I will make sure it gets on the ballot," he told reporters in attendance.

Would San Francisco be the capital of the state of Silicon Valley? Mountain View?

Read more »

Posted in: California,crazy people,secession

California Takes LGBTP-Friendly Step Forward

In a move that may help some LGBT parents, polyamorous parents, people who use reproductive technologies, divorced parents and stepparents, and others, California took a step forward by legislatively enacting a policy that will allow children more than two legal parents. You may recall that there was a court decision elsewhere that effectively did something similar to this legislation. A friend of FME first alerted me to this news, and I know other blogs have been covering it. Here's what was reported by Patrick McGreevy and Melanie Mason at latimes.com...

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Friday that will allow children in California to have more than two legal parents, a measure opposed by some conservative groups as an attack on the traditional family.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said he authored the measure to address the changes in family structure in California, including situations in which same-sex couples have a child with an opposite-sex biological parent.

The law will allow the courts to recognize three or more legal parents so that custody and financial responsibility can be shared by all those involved in raising a child, Leno said.

Awesome. California should keep evolving and adopt the polyamorous and polygamous freedom to marry ASAP. If a child has three legal parents, and they all want to enter into a marriage, why not?

Read more »

Posted in: California,children,law,LGBT,polyamory

California Takes LGBTP-Friendly Step Forward

In a move that may help some LGBT parents, polyamorous parents, people who use reproductive technologies, divorced parents and stepparents, and others, California took a step forward by legislatively enacting a policy that will allow children more than two legal parents. You may recall that there was a court decision elsewhere that effectively did something similar to this legislation. A friend of FME first alerted me to this news, and I know other blogs have been covering it. Here's what was reported by Patrick McGreevy and Melanie Mason at latimes.com...

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Friday that will allow children in California to have more than two legal parents, a measure opposed by some conservative groups as an attack on the traditional family.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said he authored the measure to address the changes in family structure in California, including situations in which same-sex couples have a child with an opposite-sex biological parent.

The law will allow the courts to recognize three or more legal parents so that custody and financial responsibility can be shared by all those involved in raising a child, Leno said.

Awesome. California should keep evolving and adopt the polyamorous and polygamous freedom to marry ASAP. If a child has three legal parents, and they all want to enter into a marriage, why not?

Read more »

Posted in: California,children,law,LGBT,polyamory

SCOTUS Gives Victories on Marriage

The Supreme Court of the United States has given victories on marriage, although just about the weakest possible. They issued decisions on the federal DOMA, which denied equal treatment to same-gender marriages under federal law, and California's Proposition 8 (Prop H8). DOMA is dead! In the PropH8 case, they decided those defending the discrimination didn't have standing to defend it.

The basic gist is that progress was made, but the Court did not recognize that there is a right for an adult to marry any and all consenting adults, or even that a gay or lesbian person has a right to the limited same-gender freedom to marry.

So, congratulations to all who will now have their marriage treated equally under federal law & to Californians who will again have the  freedom to marry the person they love. But we must remember there are still many people in many states who are denied their right to marry the person or persons they love.

We will keep fighting to make sure all adults have relationship rights, including full marriage equality, sooner rather than later.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,California,courts,DOMA,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,Proposition 8,same-sex,USA

SCOTUS Gives Victories on Marriage

The Supreme Court of the United States has given victories on marriage, although just about the weakest possible. They issued decisions on the federal DOMA, which denied equal treatment to same-gender marriages under federal law, and California's Proposition 8 (Prop H8). DOMA is dead! In the PropH8 case, they decided those defending the discrimination didn't have standing to defend it.

The basic gist is that progress was made, but the Court did not recognize that there is a right for an adult to marry any and all consenting adults, or even that a gay or lesbian person has a right to the limited same-gender freedom to marry.

So, congratulations to all who will now have their marriage treated equally under federal law & to Californians who will again have the  freedom to marry the person they love. But we must remember there are still many people in many states who are denied their right to marry the person or persons they love.

We will keep fighting to make sure all adults have relationship rights, including full marriage equality, sooner rather than later.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,California,courts,DOMA,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,Proposition 8,same-sex,USA

Harvey Milk Day

May 22 is Harvey Milk Day. In California, the day was established in 2009 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Milk was a politician who became the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Milk served almost 11 months in office,  passing an important gay rights ordinance for the city. On November 27, 1978, Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White, another city supervisor.

We don't make progress in the fight for civil rights without courageous and motivated people like Harvey Milk.

Read more »

Posted in: California,LGBT,politicians

SCOTUS Hears Same Sex Marriage Cases Today

We've been watching the gay-marriage case, Hollingsworth v Perry, for two years; here's a link to our first post detailing case.  Two well-funded homosexual couples from California, one gay, one lesbian, challenged California's proposition 8 in federal court back in 2008, and the case finally will be orally argued tomorrow at the SCOTUS.

Their lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies of Bush v Gore fame, are well-suited to the task of bringing the couples' privacy-based arguments to the Supreme Court.  Olson was Solicitor General under President Bush; he appears to have changed his stripes for this one.

Since that original post, two other consolidated federal cases have made their way through the federal court system and will be argued before the SCOTUS on Wednesday.  United States v Windsor challenges the denial of federal benefits for gay couples under the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].

As many as 17 states have filed amicus briefs in opposition to gay marriage.  Court watchers are bracing for a seminal ruling along the order of the High Court's Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Others say, "not so fast."  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one such voice.  She has made a series of public comments lately critical of such sweeping decisions; they go too far too fast says Ginsburg.

A less judicially active approach in the Roe v Wade would have been to strike down the Texas anti-abortion law on an "as applied" basis, but leaving the broader constitutional questions to be determined on a state-by-state basis.  Of course, this is not what the Roe v Wade Court did; the political and cultural fall-out continues to this day.

Considering possible outcomes in the gay-marriage cases being argued today, the post-modern SCOTUS faces the choice of invalidating California's Proposition 8, and if they do, whether they do so in a broad or narrow fashion.  Expect concurring and dissenting opinions; perhaps even a plurality decision which, by its nature, has a less-binding effect on subsequent courts.

Either way, we will keep our readers posted when the decision is announced at some point in June like we did when New York legalized same-sex marriage in June of 2011.  The results from these cases will be important to Michigan which, like California, passed a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be a status limited to heterosexual couples.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: 14th Amendment,California,David Boies,Hollingsworth v Perry,Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Proposition 8,Roe v Wade,same-sex marriage,SCOTUS,Ted Olson,Texas,United States v Windsor

Down with H8 - Up With Marriage Equality For All

With so many people filing papers with the US Supreme Court to argue against DOMA and Prop H8, I wanted to bump up this old entry because it is still relevant...




It is almost time for closing arguments in the trail against California Proposition 8, or “H8”. In the Washington Post, John D. Podesta and Robert A. Levy express their hope that a federal court will overturn Proposition 8. They write about gay couples, and I agree that gay couples should have the freedom to marry. However, I am disappointed that they do not express concern for other people looking for marriage equality.

Although we serve, respectively, as president of a progressive and chairman of a libertarian think tank, we are not joining the foundation's advisory board to present a "bipartisan" front. Rather, we have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation's character. This is not about politics; it's about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.

I agree, and that is why we need full marriage quality.

As the country evolved, the meaning of one small word -- "all" -- has evolved as well. Our nation's Founders reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence the self-evident truth that "all Men are created equal," and our Pledge of Allegiance concludes with the simple and definitive words "liberty and justice for all." Still, we have struggled mightily since our independence, often through our courts, to ensure that liberty and justice is truly available to all Americans.

All should mean all.

Our history will soon be written by young people who are seizing the reins from the baby boomers. They seem prepared to reject laws that serve no purpose other than to deny two committed and loving individuals the right to join in a mutually reinforcing marital relationship.

I agree with this, except for the unnecessary restriction of “two.” Committed and loving individuals, no matter how many, regardless of gender or blood relation, should have the right to marriage. How about showing some solidarity? While Kris Perry and Sandy Stier should be able to marry and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo should be able to marry, so should Linda, Melissa, and Matthew. Let’s fight so that all of them will get the right to marry. Do not participate in the oppression of triads, groups, sibling couples, parent-adult child couples, and others who should have the right to marry.

Read more »

Posted in: California,courts,freedom to marry,law,marriage equality,Proposition 8,solidarity

Down with H8 - Up With Marriage Equality For All

With so many people filing papers with the US Supreme Court to argue against DOMA and Prop H8, I wanted to bump up this old entry because it is still relevant...




It is almost time for closing arguments in the trail against California Proposition 8, or “H8”. In the Washington Post, John D. Podesta and Robert A. Levy express their hope that a federal court will overturn Proposition 8. They write about gay couples, and I agree that gay couples should have the freedom to marry. However, I am disappointed that they do not express concern for other people looking for marriage equality.

Although we serve, respectively, as president of a progressive and chairman of a libertarian think tank, we are not joining the foundation's advisory board to present a "bipartisan" front. Rather, we have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation's character. This is not about politics; it's about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.

I agree, and that is why we need full marriage quality.

As the country evolved, the meaning of one small word -- "all" -- has evolved as well. Our nation's Founders reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence the self-evident truth that "all Men are created equal," and our Pledge of Allegiance concludes with the simple and definitive words "liberty and justice for all." Still, we have struggled mightily since our independence, often through our courts, to ensure that liberty and justice is truly available to all Americans.

All should mean all.

Our history will soon be written by young people who are seizing the reins from the baby boomers. They seem prepared to reject laws that serve no purpose other than to deny two committed and loving individuals the right to join in a mutually reinforcing marital relationship.

I agree with this, except for the unnecessary restriction of “two.” Committed and loving individuals, no matter how many, regardless of gender or blood relation, should have the right to marriage. How about showing some solidarity? While Kris Perry and Sandy Stier should be able to marry and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo should be able to marry, so should Linda, Melissa, and Matthew. Let’s fight so that all of them will get the right to marry. Do not participate in the oppression of triads, groups, sibling couples, parent-adult child couples, and others who should have the right to marry.

Read more »

Posted in: California,courts,freedom to marry,law,marriage equality,Proposition 8,solidarity

Old Article on Possible GSA Criminal Case

I recently followed a link (can't remember who provided the link... bad blogger, bad blogger) to a news article from way back in the previous millennium (1999) of interest to this blog. It is by Scott Winokur and Tyche Hendricks at sfgate.com and reports from Antioch, California.

An Antioch woman and her 23-year-old son allegedly had an openly sexual relationship that produced a child and another pregnancy and have been charged with incest under a law that could put them in state prison for up to three years.

Three years in prison for having consensual sex with another adult?

Robert Kochly, assistant chief district attorney in Contra Costa County, said Saturday the woman, who is 43, and her son not only haven't denied their alleged relationship, but are defiant about it.

"It is a strange case. This mother and son have taken up as a married couple and she had siblings of his living in the home with her," Kochly said.

The pregnant woman, being held in lieu of $50,000 bail at the West County Justice Center in Richmond, is scheduled to appear in court this week.

Yes, jail a pregnant 43-year-old for the "crime" of having sex. Makes sense, right?

Her son fled with the couple's toddler and two of the woman's other children - his half brothers - ages 13 and 16, according to Deputy District Attorney Paul Sequiera, who is handling the case.

Sequiera said police had several leads on the young man's whereabouts and he was optimistic they would find him within the next few days.

Well, yeah, if law enforcement was going to break up the family, I could see why he'd flee.

According to Sequiera, the man was removed from his mother's custody when he was no more than 5 years old and raised primarily by his grandmother.

The man sought out his mother when he was 18, authorities said, and eventually began living with her.

I did not read this article when I started this blog entry. So this sounds like a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction.

A girl, now 22 months old, was born to the pair, and the woman is pregnant with a second child by her son, Sequiera said.

This is how law enforcement got involved...

The woman's children also include an adult daughter who is a full sister to the 23-year-old son, and a 10-year-old daughter, fathered by another man who also is the father of the two teenage boys.

Kochly said the case came to authorities' attention when the 10-year-old girl told school officials about her mother's relationship.

The girl allegedly was encouraged by her mother to call her half brother "Daddy."

"She just didn't want to go home anymore," Kochly said.

Was she abused/neglected? Probably not, because no mention is made of that. Instead, it could have been a 10-year-old who doesn't like having a grown up half-sister, two teen brothers, a toddler, and a baby on the way to her home. She wouldn't have been the first girl that age to not want to live with that situation. But most who say they don't want to go home because of it are told "tough."

According to police reports, relatives told authorities the mother and son have been romantically involved for several years, sleeping in the same room and showering together.

And the problem is??? There isn't a problem.

Sequiera said he has never seen a similar case in the 15 years he has worked in the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office.

People who are happy with their home life usually don't contact law enforcement to put that home life in jeopardy.

He added the office generally does not prosecute sex crimes between consenting adults.

"We quit being moral police a long time ago," he said.

Good. Consensual sex should not be a crime in the first place.

"The reason I decided to prosecute was because they had a child and another on the way. It's not really a victimless crime anymore. There's a reason it's against the law, because birth defects go up 10 times."

That number was pulled out from a certain dark place in the anatomy.

Now read this very carefully...

Sequiera said there is some indication from relatives that the toddler may suffer from physical and mental handicaps.

"What's going to make my decision on what position we take in the case is whether that 2-year-old has birth defects," he said. "If they sentenced that child to a life with a handicap, that's something different."

I hope the defense was able to use that statement, because it is outrageous. Whether or not a parent is going to be prosecuted depends on if their child has "birth defects" or not?!? It is legal for another couple to have sex and children even if they have four children already and all of them have birth defects. Where's the equality? If the toddler did have challenges, it could have been due to any number of factors, including the age of the mother.


STOP THE PRESSES! I was about to publish this when I found a subsequent article from the same website, from 2001 (so about a year and a half to two years later), written by Charlie Goodyear.

An Antioch woman and her adult son whose incestuous relationship resulted in a child are accused of violating terms of their probation for convictions of child endangerment last year.

Probation, eh? What terrible thing did they do to violate probation?

The unusual case was reopened after the county Social Services Department reported receiving a taped phone message in December in which the 45-year-old woman and her son, 24, were discussing custody options for their 3-year-old daughter, conceived through the illegal relationship. Officials believe the defendants were together while the call was made to the county department.

"Somebody heard the message and was convinced it was the guy's voice in the background," said prosecutor Paul Sequiera.

Oh, no! You mean two adults might have been in the same room, discussing their daughter?!? Horrible!

The Chronicle has not identified the defendants in order to protect the privacy of the girl and five other minor children belonging to the woman. All of the children have been placed in foster care.

Why???

Although incest charges are rarely filed in California, prosecutors decided they had to act because the illegal relationship produced a child.

But when authorities learned last year that the child was not suffering from any long-term genetic disability, the defendants were allowed to plead no contest to child endangerment charges.

The only thing endangering the children from what I can tell is taking them away from their parents and putting them in foster care.

As part of the plea, they were sentenced to two years in state prison. That term was suspended by Lindenbaum, who agreed to place the defendants on five years probation with an order that they stay away from each other.

Ridiculous. Let's follow the reasoning here for a moment. It's illegal for them to have sex because they are genetic mother and son, and they are "supposed" to have a different kind of relationship. So what happens? They are ordered to have no relationship whatsoever. Now the daughter does not get to have her parents together because of some outsiders ordering that. So tell me again about how family relationships are supposed to be? The children are taken away and placed in foster care, which is what happened to the grown man when he was a child, putting at least some of them in circumstances where they may end up experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction, too! Although, fewer people know about GSA back then.

Why couldn't they have just been left alone?

Lawyers said the judge was unlikely to send either defendant to prison for violating a stay-away order unless the conduct had caused harm to the girl.

"Basically, Judge Lindenbaum's attitude is that these people better not do anything that negatively impacts the kid," said defense attorney Stuart Willis, who represents the son.

Uh, you mean like taking her away from her parents because they have consensual sex with each other?

Willis said his client has not been living with his mother. Both defendants sat in different rows of the courtroom audience and did not look at one another while waiting for their case to be called, lawyers said.

Contra Costa Deputy Public Defender Paul Mariano said county officials dislike his client and were eager to report her to the probation department for any violation, however minor.

"They were morally offended by the nature of the offense," Mariano said. "But Judge Lindenbaum treated it appropriately."

They should have been left alone. This is yet another example of why full marriage equality is needed sooner rather than later.

I don't know what the outcome was all of this. Perhaps some research would provide more information? It is difficult without names. I hope it turned out well for the entire family. If anyone recognizes this case and wants to update me, feel free to comment or to send me email at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,breaking up homes,California,children,consanguineous,courts,family reaction,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,love,media,mother-son,pregnancy,prosecution,reunion

Old Article on Possible GSA Criminal Case

I recently followed a link (can't remember who provided the link... bad blogger, bad blogger) to a news article from way back in the previous millennium (1999) of interest to this blog. It is by Scott Winokur and Tyche Hendricks at sfgate.com and reports from Antioch, California.

An Antioch woman and her 23-year-old son allegedly had an openly sexual relationship that produced a child and another pregnancy and have been charged with incest under a law that could put them in state prison for up to three years.

Three years in prison for having consensual sex with another adult?

Robert Kochly, assistant chief district attorney in Contra Costa County, said Saturday the woman, who is 43, and her son not only haven't denied their alleged relationship, but are defiant about it.

"It is a strange case. This mother and son have taken up as a married couple and she had siblings of his living in the home with her," Kochly said.

The pregnant woman, being held in lieu of $50,000 bail at the West County Justice Center in Richmond, is scheduled to appear in court this week.

Yes, jail a pregnant 43-year-old for the "crime" of having sex. Makes sense, right?

Her son fled with the couple's toddler and two of the woman's other children - his half brothers - ages 13 and 16, according to Deputy District Attorney Paul Sequiera, who is handling the case.

Sequiera said police had several leads on the young man's whereabouts and he was optimistic they would find him within the next few days.

Well, yeah, if law enforcement was going to break up the family, I could see why he'd flee.

According to Sequiera, the man was removed from his mother's custody when he was no more than 5 years old and raised primarily by his grandmother.

The man sought out his mother when he was 18, authorities said, and eventually began living with her.

I did not read this article when I started this blog entry. So this sounds like a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction.

A girl, now 22 months old, was born to the pair, and the woman is pregnant with a second child by her son, Sequiera said.

This is how law enforcement got involved...

The woman's children also include an adult daughter who is a full sister to the 23-year-old son, and a 10-year-old daughter, fathered by another man who also is the father of the two teenage boys.

Kochly said the case came to authorities' attention when the 10-year-old girl told school officials about her mother's relationship.

The girl allegedly was encouraged by her mother to call her half brother "Daddy."

"She just didn't want to go home anymore," Kochly said.

Was she abused/neglected? Probably not, because no mention is made of that. Instead, it could have been a 10-year-old who doesn't like having a grown up half-sister, two teen brothers, a toddler, and a baby on the way to her home. She wouldn't have been the first girl that age to not want to live with that situation. But most who say they don't want to go home because of it are told "tough."

According to police reports, relatives told authorities the mother and son have been romantically involved for several years, sleeping in the same room and showering together.

And the problem is??? There isn't a problem.

Sequiera said he has never seen a similar case in the 15 years he has worked in the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office.

People who are happy with their home life usually don't contact law enforcement to put that home life in jeopardy.

He added the office generally does not prosecute sex crimes between consenting adults.

"We quit being moral police a long time ago," he said.

Good. Consensual sex should not be a crime in the first place.

"The reason I decided to prosecute was because they had a child and another on the way. It's not really a victimless crime anymore. There's a reason it's against the law, because birth defects go up 10 times."

That number was pulled out from a certain dark place in the anatomy.

Now read this very carefully...

Sequiera said there is some indication from relatives that the toddler may suffer from physical and mental handicaps.

"What's going to make my decision on what position we take in the case is whether that 2-year-old has birth defects," he said. "If they sentenced that child to a life with a handicap, that's something different."

I hope the defense was able to use that statement, because it is outrageous. Whether or not a parent is going to be prosecuted depends on if their child has "birth defects" or not?!? It is legal for another couple to have sex and children even if they have four children already and all of them have birth defects. Where's the equality? If the toddler did have challenges, it could have been due to any number of factors, including the age of the mother.


STOP THE PRESSES! I was about to publish this when I found a subsequent article from the same website, from 2001 (so about a year and a half to two years later), written by Charlie Goodyear.

An Antioch woman and her adult son whose incestuous relationship resulted in a child are accused of violating terms of their probation for convictions of child endangerment last year.

Probation, eh? What terrible thing did they do to violate probation?

The unusual case was reopened after the county Social Services Department reported receiving a taped phone message in December in which the 45-year-old woman and her son, 24, were discussing custody options for their 3-year-old daughter, conceived through the illegal relationship. Officials believe the defendants were together while the call was made to the county department.

"Somebody heard the message and was convinced it was the guy's voice in the background," said prosecutor Paul Sequiera.

Oh, no! You mean two adults might have been in the same room, discussing their daughter?!? Horrible!

The Chronicle has not identified the defendants in order to protect the privacy of the girl and five other minor children belonging to the woman. All of the children have been placed in foster care.

Why???

Although incest charges are rarely filed in California, prosecutors decided they had to act because the illegal relationship produced a child.

But when authorities learned last year that the child was not suffering from any long-term genetic disability, the defendants were allowed to plead no contest to child endangerment charges.

The only thing endangering the children from what I can tell is taking them away from their parents and putting them in foster care.

As part of the plea, they were sentenced to two years in state prison. That term was suspended by Lindenbaum, who agreed to place the defendants on five years probation with an order that they stay away from each other.

Ridiculous. Let's follow the reasoning here for a moment. It's illegal for them to have sex because they are genetic mother and son, and they are "supposed" to have a different kind of relationship. So what happens? They are ordered to have no relationship whatsoever. Now the daughter does not get to have her parents together because of some outsiders ordering that. So tell me again about how family relationships are supposed to be? The children are taken away and placed in foster care, which is what happened to the grown man when he was a child, putting at least some of them in circumstances where they may end up experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction, too! Although, fewer people know about GSA back then.

Why couldn't they have just been left alone?

Lawyers said the judge was unlikely to send either defendant to prison for violating a stay-away order unless the conduct had caused harm to the girl.

"Basically, Judge Lindenbaum's attitude is that these people better not do anything that negatively impacts the kid," said defense attorney Stuart Willis, who represents the son.

Uh, you mean like taking her away from her parents because they have consensual sex with each other?

Willis said his client has not been living with his mother. Both defendants sat in different rows of the courtroom audience and did not look at one another while waiting for their case to be called, lawyers said.

Contra Costa Deputy Public Defender Paul Mariano said county officials dislike his client and were eager to report her to the probation department for any violation, however minor.

"They were morally offended by the nature of the offense," Mariano said. "But Judge Lindenbaum treated it appropriately."

They should have been left alone. This is yet another example of why full marriage equality is needed sooner rather than later.

I don't know what the outcome was all of this. Perhaps some research would provide more information? It is difficult without names. I hope it turned out well for the entire family. If anyone recognizes this case and wants to update me, feel free to comment or to send me email at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,breaking up homes,California,children,consanguineous,courts,family reaction,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,love,media,mother-son,pregnancy,prosecution,reunion

Automated Vehicles and the Motor Vehicle Code

According to Bryant Walker Smith, a fellow at Stanford's Center for the Internet and Society, automated vehicles have been "just 20-years away" since the 1930s.  Lately, however, data giant, Google, and some of the OEMs have started taking the concept seriously.

So serious, in fact, that automated vehicles are now out there folks. 

This has led Mr. Smith to publish a comprehensive study on the legalities of automated vehicles.  Smith concludes that, although automated vehicles are "probably" legal from the national regulatory prespective of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, state laws will "complicate" the transition to automated vehicles.

Why automated vehicles anyway?  Many motorists enjoy, at least to some extent, the driving process.  Smith's answers are: safety and saved lives.  If done correctly, there are also long-term cost savings embedded into the notion of automated vehicles; savings of fuel and time.

Smith's comprehensive study takes a detailed look at the three states [California, of course, Florida, and Nevada] that already have included "automated vehicle" provisions in their motor vehicle codes.  The study even includes a comprehensive model bill for progressive state legislators to consider.  Apparently, New Jersey, Arizona, Hawaii (?), Oklahoma, and the District of Colombia all have bills under active consideration.

One legal issue that comes to our simple mind over here at the Law Blogger is the actus reus [i.e. intentional bad act] requirement that a criminal law must contain to pass constitutional muster.  While we do understand the philosophy behind the "implied consent" concept underpinning many provisions of a motor vehicle code, we are compelled to ask, can a human be cited for acts undertaken by a machine?

This could be a small town lawyer's dream.  Imagine the cornucopia of defenses available for any potential automated motor vehicle code.  And if the legislatures go the "strict liability" route, the deep thinking consitutional lawyers will be well-fed.

Also, we cannot forget the product liability inquiry of who is responsible when [not if] something goes wrong, and someone is injured or killed.  Automated vehicles, if they proliferate, will produce a brand new branch of products liability tort law.

It will be interesting to see how far these fancy cars get along the respective legislative highways of the fifty states.  One thing is for sure: the process has begun.

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: automated vehicle,California,Google,lawyer,motor vehicle code,strict liability,tort

Family Court and Medical Marijuana

With so many folks, er, "medicating" themselves with prescription pot, you just had to see this one coming: the collision between medical marijuana and the family courts.

A California appeals court has ruled that a medical marijuana using father of a toddler is no longer required to exercise his parenting time under supervision.  The lower court found that father's use of pot placed the child at risk of "serious physical harm or illness".

The family had long been on the radar of Los Angeles County's Department of Children and Family Services.  During their investigation, DCFS interviewed father, a cement mason, who admitted to using medical marijuana for his pain and arthritis, but also stated that he never used marijuana around his toddler son.

DCFS authorized a case in the LA County family court alleging that father's legal use of marijuana rendered him occasionally incapable of  providing care for his then 18-month old child; the family court  agreed.

But not the California Court of Appeals, which held that the DCFS presented a mere scintilla of evidence, relying on inferences that amounted to speculation and conjecture regarding the correlation between the safety of the child and father's pot use.  Further, the intermediate appellate court found that DCFS failed to provide any evidence that father was unable to care for his son due to substance abuse.

The Court of Appeals' opinion is legally significant as it makes a distinction between substance use and abuse, defining the latter pursuant to the DSM-IV-TR, which defines substance abuse as:

[a] maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period: (1) recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household); (2) recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use); (3) recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct); and (4) continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights). (See DSM-IV-TR, at p. 199.)

In the California case, the DCFS simply did not make this showing.  In fact, the appeals court noted that the opposite was the case; the father was gainfully employed, had a legitimate reason to use pot, and controlled his use, keeping the substance and his use of it away from his child.

We here at the Law Blogger wonder how long it will take before such a case percolates through the court system here in Michigan, resulting in a  published and thus binding decision.  We have had the occasion to represent parents accused by the other parent of using medical marijuana during their parenting time to the detriment of the children.

In Michigan, the medical marijuana act provides some guidance in this regard:

A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated

This is a drama-laden issue to be sure.  Stay tuned for guaranteed future developments.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: California,child custody,family court,medical marijuana,parenting time,supervised parenting time

Medical Marijuana: The Feds Strike Back

Even as Connecticut became the 17th state to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes last week, the DEA continues to bring the heat on some of the more visible pot crusaders across the country.  The latest to be busted is Richard Lee of Oaksterdam University fame in Oakland, California.

Despite assurances from the U.S. Department of Justice early in the Obama administration that enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act would not be a law-enforcement priority, in April the DEA capped a mounting campaign to arrest dispensary owners across California, Colorado, and Montana.  Many dispensary owners claim to have received letters from the DEA threatening criminal prosecution if the businesses do not cease and desist.

What has changed since the Ogden memo of October 2009, when Obama's DOJ signaled it would leave marijuana enforcement to the states?

One explanation is that when it came to dispensing marijuana, medicinally or otherwise, some folks started to make money; big money.  This led to the DOJ's so-called Cole memo last spring, which sought to "clarify" the previous memorandum, and which provided a mandate to U.S. Attorneys to vigorously prosecute marijuana distributors and to "follow-the-money".

Strong voices in the pot lobby are crying foul, suggesting that operators within the DOJ [particularly in California and Colorado] are acting on their own, ignoring the official White House script on this issue.  For their part, some of the medical marijuana states are seeking an end to this chaos; bi-partisan legislators from five of those states signed an open letter to President Obama requesting that the DEA not interfere with their respective medical marijuana laws.

Well folks, because this is a presidential election year, don't look for the Chief to weigh in decisively on this one anytime soon.  For a glimpse into the mind of the voting public, you can peruse the 100+ comments to an article in the Economist on this subject.  Some excellent points on both sides of the issue are made in the forum.

No wonder Mr. Lee is calling it quits out in California at Oaksterdam; he obviously doesn't want to do a dime in the federal penitentiary as all this gets sorted out.  We here at the Law Blogger will, of course, keep you posted; we've been tracking this issue since 2008.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: California,Cole memo,Colorado,Connecticut,medical marijuana,Oaksterdam University,Ogden memo,President Obama,The Economist

New York Becomes 6th State to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage; California Next?

Albany, New York.  Last night, in a 33-29 vote, the New York Senate passed a same sex marriage bill expected to be signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo.  When this bill is signed by the governor, who lobbied for its passage, New York becomes the sixth state to legalize gay marriage.

A similar bill was defeated in New York in 2009.  The governor's persistent lobbying; some key Republican donors; an essentially absent Catholic Church; and voting senators that had gay family members, all factored into passage of the bill late Friday night.

Meanwhile, on the left coast, the seminal case from California continues its epic journey to the SCOTUS.  Perry vs Brown (formerly known as Perry vs Schwarzenegger) involves California's passage of Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage after it previously passed muster with California voters.  A conservative group sued in federal court; the ban was struck down, and the federal trial court's decision is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Vaughn Walker, the now-retired federal court judge that initially struck down Proposition 8, publicly came out as a gay man only after his recent retirement.  His ruling was immediately challenged based on grounds of bias, becoming the first judge in history to be challenged for recusal on the basis of sexual orientation.  The chief judge of the federal bench in San Francisco upheld Judge Walker's ruling.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Colombia are jurisdictions that all have previously legalized same sex marriage.

This has become the civil rights issue of our time.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: California,civil rights,gay marriage,Judge Vaughn Walker,New York,Perry v Brown,same-sex marriage,SCOTUS

SCOTUS Orders the Release of More than 45k California Felons

Photo Credit: LA Times

In a hotly contested 5-4 plurality decision that will surely go down as one of the more controversial cases of this decade, SCOTUS affirmed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in ordering the release of more than 45,000 California felons.  The decision will precipitate the largest release of prisoners in American history.

Brown v Plata began it's marathon crawl through the federal court system in 1990, when a case was filed challenging the poor status of mental health treatment in the California prisons.  Then in 2001, a companion case challenging the medical care of prisoners was initiated.

These consolidated cases have everything, from a procedural standpoint.  For example, a "special master" first was appointed by the federal court to make findings about the prison conditions.  The State of California stipulated to violations of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and agreed to remedy the problem by reducing overcrowding in the prisons.  Next, when remedial measures fell short, or did not occur, the court appointed a receiver to oversee the California Department of Corrections.

The cases were even assigned to a special three-judge panel to oversee the CDC's progress; or lack thereof.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority's opinion, finding that prison conditions had gone too far for too long.  The opinion provides a few slices of life in the CDC like sharing a toilet with 55 of your good buddies, or doing your entire four-year bit in a sweaty gymnasium. 

The always-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia opined that the majority's decision was "absurd", noting that SCOTUS routinely overruled 9th Circuit decisions that called for the release of individual prisoners.  Justice Scalia sees grave problems that will come home to roost from the Plata ruling.

In a separate dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the majority's decision conflicts with a federal law which prohibits judges from releasing prisoners.

The one thing SCOTUS gave the State of California was time.  California has busied itself with transferring thousands of state prisoners to county jails across the state.  This will not amelioriate the entire problem, however, and some of California's "happy-go-lucky" [Scalia's characterization] felons will wind up on the streets.

This High Court decision brings into focus the inherent tension between our individual freedoms and enforcement of the laws.  There is a constant tension between the two concepts.  Sometimes, that tension cycles to the breaking point like in California, where too many law breakers are stuffed into concrete boxes that are ready to explode.

In Michigan, although we are far behind California in maxing-out our prison capacity, we have an awful lot of population encased in concrete and barbed wire.  In fact, we have the opposite problem.  Due to budget cuts, we have at least one brand new facility, in Lake County, sitting empty due to lack of funding.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: California,California Department of Corrections,Chief Justice John Roberts,constitution,cruel and unusual punishment,eighth amendment,Justice Antonin Scalia,prison,prisoners,SCOTUS

Lake County to Absorb 2500 California Felons

In 1998, the Michigan Department of Corrections opened the Michigan Youth Correctional Facility in Baldwin, Michigan; right smack in the middle of the Manistee National Forest in Lake County.  The facility, known as the “punk prison”, closed in 2005 and was subsequently sold to GEO Group, Inc., a Texas-based conglomerate.

Lake County has suffered unemployment as high as 20% as a direct result of mothballing the youth facility.  The situation is about to change, however, due to California’s chronic prison overcrowding.

This blog has been tracking the landmark prison overcrowding case recently argued before the SCOTUS.  In a proactive effort to alleviate the situation, California recently contracted with the GEO Group to house more than 2500 inmates in the newly-renovated facility.  

California’s contract with GEO is worth a reported 60-million per year to the private detention management services company.  The contract begins in 2011 and runs through 2014.  Given California’s fiscal woes, you have to wonder how they can afford it.

Nevertheless, Lake County Michigan is ready to absorb the collateral benefits associated with accepting thousands of Californian felons, expecting to add as many as 500 jobs to the local economy.

This development hammers home the idea that in our democratic society, the constant tension between law and freedom results in a massive resource allocation for prisons, jails and law enforcement apparatus.

So when you are driving Up North this summer along M-37, just remember not to pick-up any hitchhikers.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Baldwin,California,GEO Group,inmate,Lake County,law enforcement,MDOC,Michigan Department of Corrections,overcrowding,prison,SCOTUS