That was addressed recently by the Mississippi Court of Appeals in the case of Jones v. Jones. The Jones court decided that guardians ad litem may not give an opinion on a topic that requires some specialized knowledge without the guardian being qualified as an expert. You see, you can’t give an opinion as evidence if that opinion requires specialized knowledge. For example, the average person could give testimony that “you look older than I” because that is based on one’s common, everyday experience. However, that same person could not give the opinion that “the rubber in that tire was formulated to make it too soft for these road conditions” because that opinion requires specialized knowledge. Our hypothetical person would have to be qualified as an expert on tire formulations before they could give that opinion.

As a guardian ad litem, we are sometimes called upon to give opinions on parenting skills, psychological status, and other things that attorneys don’t usually really know. The Jones case makes it clear that this is no longer allowed unless it has been based on properly qualified expert opinion.

This is good and bad. The good is that it keeps guardians ad litem from guessing at things we’re not qualified to know. The bad thing is, this is going to wind up costing money to hire experts. Who’s going to pay for the expert? In the Hattiesburg area, most guardians ad litem are going to demand prepayment of the expert’s fees from the parties; they aren’t going to pay the fees out of their own pockets (at least I won’t). This is going to slow down the guardian ad litem’s investigation and also make the process more expensive.

Do you think the good outweighs the bad? Leave a comment and start a discussion

Related posts:

1. Guardian Ad Whatum? As you can tell, I’ve been neglecting the blog lately....
2. The Right Thing is not Always the Easy Thing I’ve written before concerning a guardian ad litem. This is,...
3. Notwithstanding My Objections, Legalese Continues Forthwith Warning: If you are a lawyer, this post may infuriate...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As just about everyone has heard (or at least those still following the drama), Tiger Woods is reportedly receiving treatment here in Hattiesburg for a sex addiction.

If I can go off topic for a while, this was a pretty smart move on his part. If he truly has a sex addiction, he needs the treatment. If he doesn’t really suffer from that addiction, his time in treatment may both help him return to his wife’s good graces, and it should help public opinion. America seems to be pretty forgiving, especially when someone gets help for their problem.

Real, fake, publicity stunt, or a step toward reconciliation? Which do you think it is?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Statistics confirm this. The Sun recently published the results of one researcher who found, in a database of 5,000 divorce filings, 989 instances of the term “Facebook.” If my math’s correct, that’s 19.78%. Reportedly, other social networking sites were also frequently found in the database.

I guess some people are taking Facebook’s suggestions to reconnect with old friends a little too literally. Do you think social networking is leading to more martial infidelity? Tell me about it in the comments.

Related posts:

1. How Facebook Almost Ruined a Divorce Case The other day, I had something happen to me that...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For example, I believe establishing visitation on the first, third, and (when applicable) fifth weekends of the month to be preferable than saying visitation is to take place every other weekend. That way, you can look at a calendar and instantly tell when visitation is to take place as opposed to having count out weekends. Also, I think you need to define how to determine to which month a weekend belongs when a new month starts during the weekend.

A recent decision by the Mississippi Court of Appeals lends some support to my way of doing things. That court recently reviewed the Madison County case of Benal v. Benal. In that case, the judge failed to order specific visitation because that issue had not been submitted to the court for consideration.

Citing an earlier case, the Court of Appeals found that a specific visitation schedule must be addressed by the trial court if the issue of custody is submitted for resolution (the court may adopt the visitation schedule agreed upon by the parties). The Court of Appeals did not address how specific the schedule must be, and that will probably be the eventual subject of another case.

Related posts:

1. Virtual Visitation There is a growing movement to actually take aspects of...
2. Expect the Unexpected Yesterday, the Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down a decision...
3. Do I need a Lawyer? I get that question fairly often. The most recent was...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There are processes where a true emergency may be heard by a court in a matter of days. Even in these cases, though, this is just an initial hearing, and it must soon be followed up within a few days with another hearing to give due process to the other party.

The most certain deadline I can give a client is when it concerns a non-contested divorce where all factors are agreed upon by the husband and wife. In such a case, the divorce may be finalized by the Court 60 days after filing the Joint Complaint for Divorce. That doesn’t mean on day 60 the divorce will be granted, though. Chancery court judges are assigned to districts which contain more than one county, and the judges rotate between counties. Some months, the judge to which the case has been assigned may not hear cases in that county. In such a situation, it may be possible to get the case heard in another county, but I think you can now understand that it is unlikely to happen exactly on day 60.

In other cases, it largely depends on how complicated the case is. Additionally, there is the court’s calendar to consider. Courts usually “overbook” trials because most settle before court. However, if you’re not the “first setting” and a trial before you goes forward, you may have to get a new trial date. Add to all of this the complication of finding a date that (at least) two attorneys have available. All of these factors work to slow down “the wheels of justice” to some degree.

Related posts:

1. “The Court Finds You In Contempt” You’ve seen it before on TV or in the movies....
2. Do I need a Lawyer? I get that question fairly often. The most recent was...
3. Expect the Unexpected Yesterday, the Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down a decision...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.