Glad to have that out of my hair. On to other things . . . .

Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Interesting article. Very thought provoking.

The problem to some extent, as Eugene has pointed out, is the very vague standard "best interests of the child". It can be, and is often, interpreted very subjectively. So, no surprise that some judges have strayed here into what appears to be 1st Amdt. violations.

I do suspect that this article will ultimately cut down on some of the most egregious speech violations, but probably won't really affect that much actual visitation, and maybe custody, decisions, since it is quite easy for judges to cloak their decisions as more 1st Amdt. neutral - with articles like this one cited when speech or religion is mandated and/or prohibited.

Keep up the good work.
9.6.2005 6:47pm
A. Nonymous (mail):
Kind of surprised you did not get into the alienation of affection prevention and the claims that occur when those fail. See Raftery v Scott, 756 F.2d. 335 (4th Cir. 1985).

Otherwise, really good read.
9.6.2005 11:03pm
Jeroen Wenting:
Interesting and eye opening indeed.
But you might consider an appendix for all those footnotes. I've always learned they shouldn't take up more than a few lines per page, instead of leaving only a few lines for the real text :)

I must admit I was trained a physicist and not a lawyer though, and we do tend to speak more clearly most of the time :)
9.7.2005 4:54am