Mirror of Justice

Hart’s Concept of Law and the Indian Constitution

July 15th, 2009 at 08:56am Under Constitutional Law

Introduction

It can be a matter of dispute whether legal positivism owes its birth to Hobbes, Bentham or Austin but most of the legal experts agree that the version of legal positivism given by H.L.A. Hart is the most appropriate one for the modern constitutional system. Hart replaced the images of power and violence in jurisprudential imagination by conceiving law as a system of rules upon rules of social practices informed by their own criterion of validity and normative obligation. For Hart, legality is not something which is politically imposed but is evolved through a growing complex system of different kinds of rules.

Before the advent of modern period legal theory was basically dominated by the natural law ideology which was the touchstone for testing the State law. In the modern period, Hobbes for the first time divorced positive law from natural law and made the State law independent of any external criteria. However, Hobbes did not fulfil the task of positivism fully as he did not distinguish between the actual law (”is law”) and the ideal law (”ought law”). His State-made law was not only an existing law but also an “ought” law.

The task was accomplished by John Austin. Austin divorced the State law fully from any external criteria and pretensions of validity on the basis of “ought”. His theory of legal system is based on his theory of sovereignty. According to Austin, a legal system exists if

(a) its supreme legislator is habitually obeyed.

(b) its supreme legislator does not habitually obey anyone.

(c) its supreme legislator is superior to the law subjects relative to every law.

For Austin, legal system was set of all the laws enacted directly or indirectly by one sovereign. His criterion for membership of a law in a system is that a law belongs to a system if and only if the sovereign who enacted all other laws of that system enacted it.

Austin has very little to say about the structure of the legal system – which can consist of internal as well as external relations. Punitive relations are perhaps the most important internal relations implicitly recognized by Austin. A law containing an imperative part only is not an independent law at all, unless there is a corresponding punitive law. At best, it is an imperfect law to be interpreted perhaps as a part of another law, and having the effect not of imposing duty but of permitting an act. Another kind of internal relation recognised by Austin is what is called as genetic relation, that is, the relation between subordinate law and the obedience law which authorised its legislation. Austin’s theory may be said to be based on the principle of independence

A theory of legal system is based on the principle of independence if according to it there is no logical necessity for a legal system to have an internal structure. It is based on the notion that every law can be an independent unit, the existence, meaning or application of which is not logically affected by other laws

The demand of personal obedience in Austin’s theory means that the span of the life of the legal system determines the period of existence of the laws of the system and hence also of the legal system itself. Austin came out with the solution of “tacit” command for the problem of continuance of old laws. In fact, Austin’s theory of a legal system is at best an explanation of a momentary legal system which contains all laws of a legal system valid at a certain moment.

There is not a moment at which a legal system exists but has no laws valid at that moment. Austin’s theory does not satisfy this prerequisite

Kelsen’s theory improved upon Austin’s theory. In his theory, laws derived their validity not from the sovereign but from grundnorm. His theory could provide an internal structure of the legal system as well as an explanation for its continuance. Apart from these two aspects, Kelsen’s theory was the same as that of Austin. It was based primarily on sanction and efficacy and was imposed from the top. Kelsen never clearly stated what grundnorm was and what was the validity of the grundnorm. At one point he said that grundnorm was the general acceptance that this legal system should exist and its validity was its efficacy. Thus, in this way Kelsen’s theory was not very different from Austin’s theory except in that a person or a body of persons was replaced by a norm which was basically a psychological factor.

These defects were largely rectified by H.L.A. Hart whose theory of legal system based on the combination of primary and secondary rule is regarded as the “high point of legal positivism The Concept of Law  was first published in 1961. It is considered useful and essential for understanding a theory that it is examined in its social background. Peter Wagner reflects on the social situation at the time of publication of The Concept of Law  He sees the period around 1960 in Western Europe as the culmination of “organised modernity” which

“developed a particular kind of reflective self-understanding as conveyed in its social science…. Organised modernity was characterised by the integration of all individuals inside certain boundaries into comprehensively organised practices. No definite places in society were ascribed to individual beings according to pre-given criteria. Social mobility existed and was part of the liberties this society offered. This configuration achieved a certain coherence, or closure at about 1960 … it appeared as a naturally ‘interlocking order”

Reflecting the social and political conditions of his time, Hart’s concept of law is based on general social acceptance of law or legal system”

Hart’s Perception towards Law

Deriving inspiration from linguistic philosophy of J.L. Austin and Wittgenstein that words should be understood in the context they are used, Hart concluded that law is what people practising it mean it to be. This is what he calls as internal aspect of the law. Although Hart did not go to the extent of Duguit in contending that laws derive their validity from social acceptance and he made the rule of recognition

A central part of Herbert Hart’s theory on legal positivism, in any legal system, the rule of recognition is a master meta-rule underlying any legal system that defines the common identifying test for legal validity (or “what counts as law”) within that system. He articulates its application thusly:

“

…to say that a given rule is valid is to recognize it as passing all the tests provided by the rule of recognition and so as a rule of the system. We can indeed simply say that the statement that a particular rule is valid means that it satisfies all the criteria provided by the rule of recognition.

”

— H. L. A. Hart

In Hart’s view, the rule of recognition arises out of a convention among officials whereby they accept the rule’s criteria as standards that empower and govern their actions as officials.[1] The rule is cognizable from the social practices of officials acknowledging the rule as a legitimate standard of behavior, exerting social pressure on one another to conform to it, and generally satisfying the rule’s requirements. To this end, as explained by Hart, the rule has three functions:

According to Hart, any rule that complies with the rule of recognition is a valid legal rule. For example, if the rule of recognition were “what the Queen says is law”, then any rule the Queen spoke would be a valid legal rule.

His criteria of validity but he accepted that there should not be a general disregard for the system among common people and officials. Although Hart was aware of the role of coercion and conflict in the universe of law but he tried to downplay the role of command and coercion and violence by conceiving law as a system of rules upon rules of social practices informed by their own criterion of validity and normative obligations. “Hart spoke of the shared acceptance of rules. The law it seemed belonged to us all; legal rules were not to be seen as external forces upon us but as our resources.

As stated earlier, for Hart legal system is a combination of PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RULES.

Primary rules are rules of obligation while secondary rules are parasitic upon primary rules and are rules about primary rules.

These secondary rules provide that human beings may by doing or saying certain things introduce new rules of the primary type, extinguish or modify old ones or in various ways determine their incidence or control their operation.

While primary rules impose duties, secondary rules confer power, public or private. Secondary rules are necessary to cure the defects which a simple social system may have to face due to static nature of the primary rules, their uncertainty and their inefficiency regarding dispute resolution. The introduction of the remedy for each defect is a step from pre-legal into legal world; since each remedy brings with it many elements which permeate law, “certainly all three remedies together are enough to convert the regime of primary rules into what is indisputably a legal system”.

The thesis made Hart to conclude that international law is a law because nations feel an obligation to comply with it but it still lacks the character of a legal system because of lack of secondary rules. In recent years the development of the principle of jus cogens in international law can be called a development towards the formulation of secondary rule of recognition.

Thus, the three defects of pre-legal system are cured by “rules of recognition”, “rules of change” and “rules of adjudication”. Rules of change and rules of adjudication are again related to rules of recognition because it is with reference to it that a particular rule is identified. Thus, for Hart, the existence of a particular rule does not depend upon the command of the sovereign but on the fact that a rule is recognised as valid by rule of recognition and courts have declared it to be valid.

Indian Concept Acc. to Hart’s Ideology

The Indian legal system is a fairly developed system and consists of both primary and secondary rules. The Constitution of India is the ultimate rule of recognition. Although under Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, it is provided that the State shall endeavour to promote international peace and security and respect its international obligation yet no rule of international law which is in conflict with the Indian Constitution can be binding on the Indian people and courts.

Primary rules of obligation in the Indian legal system include customs which are recognised by courts and various statutes

This is evident from the changing status of customs. Although before independence the Privy Council in Collector of Madura v. Matoo Ramalingaa  ruled that in Hindu law a clear proof of custom overrides the written text of law, the situation has changed after independence. Only the customs which are recognised and accepted by Parliament or the courts have the force of law.

Pre-constitutional laws are given recognition by Article 372 of the Indian Constitution “but subject to the provisions of … Constitution”.

Hart criticises Austin’s definition of law as a command of the sovereign backed by sanctions. He contends that a legal system does not resemble a gunman situation writ large. A person may succumb to a gunman’s threats and FEEL OBLIGED TO do or obey his order. But he is not UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO obey the order. But under a legal system he may feel that he is under an obligation to obey the rule although there is no chance of being detected.

One of the criticisms against the Indian Constitution is that it was not framed by a Constituent Assembly which could be treated as representing all Indians and that most of the provisions of the Constitution are borrowed from outside and are not rooted in Indian tradition. It is also contended that the Constitution was never put before the people for ratification. Therefore, it signifies an imposition on the people rather than their acceptance giving validity. The criticism is not, it is submitted, justified because the members of the Constituent Assembly were people in whom the general population had confidence.

It is evident from the results of elections conducted under the new Constitution. It is also true that people have accepted the Constitution and its philosophy because so far there has not been any general opposition of its not coming directly from the masses. The people of India not only feel themselves under an obligation to obey the Constitution but they are also in fact seeking remedy from the Constitution against existing laws and circumstances.

This is clear from the decision in Supdt., Central Prison v. Dr Ram Manohar Lohi  this case a pre-Constitution law was opposed and the right to oppose it was sought from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The fact that new rights are recognised as fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the courts are being approached to recognise and enforce the directive principles of the Constitution proves the contention that people of India have accepted the present constitutional system and it is not imposed on them from above.

Hart emphasised on INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ASPECTS OF A RULE.

 An external aspect of a rule, which is also present in social habits, consists in the regular uniform behaviour which an observer can record. Internal aspect of the rule distinguishes a rule from social habit. When a habit is general in a social group, this generality is merely a fact about the observable behaviour of most of the group. In order that there be such a habit no member of the group need in any way think of the general behaviour or even know that the behaviour in question is general; still less need they strive to teach or intend to maintain it. By contrast, a social rule sets the standard to be followed by the group as a whole. In order that a social rule exists some must look upon it as to be followed by others, deviation from it is criticised, demand for conformity is made upon others.

There need not be any feeling of “being bound”. There is no contradiction in saying that people accept certain rules but experience no such feelings of compulsion. What is necessary is that there should be a critical reflective attitude to certain patterns of behaviour as a common standard and this should display itself in criticism (including self-criticism), demands for conformity and in acknowledgement that such criticisms and demands are justified, all of which find their characteristic expression in the normative terminology of “ought”, “must” and “should”, “right” and “wrong”.

Again, the government action subsequent to the Supreme Court decision in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum was criticised on the ground that it is against the spirit of the Constitution being in contravention of Article 14 and Article 44 of the Constitution of India.

RULE OF RECOGNITION according to Hart forms the foundation of the legal system.

Such a rule is accepted by both private persons and officials and is provided with authoritative criteria for identifying primary rules obligation. These include reference to authoritative text, legislative enactment, customary practice and general declaration of specified persons or to past judicial decisions in particular cases.

In a modern legal system where there are a variety of sources of law, the rule of recognition is correspondingly more complex. The criteria for identifying the law are multiple and commonly include a written constitutional enactment by a legislature, and judicial precedents. In most cases, provision is made for possible conflict by ranking this criteria in an order of relative subordination and primacy. There is a difference between “subordination” and “derivation”.

In the day-to-day life of a legal system, rule of recognition is very seldom expressly formulated as a rule. For most part, the rule of recognition is not stated but its existence is shown in which particular rules are identified either by courts or other officials or private persons or their advisors.

The use of unstated rules of recognition by courts and others in identifying particular rules of the system is characteristic of the internal point of view. Those who use them in this way thereby manifest their own acceptance of them as guiding rules and with this attitude there goes a characteristic vocabulary different from natural expressions of the external point of view.

Under the Indian legal system, although the Indian Constitution is the ultimate rule of recognition, it presents certain baffling complexities—

— It allows the existence of parallel legal systems in the shape of personal laws many of which still derive their validity from religious institutions. Article 372 of the Indian Constitution allows continuance of pre-constitutional laws. It includes personal laws also. Article 44 of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. These provisions may be interpreted to mean that the Constitution for the time being recognises their existence. But it may be relevant to note that the laws which conflict with provisions of the Constitution that are thought to be part of the basic structure like Article 14 are still tolerated.

Fluctuations by way of the Interpretation

— There is a hierarchy of rules of recognition and the Constitution is at the top. But there are perplexing exceptions-

(i) Under Article 240(2) the President can override parliamentary legislation in relation to Union Territories. The President may make regulations for any purpose for which Parliament could make law.

(ii) Under Schedule (5) Part (5) parliamentary legislation in relation to tribal areas in certain matters can be modified. State’s power to legislate on certain specified entries is subject to power of Parliament under the Union List, e.g. Entry 23 of State List subject to Entry 54 of List I, Entry 24 of List II is subject to Entries 7 and 52 of List I.

(iii) Parliament can by its own law effectively alter the distribution of powers. Articles 2 to 4 can be amended by ordinary parliamentary legislation which conflicts with the principle of federalism which the Constitution seeks to protect.

However, since these provisions are part of the Constitution itself they cannot be said to be in conflict with Hart’s theory of ultimate rule of recognition. Moreover, in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Karnataka Electricity Board it has been said that the entries in the Constitution only demarcate the legislative fields of the respective legislatures and do not confer legislative power as such. This conflict in the Constitution brings us to the question of basic structure. Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution. But the power is subject to substantive as well as procedural limitations.

While procedural limitations are given in Article 368, substantive limitations are pointed out by the Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India as the principle of basic structure. Basic structure in simple terms can be said to indicate what Parliament, a creation of the Constitution, cannot do. In other words, power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is only limited to the areas outside the sphere of basic structure. It is the core of the ultimate rule of recognition. It tells what the ultimate rule of recognition does not give to Parliament. Normally, basic structure is said to be the grundnorm of the Indian legal system. But the analogy will be erroneous because then most of the provisions of the Constitution itself will become invalid when tested against the basic structure, e.g. the above-mentioned provisions conflict with separation of powers and federalism and to hold this will be beyond the powers of the judiciary under the ultimate rule of recognition.

One question, which is normally posed is, what gives the judiciary power to say what the basic structure is? Is the existence of basic structure dependent on the decision of the judiciary? The answer can be given by drawing an analogy from Hart’s minimal rules. According to Hart, these rules are minimal conditions for the persistence of social groups i.e. if certain rules did not exist the social group would not “survive”. Thus, we can say that there are minimal rules for the existence of a legal system. If these rules do not exist the legal system would not survive and by enunciating the basic structure the judiciary is only pointing towards these rules.

However, from the inefficiency of a particular rule general disregard for the system should be distinguished. One who makes an internal statement concerning the validity of a particular rule of a system may be said to presuppose the truth of the external statement of fact that the system is generally efficacious. For the normal use of internal statements is in such a context of general efficacy. Thus, while in Supdt., Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia limited right of civil disobedience was granted under Article 19(1)(a) it cannot be so exercised as to threaten the legal system and the sovereignty and integrity of the country. Thus, it cannot be so exercised as to generate a general disregard for the system but opposition and criticism of certain laws is permissible because of the democratic framework of the country.

Hart’s idea of OPEN TEXTURE OF LAW is his another important contribution to legal theory. He recognises the limits of rules and accepts that since all conditions cannot be anticipated, there cannot be predetermined rule to suit every situation in society. Thus, legislators lay down the rules according to the aim of the law. These rules can regulate the clear cases of the paradigm. But there are indeterminate cases which the legislators could not visualise in the beginning. For these indeterminate cases the core meaning of the rule has to be extended to the “penumbral” meaning where the Judge performs an extra-legal function and makes a choice. Thus, according to Hart, in such cases the Judge has to exercise his discretion and a prudent Judge tries to accommodate the prevalent social conditions while interpreting the words. According to Hart, even if the Judge does not extend the meaning of the word and sticks to the “core” meaning, he is still exercising the discretion though making a conservative choice.

, While in interpreting Article 12 the Supreme Court extended the penumbral meaning of any other authority to include instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of the term “State”, they also came up with the principle of basic structure pointing out the principles on which the Indian Constitution is based which cannot be violated by the legislature. Taking guidance from the general structure and aim of the Constitution the Supreme Court has given a totally new interpretation to Articles 14 and 21.

Hart in agreement with Hobbes thought that these conditions are the foundation on which society is based. Men have come together for these reasons. Thus, if these truisms will be ignored the foundation of society and the legal system will be lost and the system will lose its base and efficacy. Thus, although these truisms do not validate the rules, rules cannot ignore them if general efficacy of the system is to be maintained.

In the Indian legal system, although the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras and A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla  maintained a strict positivist attitude, in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India   it adopted the natural law tone and has in Article 14 and Article 21 introduced criteria like “reasonableness”, “anti-arbitrariness” and “due process” for testing the validity of laws which can be called external criteria.

Grounds of Morality

Finally, what is the role of law and the legal system in an individual’s life? What should be the sphere of law? Should law enforce MORALITY on its subjects? Hart differs from Devlin in this respect. Devlin contends that society has the right to enforce morality because a “recognised morality” is as necessary to society as a recognised government and that society may use the law to preserve morality in the same way as it uses it to safeguard anything else that is essential for its existence. Although Devlin accepts that a balance should be maintained between rights and interests of the society and rights and interests of the individual, there are certain principles which the legislature should bear in mind while legislating.

Hart contends that while public morality should be enforced because its absence amounts to nuisance to another person, care should be taken while enforcing private morality and a balance has to be maintained between individual liberty and morality. According to Hart, the private morality should be made effective by means of persuasion, dialogue and debate rather than coercion.

The Indian legal system does not totally approve of Hart’s theory in this regard. In fact the Indian Constitution is not only a formal text but also a dream and an instrument to bring about social reform. Thus, Article 17 penetrates into private lives of citizens by abolishing “untouchability” in any form. Under the “Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955″ passed by Parliament under Article 35 of the Constitution, discrimination on the ground of untouchability has been made a punishable offence not only in public places but also in privately owned places of worship and the State Governments are empowered to impose collective fines on the inhabitants of an area involved in or abetting the commission of offences related to “untouchability

In Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha  and in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab  the Supreme Court enforced private morality.  A Constitution Bench overruled the earlier decision of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India  by holding that the right to die cannot be included in the right to life under Article 21.. Morality is expressly mentioned in Articles 25 and 26 as a ground for restrictions. Under Article 25 the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and freedom of profession, practice and propagation of religion subject to public order, morality and health. In the same way under Article 26, every religious denomination or any section thereof has the right to manage its religious affairs subject to public order, morality and health. Therefore in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commr. of Police, Calcutta  the Court held that tandava dance in procession or at public places by Anand Margis, carrying lethal weapons and human skulls, was not protected by Article 25 or 26 as it was against public order and morality.

Even under Article 14 the Supreme Court under the new concept of arbitrariness, enforces the prevailing morality by striking down a law as unreasonable. Thus, in Air India v. Nergesh Meerza  the Air India Employees Service Regulations were challenged on the ground that they provided for different service conditions for Air Hostesses and Assistant Flight Pursers (AFPs) and it was alleged that they were discriminatory against women. The Supreme Court found that Air Hostesses and AFPs worked under two different categories of services and the Air Hostesses on the whole were not discriminated against. However, even though it found that there was a reasonable classification and no violation of the principle of equality, the Court struck down a regulation providing for termination of services for Air Hostesses on the first pregnancy as arbitrary because it insulted the Indian motherhood

. However, in R.K. Garg v. Union of India the majority of the Supreme Court spoke in a different tone. In this case the constitutional validity of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981 and the Act which replaced it was challenged. The Act granted certain immunities to persons who had invested unaccountable money in the Special Bearer Bonds. They were not required to disclose the nature and source of acquisition of the Special Bearer Bonds. It prohibited the commencement of any enquiry or investigation against such person. The Court by a majority of 4 to 1 upheld the validity of the Act on the ground that the classification made by the Act between persons having black money and persons not having black money was based on intelligible differentia having rational relation with the object of the Act. The object of the Act was to unearth black money for being utilised for productive purposes. Bhagwati, J. speaking for the majority, refused to strike down the law on the ground of morality, saying that:

“It is necessary to remember that we are concerned here only with the constitutional validity of the Act and not with its morality. Of course, when we say this we do not wish to suggest that morality can in no case have relevance to the constitutional validity of a legislation. There may be cases where the provisions of a statute may be so reeking with immorality that the legislation can be readily condemned as arbitrary or irrational and hence violative of Article 14. But the test in every such case would be not whether the provisions of the statute offend against morality but whether they are arbitrary and irrational having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case. Immorality by itself is not a ground of constitutional challenge.”

Gupta, J., however, gave dissenting opinion saying that:

“The concept of reasonableness does not exclude notions of morality and ethics. I do not see how it can be disputed that in the circumstances of a given case considerations of morality and ethics may have a bearing on the reasonableness of the law in question.”

Conclusion

Based on the general acceptance of the people, Hart’s legal system comprises of primary rules of obligation and “secondary rules of recognition”, “rules of adjudication” and “rules of change”. Existing within the framework of certain minimal rules this legal system has enough flexibility to adapt itself to the changing needs. Except for the five truisms, Hart’s legal system like Aristotle’s Politics is amoral. Principles of morality are no touchstone to test the validity of the rules of legal system. They can, however, become legal rules after passing through the process prescribed by the legal system.

The Indian legal system is a fairly developed legal system comprising of both primary rules of obligation and secondary rules of recognition, adjudication and change. While the primary rules consist of various statutory laws and recognised customs, secondary rules are contained in the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India is based on the philosophy and principles debated and accepted by the people of India during the national movement. Hence, it is “We the People of India” who have framed the general legal framework of our country and therefore feel under an obligation to comply by it. The general legal framework is the source of validity or the “rule of recognition” for other rules and governmental action. While the Constitution has enough inbuilt flexibility to change itself to the changing needs there are certain minimal rules termed as “basic structure” whose sanctity has to be respected as they comprise the basic framework or identity of our legal system.

As for the “rules of adjudication”, the Indian legal system contains a very integrated judicial structure with the Supreme Court of India at the top. The Supreme Court of India and High Courts of the States have the authority to interpret the Constitution also. In the exercise of this power, while basing their judgments on general principles, structure and aims of the Constitution, they have moved beyond the “open texture of law”. A clear example of this is the replacement of “procedure established by law” under Article 21 by the “due process of law”.

However, it is on the question of morality that the Indian legal system seems to clearly disagree with Hart’s thinking. Thus, not only morality is explicitly used in Articles 25 and 26, and implicitly in Article 19(1)(g), even while judging the validity of particular laws against the Constitution of India the Court takes into account moral principles. What is important here is not the actual decisions which can be either way, given the fact that morality is largely subjective, but the consideration of moral principles as part of constitutional values by the courts. This is clear from the views of the judiciary on the two issues of restitution of conjugal rights and the right to die.

California Women’s Rights Attorney Says Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Under the Fair Pay Act of 2009 Will Finally Get Women Equal Pay

July 13th, 2009 at 09:01pm Under Uncategorized

As a result of the first bill signed by President Obama, women finally have a much greater chance of receiving pay that is equal to what men receive for the same work from an employer. However, it is still likely to require the filing of numerous lawsuits before employers come to grips with the fact that they can no longer get away with paying less money to women.

 

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the first bill signed into law by the President paving the way for these lawsuits to require that equal pay be given to women, by way of seeking back pay awards for the difference they were paid and what men were paid for the same work.

 

If you have been discriminated against in your employment in California by receiving less pay for the same work performed by persons of the other gender, even though the statute of limitations has been extended by this Act, you still need to speak with a women’s rights lawyer or an employment attorney as soon as possible.

 

If you are a woman and you’ve been receiving less pay than men are receiving for the same work from the same employer, visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

 

Prior to the Act becoming law, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, women were required to file suit within 180 days after first being paid unfairly, even if the discrimination of being paid less than male workers in the same jobs continued.

 

And if a woman failed to discover that male workers were being paid more for the same work, a woman still could not hold her employer accountable if she didn’t learn of the unfairness and take action within 180 days of first being paid the lesser rate.

 

Under the Fair Pay Act of 2009 signed into law by President Obama, the statute of limitations of 180 days starts with each discriminatory paycheck, rather than when the employer starts to discriminate. So long as a woman in CA files her claim within 180 days of receiving any discriminatory paycheck, not just the first one, she is considered timely in bringing her claim.

 

An important aspect of the Act is that the effective date of the Act is retroactively set at May 28, 2007, which will allow it to apply to all compensation discrimination claims that have been filed on or after that date.

 

Women can sue for back pay awards for up to two years before she files her employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair Pay Act of 2009 does not change the two-year back pay limit.

 

The Fair Pay Act is a major victory for women in California who have long been discriminated against in the pay they receive for the same work that men perform and are paid substantially more in many places. It has been determined that women have been earning only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This Act will likely go a long way in addressing that unfairness, although it will likely require a good many lawsuits to hammer this home to employers who discriminate against women in their pay guidelines.

 

With the signing of this Act into law, initial victories in CA against an employer will likely lead to settlement of other lawsuits for co-employees who have been discriminated against in the same manner by the same employer.

 

Those who would say that the Act will lead to the employment of less women in such positions by employers fearful of such lawsuits simply don’t understand the anti-discrimination laws in this country and the greater risk employers would be taking if they adopted such a discriminatory stance in their hiring practices.

 

Even with the retroactive effect of the Act, employers in California may be slow to increase the salaries and hourly rates of their women employees until lawsuits begin to fly. Employers who have previously gotten away with discriminating against women in CA may only react in more numbers when they begin to feel the full weight of the law themselves or see large judgements against other employers who have discriminated against women.

 

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us if you have been discriminated in your pay from an employer in California based on your being a woman, compared with the pay received by men for the same work

 

The votes in favor of the bill in the Senate included every Democratic senator except Senator Edward Kennedy who was absent because of his health, and all four Republican women senators. Every Republican male senator except Arlen Spector voted against it. If that won’t come back to haunt the Republicans in the next election, it is hard to imagine what else they will do to alienate themselves more from the women’s vote.

 

Under the Act, an unlawful practice occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits or other compensation is paid.

California Child Custody – Who Gets Custody?

July 13th, 2009 at 02:53am Under Child Custody

Like most states, the standard for child custody determinations in California is the overall best interest of the child with an emphasis on assuring the “health, safety, and welfare” of the child and “frequent and continuing contact” with both parents absent child abuse, domestic violence, or where the contact would not be in the best interest of the child as provided in the California family code section 3011 (See California Family Code Section 3011, 3020, 3040, 3080). Further, according to California family code section 3040, child custody should be granted in an order of preference and according to the best interest of the child.

A common challenge for the court is to decide who will get custody of the child. Child custody may be petitioned by parents, grandparents, stepparents, or any person who believes they can provide suitable care and guidance to the child. So how does the California family court or a California judge handle competing persons seeking custody of the child? According to California family code section 3040, child custody should be granted in an order of preference and according to the best interest of the child. The court looks first to grant custody to both parents jointly or to either parent before looking to grant custody to other persons. California however does not currently establish a preference or a presumption for or against joint custody arrangements. Instead, it allows the California family court or California judge to make the parenting arrangement decision on a case-by-case basis according to what it believes reflects the overall best interest of the child. If neither parent is granted custody, then the court may look towards the person’s home in which the child has been living and the stability of that environment and then to any person deemed by the court to be able to provide appropriate care for the child. In short, the court will typically look to grant child custody first to the parents according the best interest of the child and if they are deemed unfit the court will then look to grant child custody to other persons according to the best interest of the child.

If you are involved in a child custody battle with the other parent, grandparent, stepparent, or any other person, you would be wise to consult a California family law attorney to help you learn where you stand legally and what your legal options are with respect to your child custody rights and visitation rights.

Copyright © 2007 Child Custody Coach

California Hispanic Discrimination Lawyer And Latino Civil Rights Attorney Discusses Discrimination Against Hispanics, Latinos And Mexican-Americans

July 12th, 2009 at 02:54am Under Civil Rights Law

As the economic downturn worsens and unemployment rises in America, civil rights advocates and lawyers and Hispanic, Latino and Mexican-American discrimination attorneys in California fear the result may be an increase in discrimination toward Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans in the U.S.

If you have been the victim of discrimination toward Hispanics, Latinos or Mexican-Americans, visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

While America has always stood for being a country with diverse ethnic cultures that make us great, the fear is that those who have the least, may suffer the most in this economic downturn as unemployment rises and jobs, even those that were previously unwanted, now become a precious commodity.

At the Law Firm of R. Sebastian Gibson, California Hispanic, Latino and Mexican-American Discrimination Lawyer, Sebastian Gibson has always stood for the protection of the civil rights of everyone living in the U.S. We fight for the rights of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans to be treated with the same respect and the protections afforded to them under the law as every one else should be in America. And we are concerned that in these uncertain times, Hispanic, Latino and Mexican-American families do not become the object of discrimination when we should all be pulling together to help each other in times of need.

While African-Americans in this country have for many decades, always suffered the most unemployment, Hispanics and Latinos are not far behind. And while African-Americans can now look to President Obama as an inspiration to what a person can do of any race, Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans as well as other minorities, still suffer from discrimination in the work place and in daily life.

Instead of becoming a society where the rich cultures of Hispanics and Latinos are shared with other cultures in America, too much of the country remains segregated where Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans either choose to live or can only afford to live where the majority of their citizens are concentrated in parts of cities away from where Caucasians, African-Americans or other minorities live. There are many causes of discrimination, all of which are idiotic, but the less interaction different cultures have, the more likely it is there will be discrimination by those who do not relate to each other.

Studies have found that nearly three in every ten Hispanic workers feel they have been discriminated against in their employment. Some report being referred to with racial slurs at work while one in four feel they are paid less and have reduced career advancement prospects than their Caucasian counterparts. In many organizations, there is a scarcity of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans in management positions.

FBI statistics show a dramatic increase in anti-Hispanic hate crimes. And sadly, hate groups are increasing due to anti-illegal immigration concerns.

One would have thought that as a result of this situation, that there would be a flood of civil rights advocates and anti-discrimination lawyers fighting for the rights of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans. Yet, that is not the case.

A symbol of discrimination to many Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans is the construction of the U.S.-Mexico border fence which is actually several separation barriers designed to prevent illegal movement of goods and people across the U.S. and Mexico border.

The U.S.- Mexico border fence is reportedly nearing completion as this article is being written in March 2009. While much of the purported reasoning for the multi-billion dollar fence was based on preventing the entry of terrorists into the country, many feel that reasoning is flawed while our border with Canada remains open. While the efforts have also been aimed at stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S. a secondary effort is to prevent the flow of weapons bought in the U.S. and smuggled into Mexico.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said that even the fence will not stop illegal immigration along the border with Mexico, although it may help prevent those who are crossing illegally from blending immediately into some town populations. However, the fence is not continuous and where there are gaps, surveillance technology must be utilized. And then, there remains the fear that tunnels will be used even more extensively than in the past.

Over forty tunnels have been found since 2001 and some have been extremely sophisticated. One such tunnel from Tijuana to San Diego was half a mile long, sixty to eighty feet deep, and eight feet tall. It had drainage, electricity and a concrete floor, and its entrance from the California side was in a modern warehouse. The entrance to the tunnel in Mexico was in another building.

It should be noted that the border with Mexico is 1,951 miles in length. The fence that is reportedly nearing completion was only completed for approximately 600 miles in February 2009, when news reports came out that the fence was nearly finished.

As a result of the construction of the barrier, there has now been an increase in the number of people trying to cross in such areas as the Sonoran Desert and over the Baboquivari Mountain in Arizona where no fence exists. This requires crossing 50 miles of inhospitable terrain to reach the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation, which many fear may lead to an increase in migrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border if the smugglers try these more difficult routes.

In the last thirteen years, there have been around five thousand migrant deaths along the border. The U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector reported on October 15, 2008 that its agents saved 443 illegal aliens from almost certain death after being abandoned by their smugglers. Without the efforts of these border patrol agents, many more deaths would have occurred and may occur in the future.

The U.S.-Mexico border fence has been controversial, to say the least, since its inception. It has been condemned by the government of Mexico and opposed by many in the U.S. as well. Tribal lands of three American Indian Nations will be divided by the border fence and the campus of the University of Texas at Brownville will be divided into two parts according to a vice president of the university. A section of the barrier was even mistakenly built inside Mexican territory requiring its removal and rebuilding at a cost of over three million dollars.

Visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us if you have been the victim of discrimination toward Hispanics, Latinos or Mexican-Americans.

There is no excuse for discrimination in America. If you have been the victim of discrimination against Hispanics, Latinos or Mexican-Americans, call California Civil Rights Lawyer Sebastian Gibson for a consultation.

CIVIL RIGHTS

July 11th, 2009 at 02:54pm Under Civil Rights Law

I  INTRODUCTION

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, political and social concepts referring to guarantees of freedom, justice, and equality that a state may make to its citizens. Although the terms have no precise meaning in law and are sometimes used interchangeably, distinctions may be made. Civil rights is used to imply that the state has a positive role in ensuring all citizens equal protection under law and equal opportunity to exercise the privileges of citizenship and otherwise to participate fully in national life, regardless of race, religion, sex, or other characteristics unrelated to the worth of the individual. Civil liberties is used to refer to guarantees of freedom of speech, press, or religion; to due process of law; and to other limitations on the power of the state to restrain or dictate the actions of individuals. The two concepts of equality and liberty are overlapping and interacting; equality implies the ordering of liberty within society so that the freedom of one person does not infringe on the rights of others, just as liberty implies the right to act in ways permitted to others.

II  HISTORY

Wartime Discrimination in Canada Canadian naval officers at Esquimalt, British Columbia, confiscate a Japanese Canadian fisherman’s boat in 1941. During World War II the Canadian government confined thousands of Japanese Canadians and seized their assets.   The concept that human beings have inalienable rights and liberties that cannot justly be violated by others or by the state is linked to the history of democracy. It was first expressed by the philosophers of ancient Greece. Socrates, for example, chose to die rather than renounce the right to speak his mind in the search for wisdom. Somewhat later the Stoic philosophers formulated explicitly the doctrine of the rights of the individual (see Stoicism). Traces of libertarian doctrine appear in the Bible and in the writings of the Roman statesman Marcus Cicero and the Greek essayist Plutarch. Such ideas, however, did not gain a permanent place in the political structure of the Roman Empire and all but disappeared during medieval times.

A  Early Development

Bill of Rights Because the Constitution of the United States granted the federal government so much power, as compared with the earlier Articles of Confederation, several states demanded a list of amendments to guarantee individual rights against intrusion by the federal government. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, embody libertarian ideas in the United States. The amendments protect such rights as freedom of speech (First Amendment), right against unlawful search and seizure (Fourth Amendment), and the right to a public criminal trial by jury (Sixth Amendment).  Individual freedom can survive only under a system of law by which both the sovereign and the governed are bound. Such a system of fundamental laws, whether written or embodied in tradition, is known as a constitution. The idea of government limited by law received effective expression for the first time in the Magna Carta (1215), which checked the power of the English king. The Magna Carta did not stem from democratic or egalitarian beliefs; rather, it was a treaty between king and nobility that defined their relationship and laid the basis for the concept that the ruler was subject to the law rather than above it. The development of constitutional government was slowed by the persistence of the ideas of absolutism, the belief that all political power should be in the hands of one individual, and divine right, which held that kings derived their power from—and were accountable only to—God. These beliefs were widely held throughout Europe until the 18th century. The notion that the people have the right to be asked to consent to acts of government did not arrive without a protracted struggle. The reigns of the Tudor and Stuart monarchs in England were marked by fierce conflicts between the Crown and Parliament.

On the European continent the struggle between authoritarian and libertarian principles developed around religious rather than secular issues. During the Reformation, freedom of religious belief and practice was a primary concern. Tolerance was rare; as late as 1612, for instance, members of the Unitarian sect were burned as heretics in England (see Unitarianism). Not until the end of the 18th century did the ideals of religious toleration become firmly established in Western civilization.

Boston Massacre Revolutionary wars in France, England, and the United States led to the incorporation of libertarian principles in the governments of each of these countries. Among these principles was the idea that people should have a voice in their country’s government. Before any of these principles could be written into the constitutions of these countries, however, each was ravaged by terrible wars. The Boston Massacre, as depicted in this print, was one of the smaller battles in the American Revolution. The event was not actually a massacre, but a street fight between a mob and a squad of British soldiers that ended with the death of five colonists. As a result of the English, American, and French revolutions, libertarian ideals were embodied in the structure of national governments. In England, the struggle between Parliament and the absolutist Stuart monarchs culminated in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. King James II was expelled, and the new king, William III, gave royal assent (1689) to the Declaration of Rights (English Bill of Rights), which guaranteed constitutional government. Subsequently, the monarch’s prerogatives were limited by statute and custom. The idea of a constitutional system is described in the writings of the English philosopher John Locke, which profoundly influenced the leaders of the American colonies.

The 17th century was marked also by the growth of individual freedom in Great Britain. In the common law courts, for example, the judges became more concerned for the rights of those accused of crime, and procedural safeguards were established.

B  Spread of Civil Liberties

British colonists brought the concepts of limited government and individual freedom to the New World. The early laws of Virginia, Massachusetts, and other colonies reflected interest in the reform of criminal procedure that was emerging in Great Britain. A notable event in the history of civil liberties was the successful defense (1735) in New York by the Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton of the printer John Peter Zenger, who had been charged with seditious libel for criticisms of the colonial government in his publication the New York Weekly Journal. Hamilton established the principle that the government may not punish truthful publications of matters of public concern. See The Trial of John Peter Zenger.

The events leading to the American and French revolutions inspired writings that laid the foundations for modern ideas of civil liberties by such authors as the French philosophers Voltaire and Jean Jacques Rousseau, the British reformer John Wilkes and the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the Anglo-American writer Thomas Paine, and the American statesmen Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States formally established libertarian principles as a foundation of modern democracy.

Although civil liberties are often considered an integral part of democratic government, the principles of limited government and personal freedom were developed in England at a time when political power was held by an aristocratic upper class. Similarly, in the American colonies, many founding fathers did not favor democracy in the modern sense. Indeed, the framers of the U.S. Constitution provided a method of electing the nation’s president that avoids a direct popular vote. Conversely, history offers numerous examples of countries in which political power is formally vested in representative assemblies, but enforcement of law is arbitrary or despotic, and minorities have few safeguards against the tyranny of majorities.

III  CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE UNITED STATES

The civil rights and liberties of U.S. citizens are largely embodied in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) and in similar provisions in state constitutions. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religious exercise as well as separation of church and state (see Speech, Freedom of; Press, Freedom of the; Religious Liberty). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy and security of the home and personal effects and prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth through Eighth amendments protect persons accused of crime; they guarantee, for example, the right to trial by jury, the right to confront hostile witnesses and to have legal counsel, and the privilege of not testifying against oneself. The Fifth Amendment also contains the general guarantee that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (see Due Process of Law). Originally these amendments were binding only on the federal government. However, decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States have established that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) applies many of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights to actions by state and local governments.

Child Custody Basics – Rights, Residency, and Relationship

July 10th, 2009 at 02:53pm Under Child Custody

Child custody is a legal term that is often used by the family courts to describe the rights and responsibilities of divorced parents and their minor children, the residency or placement of the children, and the relationship and/or amount of contact the children have with each parent. When divorced parents are unable to agree on such issues, the family courts are often left with the difficult task of determining the best custodial arrangement of the children and parenting plan for the parents. The more parents understand what is involved in child custody determinations the more informed they will be in making decisions regarding their children after a divorce.

Rights and responsibilities of the parents

The rights and responsibilities of each parent to their minor children includes decisions regarding the raising and general welfare of the children on issues such as the children’s education, medial care, dental care, and religion. Such rights and responsibilities are commonly referred to as legal custody of the children.

Residency or placement of the children

The residency or placement of children refer to where the children will live and spend majority of his/her time. Often times a child will live with one parent more than the other parent and the parent that the child lives with the most will typically be responsible for the day-to-day care of the child. In some cases, the child will live equally with both parents, close to equally with both parents, or live a significant amount of time with each parent and the parents will share in the responsibilities and day-to-day care of the child. The residency or placement of child and day-to-day care of the child are commonly referred to as physical custody of the children.

Relationship and/or amount of contact the children have with each parent

In the case where the child resides or lives primarily with one parent, the time spent with the other parent is often referred to as visitation. The parent that the child lives with more is often referred to as the custodial parent and the parent with visitation is referred to as the noncustodial parent. In such cases, the noncustodial parent will typically have a visitation schedule that describes his/her contact with the children. The visitation schedule is sometimes referred to as a parenting arrangement.

When divorced parents are unable to agree on the rights and responsibilities of the parents and their minor children, the residency or placement of the children, and the relationship and/or amount of contact the children have with each parent, the family courts are often left with the difficult task of determining the best custodial arrangement of the children and parenting plan for the parents. The more parents understand what is involved in child custody determinations the more informed they will be in making decisions regarding their children after a divorce.

© 2007 Child Custody CoachChild Custody Coach supplies information, online materials, and coaching services to parents in the field of child custody, namely, divorce, child custody and visitation, child custody evaluations, 730 evaluations, parenting, and all issues related to child custody and divorce. “How to Win Child Custody – Proven Strategies that can Win You Custody and Save You Thousands in Attorney Cost!” is a unique child custody strategy guide written by The Custody Coach and made available by Child Custody Coach in an easy to read, understand, and apply E-Book format. Custody Match is an online consumer and family law attorney matching service to help you in your search for the right attorney for your divorce or child custody case. Custody Match can help you find the right family law attorney, divorce lawyer, or child custody attorney in your area.

Child Custody and Visitation: Grandparents Rights to Custody and Visitation

July 10th, 2009 at 08:54am Under Child Custody

If you ask to your friend or your colleagues, most of them will tell you that grandparents do not have no common law right to see their grandchildren if the parents object. And for the most part, all these people are right in some respects. Interestingly, there is no basis in constitutional law regarding grandparent visitation rights in the United States. However it is interesting to know that grandparents can be entitled to visitation rights with grandchildren in some cases.

In order for a grandparent to obtain such visitation rights, the grandparent may have to present evidence to the court that the absence of visitation rights would be harmful or detrimental to the child’s health and welfare. Considering that that parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody and management of their child, the grandparent generally has to show that there is a sufficient reason for the court to interfere with the parent’s right to for such external interference to be imposed. Therefore it is often difficult to prove such harm to the child. Some courts or judges may also fear that allowing grandparents an external visitation right could be harmful to the parental authority. It could also create intergenerational disputes which could be even more detrimental to the child and/or be contrary to the child’s best interest. Therefore, courts often recommend that parent and grandparents reach an agreement out of court.

Under specific circumstances grandparents can be granted custody rights of the child. When one parent is deceased the other surviving parent is typically preferred to obtain the custody of the child if deemed fit. But if both parents are deceased, the courts may decide to award the custody of the child to the grandparents since a blood relative is often preferred to obtain custody. Even in this situation, the grandparent has to present key evidence to the court that the child would be better off if he/she had custody of the child compared to other blood relatives or third parties. The courts can make their decision taking into account the age, health and financial ability of the grandparent to properly support and care for the child.

There are many restrictions and limitations in which the court can order or grant grandparent visitation rights. Additionally, the laws related to grandparent visitation rights are sometimes changing and developing. To learn the latest laws and developments in your area with respect to grandparent rights to child custody and visitation you may want to consult an attorney in your jurisdiction who can advise you legally.

© 2007 Child Custody CoachChild Custody Coach supplies information, online materials, and coaching services to parents in the field of child custody, namely, divorce, child custody and visitation, child custody evaluations, 730 evaluations, parenting, and all issues related to child custody and divorce. “How to Win Child Custody – Proven Strategies that can Win You Custody and Save You Thousands in Attorney Cost!” is a unique child custody strategy guide written by The Custody Coach and made available by Child Custody Coach in an easy to read, understand, and apply E-Book format. Custody Match is an online consumer and family law attorney matching service to help you in your search for the right attorney for your divorce or child custody case. Custody Match can help you find the right family law attorney, divorce lawyer, or child custody attorney in your area.

Child Custody and Child Visitation Disputes: the Best and Worst Case

July 9th, 2009 at 08:54pm Under Child Custody

When a divorce or dissolution of marriage is brought before the family court, child visitation is considered at the same time and according to similar factors as child custody. The term stands for the time in which the non-custodial parent is allowed to meet or visit with his/her child. However, under certain circumstances a parent can be denied child visitation or child custody in the case of sole physical custody. Child visitation is often associated with the term “parenting plan,” which typically outlines the type of legal custody and physical custody of each parent and can also define when the child is to visit or be with the non-custodial parent. Parents can reach such an agreement on their own, this is the best case, or the court can decide on this matter, which is often the worst case scenario.

Typically, the best situation for a child in a divorce, child custody, and child visitation matter is when both parents manage to solve their personal differences to reach an agreement or parenting plan or child visitation schedule out of court. In this case, any agreements reached between both parents can become the parenting plan. When a parenting plan is created and child visitation and child custody issues are resolved, it may not require anymore matters to be brought to the court even if the child is very young. A decade ago, the family courts would often give infant visitation guidelines preventing the non-custodial parent from spending a lot of time with his/her child. Such provisions are not valid anymore, but rather frequent and continuous contact with both parents is encouraged. Off court agreements does not necessarily need to be translated in a written contract and signed by both parents. However, parents may be well advised to have a written and signed parenting plan for future reference in case a child custody or child visitation dispute arises. It can also be used as a stipulation between both parties and then issued as a court order for future enforcement purposes.

Now, what if the parents are not able to reach an agreement on child visitation or child custody? Both parents will often be required to participate in a mediation process before having a court hearing or before a judge hears the case. Typically, the two parents will be assisted to work out a parenting plan by a third-party or mediator, who can be an experienced attorney or social worker. Many child visitation and child custody issues find a happy ending through mediation sessions resulting in a parenting plan agreement, which can then be presented as a stipulation ad then as a court order.

Generally, the worst case is when mediation fails. In this situation, the next step is typically for a court hearing in order to solve the issues. Judges nowadays often require custody evaluations of the family by experts in the field of child psychiatry, psychology or mental health. Licensed social workers can also be called to present evidence for consideration by the court. Once all pieces of evidence have been presented, the court will typically make its decision. This is the worst case child custody and child visitation dispute method because it can be very complex, expensive, and long-draw out. In some highly contested child custody and child visitation cases, child custody and child visitation disputes will eventually result in denying child custody and child visitation rights to one of the parent.

© 2007 Child Custody CoachChild Custody Coach supplies information, online materials, and coaching services to parents in the field of child custody, namely, divorce, child custody and visitation, child custody evaluations, 730 evaluations, parenting, and all issues related to child custody and divorce. “How to Win Child Custody – Proven Strategies that can Win You Custody and Save You Thousands in Attorney Cost!” is a unique child custody strategy guide written by The Custody Coach and made available by Child Custody Coach in an easy to read, understand, and apply E-Book format. Custody Match is an online consumer and family law attorney matching service to help you in your search for the right attorney for your divorce or child custody case. Custody Match can help you find the right family law attorney, divorce lawyer, or child custody attorney in your area.