Month: March 2016

No Income for Child Support Purposes Affirmed


Facts: Father and Mother divorced after 10 years of marriage. By the time of divorce, Mother had not worked outside the home for many years. Her primary role in the family was devoted to raising the parties’ two minor children. At the time of trial, both children were in high school.

Proof at trial showed the jobs available to Mother were entry-level, minimum wage jobs. Mother testified such entry-level employment was not appealing to her and expressed a desire to better herself for her children. She said she wanted to complete the surgical technician program at a nearby technical college. The program would last 12 months. The proof showed the starting pay for a new surgery technician varied from $13-$18 per hour, depending on the specific area of employment.

After awarding rehabilitative alimony so Mother could pursue the education necessary to become a surgical technician, the trial court set child support based, in part, on Mother having no income whatsoever.

Father appealed.

Excerpt from post written by K.O. Herston, Esq.  Please visit the following link to read the entire post:

No Income for Child Support Purposes Affirmed in Centerville, TN Divorce: Tidwell v. Tidwell



Apple, Inc. v. Federal Government

Apple Inc.’s dispute with the federal government over access to a passcode-protected iPhone seems to hold a little interest for everyone.

The case strikes at the heart of the debate over privacy and security, posing what FBI Director James Comey has described as “the hardest question I’ve seen in government.” (And he’s seen a lot, one assumes.) Add to that a centuries-old law, one of the largest companies on earth and the deadliest terrorists attack on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001.

Apple plowed into another area of contested law on Thursday: whether and to what extent computer programs are protected speech under the First Amendment.

The company is challenging a Feb. 16 ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordering the company to help investigators bypass a security passcode function on the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook. Along with his wife, Mr. Farook shot and killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December.

Apple says in its latest brief that the order violates its First Amendment rights against compelled speech. The arguments build on a string of older cases. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which would hear any appeal from Apple, held that computer code was protected expression in a 1999 case that could loom large in the iPhone dispute.

Excerpt from article written by Joe Palazzolo. To read more go to

Colorado May Ease Student Health Privacy Rules

School personnel in Colorado would have wider access to medical treatment records of students under a proposed bill whose proponents say would help tip off educators to warning signs of a potential school shooting.

In Colorado and other states, private therapists and counselors treating a student may share with schools confidential treatment records about a patient who poses a specific, imminent safety threat.

The Colorado bill would permit therapists to tell school officials about a student who may not represent such an immediate risk. School personnel could be alerted about behavior that “creates a dangerous environment in a school that may jeopardize the safety or well being of students, faculty, staff, parents, or the general public,” says the legislation summary.

The actual bill text defines that standard as an “articulable and significant” threat. “Disclosures may only be made to appropriate school district personnel and must remain confidential,” it states.

Therapists directly employed by school districts are already permitted such latitude under a federal law that governs education records.

Excerpt from article written by Jacob Gershman on The Wall Street Journal Law Blog.  To read the full article go to