Well kinda. This law was passed in Virginia and took effect this month.
Temporary delegation of parental or legal custodial powers; child-placing agency. Allows a parent or legal custodian of a minor to delegate to another person by a properly executed power of attorney any powers regarding care, custody, or property of the minor for a period not exceeding 180 days. The bill provides that a parent or legal custodian who is a service member, as defined in the bill, may delegate such powers for a period of longer than 180 days while on active duty service, but specifies that such a period is not to exceed such active duty service plus 30 days. The bill provides that any such power of attorney shall be signed by all persons with authority to make decisions concerning the child, the person to whom powers are delegated under the power of attorney, and a representative of a licensed child-placing agency that assists parents and legal guardians with the process of delegating parental and legal custodial powers of their children. The bill specifies that such licensed child-placing agency will be subject to background checks and must develop and implement written policies for certain services and provide staff and provider training. The bill further requires that any person to whom any such powers are delegated shall comply with background check requirements established by regulations of the Board of Social Services or otherwise provided by law. For more details see: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter10/section20-166/
0 Comments
Survey says... Between 50 and 85 % of any given population group. Yikes!!! More below!
https://www.caring.com/caregivers/estate-planning/wills-survey/ There is someone who can help. He's been with you, by your side, all along...
From Phillipians 4 5 Let your gentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is near. 6 Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, beloved,[e] whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about[f] these things. 9 Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you. Things too much to handle? Talk to God. Today. Right now. He'd really like to hear from you!
2 Corinthians 4:7-10 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)7 But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us. 8 We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. Or did someone leave you some property near a railroad right of way? We need to chat. About railbanking and rails to trails. Check this article out!
https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/2019/07/02/va-shore-looks-rails-trails-railroad-seeks-abandon-tracks/1616241001/?fbclid=IwAR3w6MKCp6K4xSIiYo05WvG99fBjJ0zCCzxoHAikVI7DhwcoNh2wA_MbN0o
Erin Scharff Guest Posted Sat, June 22nd, 2019 11:28 am Email Erin Bio & Post Archive » Opinion analysis: Presence of in-state beneficiaries alone insufficient for state to assert jurisdiction to tax trust incomeIn a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court on Friday held that North Carolina’s efforts to tax the income of a trust based on the trust beneficiary’s residence in the state violated the Constitution’s due process clause. The case arose when North Carolina attempted to tax the income earned by the Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust from 2005 to 2008. During this period, the Kaestner trust’s beneficiaries were all residents of North Carolina, but the trust’s grantor was a resident of New York, and the trust was governed by New York law, where its documents and records were kept. The trust’s asset custodians were in Massachusetts. At no point during the relevant tax period was the trustee a North Carolina resident. Moreover, the trust earned no income in North Carolina. The trust alleged that North Carolina’s imposition of its tax violated the due process clause because the trust lacked the necessary minimum contacts with the state. North Carolina argued that the presence of in-state beneficiaries was sufficient to satisfy the minimum-contacts requirement under the court’s modern jurisprudence. The Supreme Court rejected the state’s arguments in an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The opinion begins its analysis by observing that tax due process cases are analyzed under a two-step framework that requires (1) “some minimum connection” between the taxpayer and the state and (2) a rational relationship between the income the state seeks to tax and the state. The opinion focuses on the first part of this test, which is determined under the same framework, derived from the court’s 1945 decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, used to analyze questions of personal jurisdiction. In applying the International Shoe framework to trust cases, the opinion remarks on the legal complexity of trusts, which are not themselves legal entities but rather a fiduciary relationship between a settlor, a trustee and a beneficiary. In cases like this one, the hard question is not whether the beneficiary’s contacts are sufficient, but rather whether they matter at all for the minimum-contacts analysis. Drawing on two seminal cases about the taxation of trusts, Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Virginia and Brooke v. Norfolk, the opinion suggests that whether a beneficiary’s in-state contacts are relevant depends on “the extent of the in-state beneficiary’s right to control, possess, enjoy, or receive trust assets.” Applying this test to the Kaestner trust, the court concludes that the in-state beneficiaries lack the requisite control or possession for their contacts with North Carolina alone to establish jurisdiction. The beneficiaries neither received money from the trust during the relevant period nor had any right to demand trust distributions. Furthermore, because the trust gave the trustee sole discretion over distributions, there was not even a guarantee that a particular beneficiary would ever receive a distribution. In addressing the state’s concerns about existing tax regimes and tax avoidance, the court repeatedly emphasizes the narrowness of its holding. Furthermore, the opinion notes that if settlors wish to provide more certainty to beneficiaries, rather than entrusting distributions to the sole discretion of the trustee, tax-avoidance opportunities will be more limited. The opinion concludes that “mere speculation about negative consequences cannot conjure the ‘minimum connection’ missing between North Carolina and the object of its tax.” When the Supreme Court agreed to review this case, many observers hoped that the court might use it as an opportunity to address tax jurisdiction and provide guidance to taxpayers and states, especially in the wake of last summer’s decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair to allow states to impose a sales tax obligation on vendors who lack a physical presence in the state. Oral argument made clear that the justices were more interested in the particularities of trust law, and this opinion is decided quite narrowly. At multiple points within the opinion and its footnotes, the opinion explicitly withholds judgment, both about states’ claims of jurisdiction over trusts on other bases and about states’ jurisdiction over trusts whose distribution regimes differ from that of the Kaestner trust. In a concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, attempts to clarify that the narrowness of this holding does not mean there is no governing standard. Alito writes, “The Court’s discussion of the peculiarities of this trust does not change the governing standard, nor does it alter the reasoning applied in our earlier cases.” Although this concurrence suggests more certainty for trust cases going forward, it remains to be seen how the court will deal with other due process challenges to state tax regimes. A More Perfect Union: Eugenics in America
By Miriam H. Markfield, Esq. Marginalized populations, especially people with disabilities, remain vulnerable to eugenic threats and abuse and it is imperative that elder advocates, elder and special needs law attorneys in particular, understand eugenic rhetoric and the very real danger it poses. Download a PDF of the article Observing the NOTICE Act
By Professor Leigh Melton, JD, Amanda Bird, JD, and Lauren Ritter, JD The NOTICE Act requires hospitals to provide oral and written notification to patients who are under observation for more than 24 hours of their observation status within 36 hours of being placed under observation. However, the Act leaves many issues stemming from observation status and the 2-midnight rule unresolved. The Act provides no retroactive relief. It does not discourage hospitals from using observation stays as a cost-saving measure. It does not change the rule that observation stays do not trigger skilled nursing facility benefits. It does not give patients the right to administratively appeal their observation status once they receive notice. And the Act lacks bite because it does not specify the consequences of a hospital’s failure to comply. Download a PDF of the article |
AuthorJeff Sodoma, MPA, Esq. is a lawyer based in Virginia Beach, Virginia Blog!Hello, there! Welcome to my blog. I will use this blog as a platform for my writing. I will write about topics in the legal world, certainly, as well as everything else under the sun, because I have many interests (and viewpoints). All views expressed in this blog, unless otherwise noted, are mine alone. One of my interests is music--my wife believes that I should go on "Beat Shazam" because I know so many songs--and I will be, from time to time, analyzing song lyrics and how they relate to the legal world.
Archives
July 2022
Categories |