Author: JGL Law

Senior paralegal Jamerra Cherry recently testified at the Judicial Committee Proceedings in Annapolis in support of Bill SB 520. The bill aims to provide Baltimore residents with more time to respond to eviction complaints. Cherry was selected to share her experiences with the committee due to her winning record in the Baltimore City District Court. In addition to providing oral testimony, Cherry also wrote a statement on why city residents need help.

Another advocate of this bill has been the Public Justice Center, a civil legal aid office that advocates for social justice, equality and fundamental human rights for low-income clients. The center works alongside community and advocacy organizations to pursue projects that will have a significant impact.  To achieve their goals, the center advocates before legislative and government agencies, and they also provide their clients with legal advice and representation. 

While divorce can be a painful process for all children, those who experience Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) may have an even more complicated and difficult time adapting to the inevitable change that comes with his or her parents divorcing. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, the disorders are marked by patterns of inattention and impulsivity that can interfere with functioning and/or development. Frequent markers include a weakness in executive functioning skills, and/or the inability to organize cognitive processes such as prioritizing, monitoring behavior, shifting activities and planning ahead.

These characteristics mean that significant life changes can be upsetting to children with ADD/ADHD, especially in stressful situations such as parents’ divorce. Understood, an organization dedicated to supporting parents of children with learning and attention issues, identifies three specific issues that these children may have in the face of a divorce:

1. Trouble managing emotions: During a divorce, and its aftermath, it may be difficult for children with ADHD to manage their emotions, like sadness, anger and anxiety.
2. Hyperfocusing: This can be one the characteristics of ADHD, and in the wake of a divorce, a child with ADHD may dwell on the unsettling change for a long time. 
3. Trouble with flexible thinking: Children with ADHD may find it hard to adapt to these changes and adjust their own perceptions.

During a divorce, the child’s health, success in school and peer relationships can often depend upon the willingness and ability of both parents communicate and work cohesively in minimizing the impact of their child’s transition to living in two homes, particularly in the following areas:

1. Consistency in Parenting and Organization: It is extremely important that during and after a divorce, both parents present a unified front when talking to and caring for their child with ADD/ADHD. This extends to the child’s medication and other behavioral treatment options, making sure that the child is receiving the medical and mental health care that they need while with one or both parents. In addition, it is crucial to keep rules, schedules and rituals consistent across both households. It may be useful to keep two sets of books and clothes available for children with ADD/ADHD in both households, as these children forget or leave personal belongings at Dad’s home when residing at the Mom’s. This can be particularly acute and frustrating for the parents and child alike in equal time-sharing arrangements where the child does toggle back and forth between his or her parent’s homes. 

 

2. Behavior: In general, children with ADD/ADHD may have trouble controlling their own emotions and behaviors, but during a divorce, this control can become even more difficult. Both parents should encourage their child with ADD/ADHD to be open about their emotions, and at the same time, they should remain on the same page about what limits they will set regarding poor behavior. If it is financially feasible, having the child work with a therapist or “coach” who is inherently neutral and communicates with both parents relative to behaviors, strategies, medications.

 

3. Exercise and stimulation: It is vitally important to understand how important exercise and stimulation are for children with ADD/ADHD, and to incorporate physical and challenging activity into the child’s daily routine in both households. Exercise can make it easier for children with ADD/ADHD to focus for longer time periods, get along better with others, and stay more organized in their daily tasks.

It is impossible to shield a child with ADD/ADHD from every challenge that that arises when his or her parents divorce. However, those parents ho are able to present a unified front, understand, communicate and work cooperatively to help their child cope with the inevitable challenges that divorce presents are parents who clearly have their child’s best interests at heart.   

Joseph Greenwald & Laake principal Jerry Miller participated in the first of three Legal Business Clinics with Bowie Business Innovation Center (BIC) on Feb. 21. The clinic is available for Bowie BIC clients and entrepreneurs who are offered free 45-minute appointments to those who register in advance. The next two clinics will be hosted on March 21 and April 18.

Jerry is a principal in Joseph, Greenwald & Laake’s Business Services Group, and has nearly 30 years of experience in helping clients large and small tackle the legal challenges of owning and operating a business.

In custody cases involving relocation of one parent out-of-state, courts are often faced with the need to balance the interests of a child with the interests of parents in spending time with their children while at the same time, going on with their lives as they see fit. The case of Domingues v. Johnson[1] illustrates these tensions very well.

The decision sprung from a modification of access dispute between Diane Johnson, the mother of two minor children, and E. John Domingues, the children’s father.  The two were married but divorced when their children were 1 and 4 years old.  The parties reached a settlement agreement providing for joint custody of their children, and the agreement was incorporated into the parties’ divorce decree.  Their agreement provided that the children would reside primarily with their mother, but the father would have substantial access with their children.

Shortly after the parties’ divorce, Ms. Johnson remarried to a military officer, who was scheduled for a two-year tour of duty in San Antonio, Texas.  As a result of her anticipated relocation, Ms. Johnson filed a petition in the state trial court for modification of Mr. Domingues’ current visitation schedule.  In response, Mr. Domingues asked that he be granted sole custody of the minor children.  

The trial court ruled that, due to Ms. Johnson’s impending relocation, there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the parties’ divorce decree was issued.  The court ordered that the minor children should in fact live with their father and the mother was permitted to have the children with her during the summer and on certain holidays.  Unhappy with the result, Ms. Johnson appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s ruling in her favor on the grounds that the record failed to show a “demonstrable adverse effect upon the children to warrant a change in custody” to the father.[2] 

Mr. Domingues requested that the Maryland Court of Appeals (the “Court”) hear the case, and it did, reversing the Court of Special Appeals’ decision and sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.  Although the Court’s decision-making authority was limited in this case, the Court set forth applicable legal principles for consideration in all Maryland custody relocation cases. 

The Court stated that the proper test for courts to apply to a proposed change in custody is a combination of the “showing of a change in circumstances justifying a change in custody to accommodate the best interest of the child.”[3]  It is not necessary that the court find “that the changes have already caused identifiable harm to the children.  It is sufficient if the [judge] finds that changes have occurred which, when considered with all other relevant circumstances, require that a change in custody be made to accommodate the future best interest of the children.”[4]

The judge’s decision requires “an element of prediction” as to which parent the child will be better off in the future.[5]  After admitting that “stability cuts both ways” at times, the Court emphasized the importance of maintaining stability, which should be considered along with the remaining needs for change perceived by the relocating parent.[6]  The court’s decision will be much more difficult in a scenario involving two parents who play an active role and are heavily involved in their children’s lives versus the scenario where one parent is the primary caretaker and the other parent is seldom involved.

Although not an exhaustive list, some additional factors set forth by the Court in Domingues that should be taken into consideration by a judge are: (1) the relationship that currently exists between the parents and the children before relocation; (2) whether one parent has become the primary caretaker; (3) the amount of time each parent spends with the children; (4) the impact on the children’s relationships with their friends and extended family (both maternal and paternal); and (5) any evidence as to whether or not the attitude or conduct of the relocating parent will exacerbate the adverse effects of a physical separation of the children from their other parent, to the detriment of the children.[7]

I agree with the court’s analysis.  It is never easy to balance a child’s welfare with the interests of parents in performing parental duties.  Further, parents are human beings with their own needs and freedoms, and their desire to improve their lives by moving to another city should not be taken lightly. Here, since Maryland law requires that the court take into consideration the unique circumstances in each case as opposed to creating a bright-line rule, the court seems to have struck the balance appropriately.

 

Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office released a twenty page report still finding HUBZone certification fraud is being overlooked by the Small Business Administration. HUBZone fraud occurs when contractors mislead their ability to meet the requirements for the SBA’s HUBZone program in order to receive government contracts specifically carved out for small businesses in economically distressed communities, in both rural and urban areas.

However, the SBA has made strides in protecting its Historically Underutilized Business Zone Program by acting on some of the GAO recommendations. The SBA has increased site visits by ten percent, deterring businesses from using fake addresses. It also now informs businesses of potential consequences of certification violations. The SBA continues to make small scale changes so no longer are many hands in the cookie jar.

So, what qualifies as a HUBZone?

A HUBZone is located in (1) a qualified census tract; (2) a qualified “non-metropolitan county” with a median household income of less than 80% of the State median household income or with an unemployment rate of not less than 140% of the statewide average; or (3) the boundaries of federally recognized Indian reservations.

Want to know if your employer is located in a HUBZone? Check the SBA’s HUBZone Map. 

Not only must a business with certification be located within a HUBZone, but it must also meet a list of other criteria:

• The business must be a small business as defined by the SBA;
• it must be owned and controlled by at least 51% U.S. citizens; or a Community Development Corporation, or an agricultural cooperative or an Indian tribe
• its principal office must be located within a HUBZone; and
• at least 35% of its employees must reside in a HUBZone

Most businesses found to be falsely certified in the HUBZone Program usually violate the last two criteria. They have “principal offices” in name only. These businesses have a virtual office or may just receive mail at the address which they claim is a principal office. Additionally, the businesses may never verify or, when renewing certification, double-check that 35% of their employees also reside in HUBZone qualified locations.

If you think your employer falsely certified certification or is misleading the SBA about maintaining certification, you are protected under the False Claims Act as a whistleblower. If the GAO is any indicator, these cases will soon be cutting edge. Attorney Brian Markovitz will discuss your potential case with you confidentially and explain your potential recovery for your assistance in combating fraud against the government. Brian can be reached at (301) 220-2200.

There are only 2 states in the nation that do not penalize people who have knowledge of abuse yet fail to report it to officials. Maryland is one of these states and many people are hoping this changes soon. In light of a recent Maryland case where an educator aide was sentenced to 100 years in prison on 23 counts of child sex abuse and pornography, many want to close the loophole on child abuse and not only penalize the abuser but those who have knowledge of the situation but do not do anything to stop it.

To not be able to hold people who know of the abuse is “really unconscionable,” says JGL principal Tim Maloney who filed suit against the school system in which that educator’s aide abused many children. In that particular case, Tim says “We had all kinds of warning signs, complaints by parents, children, teachers. He was walking the halls in pajamas, for God’s sake. This situation cries out for reform.”

Tim is with many other legislators who want Maryland to hold all associated in abuse situations accountable. The current bill in discussion proposes those who fail to report child abuse and have “actual knowledge” of it will face a misdemeanor charge and up to six months in jail or a $1,000 fine.

Timothy Maloney is a preeminent trial lawyer who has obtained millions of dollars in recoveries for his clients in a wide variety of complex matters, including civil rights, employment discrimination, whistleblower actions, and high-stakes business litigation. As a principal at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, Tim has successfully taken on the government in numerous high-profile police misconduct and criminal defense cases. Tim remains a committed advocate for the public good and has held leadership roles with many civic and charitable organizations, including the University of Maryland Foundation; Maryland Catholic Conference; and St. Ann’s Center for Children, Youth, and Families. As a member of the Maryland Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, Tim works to promote the integrity of judicial elections and has helped establish statewide guidelines for judicial campaign funding.

To read the full article, click here.

Joseph Greenwald & Laake seeks litigation law clerks for full-time summer positions. These are paid positions. Please click here to read the full job description: https://www.jgllaw.com/careers/law-firm-jobs-at-jgl

Joseph Greenwald & Laake principal Jerry Miller has been elected to serve as a member of  the Board of Directors of the Bowie Business Innovation Center (BIC), a diverse entrepreneurial business community where technology, government contracting and other start-up  companies in Prince George’s county can access mentoring, counseling, networking and technical assistance. The BIC Board of Directors is comprised of strategically selected area entrepreneurs and seasoned business executives. “I am very excited to be a part of the entrepreneurial spirit at BIC and look forward to working with the board as we fulfill our mission to help local entrepreneurs grow their businesses,” said Jerry.  Bowie BIC is a Maryland nonprofit organization headquartered at the Center for Business at Bowie State University. Jerry’s term on the board begins this month and runs through 2020.

Jerry is a principal in Joseph, Greenwald & Laake’s Business Services Group, and has nearly 30 years of experience in helping clients large and small tackle the legal challenges of owning and operating a business. In addition to advising clients on a wide range of business issues, including business formation and choice of entity, corporate tax, and employment contracts & related issues, Jerry advises his clients on commercial real estate matters, including leases,  purchases and sales.

There has been a significant increase in the amount of gray divorces, or the divorce of couples after the age of 50, and a new tax law signed at the end of 2017 has the potential to affect them. 

A little-noticed provision of the new law, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, eliminates the longstanding tax deduction for alimony payments. Since 1942, alimony payments have been deductible for those who pay them and have also been reportable as income for those who receive them. When the new provision kicks in on Jan. 1, 2019, alimony will no longer be deductible for the payer or reportable as income for the recipient.

Since the person paying alimony (more often than not, the husband) is usually in a higher tax bracket than the person receiving alimony (normally the wife), the result had been a tax break for the divorcing family as a whole. This is because the deduction was usually worth more in tax savings to the payer than the amount of taxes that had to be paid by the recipient of alimony. That will no longer be true under the new tax law. The U.S. Treasury will benefit, but only in the estimated amount of $700 million annually for the next 10 years, a pittance compared with the federal budget deficit.

What does this mean for people, like many of my clients, who are older with substantial assets and incomes? Alimony is actually not that common these days in the United States. The Census Bureau says that only 243,000 Americans received alimony in 2016 and that 98 percent of these were women. However, these “gray divorces” that I see in my practice are far more likely to be affected by the new tax provisions than divorces among younger people who haven’t built up much wealth.

Some experts say that the new tax regime will discourage divorce entirely.

Ken Neumann, director of the Center for Mediation and Training in New York City, was quoted in CNBC as saying that couples could reason: “We can’t afford to get divorced without that tax benefit, so we’re going to stay together, and I don’t mean happily.”

Other experts say there could be a surge of divorces in 2018 as spouses try to claim the deduction before the 2019 effective date of the new tax law.

I doubt that we will see a rush to the divorce courts, and I also doubt that middle- or high-income people will stay together unhappily just to avoid the tax man. One thing is certain: Life will become more challenging for divorce lawyers who are trying to do the best for their clients. The old alimony calculations, which were based on the old tax treatment of alimony, will go out the window. People will continue to get divorced, and lawyers will continue to do their best to put their clients in the best possible financial positions.

The American Bar Association’s (ABA) Federal Sector Labor and Employment Law Committee recently held its annual Midwinter Meeting. Joe Creed, Joseph Greenwald & Laake principal attorney and employee co-chair of the ABA committee, kicked off the meeting with welcome remarks. The meeting lasted two days, and featured labor and employment law updates presented by expert-lead panels.

Creed is dedicated to staying current on trends in the law governing the rights of federal employees and also learning how new cases involving those rights are decided by courts and administrative agencies. He recently authored “Employment Rights of Federal Employees,” as a chapter in the Maryland Employment Law Deskbook, which is the go-to employment law resource for lawyers throughout Maryland.

The Federal Sector Labor and Employment Law Committee surveys the full scope of labor and employment law related to federal employees.  Its Mid-Winter Meeting brings together panels of experts and a diverse audience, including members of the EEOC, MSPB, and FLRA; administrative judges; federal agency attorneys; union representatives; and private attorneys. Creed has served as a co-chair of the committee since 2016. 

 

On January 28^th, Joseph Greenwald & Laake’s Executive Committee officially endorsed the Early Care and Education agenda brought forward by Montgomery Moving Forward (MMF), an initiative of Nonprofit Montgomery. MMF is an initiative committed to strategic action and innovative solutions within the county. MMF hosted a kick-off event for it’s Early Care and Education Call to Action on January 31^st at the Marriott International Hotel in Bethesda.  JGL was present at this event.

In an official letter to MMF, JGL states “We are in agreement that early care and education for children ages zero to five is of critical importance to the economic vitality of Montgomery County.” The letter continues with stating the JGL Executive Committee believes this goal “will attract and retain a talented workforce by supporting families of young children, and will also ensure a skilled workforce of tomorrow by addressing the growing opportunity gap.”

In Montgomery County, there are 67,000 children under the age of five. At present, 49 percent of those children entering the school system are not ready to begin, causing a large economic impact in the future. MMF envisions a community in which every family with young children will have access to high-quality and affordable Early Care and Education. It also envisions that every child will be ready for kindergarten and beyond, and that employers will be able to attract and retain skilled and productive workers.

JGL Is excited to work with Montgomery Moving Forward and is proud to endorse the Early Care and Education agenda.

Through an internal DOJ memo, seven principles have been shared in an effort to help attorneys gain a universal understanding of when whistleblower cases should be dismissed. JGL principal Brian Markovitz shares with the Bloomberg BNA Magazine his belief that these guidelines leave whistleblower lawsuits open to dismissal by the DOJ because of personal political considerations, either from federal prosecutors assigned to a particular case within a U.S. attorney’s office, or from higher up in the DOJ and presidential administration.

Click on the image below to read the entire article.

In his practice, Markovitz serves clients from a variety of industries including government, construction, healthcare, and many more. His clients trust him to help them during their most desperate times, and they appreciate his dedication to correcting injustices that have a tremendous impact on their lives. Markovitz brings an individualized and holistic approach to every case, taking into account each client’s distinct needs and goals in resolving the dispute. His goal isn’t just to win the case – it’s also about helping each client in every way he can.