Child custody is often the foremost concern of divorcing couples who have minor children. It is also one of the most emotionally challenging aspects of a divorce. Child custody laws are determined by state statute, and it is important to under the laws in your state if child custody is expected to be one of the deciding factors in your divorce. 

Attorneys at SBEMP (Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney) law firm provide professional legal advice and services to clients in Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Inland Empire, Orange County, Coachella Valley, Costa Mesa, San Diego, New Jersey, New York, and surrounding communities. 

 

Types of Child Custody

Different types of child custody may be granted to divorcing parents by a family court. The court will make a decision after considering what would be in the child’s best interest. Individual preferences of a parent will be a secondary consideration, while the child’s best interest becomes the dominant factor. 

Family courts usually prefer that both parents should have an active involvement in the child’s life. However, in exceptional situations, the court may grant sold custody of the child to one parent. Here are some of the important types of child custody: 

 

Physical Custody 

This refers to the decision regarding which parent should be in physical possession of the child. Unless the court has strong reasons to believe that the child’s best interests will be served when only one parent is granted sole physical custody, this award is rarely given. 

 

Legal Custody 

Legal custody allows a parent to make key life decisions on the child’s behalf, even if the actual physical custody lies with the other parent. If the parent is unable make these decisions or is absent, they will not be awarded legal custody in most situations. 

 

Joint Custody 

It is the most common form of child custody in all the states. In this case, the child gets an opportunity to closely engage with both parents separately. 

 

Split Custody

In exceptional circumstances, the children may be divided between the parents. The court usually would like to keep the siblings together, but in very rare cases, split custody may be granted. 

 

Factors Court will Consider for Custody 

Sometimes it may not be simple for the court to determine what is in the best interest of the child. In these situations, a social worker or psychologist may be enlisted to evaluate the child so that the court can make an informed decision. In general, the court will consider the following factors while determining custody: 

Lawyers at the SBEMP law firm serve clients from Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Inland Empire, Orange County, Coachella Valley, Costa Mesa, San Diego, New Jersey, New York, and nearby locations for a range of legal practice areas.


Contact Us

For more information or to request a consultation please contact the law offices of SBEMP (Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney) by clicking here. 

SBEMP LLP is a full service law firm with attorney offices in Palm Springs (Palm Desert, Inland Empire, Rancho Mirage), CA; Indian Wells, CA; Costa Mesa (Orange County), CA; San Diego, CA; New Jersey, NJ; and New York, NY.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it. This blog post may be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained within this blog post. Before acting or relying upon any information within this newsletter, seek the advice of an attorney.

Child Support Law | Palm Springs Law Firm | Rancho Mirage AttorneyChild support law imposes a legal obligation on most non-custodial parents to make a financial contribution towards the upbringing of their child. While it is a state law, the administration of a child support order can become an issue of multiple jurisdictions if the child and the parent relocate. Child support orders are also subject to modification where necessary.

Paying child support is a legal obligation of a non-custodial parent that will be separate from any other responsibilities or rights they may have. For instance, if the custodial parent refuses visitation in a wrongful manner to the non-custodial parent, it does not free them from the responsibility of paying child support. Failure to pay child support could result in contempt of court and other legal consequences. 

Attorneys at SBEMP (Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney) law firm provide professional legal advice and services to clients in Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Inland Empire, Orange County, Coachella Valley, Costa Mesa, San Diego, New Jersey, New York, and surrounding locations.

 

Calculating Child Support Payments

State statutes provide clear guidelines for determining the amount of child support in a particular case. In most states, a worksheet is published to simply the process. The parties can simply enter their income and expense details in order to determine a “presumptive” amount of monthly child support payment. 

However, the amount thus determined is considered presumptive because it can be adjusted depending the unique circumstances of a case. If the co-parents are agreeable on a certain amount of child support, they can seek the court’s approval for that amount. Where the co-parents are unable to arrive at an agreement, the judge will decide the amount after a court hearing. 

 

Payment Procedure 

Child support payments should be made to a designated child support agency in the state or to the court. Even if the custodial parent requests the paying parent to transfer the amount directly to his or her account, it’s paramount to reject such a request for direct payment. 

In many cases, it is seen that the non-custodial parent did not get the credit for child support payments made directly to the custodial parent. Even if the co-parents informally agree with each other to excuse missed payments, the law does not recognize that. 

In terms of tax implications, child support is a neutral payment. This means, the non-custodial parent cannot show it as an expense for tax deduction, and the custodial parent is not required to show it as income. 

 

Modifying a Child Support Order

Living circumstances of either party can change over time while the child is growing up. A significant reduction or increment in the income of either parent can be a reasonable cause for seeking modification of the child support order. It is prudent to work with an experienced child support attorney to negotiate any issues related to child support payments. 

Lawyers at the SBEMP law firm serve clients from Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Inland Empire, Orange County, Coachella Valley, Costa Mesa, San Diego, New Jersey, New York, and nearby locations for a range of legal practice areas.

Contact Us

For more information or to request a consultation please contact the law offices of SBEMP (Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney) by clicking here. 

SBEMP LLP is a full service law firm with attorney offices in Palm Springs (Palm Desert, Inland Empire, Rancho Mirage), CA; Indian Wells, CA; Costa Mesa (Orange County), CA; San Diego, CA; New Jersey, NJ; and New York, NY.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it. This blog post may be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained within this blog post. Before acting or relying upon any information within this newsletter, seek the advice of an attorney.

Employers need to be aware of new poster and handbook regulations that took effect April 1, 2019.  California Code of Regulations, tit. 2, § 11095 imposed two new requirements:

1. Every employer covered by the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and/or New Parent Leave Act (“NPLA”) is required to conspicuously post a notice explaining the two Acts’ provisions and providing information concerning the procedures for filing complaints of violations of the Acts with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Employers with 20 to 49 employees will need to post the new notice on their premises, and employers with 50 or more employees will need to update their existing notice.

2. If the employer publishes a handbook that describes other kinds of leaves available to its employees, the handbook must be updated to include a description of CFRA and/or NPLA leave.

For questions on these new regulations or any other labor and employment issue, contact SBEMP.

SBEMP’S Labor and Employment Department is comprised of attorneys with decades of experience in a broad range of labor and employment matters from day-to-day counseling to labor negotiations and litigation. Our team is prepared to guide our clients through the complex myriad of employment laws affecting California employers. We assist our clients with day-to-day personnel management issues, such as drafting employment policies, managing leaves of absence, identifying potential problems in hiring and firing practices, and ensuring wage and hour compliance. Our attorneys are also experienced litigators who regularly represent clients in all types of employment litigation, including defending wage and hour class actions as well as lawsuits alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Additionally, we regularly represent clients in administrative proceedings, such as Labor Commissioner claims, CalOSHA citations, DFEH and EEOC investigations, and DLSE complaints. Our labor and employment practice is also prepared to assist clients with labor negotiations and disputes. Our labor attorneys are experienced in negotiating labor agreements as well as representing clients before the NLRB.

DISCLAIMER: This newsletter does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it. This newsletter may be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained within this newsletter. Before acting or relying upon any information within this newsletter, seek the advice of an attorney.

KNOW YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS

Brief Overview of Special Education Law & the IEP Process
by Peter Nolan

Parents of children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21 have important educational rights protected under the law. The Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides for procedural safeguards with regard to the processes involved. Specifically, families with special education children have the right to:

•Have their child assessed to determine eligibility and needs;
•Access, inspect, review and obtain copies of school records pertaining to their child
•Attend an annual “individualized education program” (IEP) meeting and develop an IEP plan with their school district; and
•Resolve disputes with the school district through both administrative and legal process.

Most importantly, parents must be given the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding their child’s special education program. Parents have the right to participate in IEP meetings about their child’s eligibility, assessment, educational placement and other matters relating to their child’s free appropriate public education (FAPE).

To effectively protect their educational rights, parents need to be informed of the basic special education process under IDEA.

Step 1 – Child must be identified as possibly needing special education and related services. Schools engage in “Child Find” activities to assist in identification, but parents
may also ask to have their child evaluated.

Step 2 – Child is evaluated.

Step 3 – Eligibility is determined.

Step 4 – IEP process takes place. The process includes notification of parents, scheduling of meetings, and the development of the child’s IEP. During this process, the parents may express their concerns or disagreements directly with the IEP team.

Step 5 – Services are provided. The program laid out in the child’s written IEP is then
implemented.

Along the way, the child’s progress is measured and reported to the parents. At least once a year, the IEP is reviewed and modified as necessary. Each child is reevaluated at least every three years.

Although forms will vary from one school district to another, every IEP should include the same information. That is:
•Current educational status
•Goals and objectives
•Instructional setting or placement
•Transition services (if the child is 16 or older)
•Due process

As a parent of a special education child, you have the right to take any dispute you have with your child’s school district to a neutral third party for resolution.

For more information on the IDEA, the IEP process and your rights, contact your local school district, California Department of Education Special Education Division, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, or contact us at SBEMP to discuss your child’s individual situation and see how we can protect your family’s rights.

CASE ALERTS

Disability Law Center of Alaska v. Davidson

Summary: In March, 2018, the Disability Law Center of Alaska and minors R.S. and J.S., represented through their parent Kikona Savo, sued Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Valerie Davidson, and the State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied on grounds that plantiff, Davidson, did not inform the defendant on how to apply for applied behavioral analysis (ABA), did not reimburse ABA under the program, or provide ABA services in reasonable time. This case is yet another example of the importance of ABA programs and knowing the rights of special needs minors. Click here to learn more.

Green v. Green

Summary: Molly Green, after the death of her husband, filed a restraining order against stepson, Holden Green, in 2014. The Superior Court issued a one year protective order to Molly Green. Once the one year period had passed, Molly renewed the restraining order for another five year period in 2015. Holden then filed three separate appeals, claiming the initial restraining order was unqualified, and that the extension of the order and awarding of Molly’s attorney fees and costs were both unnecessary. The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District ruled in Molly Green’s favor, affirming the renewal order. Click here to learn more.

Did You Know?

Families with 529 accounts can now transfer, at a rate of $15,000 annually, to an ABLE Act account for their child with special needs. Before doing so, families are encouraged to consult with their tax professional to fully understand the associated tax consequences.

ABLE Act beneficiaries who work are able to contribute part of their income (i.e., up to the Federal Poverty Level, $12,490.00) on top of the annual funding of $15,000.00.

It is permissible for a SNT Trustee, where the language contained therein supports the same, to fund an ABLE Act account for the SNT beneficiary up to the annual $15,000.00 allowance.

With locations in Palm Springs and Indian Wells, California; New Jersey, New Jersey; and Manhattan, New York, SBEMP’S Special Needs & Elder Law Department is comprised of attorneys with decades of experience in a broad range of issues the cover the lifespan of needs for the special needs and elderly population.  SBEMP’S Special Needs & Elder Law Department’s experience includes: health care insurance, short-term and long-term disability insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, special needs trusts, trust administration, estate planning & administration, guardianships and conservatorships, elder law, and special education .

A group of homeowners represented by SBEMP has prevailed on a Motion for Summary Adjudication against Morningside County Club (“Morningside”), a common-interest development in Rancho Mirage, California, which asked the court to void the results of an election which imposed a $250 monthly fee (“Proprietary Fee”) on all homeowners to support The Club at Morningside (“Club”), a private Golf and Tennis Club at Morningside, regardless of whether a homeowner was a member of the Club. Concurrent with the adoption of the Proprietary Fee, the Club gave its members a credit against their monthly dues in the same amount as the Proprietary Fee. Thus, in effect, non-Club members were required to pay the fee to subsidize the Club without obtaining any privileges at the Club. The court further held that Plaintiffs were entitled to restitution (reimbursement) of all amounts paid on the Proprietary Fee.

In 2015, SBEMP filed a lawsuit on behalf of 23 non-Club member homeowners against Morningside, the Club, the law firm of Peters & Freedman LLP (which acted as the Inspector of Elections), as well as various individual members of the governing boards of Morningside and the Club, challenging the validity of the Proprietary Fee under the Davis-Stirling Act. The lawsuit alleged that the Proprietary Fee was an impermissible unequal assessment and exceeded the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it was levied, both in violation of the Davis-Stirling Act. The lawsuit also alleged that Defendants engaged in election fraud by using information secretly obtained from the Inspector of Elections during the course of the election regarding who had voted. Defendants then used that information to tally the vote and determine who to contact in order to increase the number of votes in favor of the Proprietary Fee.

The court held that the undisputed facts showed that there were clear election violations which justified voiding the election results. Relying on provisions of the Davis-Stirling Act governing HOA elections (Civil Code section 5100 et seq .), the court concluded that the Inspector of Elections’ actions in providing Defendants ongoing updates of who had voted violated the principle of the secret ballot and the Inspector’s duty of fairness and impartiality to all homeowners primarily because the information was useful only to those in favor of the Proprietary Fee. The court further found that the Proprietary Fee disproportionately affected non-Club members (was “grievous and unjust” to them), which weighed heavily in favor of the court exercising its discretion in voiding the election and ordering restitution for Plaintiffs.

The ruling is particularly significant in that, like Morningside, several common interest developments with private golf clubs have also been looking for ways to shift a portion of the cost of supporting such clubs to non-club members. In light of the ruling in favor of SBEMP’s clients, they will likely now be wary of trying to do this by the means attempted by Morningside.

Charles L. Gallagher

The Motion for Summary Adjudication was prepared by Charles L. Gallagher, who has litigated this case with fellow SBEMP attorneys Shaun M. Murphy and David A. Smith. Mr. Gallagher is a litigation attorney and senior counsel with Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP. Currently, Mr. Gallagher’s practice is primarily complex civil litigation (real estate, eminent domain, contracts, municipal law/compliance and probate litigation), Federal Native American law, and appellate work. In the last five years, Mr. Gallagher has successfully prosecuted and defended actions on behalf of several commercial clients in a broad range of actions including breach of contract, fraud, land use and regulatory compliance. He has also represented municipalities in connection with the wind down of California’s Redevelopment Agencies and related litigation.

Click here to read full bio.

Shaun M. Murphy

Mr. Murphy is a Martindale-Hubbell AV-rated trial attorney and partner with Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP. Currently, Shaun’s practice is primarily complex civil litigation (contract, real estate and land use, trade secrets and intellectual property) and plaintiff’s personal injury. Shaun has experience in a broad range of issues, including employment claims, unfair competition, multi-jurisdictional product liability/recall actions, public and private construction disputes featuring delay/disruption/acceleration claims, and professional liability claims. He has also successfully defended several commercial clients in a broad range of claims including architectural copyright infringement, trademark infringement and breach of contract. He has extensive mediation and arbitration experience and has tried cases in both state and federal courts.

Click here to read full bio.

David A. Smith

Mr. Smith is a Corporate, Commercial, and Business Litigation Attorney who has represented several major creditor institutions, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Chase Bank, Union Bank and numerous others. Mr. Smith has served as an American Arbitration Panel Judge specializing in Business Contract Transactions and related Partnership disputes in Orange County California. He has extensive background in HOA litigation and issues arising under the Davis-Stirling Act. Mr. Smith has also provided legal counsel to numerous professional sports athletes and various franchises while serving as General Counsel for both Athletes for Youth and Professional Sports Authenticators. In 2001 he was designated as an Expert in Sports Contracts and related issues and has participated in the arbitration and resolution of various contract disputes.

Click here to read full bio.

SBEMP Litigation Department

Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP’s civil litigation practice group offers a wide range of specialized litigation services for private sector companies, public agencies and individuals. Our litigators represent clients in an array of civil disputes, including:

To learn more about the firm’s Litigation Department click here.

Visit our Website

With locations in Palm Springs, CA, New Jersey, NJ, and Manhattan, NY,   SBEMP’S Litigation practice group offers a wide range of specialized litigation services for private sector companies, public agencies and individuals. Our litigators represent clients in an array of civil disputes, including: intellectual property, personal injury, complex business and real estate, trusts and estate, construction defect, owner, contractor/sub-contractor disputes, eminent domain and condemnation, homeowners’ association and hospitality, partnership disputes, tribal, healthcare, first amendment, and defamation.

DISCLAIMER: This newsletter does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it. This newsletter may be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained within this newsletter. Before acting or relying upon any information within this newsletter, seek the advice of an attorney.

PALM SPRINGS, CA—September 25, 2018— Attorneys Shaun Murphy and
Katelyn Empey of Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP successfully
challenged Imperial County ordinance Measure X on behalf of Burrtec Waste
Industries Inc. Imperial County Superior Court Judge, the Honorable L. Brooks Anderholt, declared that Measure X was unconstitutional and preempted by state law.

Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. v. Imperial County (Superior Court of California, County of Imperial, Case No. ECU09921) centers on the Salton City Solid Waste Site, which, before 2009, was operated by Imperial County. After the County issued a Request for Proposal, Burrtec submitted a proposal to operate the Site, and indicated that it would import a portion of the solid waste delivered to the Site from outside the County. Thereafter, Burrtec and the County entered into a lease agreement in 2008, and Burrtec assumed control of the Site operations on February 4, 2009.

After spending millions in improvements on the Site with the expectation of being able to import “biosolids”, referring to treated sewage sludge, from outside the County, Burrtec was told a permit could not be issued under conditions specified in Measure X.

Measure X, which voters approved, was enacted as an ordinance in 2007 and, to summarize, was created to prohibit the disposal of solid waste in the Imperial County that did not originate in the County.

The Honorable L. Brooks Anderholt agreed with Burrtec and SBEMP, ruling… “Measure X conflicts with state law to the point where it is preempted thereby and is therefore void.” Judgment was ordered in favor of Burrtec.

For more information about this case, please contact Shaun Murphy at (760)
322-2275 or murphy@sbemp.com. For more information about SBEMP, LLP, please visit our website: www.sbemp.com.

Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP

By: Valerie A. Powers Smith, Esq.

Eligibility

If a child under age 18 is ineligible for Medicaid because of parental income or resources, the Community Care Waiver (CCW) waives the deeming of parental income and resources. For individuals 18 years and older, the resource limitation is still $2,000 as is the case with the Medicaid State Plan; but the income limitation is higher at approximately $2,022 per month.

The following Medicaid eligibility groups are now served under the CCW:

Services

In addition to Medicaid State Plan services, a DDD client under the CCW may receive:

Application

To apply for the CCW, contact your DDD (800-832-9137) or your DDD case manager directly to request an application.

ABOUT Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP

© 2011, Valerie A. Powers Smith, Esq.

Valerie A. Powers Smith, Esq., Of Counsel, Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP, is licensed to practice in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and California and specializes in the following special needs and disability law subject areas: health care insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, special needs trust, trust administration, estate planning & administration, guardianships, and accessing federal and state government disability-based benefits. Valerie can be contacted at powers@sbemp.com, 609.655.3393 or 760.322.2275.

By Arden Wallum and John Pinkney

Mission Springs Water District (“MSWD” or “District”)— encompassing North Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs and some unincorporated areas of Riverside County — experienced robust growth for a decade until 2007.

During the growth spurt, MSWD significantly expanded its facilities to keep up with the demand created by nearly $1 billion in new development and construction.  In less than five years, MSWD’s assets grew from $90 million to over $150 million as the District built new infrastructure to keep up with increased demand.

But the Great Recession stopped economic momentum in MSWD’s service area almost overnight. MSWD’s revenues declined by millions, but the District still had to maintain its new and expanded infrastructure. On top of that, regulations requiring a new solids removal and treatment process in one of the District’s production wells added nearly $1 million annually to operating costs.

Like other public agencies in California, MSWD quickly found itself facing a challenging position. The District aggressively cut costs — including staff layoffs, a salary freeze and other measures — to reduce operating expenses. But it was not enough and raising water and sewer rates became inevitable.

So MSWD initiated and completed a Prop 218 rate increase process and held eight public meetings to garner extensive community input. Most of the meeting participants supported the proposed rate increase, and less than 0.2% of those receiving rate increase notices objected to the proposed new rates.  Even the local daily newspaper publically endorsed the proposal.

MSWD maintained some of the lowest rates in the region, even after the rate increase went into effect at the start of 2011.

After the new rates were implemented, a small group began circulating petitions to place initiatives on an upcoming ballot that would reduce MSWD’s revenues by as much as 40%. One of the initiatives’ proponents made comments to the local press that the initiatives were intended to force MSWD into insolvency with the intent the District would then be taken over by neighboring agencies.

MSWD’s financial analysis concluded that the District would be rendered insolvent and unable to continue providing water and sewer services if voters approved the initiatives. The MSWD board and its general manager had serious concerns not only about the impact of the initiatives themselves, but also about whether a small group of voters could misuse the initiative process as a means to drive a public agency into insolvency.

Consequently, MSWD evaluated its legal options. One concern was that the initiatives violated the mandates of California Water Code section 31007, which requires that water rates be set at levels that are sufficient to cover the cost of providing services, service debt and set aside reasonable reserves. Amid an election year, the MSWD board made the politically difficult decision to file a lawsuit challenging the legality of the initiatives on several grounds.

The initiatives’ proponents, via representation from the the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association, responded to MSWD’s lawsuit by filing a demurrer and a SLAPP motion.  Jarvis argued that MSWD had acted without legal authority in failing to place the initiatives on the ballot and argued that the initiatives could not be challenged before the election.  MSWD countered that there is no constitutional right to place an unlawful measure on the ballot and the District further argued that post-election initiative challenges that result in successful measures being overturned by courts have the tendency to erode voter confidence.  Accordingly, MSWD argued that where a ballot initiative contains serious legal flaws, the better approach is to permit pre-election judicial review of the initiatives. The trial court ruled in favor of MSWD on both the demurrer and SLAPP motion, and thus, refused to dismiss MSWD’s lawsuit.

In response, Jarvis filed an appeal with the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which ruled that a measure may be kept off the ballot if it represents an effort to exercise a power which the electorate does not possess. The Court of Appeal agreed with MSWD’s position that the initiative proponents lacked the power to exempt themselves from the requirements of Water Code Section 31007.

Thereafter, Jarvis filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied.  As a result, the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s published opinion remains good law.  (See Mission Springs Water District v. Verjil  (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 892.)

The case presented some fascinating constitutional issues, primarily whether a group of local voters may rely on the constitutional right of initiative to essentially override a state statute mandating that water rates be set at a minimum level.  The Jarvis organization argued to the Fourth District that initiatives could be used to involuntarily bankrupt a public agency.  Based on the court’s published decision, the answer is clearly that the initiative power has limitations and that when voters step into the shoes of a local agency’s legislative body to pass an initiative, the voters are subject to the same laws and limitations as the legislative body.

While the initiative process remains alive and well after Mission Springs Water District vs. Verjil, the case confirms that a public agency may seek pre-election review of an invalid initiative.  The case also makes clear that where a state statute mandates that an agency set rates at a level sufficient to cover the cost of services, the initiative process cannot be used to set rates below that level.

Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP

By: Valerie A. Powers Smith, Esq.

The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act and Health Care & Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (a.k.a., the Affordable Care Act) was passed into law in March 2010.

As many are aware, there has been great debate and legal challenges since its passage. On June 28, the Supreme Court issued its decision ruling that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional. One of the most controversial components of ACA decided by the Supreme Court was the mandate that those who can afford to purchase healthcare coverage, do so or face a financial penalty, was held constitutional under the taxation power (not the commerce power) of Congress.

In response, House Republicans are said to seek to overturn ACA; perhaps, as soon as July 2012. In the meantime and without regard to either side of the argument, this article provides a highlight of some of the key points of the law.

Since September 23, 2010, private insurance plans have been prohibited from:

In addition, since September 23, 2010, private insurance plans have been required to provide coverage to beneficiary’s dependents up to age 26 regardless of residence or marital status so long as the dependent is not eligible for his or her own group coverage.

Since October 1, 2011, a new state Medicaid option, Community First Choice (CFC), has required participating states to provide self-directed services statewide in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual.

In October 2012, one will be able to join and get benefits from a voluntary, enrollment-based insurance program called the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Program. CLASS will provide assistance to people who need help with daily activities. Under this voluntary program, one can get cash allowances so they can get care and other support to help them keep their independence. Starting January 1, 2014:

Also in 2014, most adults under age 65 with incomes up to about $15,000 per year for single individual (higher income for couples/families with children) will qualify for Medicaid in every state. State Medicaid programs will also be able to offer additional services to help those who need long-term care at home and in the community. Moreover, the Federal government will pay 100% until 2016 (phasing down to 90% in 2020) to states participating in the Medicaid program. Additional expansions to the Medicaid and Medicare program are set to occur in 2013 and 2014, such as:

Valerie A. Powers Smith, Esq. is an attorney with Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP in Palm Springs. In addition to her estates and trust practice, she has concentrated part of her practice in the area of health care law and has vigorously advocated for families and people with disabilities to gain medically necessary care from private insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare, and other health insurance providers. She can be reached at (760) 322-2275 or powers@sbemp.com.

ABOUT Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP

©2012, Valerie A. Powers Smith, Esq.

Valerie A. Powers Smith, Esq., Of Counsel, Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP, is licensed to practice in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and California and specializes in the following special needs and disability law subject areas: health care insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, special needs trust, trust administration, estate planning & administration, guardianships, and accessing federal and state government disability-based benefits. Valerie can be contacted at powers@sbemp.com, 609.655.3393 or 760.322.2275.