FAMILY LAW CASES

• U.S. v. Dedman
• San Joaquin County Dep’t of Child Support Serv. v. Winn
• In re Marriage of Gong

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 29, 2008
U.S. v. Dedman, No. 06-6124
In a prosecution arising from a marriage between defendant's adopted daughter/cousin and defendant's adoptive father as part of a plan to collect his military pension, her conviction for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Department of Defense and making material false statements to a federal agent is affirmed where: 1) the government could not rely on its sham-marriage theory because the district court did not instruct the jury as to such argument; 2) the district court correctly decided that the marriage was void under Arkansas state law; 3) even if the Arkansas marriage statute were unconstitutional, it was not plain error for the district court to apply it; 4) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; 5) a jury instruction regarding Arkansas law was not plainly erroneous; and 6) withheld taxes are properly considered part of the government's loss under U.S.S.G. section 2B1.1. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, May 27, 2008
San Joaquin County Dep’t of Child Support Serv. v. Winn, No. C054387
In county's action seeking to establish defendant's paternity for purposes of obtaining an order that he pay child support and furnish health insurance for his children, defendant's appeal from an order granting a motion for genetic testing and providing that a proposed statement of decision would become the court's judgment if no one objected within 15 days, is dismissed where: 1) the mere "proposed statement of decision" did not make it a judgment from which an appeal could be taken; 2) the genetic testing order was not appealable as a collateral order; and 3) the underlying paternity action did not elevate to the level of importance warranting treating the appeal as a writ application. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, May 29, 2008
In re Marriage of Gong, No. A114589
An appeal from an order to pay child support and related obligations is dismissed as frivolous and monetary sanctions are imposed on appellant who pursued every possible avenue to evade his support obligations, even when ordered to do so by the court, and prosecuted a meritless appeal solely for the purpose of taking advantage of the delay in discharging his payment obligations. Read more...