Gay and Lesbian High School Students Report ‘Heartbreaking’ Levels of Violence

The first nationwide study to ask high school students about their sexuality found that gay, lesbian and bisexual teenagers are at far greater risk for depression, bullying and many types of violence than their straight peers.

“I found the numbers heartbreaking,” said Dr. Jonathan Mermin, a senior official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which includes a division that administered the survey.gay hate

The survey documents what smaller studies have suggested for years, but it is significant because it is the first time the federal government’s biannual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the gold-standard of adolescent health data collection, looked at sexual identity. The survey found that about 8 percent of the high school population describe themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, which would be 1.3 million students

These children were three times more likely than straight students to have been raped. They skipped school far more often because they did not feel safe: at least a third had been bullied on school property. And they were twice as likely as heterosexual students to have been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property

More than 40 percent of these students reported they had seriously considered suicide, and 29 percent had made attempts in the year before they took the survey. The percentage of those who use various illegal drugs was many times greater than heterosexual peers. While 1.3 percent of straight students said they had used heroin, for example, 6 percent of the gay, lesbian and bisexual students reported having done so.

New York Times, August 11,2016 By Jan Hoffman

Click here to read the entire article.

in Recently Added / Science  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

Lesbian Couple Sue Over New Jersey Rules for Fertility Treatment

Five years ago, Erin and Marianne Krupa chose to start a family. They moved to Montclair, N.J., from a more conservative environment in North Carolina, and decided that Erin would carry their first child.

Erin Krupa remembered her fertility doctor looking her in the eye and promising to help her become pregnant.

But there were complications. At an appointment with her doctor in 2013, Ms. Krupa, then 33, learned that she had benign cysts on her uterus and Stage 3 endometriosis, in which the tissue that normally lines the inside of the uterus grows outside. That meant she was infertile.Donor

Despite her doctor’s assurances that insurance would pay for fertility treatment, Ms. Krupa’s provider, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, denied coverage. The company cited a state insurance mandate from 2001 that required most women under 35 — no matter their sexual orientation — to demonstrate their infertility through “two years of unprotected sexual intercourse.”

Now the Krupas, along with two other women, are suing the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance, claiming the mandate discriminates against their sexual orientation — essentially forcing infertile homosexual women to pay for costly procedures to try to become pregnant.

“These women are already going through what can be a difficult experience, and they have the added stress of affording it financially and the added insult of being treated like a second-class citizen,” said Grace Cretcher, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

The state mandate requires most major insurance companies to cover medically necessary treatments for infertile clients. It defines infertility as the inability to impregnate another person, the inability to carry a pregnancy to live birth or the inability to conceive after one or two years of unprotected sex, depending on the woman’s age.

New York Times, August 8, 2016 by Megan Jula

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / IVF / Legal / Science  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

Meet the Soon-to-Be 1st Trans Parents in South America

LGBT activist Diane Rodriguez and her boyfriend Fernando Machado are an Ecuadorian couple who are set to become South America’s first-known transgender parents. They recently announced their pregnancy which has received much support for the couple.trans couple

Rodriguez wrote in a Facebook post: “I’m going to be a mum, my boyfriend Fernando Machado is pregnant with me. After having spoken with my family, people who are very close to my life and social environment, I wish to make public one of the news that I think is the most important in my life and that of my partner, Fernando Machado.”

She added that she understood that the announcement would receive comments in favor and against the happy news, however, she believes the news is important for society to change and is something wonderful for her and her boyfriend to celebrate: “But as an activist and transsexual woman committed to a process of profound social transformation , I believe that public opinion must know this wonderful news : Fernando Machado and Diane Rodriguez will be mom and dad.”

Click here to read the entire article.

thenextfamily.com By Alex Temblador

in Family Stories / International / Parenting / Personal Stories  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

Supreme Court Blocks Order Allowing Transgender Student Restroom Choice

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked a court order that had allowed a transgender boy to use the boys’ bathroom in a Virginia high school.

The vote was 5 to 3, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer joining the court’s more conservative members “as a courtesy.” He said that this would preserve the status quo until the court decided whether to hear the case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

The court’s order has no effect on any other case.

new york probate process

The gavel of a judge in court

The move came amid a national debate over transgender rights. A North Carolina law that requires transgender people to use bathrooms in government buildings that correspond with the gender listed on their birth certificates has drawn protests, boycotts and lawsuits. A directive from the Obama administration threatening schools with the loss of federal money for discrimination based on gender identity has been challenged in court by more than 20 states.

The case in the Supreme Court concerns Gavin Grimm, who was born female but identifies as a male and will soon start his senior year at Gloucester High School in southeastern Virginia. For a time, school administrators allowed Mr. Grimm to use the boys’ bathroom, but the local school board adopted a policy that required students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms for their “corresponding biological genders.” The board added that “students with gender identity issues” would be allowed to use private bathrooms.

Click here to read the entire article.

New York Times – By ADAM LIPTAK

in Ethics / In the News / Legal / Legislation / Religious  by Anthony Brown 1 comments

ALEC MAPA AND JAMIE HEBERT: FAME, FAMILY, AND FOSTER CARE

“I was booked to perform at one of her R Family Vacations cruises in 2007,” recalls actor Alec Mapa, telling Gays With Kids that he and husband Jamie Hebert were surrounded by so many LGBT families that they just knew fatherhood was in the cards for them, too.

“I met a social worker on the ship specializing in helping LGBT families find foster-adopt placement,” Mapa continues, describing how he got her card and promptly lost it back on land in the junk drawer that is his garage. What happened next was kismet.

“So, when I was finally ready to call this woman, I realized that card was in a box somewhere in that garage! And I reached into a box, and the first thing I touched on was that card. We went to meet her at the Extraordinary Families agency, we took the foster-adopt courses … and nine months later we had a kid living in our house.”alec mapa

If you don’t know “America’s Favorite Gaysian,” you know his face: Mapa’s resume is catalog of critically-acclaimed comedy, from “Desperate Housewives” and “Ugly Betty” (where he played the hyperkinetic Suzuki St. Pierre) to “Devious Maids” and “The Gossip Queens.” He met producer Hebert on the set of his one-man show “Drama” in 2002 and the two have been an item ever since, marrying in 2008.

But this journey to fatherhood differs from most. When Zion came into their lives, he was the kind of kid most prospective parents don’t touch: He was African-American, he was a boy, and, at age five, he was old. Moreover, he was a foster-child, meaning his birthmother had not yet signed away her parental rights. To top it off, he had already been placed with four other families before Alec and Jamie got a hold of him.

“And were like, ‘This is our kid! We’re not giving him back!’” Mapa, 51, laughs. “Three months into our foster placement, he had the TPR — termination of parental rights — and nine months later, he was ours!”

Foster care and adoption are two different legal animals. The latter completely and permanently signs over the rights and responsibilities of the child from the birthparents to the adoptive parents. The child takes the surname of their new family and loses all automatic rights of inheritance with the old. A foster child can, and often does, maintain ties with their biological family even while in the care of another, and the biological parents have the final legal say in decisions concerning their child. Additionally, fostering lacks the permanency of adoption; children often shuffle from one foster family to another until they reach the age of 18, whereupon they are effectively cut loose.

For all the good intentions, it is no secret American foster care is overburdened, with up to 250,000 children entering yearly. It’s not all doom and gloom; 33 percent are back with their families within 11 months, and only seven percent of foster kids remain in care for more than five years. However, the longer a child stays in, the harder it is to get out. Chances for permanent placement drop drastically for children over five, siblings, children of color, and for self-identified LGBTQ youth. Some leave the system only after “aging out” of it, and can face the possibility of being family-less.

“The children in foster care deserve better,” says Rich Valenza, founder and CEO of Raise A Child, Inc., a foster-adopt advocacy and education resource for prospective LGBTQ parents (and for which Mapa is now a spokesperson). “Given the numbers, the solution to the foster care crisis is within reach and the answer is right here within the LGBT community.”

The numbers to which Valenza refers come from a 2013 study conducted by the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA Law, confirming no significant difference in children raised by straight and LGBTQ parents, and stated two million gay, lesbian, and bisexual people express an interest in foster parenting. That number dwarfs the 400,000 children in the American foster care system, 104,000 of whom are available for adoption as of this writing.

Adds Mapa, “When we were talking about adoption, I wanted a baby. And when we met Zion, he was five and that was a baby. When you are five, you still need your mommy, you still need your daddy. Or two guys with a really cute house!”

by GaysWithKids.com, August 1, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in Family Stories / Foster / Foster Care / Parenting / Personal Stories  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

Right of Survivorship in Real Property

The right of survivorship in real property is perhaps one of the most important estate planning tools.

For many people, the home is not only their most valuable asset, but it is the one asset that they rely on to secure their own future and those of their children. Owning property as joint tenants with right of survivorship, or JTWROS, assures a quick and seamless passage of that property upon the death of one   of the joint tenants, or owners.

There are several ways to own real property and each state has variations of each particular form. The three most common are: tenants in common, joint tenants with right of survivorship and tenants by the entirety, or as spouses.  Each has their own very important distinctions and characteristics.right of survivorship, JTWROS, joint tenants

Tenants in Common – Real property owned as tenants in common, TIC, is owned by each individual property owner is separate shares, i.e. 50% and 50%.  The key attribute of TIC owned real property is that if one owner dies, that owner’s share in the TIC property passes into his or her estate and must pass through probate to be transferred to its successor owner.  Many who own property with another person who is not a member of their family prefer to own real property as TIC so that they can pass on their share to family members upon their death.  The deed to a property owned as TIC will define the owners as, “John Doe and Jane Doe.”  There will be no other description on the deed.

 

Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship, JTWROS – The most significant and powerful characteristic of owning property with a right of survivorship is that the joint owners both own the entirety of the property at the same time; therefore there is nothing to pas upon the death of one joint owner.  The property does not go through a lengthy and costly probate process.  One catch is that property which passes automatically may not be eligible for more sophisticated tax planning which could save a surviving spouse, for instance, in estate tax upon the death of the second spouse.  For individuals whose assets do not meet the state or federal estate tax limits, JTWROS ownership can be an extremely beneficial and effective means of transferring assets upon death.  The deed to a property owned as JTWROS will define the owners as, “John Doe and Jane Doe as joint tenants with right of survivorship,” or “John Doe and Jane Doe, JTWROS.”

Tenants by the Entirety, as spouses – This type of real property ownership is reserved for legal spouses and possesses the same protections that JTWROS ownership provides, with one distinct benefit.  No creditor of one spouse may attach their interest to the other spouse’s ownership share in the home they own as tenants by the entirety.  This is a critical protection mechanism to honor and provide for spouses owning property together. The deed to a property owned as Tenants by the Entirety will define the owners as, “John Doe and Jane Doe as husband and wife,” or “John Doe and Jane Doe, as spouses.”

It is critical for an attorney to review any existing deed that you may have to ensure exactly what type of real property ownership that you have. Your entire estate plan may be dependent on the characterization of your real property ownership.  For more information about real property ownership, and more, contact Anthony M. Brown at Anthony at timeforfamilies.com or visit www.timeforfamilies.com today or email Anthony at anthony@timeforfamilies.com.

in Estate Planning / Featured Articles / Services  by Anthony Brown 1 comments

Was judge pushing anti-gay agenda?

Walker appointee rapped for treatment of same-sex couple in surrogacy case.

A former Dane County judge appointed by Gov. Scott Walker likened surrogacy to “human trafficking” and took highly unusual steps that added tens of thousands of dollars in costs for a gay couple seeking to add to their family.

Judge James Troupis’ actions, which included denying parental rights to the couple, were overturned by another Dane County judge and have also been appealed to the state Court of Appeals. And they arguably violated the ethical standards in place for members of the judiciary.anonymous sperm donors

Troupis, who has since left the bench, in August 2015 appointed a Waukesha County law firm that employs an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage to assist in the case. That resulted in hefty additional legal fees for Jay Timmons and Rick Olson as they attempted to become the legal parents to their infant son, born to a surrogate in Wisconsin. And the couple says the judge wreaked emotional havoc on their family by keeping the child’s legal status in limbo for 10 months.

In early July, Dane County Judge Peter Anderson vacated Troupis’ order, giving Timmons and Olson parental rights to Jacob, who will be a year old in August. Troupis had already terminated the parental rights of the surrogate, who never contested the contract she had with Timmons and Olson.

Anderson raised serious concerns about his former colleague’s conduct in the case, calling it “harsh,” “weird” and “faulty,” according to an online account by Timmons of his family’s ordeal. Anderson said Troupis’ decision also contained a “manifest error” of the law, Timmons wrote.

Kevin St. John, one of the attorneys for the couple, did not return a call seeking comment on the appeal or whether his clients intend to file a complaint against Troupis with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission. The code of judicial conduct prohibits judges from, among other things, performing their duties with bias or prejudice.

“A judge may not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and may not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.”

Timmons and Olson live in McLean, Va., a high-end suburb of Washington, D.C. Timmons is president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, which, according to his bio, is the “largest manufacturing association in the United States representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector.” Timmons also formerly worked for several Republican lawmakers.

The couple, who also have two young daughters, received a gift of two frozen embryos from friends about two years ago. After spending about a year researching legal issues, they sought out a surrogate in Wisconsin, believing state law here clearly allowed a same-gender couple to be recognized as parents of a child born through surrogacy. According to court documents, the surrogate was paid $35,000.

About two months before the expected birth, on June 25, 2015, reserve judge Sarah O’Brien held a hearing on the couple’s petition for parental rights. O’Brien’s interim order awarding them parental rights was expected to be finalized upon Jacob’s birth.

by Judith Davidoff, July 18, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in Assisted Reproductive Technology / Embryo Donation / In the News / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 1 comments

Same-Sex Parents Still Face Obstacles Under New York’s Standing Rules

Prior to the tragic events of Sunday, June 13, 2016 in Orlando, Florida, one might have felt optimistic about the evolving societal acceptance of and respect for same-sex parents and the corresponding progressive state of family and matrimonial law.

We shared in the sense of uplift from the recent United States Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Windsor and, especially, in Obergefell. v. Hodges, decided a little over one year ago on June 26, 2015. Obergefell dealt in sweeping fashion with discriminatory and unconstitutional objections to marriage for same-sex couples. As set forth in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dramatic and moving language, the need for same-sex parents, and the children of those relationships, to be granted the social dignity and the many societal benefits that go along with stepping into the light of mainstream acceptance by virtue of a nationwide right to marry is required by the equal protection mandates of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.gay parents adoption

In concluding that its “analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry,” 576 U.S. 12 (2015), the Supreme Court in Obergefell detailed not just the importance of being able to enter the institution of marriage, but the need for same-sex couples to do so on fully equal footing as other couples, through the front door, and stressed in its exhaustive analysis that the focus should not be on how these couples love, but that they love and wish for that love to be reflected in their social standing.

Choices about marriage shape an individual’s destiny. As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has explained, because “it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition. Goodridge, 440 Mass., at 322, 798 N.E. 2d at 955″ cited at 576 U.S. 13 (2015).

As this court held in Lawrence, same sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association. Lawrence invalidated laws that made same-sex intimacy a criminal act. And it acknowledged that “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. 539 U.S. at 567. But while Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that freedom stops there. Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty.

576 U.S. at 14.

Further, Justice Kennedy singled out the importance of the right to marry to the children of these relationships.

Excluding same sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families to be somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

576 at U.S. 15.

In New York, the passage of the Marriage Equality Act in 2011 directed that all of the laws, benefits and obligations bestowed by the Domestic Relations Law with regard to marriage be read and implemented without regard to sexual orientation, and, if necessary to do that, in a gender neutral way.

Section 10-a. Parties to a marriage.

1. A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex.

2. No government treatment or legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage, whether deriving from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of law, shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being or having been of the same sex rather than a different sex. When necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, all gender specific language or terms shall be construed in a gender-neutral manner in all such sources of law.

Yet, despite the passage of the Marriage Equality Act and the newfound nationwide ability to marry, the courts in New York are contending with circumstances in which same-sex families were formed and children brought into them by using strategies that pre-date the ability of same-sex couples to marry. This approach has potentially devastating consequences when those families and their respective rights are addressed in divorce and family court proceedings. These problems arise from, and the courts continue to wrestle with the vestiges of, a rule established by the New York Court of Appeals a generation ago in Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651 (1991), which set the stage for categorical discrimination against same-sex parents based upon their lack of a biological or adoptive relationship to a child.

The impact of Alison D. was eroded somewhat by the Court of Appeals decision in Debra H. v. Janice R., 14 N.Y.3d 576 (2010), which, through application of comity, recognized parental standing of a non-biological non-adoptive parent in 2010 based upon Vermont’s judicially created rules granting standing based upon the couple’s civil union in Vermont. However, without the right to marry or enter into a civil union in New York at the time, children of unmarried same-sex couples in New York were not afforded the same benefits and protections.

This discrimination is not so easily remedied by the directives of the Marriage Equality Act because many of the parents involved in these situation were not or are not married at the time that their children are born and because the conceptual framework for the denial of standing is based upon a biologically based terminology that is found throughout the family and matrimonial law. This terminology reflects a fixation with the biomechanics of conception, a fixation which runs deeper than mere gender assumptions. Instead of a focus on the “best interest” of children, which is the bedrock determination of all other matters related to their custody and welfare in New York matrimonial and family law, the New York Supreme, Family and Surrogate’s Courts continue to trip over the threshold issues of “standing” when it comes to same-sex parents because of references to “birth” parents or the heterosexual and gender assumptions implied by the use of the word “paternity.” For example, a “paternity” test directed in Family Court proceeding continues to only apply to men and only to establish the biological relationship of men to children obviously born to women. Perforce, this excludes same-sex couples.

By Meg Canby and Caroline Krauss Browne

law.com

Click here to read the entire article.

in Legal / Parenting / Recently Added / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

IVF Does Not Raise Breast Cancer Risk, Study Shows

Women undergoing in vitro fertilization have long worried that the procedure could raise their risk for breast cancer.

After all, the IVF treatment requires temporarily increasing levels of certain sex hormones to five or 10 times the normal. Two of those hormones, estrogen and progesterone, can affect the course of certain kinds of breast cancer.

A series of studies over the past decade suggested that these former patients may have little to worry about. Experts remained cautious, however, because women who had undergone IVF in the 1980s had not yet reached menopause by the time of the research.adopting a child, how to adopt a child, adopt a child,Egg donors

But the largest, most comprehensive study to date, published on Tuesday, provides further reassurance: It finds no increased risk among women who have undergone I.V.F.

“The main takeaway is there’s no evidence of an increased subsequent risk of breast cancer, at least in the first couple decades,” said Dr. Saundra S. Buys, an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, who was not involved in the new study.

The issue has nagged at specialists in reproductive medicine for some time. In 2008, a retrospective analysis of medical records, which the authors called “preliminary,” found a potential increase in breast cancer among IVF patients older than 40.

Another small study of participants at a single treatment center in Israel reported an increased risk of breast cancer among women who start IVF after 30.

Maddeningly, later findings went the other way, seeming to suggest the danger — if there were one — may be greater for younger women.

A study with roughly 21,000 participants, published in 2012, found that women in Western Australia who began I.V.F. at 24 years old or younger had an increased risk of breast cancer. No such link was found among women in their 30s or 40s.

In 2013, though, researchers published a meta-analysis of eight smaller studies tentatively suggesting that I.V.F. didn’t seem to raise breast cancer risk overall.

But it did not rule out the possibility that breast cancer might turn up in a bigger group of women tracked more closely for an even longer period. Experts also worried that infertility itself, not only its treatment, might somehow be linked to breast cancer.

Today’s report, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, goes a long way toward answering the lingering questions.

by Catherine Saint Louis

New York Times, July 19, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in IVF / Recently Added / Science  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

Co-Parenting – One More Option For Creating Your Family

Co-Parenting is fast becoming an alternative to adoption, surrogacy and IVF for many in the LGBT community who want to have a family on their terms.

Co-parenting is quickly becoming a viable option for gay and lesbian individuals who want to be parents. Co-parenting also requires an incredible amount of care and preparation to ensure that all parties, and particularly the children, are protected and acknowledged legally.

Co-Parenting Defined

In a co-parenting relationship, two individuals who are not romantically involved come together for the purpose of having a child and parenting that child with a mother and a father. The key to understanding co-parenting is in the intention of the mother and father.  Many enter into co-parenting relationships because they do not want to be single parents and acknowledge their desire for their children to have a maternal and a paternal influence.co-parenting

Protecting a Co-Parenting Relationship: The Co-Parenting Agreement

Before entering into a co-parenting relationship, it is crucial to understand the legalities of parenting, as well as the potential pitfalls that may accompany this nontraditional parenting form. First, by becoming a parent, the mother and the father have a fiduciary responsibility to that child, and if the co-parenting arrangement dissolves, to one another in a child support proceeding.  This means that if both parties are not contributing financially to the child’s upbringing, either parent may bring a support action in family court.

Spelling out these financial terms, as well as visitation schedules, educational and religious training is the purview of the co-parenting agreement. The mother and the father will both have separate legal representation in the drafting and execution of a co-parenting agreement and the process of creating a comprehensive agreement will be very helpful for the parties to both feel comfortable with one another and the terms of their individual parenting visions.

Where Can You Meet a Potential Co-Parent?

As this new method of parenting has become more and more popular, so has an internet support industry of which I am a part. Websites such as FamilyByDesign.com, of which I am a legal consultant, and Modamily.com offer information to potential co-parents, as well as a database of individuals who are interested in becoming co-parents to find other such individuals.  Many LGBT Centers around the country now have family divisions that include information and networking about co-parenting.

Special Considerations

One very important aspect of co-parenting lies in the reality that the primary parents may have committed relationships with people other than the other co-parent.   This may be due to their sexual orientation or relationship status when entering into the co-parenting relationship.  Some states now have the ability to name more than two legal parents for a child. But more often than not, these “third party” individuals do not have legal relationships with the children of their romantic partners.  Primary parents must create these rights for their romantic partners by executing medical authorizations and guardianship provisions for the children.

For more information about co-parenting, contact Anthony M. Brown at Time for Families and speak to a specialist family lawyer to secure your and your family’s future or email Anthony at anthony@timeforfamilies.com.

in Featured Articles / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments