Who will care for your children if you should die before their 18th birthday?

A difficult thought, to be sure. It may help to know that you can provide for your children's well-being should such a disaster occur. You can name the person who will be your children's Guardian if you are no longer here, and ensure that they are cared for and receive all the benefits of your estate.

Q: Who needs to choose a Guardian?

A: All parents of children under the age of 18 need to specify a Guardian. California law requires that everyone under the age of 18 be represented by a legal Guardian. Only minor children who are married are excepted from this rule.

Q: What does a Guardian do?

A: A Guardian or Guardians are responsible for:

1) Your children's person

2) Your children's estate

The Guardian of your children's person has responsibility for the care, custody, control, and education of your minor children.

The Guardian of your children's estate is responsible for the management and control of the minor's property. You can nominate one person to be Guardian of person and estate, or choose two different people. This allows you to choose the person who is best able to raise your child, even if they are not the best person to manage the inheritance.

Q: What happens if I don't nominate a Guardian for my child?

A: If you do not nominate a Guardian, and you predecease your minor children, the Probate Court will choose a Guardian for you. The Court appoints a Guardian based on a formula that is defined by State Law. No consideration is given to your wishes unless they are legally specified in writing.

Q: How do I Nominate a Guardian for my child?

A: You can nominate a Guardian in your last will and testament. It is important that your will be coordinated with your other estate planning documents such as a Living Trust, life insurance, retirement plans annuities, etc.

Here are some important steps you should consider when planning for your children's Guardianship:

1. Communicate with your spouse.

This may seem obvious at first, but it can take longer than you expect to arrive at a mutually agreeable decision. It's easier to decide how to distribute your estate than it is to select a Guardian. Take as much time as you need to discuss this decision openly with your spouse so that you are happy with your choice.

2. Communicate with the Intended Guardian.

You may be astounded to find that some nominated Guardians have no idea that they had been chosen until the parents are deceased. This is far too critical a decision to spring on someone at the last minute. After you have decided on a candidate, discuss it with him or her as early as possible.

3. Ensure that your child's Estate is Adequately Funded.

Asking another person, even a family member, to raise your children in your absence is a serious emotional and financial decision. Ensure that you have a living trust, life insurance policy, or other financial arrangement in place. Communicate the financial situation clearly to the potential Guardian, and ensure that they are willing and able to handle the commitment.

4. Ensure that the Guardian of the child's person is able to work closely with the Guardian of their Estate.

It is entirely appropriate to choose one person as the Guardian of Your Child, and another person as Trustee or Guardian of their Estate.

However, make sure that these people are dedicated to working together for your child's benefit.

If there is a family conflict, or some other reason they would not be able to work together, you should consider using a professional (such as a bank trust department or other Professional Fiduciary) to manage the Estate.

5. Seek professional legal help immediately!

Recent studies show that up to 66% of Americans die without a valid will or trust. As a result, the vast majority of Guardianship proceedings take place without any input from the deceased parents. Procrastination is your greatest enemy. Everyone thinks they will live well into their children's adulthood. However, statistics show that this is not always true.

Your children's well-being is too important to leave to chance.

Copyright (c) 2006 Ainer & Fraker, L.L.P.

By: John Erik Fraker, Esq.
John Erik Fraker, Esq., is an estate planning attorney with Ainer & Fraker, LLP, a California law firm specializing in estate planning, small business law and tax. The firm's web site is at http://www.ainerfraker.com . Disclaimer: The information contained in this news letter is not intended as a source of legal advice. You should not act upon or rely on information in this or any other newsletter without the advice of competent counsel.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer directory, listing hundreds of links to California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer websites and over 1,000 non website courtesy listings.

The information contained in the above post is not intended as a source of legal advice. You should not act upon or rely on information in this or any other post without the advice of competent legal counsel.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include that link.

Employers can be liable for secretly placing a video camera in an employee's office, even if the employer does not view any of the video. An employer must control his watchful eye and use it in limited circumstances.

A California employer, who operates a residential facility for abused children, placed a camera in an office to determine who was accessing pornographic websites at night. The camera was activated at all times in the office. The employer told a few employees about the camera, but not the female employees occupying the office, because the employer feared that these talkative employees may inform the perpetrators. While the camera was activated, a female employee who occupied the office, on occasion, closed the door, pulled down the shade to show her coworker how she was recovering from child birth. The employer was tagged with invasion of the employees' privacy. It did not matter if the employer viewed the videotapes or not. The fact that the employer had access to viewing was enough to invade the employees' invasion of privacy. The employees had an expectation of privacy that when the door to their office was closed, images of them in the office would not be transmitted.

Employer video surveillance is permissible in widely accessible areas because there are little expectations of privacy. For example, a room in a janitor break room was found to be permissible because the room was readily accessible to others. Jails are another place where the expectation of privacy is low. In a Sacramento jail, money was missing from a jail release office. A camera was installed to focus on the safe and the cash register area. The officer used the office for playing cards, working on his checkbook and his fantasy football league. The court held that the hidden camera was not unconstitutional because of the diminished expectation of privacy in a jail. The expectation of privacy is also low in bars and cafes. However, bathrooms have a higher level of privacy. In California, a trucking company employer videotaped the rest room through a mirror to detect drug use of its driver employees. This was deemed impermissible.

What does an employer do to prevent a lawsuit for invasion of privacy as a result of improper video or audio taping in the workplace?

1. There should be strict and well-reasoned controls on video and audio devices. The use of any audio or camera devices for surveillance should be limited in a workplace. Videotaping must be justified on the facts and the industry and surveillance should be limited to a specific purpose.

2. The employee manual should state that employees have no expectation of privacy in their office and that there may be video or audio taping at any given time. This employee manual warning is similar to the non privacy warning that employees' receive about emails and computer usage. If an employee needs to undress this should be done in the restroom, where an employee has the highest level of privacy. Courts have found that videotaping in restrooms is impermissible.

It is understandable that employers have to limit their liability and need to be watchful of criminal activity or other illegal activity. However, employees do have privacy rights. Employers must strike a delicate balance and make well-reasoned decisions, in light of employees' right to privacy, before undertaking a secretive watchful eye.

By: Elizabeth Moreno
By Elizabeth A. Moreno, Esq, a Los Angeles employment attorney and mediator, who guides businesses through treacherous rivers of employment compliance and litigation that threaten to sink their business. For more information go to http://www.eampc.com or contact morenolaw@eampc.com.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer directory, listing hundreds of links to California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer websites and over 1,000 non website courtesy listings.

The information contained in the above post is not intended as a source of legal advice. You should not act upon or rely on information in this or any other post without the advice of competent legal counsel.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include that link.

You have been in a accident, automobile, slip and fall, workplace, etc.. Should you see or speak with an attorney?

As far as I am concerned, the answer is always yes.

When should you consult with an accident attorney? You should seek the advise of an accident attorney as soon as possible after the accident. Do not wait. You could be giving up certain rights. You should definetly speak with an attorney before speaking with the other sides insurance agent, adjuster or attorney.

You say that you can not afford an attorney. Most accident attorneys will consult with you for free and, if they take your case, will handle it on a contingency basis, not taking any fee untill the case is settled. Most settlements are increased to cover the cost of the attorney and therefore normally the attorney costs you nothing. Many attorneys will also advance all court costs for you if they are forced to file suit.

You say that you were injured, however, the insurance company has offered to pay your medical bills and you do not feel it is right to take advantage of them by asking for additional money for your, pain, suffering, lost work, etc.. Don't you feel that you as a person are worth something? Do you think so little of yourself that you feel that your pain, suffering, inconvience, etc. is worthless. You did not cause this accident. What you are going through was caused by someone else. You deserve to be compensated. The insurance company, as a matter of good business, has already built these types of costs into the premiums that they charge their customers. If the money does not go to you it will probably go to their shareholders or to increased salaries or ?. Why shouldn't you be properly compensated. Remember most good attorneys are ethical and although they will attempt to obtain as much money for you as is due, they will not take your case unless they feel that it is proper.

You say someone else admitted liability and said that their insurance will pay all your damages. That's great, however, what if the person changes his or her story later on and says that you were at fault. Or what if the other side's insurance company refuses to pay what you think is proper. In fact, how do you know what is proper? Remember, an insurance company may pay claims, but it is in business to make money. It normally will not offer one dollar more than it has to and if you are not represented by an attorney the insurance company adjuster or attorney may feel that he or she can "get away" with paying much less than the claim may be worth. Additionally, what people state at the time of an accident is not always what they state after having spoken with a friend, insurance agent or attorney. Finally, an insurance adjuster or insurance attorney works for the insurance company, not for you. How do you know that what they are telling you is correct or true. Remember, in most instances, they are there to try and save the company money. You need an attorney on your side to tell you what your rights and obligations are.

You say that you were not hurt that bad or at all. How do you know how badly you were hurt. Some injuries do not show up for months. Other injuries may aggrivate a prior problem. Even if you have been found to be "ok" by a doctor, how do you know that a problem will not come up later. If you have insurance and did go to a doctor, who is going to pay your co-pay or deductible. If you do not have health insurance, who is going to pay for your examination which should include xrays, etc.. If you retain an attorney he or she can probably refer you to a doctor who will accept a lien against the insurance settlement, thereby saving you from paying money out of your pocket.

You say you have accident insurance, why not let them handle everthing for you. Your insurance company is there to defend any claims against you not to represent you in any claims against other parties. Additionally, they also are in business to make money. How do you know if they are trying to settle a case to help you or to save themselves money.

The foregoing article was written by the author based on experiences he has had as a private investigator representing both accident attorneys and insurance companies. This article is not stated as a legal opinion or as fact but instead is stated as opinion of the author.

By: David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Resources For Attorneys, a legal and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer directory, listing hundreds of links to California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer websites and over 1,000 non website courtesy listings.

The information contained in the above post is not intended as a source of legal advice. You should not act upon or rely on information in this or any other post without the advice of competent legal counsel.

The "lemon law" was originally created to protect consumers from big ticket items that had a problem, and these days is almost exclusively limited to vehicles like cars, trucks and SUVs. For example, a car is considered a "lemon" under the California Lemon Law if it has been repaired four times and the defect or problem has not been resolved or fixed within the period of 18 months or 18,000 miles, whichever comes first. Using the word "lemon" this way has most likely become increasingly popular due to the many companies and "slightly south of honest" car sales folks selling faulty products. Buying a car is not like buying a hair dryer, since you cannot return it to the store for a refund if you do not like it, or if it has a manufacturing defect.

Technically, your newly purchased car is only considered a lemon if you have given proper attention to all of its problems, if all efforts to fix these problems have been exhausted, and if the manufacturer has been given the opportunity to try and fix the problem but cannot. If it seems your car is in the repair shop time and time again for the same repair, you may be the owner of a real lemon. If that is the case, you have rights as well as some responsibilities to deploy those rights.

The descriptive term "lemon" applies equally to a defective or malfunctioning car as to a citrus fruit. Basically, the California Lemon Law holds the manufacturer of a car responsible for the proper and satisfactory functioning of the car while it is under its warranty period. This also assumes that the owner of the car exercised good judgment and care of everything that would logically be expected of the car owner.

Does the car warranty matter? Of course. The repair is covered under the vehicle warranty or extended warranty, but it's always in the shop. In many states, arbitration is used to solve problems when a car still under warranty turns out to be a lemon. If the vehicle is new, it should come with a warranty that includes a money-back option. This may be something to note to yourself next time you are shopping for a new car, since shopping for the right warranty is just as important as the car and the price you negotiate.

You must report the defect within a reasonable timeframe, or before the warranty expires. Report it to the dealer and do it in writing, and make sure you save your copy. If it malfunctions while under warranty, the manufacturer is held liable for repairs. Basically, California's Lemon Law, sometimes also known as Consumer Warranty Law, specifies that the manufacturer carry a high degree of responsibility for sold products.

Almost every state has passed a lemon law, a statute that exists to backup the manufacturer's written warranty that comes with the vehicle. The degree of liability and responsibility varies widely from state to state, so make sure you know what the lemon law is in your state.

The bottom line is that you as the purchaser of the vehicle have responsibilities for proper maintenance of the vehicle, which hopefully you would do anyway. But assuming you have done that and still have what is termed a "chronic" problem with the vehicle, you have rights, and it is to your benefit to know what those rights are.

By: Jon Arnold
Jon is a computer engineer who maintains web sites on a variety of topics based on his knowledge and experience. You can read more about the lemon law and your rights at his web site at http://www.lemon-law-data.com.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer directory, listing hundreds of links to California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer websites and over 1,000 non website courtesy listings.

The information contained in the above post is not intended as a source of legal advice. You should not act upon or rely on information in this or any other post without the advice of competent legal counsel.