Search results

I'm wondering that too, specially if this is the only time it's happened.

California does allow an employer to refuse reimbursing you if you haven't followed the rules. How they bill the client, I cannot answer.

To answer definitively, yes, you could feasibly go up to anyone and say "Hey, I read online somewhere that Bob did this...". But would you be able to cite where you first read about it if someone asked? Do you have a preexisting grudge against Bob (or any of Bob's family)? Bobs...

Moose isn't missing anything. The allegation was unfounded - that does not mean that the allegation wasn't made at all. The report did not contain a defamatory statement. It simply contained a report.

When a reporter says something along the lines of "Fred's wife made allegations that Fred had done X, Y & Z", it is clear that the reporter is not actually saying "Fred did this". The reporter is merely ... reporting ... something. The reporter is not accusing Fred of any wrongdoing...

Look at the newspaper reports. Any newspaper reports, but specially those dealing with trash mags. The answer will become crystal clear.

We don't do Canadian law or homework.

You said this: You say you begged your GF to not do that...but you didn't stop her, either. Is there a reason you didn't tell the utility company and the landlord? Or Mom?

Testifying was probably a really bad idea. Unless you were a mental health professional who actually treated her.

The thing is, by your actions it wouldn't be difficult to hold you responsible. He also doesn't have to sue your ex - that's up to him. You also need to expect that your ex is going to lie and blame you, regardless. You need an attorney.

And very simply, the urinalysis is far more cost effective and provides a much clearer indication of when the drug was taken.

Alas no, any 3 day "cooling off" period wouldn't apply here even if it were present. Yes, they have grounds to sue, and 10% is valid. The point here isn't tangible losses (or lack thereof), but the simple breach of contract. But look on the bright side - having grounds to sue...

How is effectively trying to starve the kids is okay?

OP, your husband absolutely CAN file immediately and request exclusive use of the marital home. You need to understand that. DV is not required for such a thing to happen.

Additionally I do want to mention one thing: Even IF it's proven that the parents aren't going to follow the order, the parents aren't going to lose custody. First though, which US state are we talking about, and is the order from that state or somewhere else? How old are the children?

And you may want to consider (if you have the time and inclination) reminding them that the LAW prohibits such threats.

I can only nod vigorously to AJ's post. Excellent information!

Except for that whole thing about it not actually being statutory rape. Yes, there can be penalties. But no, it's not statutory rape.

If she does it often enough, the judge can certainly switch custody. Other than that, all you can do is let the system do its thing.

I know it might seem pedantic but there is a massive difference between "genetic" and "hereditary". If you can share the condition, I can certainly take a look.