I'm split up with my wife agian.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Um.. where in the WORLD did you hear this? The spouse testimony exemption is an evidence rule based on STATE LAW! It depends on your state and many have gotten rid of it.

Plus-- I thought the idea was that a spouse could not be COMPELLED to give evidence against another spouse but that they are free to do so if they do so willingly

[Flubber]

Kidicious . ..

best wishes to you as you go through a trying time.

The advice to seek out both father's rights groups and university legal assistance are both good ones. You need good legal advice quickly and I would be suprised if these organizations can't help you out

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
7th grade Constitution class.

And people wonder why our school suck so bad .

I can't even imagine where in the Constitution such a provision would arise from. Substantive due process? I guess that's the closest.

Originally posted by Flubber
Plus-- I thought the idea was that a spouse could not be COMPELLED to give evidence against another spouse but that they are free to do so if they do so willingly

That as well... just about every state allows a spouse to testify against the other spouse if they wants.

[Wezil]

May I ask, what type of "drugs" are we referring to?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Um.. where in the WORLD did you hear this? The spouse testimony exemption is an evidence rule based on STATE LAW! It depends on your state and many have gotten rid of it.

pardon, I thought it was a common law exclusion, and thus present in all US states (except Louisiana?) unless altered by state law. So its not surprising someone confused it with a Constitutional provision.

also why its familiar to our Canadian friends

[Lawrence of Arabia]

fight for your rights kid.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


pardon, I thought it was a common law exclusion, and thus present in all US states (except Louisiana?) unless altered by state law. So its not surprising someone confused it with a Constitutional provision.

also why its familiar to our Canadian friends

Not to quibble, and I certainly cannot speak to US law but....

It is a protection found in the Canada Evidence Act (section 4 if you care).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
pardon, I thought it was a common law exclusion, and thus present in all US states (except Louisiana?) unless altered by state law. So its not surprising someone confused it with a Constitutional provision.

also why its familiar to our Canadian friends

Every state except Louisiana is a common law state, so common law is a part of 49 states' laws.

[Mr. Harley]

Kidicious - are you leaving out a detail, or am I ignorant on something. Is there a court order granting her custody? Once there is you have a hidious uphill battle, even if you are in another juristiction, of getting custody.

If not, there is something I don't understand - if you have the child, how can she have the police come and force you to turn him over to her? In California is there a presumption of the mother having custody. By the way, I wouldn't recommend forcing the issue if it hasn't been decided, because of what other posters said about you already starting at a disadvantage.

Do not just call the police like you suggest. BAD THOUGHT. They will blow you off as an angry husband. You must be very careful, and thoughtful about this. Wait until you have a slam dunk - I like the posters suggestion about bring a friend over who then calls the police and/or CPS - I prefer CPS because they have alot fewer restrictions on what they can do (something I am opposed to but in you case I hope you can use it to offset the systems mommy-based bias). Conversely, the police should contact CPS if, after finding the drugs, you explain there is a child in the house who could have gotten into them, yours, and thats why you called. God bless and good luck.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The reason why you can't simply tell the police about where to find her drugs is because the Constitution does not allow spouses to testify against each other. The Framers didn't want the government to be able to force spouses to betray each other.

You could, however, bring a friend over to see the drugs, and that person could tell the police.

1) Not the constitution; state laws and legal precedent, as Imran points out.

2) More to th point, the law is designed to keep spouses from being compelled to testify against each other. If a spouse wants to testify against her, he can. (Otherwise, how on earth would you ever prosecute spousal abuse cases?). I think kid needs to look into this; it sounds like bull to me.

[Kidlicious]

Og,

He's 6.

Wezil,

She prefers to smoke crank.

Shawn,

There's no preexisting custody order. I had to let her see our son and take him were she pleases, because there were no custody orders. Otherwise I would be guilty of abduction.

[Mr. Harley]

Doesn't that apply to you also, i.e. you can see your son and take him where you please? Then again, I forget that you are X-chromosone challenged.

Good news - remember the mayor of DC - crack is the one that REALLY shows up very well in hair. They can even show if it was an isolated instance or a habit, and get a general idea on frequency of use. Take your time, DON'T let her force it to custody yet, find the good lawyer, and play it smart. I'll keep you and your child in my prayers.

[chequita guevara]

Crank, not crack.

[Japher]

Yeah, get it straight.

[chequita guevara]

Crank = methanphetimine, iirc
Crack = cocaine