Seattle Attorneys Blog

Things to Consider Before Introducing Your Kids to Your New Boyfriend or Girlfriend

December 5, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When people end their romantic relationship with their children’s other parent, they often feel as though they will never want to have a romantic relationship ever again. The reality is, after the emotional pain and adjustment period is over, most people do decide to date. Some choose to date seriously and look for another committed relationship, while other unmarried parents decide to date casually. No matter what your intentions are in your dating life, it is important that you consider if and when you will introduce your new significant other to your children. Here are some strategies that might help you decide if, when, and how to introduce your kids to a new love interest: Continue reading

Washington Court Considers Admissibility of Prior Acts of Domestic Violence in Criminal Jury Trial

November 24, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Court of Appeals of Washington recently reviewed a jury verdict that found a defendant guilty of second-degree assault against a member of his household. On appeal in State v. Moreno-Valentin (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015), the defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence and permitting the jury to consider that evidence for improper purposes. The appeals court agreed, reversing the conviction and remanding the case for a new trial.

Generally, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to show that the defendant acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Before admitting such evidence, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts occurred, identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. If a trial court admits the evidence, it must provide a limiting instruction to the jury explaining that the evidence is to be used only for the purpose identified, not to prove that the defendant acted in conformity.

Do You Have to Change Your Name When You Get Divorced?

November 19, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Many things change for a person who gets divorced: marital status, financial situation, and relationships with children to name a few. Another thing that might change is the person’s last name. While in comparison to moving, having less time with kids, and having to divide most of your assets, changing a last name might not seem like a big deal, for many people actually faced with the situation, it is.

There are many reasons why people who are getting divorced decide to keep their married last name. It is important for people to know that whatever the reason you want to change or decide not to change your last name name, it is up to you. It is not mandatory for a person to change their married name upon dissolution of marriage. Here are a few of the reasons people choose not to change their married last names: Continue reading

Divorced for the Holidays: Extended Family

November 12, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Past blog posts have discussed tips for helping children of two-home families deal with the holiday season and spending holidays away from one of their parents. Today’s post discusses another group of people affected by a two-home family: the extended family. Oftentimes, divorced (or otherwise unmarried) parents hope that all their extended family will be able to attend the holiday get together the years they have their children. Unfortunately, when scheduling with the extended family there can be added confusion, hurt feelings, and headache for divorced parents. Fortunately, there are things you can do to help the holidays run more smoothly and help your kids get to see as many members of their extended family as possible. Continue reading

Court Finds Constitutional Violation of Defendant’s Right to Remain Silent in Washington DUI Case

November 11, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington Court of Appeals recently reviewed a DUI felony conviction in the case of State v. Diaz, No. 46016-5-II (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2015), after a jury found the defendant guilty of felony driving under the influence. The defendant’s primary argument on appeal was that his constitutional right to be free from self-incrimination was violated when a police officer testified at trial regarding his post-arrest right to silence. Ultimately, the court agreed that the comments were a constitutional violation but harmless error.

In Diaz, the defendant’s vehicle was found heavily damaged against a telephone pole with the engine still running, late at night. The defendant was observed crawling out of a ditch nearby, missing a shoe, and bearing marks on his body allegedly consistent with injuries caused by a seatbelt and airbag. The shoe was later found on the driver’s side floorboard. When the defendant refused a breath test, the police transported him to a hospital where, pursuant to a search warrant, a blood sample was taken, indicating that the defendant’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit. The only element in dispute at the trial was whether the defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This provision is applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Washington State Constitution also shares an equivalent right. In Washington, a defendant’s constitutional right to silence applies in both pre- and post-arrest situations. In the post-arrest context, it is a violation of due process for the State to comment upon or otherwise exploit a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. In addition, it is constitutional error for a police witness to testify that a defendant refused to speak to him or her, since the State may not use a defendant’s constitutionally permitted silence as substantive evidence of guilt.

Holidays in Two-Home Families

October 31, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Whether it be because of divorce, children being born outside of marriage, or other non-traditional family structures, we have many clients with children whose parents and/or guardians are living in more than one home. This can be difficult for kids and families on typical days, but is especially difficult on holidays and other special occasions. Here we provide a few ideas for how to make the holidays a little better (and less stressful) for kids living in two-home families.

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Family Law Cases

October 25, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In family law cases, people are often confused and worried about whether or not they have to have a trial. Many are nervous about testifying, the judge being mean, and/or having to sit across from the opposing party. Trials can be stressful, intimidating, and not conducive to a harmonious co-parenting relationship. Fortunately, there are other options for concluding a family law case that do not involve a trial. Here are a few ways that family law cases can be settled without the need for a trial: Continue reading

Washington Appeals Court Holds Denny’s Not Liable for Criminal Attack on Patron

October 21, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recent opinion concerning premises liability, the Washington Court of Appeals analyzed the issue of business liability for injuries caused by one customer assaulting another customer. In Crill v. WRBF, Inc., No. 31912-1-III (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2015), the plaintiff sued a Denny’s restaurant after she was struck on the back of the head by an intoxicated diner at 2:00 a.m. in the restaurant. After discovery was completed, the defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed that decision. The Court of Appeals ultimately held that the restaurant had no duty to prevent the attack, since a lack of similar prior incidents rendered the assault unforeseeable.

The elements of a negligence action are: (1) the existence of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation between the breach and the accident; and (4) quantifiable damages that were incurred. A defendant generally has no duty to prevent criminal acts by a third party, unless a special relationship exists between the victim and the defendant. A business owner, such as Denny’s, is deemed by law to have a special relationship with its business invitees, such as the Crill plaintiff, thus creating a duty to protect her from criminal conduct by third parties. The court must then determine whether the risk that caused the plaintiff’s injury was reasonably foreseeable to Denny’s.

Legal Costs and Family Law Cases

October 17, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

We have covered the issue of legal costs during family law cases on this blog before, but we think it is an important enough issue to merit further discussion. Each person has their own priorities and it is important that your family law attorney be willing to adjust their usual procedure to help you reach your objectives without ruining your financial future (or be honest about their inability to change their procedures enough to fit your budget and let you seek help elsewhere). Sometimes, keeping costs low during a family law proceeding is pretty high on a client’s list of priorities. Here are a few (more) ways to save on legal costs during your family law case: Continue reading

Washington Supreme Court Holding Limits Protection of Rule 3.1 in DUI Case

October 9, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Supreme Court recently published an opinion in the case of State v. Fedorov, addressing the issue of whether a police officer’s presence in the room where the defendant was speaking with his attorney violated CrR 3.1, the rule-based right to counsel. The defendant moved to suppress the results of a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) test based on an alleged violation of CrR 3.1. The lower courts denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant appealed his subsequent conviction.

Under Washington law, when a person is taken into custody, he must be immediately advised of his right to a lawyer and the opportunity to consult with a lawyer without charge if he cannot pay for one. CrR 3.1(c)(1). At the earliest opportunity, a person in custody who desires a lawyer shall be provided access to a telephone, the number of the public defender or official responsible for assigning a lawyer, and any other means necessary to put the person in communication with a lawyer. CrR 3.1(c)(2). The Fedorov court further explained that unlike the Sixth Amendment right to counsel under the United States Constitution, CrR 3.1 is more limited and provides only the opportunity to speak to counsel, rather than requiring actual communication with an attorney.