Protecting Caregivers Against Protective Statutes

 

This guest post is from Amy Krueger, Regent Law 2L: 

Because caregiving often involves pouring years into someone who may no longer be productive or attractive or even good company, caregiving can be one of the most beautiful expressions of love as well as one of the most difficult tasks a person can undertake. California and Illinois apply a presumption of undue influence that, if not rebutted, will void certain testamentary gifts to certain caregivers. Although surely warranted in many cases to protect the elderly, does this disincentivize an already thankless task?

In 2010, California’s Lake County News reported, “The presumption has often raised major concern with respect to even legitimate gifts made to genuine friends (who stepped in when their dependent friend needed help) due to uncertainty over the definition of ‘care custodian.’”

We first look at when the presumption actually applies:

California: California Probate Code Section 21380(a) applies the presumption of fraud or undue influence to “donative transfers” (i.e., testamentary gifts and other gifts) to a dependent adult’s “care custodian” if the transfer instrument was executed during provision of services or shortly before or after that time. Under Section 21382, gifts of $5,000 or less are often allowed, and gifts to a variety of family members are also fine. Section 21362 defines “care custodian,” excluding unpaid caregivers with a pre-existing “personal relationship with the dependent adult” from the presumption.

Illinois: The Probate Act of 1975, 755 ILCS 5/4a, applies the presumption of a void transfer due to fraud, duress, or undue influence to transfers (i.e., gifts and non-gifts) made to a person’s “caregiver” on or after the dependent’s death. Transfers up to $20,000 are not subject to this presumption. A “caregiver” may be paid or unpaid, but a family member is not considered to be a “caregiver.”

Neither statute applies the presumption of undue influence to family members, thus alleviating what could be a major concern for some of the most common caregivers. 

California’s statute also excludes those who have had a “personal relationship” with the dependent at least ninety days before provision of services. California caregivers who do not meet the exclusions may wish to ensure that their remuneration is not characterized as a gift, even if they are willing to wait to receive fair payment for services rendered until the death of the dependent.

The Illinois statute is a bit trickier because more people fall under the “caregiver” definition and because non-donative transfers are included in the potentially void transactions. In an insightful post, Attorney Jeffrey R. Gottlieb observes, “[T]here is no requirement that the person giving the assistance ever consider or label themselves as a caregiver — a helpful friend could very well be deemed a caregiver.” Illinois non-family caregivers may wish to ensure payments for services are contracted and payable over the term of service, thus obligating the estate to make payment in the event the dependent does not have enough liquid assets while living.

Although it may be uncomfortable to talk money at a vulnerable time in someone’s life, caregivers who do not take proactive steps to ensure compensation may find that they are the ones in a vulnerable position after years of service. A conversation about compensation can be undertaken with a third party who understands the situation and who can help provide solutions so that caregiving can continue and caregivers can be cared for.  

 

This post provides a high-level overview. It is advisable to discuss potentially problematic transfers with an attorney licensed in the applicable state.

 

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Is AI is Getting Too Risqué for Your Family?

 This guest post is from Hannah Brown, Regent Law 3L & current Bioethics student:

          AI chatbots are going to start acting like adults. One of the newest outputs from Grok, Elon Musk’s chatbot, and possibly soon from ChatGPT is sexually explicit content. Grok allows its users to create an image with its “Spicy Mode.” As of now, Grok does require that a user input his birth year, but there is no identity verification process, so anyone, including minors, can easily use this function. To use Grok generally, a user must be thirteen years old, and the platform requires that for any minors they must have their legal guardian’s permission to use the platform. However, it is on the guardians and parents to check that their teenagers are using the platform appropriately.

According to Sam Altman, OpenAI and ChatGPT had been restricting their platforms to be careful with mental health issues, but now they plan to “treat adult users like adults” and will allow erotica for verified adults beginning in December 2025. ChatGPT uses an age prediction model. The model predicts how old a user is, and if it believes the user is under eighteen, then it will include extra content protections to reduce sexually explicit material. If this happens and the user is over eighteen, he can verify his age with a government ID and selfie to reduce the restrictions.

With Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, where the Supreme Court upheld a state age verification requirement, ChatGPT, Grok, and other chatbots may soon need to require stricter age verifications to protect minor children. If the platforms want to treat adults like adults, they need to also treat children like children and not allow them to so easily stumble across sexually explicit material.

https://grokimagine.ai/grok-spicy

You Are What You Eat: Raising Healthy Children

 

This guest post is courtesy of Regent Law 3L Andrew Mintz:

 

          While oftentimes expressed lightheartedly, the old saying “you are what you eat” holds a lot of truth, especially in the development of growing children. According to the Mayo Clinic, a proper balanced diet is important for children and adults of all ages, but is especially important in the early development years of a child. A diet focused on nutrient-dense foods including proteins, fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy will be the best source of vitamins, minerals, and carbohydrates that promote physical and mental development; it is also recommended for parents to limit foods high in added sugars, artificial dyes, saturated fats, and sodium.

          In recent years, one artificial dye in particular has caught the attention of the public more than others; this dye is red 40. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food use in 1971, red 40 has become a commonly used artificial coloring by food manufacturers and fast food chains alike. According to MD Anderson Cancer Center, while research is still being conducted, concerns have been raised about red 40 specifically being linked to hyperactivity and neurobehavioral issues, as well as higher risks of cancer in children. Specifically towards the support for risks to cancer, MD Anderson cites an FDA press release from January 2025 announcing a ban on red 3 from being used for food use after two studies concluded that high exposure to red 3 led to male lab rats developing tumors.

One priority of the current U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been to address the issue of unnecessary artificial dyes in foods. In April 2025, HHS alongside the FDA announced measures being taken to encourage a shift away from all petroleum-based synthetic dyes to natural alternatives. Red 40 and the five other main synthetic dyes are the target of these measures; many food manufacturing companies have already agreed to phase out these dyes from food products by the end of 2026 or 2027. Internationally, the European Union has implemented guidelines that require food products that contain red 40 to place a warning label that states the dye “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Additionally, countries like Norway and Iceland have taken even more extreme measures to protect children from the effects of artificial dyes by banning the use of red 40 in food products altogether. To follow in these footsteps, the Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in August 2025, which would ban artificial dyes, including red 40, from food products. Since its introduction, the bill has since been referred to committee and is awaiting approval before being brought to the House Floor for a vote.

It is encouraging that progress has been made on this issue this year, but there is still much progress to be made. With the introduction of legislation such as the Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act and through the work of Secretary Kennedy, children will have healthier alternatives that leave a long-term positive impact on their development.

 

Sources:

1.      https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/childrens-health/in-depth/nutrition-for-kids/art-20049335

2.     https://health.clevelandclinic.org/red-dye-40

3.     https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/are-food-dyes-unhealthy.h00-159775656.html

4.    https://www.fda.gov/food/hfp-constituent-updates/fda-revoke-authorization-use-red-no-3-food-and-ingested-drugs

5.     https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/hhs-fda-phase-out-petroleum-based-synthetic-dyes-nations-food-supply

6.    https://www.fda.gov/food/color-additives-information-consumers/tracking-food-industry-pledges-remove-petroleum-based-food-dyes

7.     https://imbarex.com/where-is-red-40-banned-all-the-countries-and-why/

8.    https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-introduces-legislation-banning-harmful-food-dyes#

A Crisis of the West

This guest post is from Mark Schultz, Regent Law 2L:

In the 1990’s, the State of Michigan was ground zero in a nationwide debate over physician assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a Michigan physician who seemed to have a lifetime infatuation with death. He assisted in the deaths of 130 people between 1990 and 199.[1]

The legal landscape at the time was uncertain. Michigan enacted a temporary ban on assisted suicide,[2] mostly to buy time for legislators to mull things over before crafting more permanent legislation.

Kevorkian challenged the temporary ban on assisted suicide and lost at the Michigan Supreme Court,[3] but the law soon expired. Kevorkian escalated his practice of sending elderly patients to their deaths and promoting assisted suicide. Kevorkian and his attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, who used his newfound defense lawyer publicity to run for Michigan Governor, pushed for legal physician assisted suicide across the country.

Kevorkian’s assisted suicide advocacy efforts had opposite effect he intended. His position proved to be far outside the Overton Window of Michiganders. In 1998, Michigan enacted a ban on physician assisted suicide.[4] Dr. Kevorkian didn’t care; he continued to kill old people and was soon convicted of second-degree murder under that statute.[5] Two and a half decades later, the debate over physician assisted suicide continues, even when it lacks high-profile doctors and patients to bring it to light.

Debates about assisted suicide tend to focus on theoretical concepts like the sanctity of life, personal liberty, care for the elderly, and informed consent. Both sides often fail to see real-world pitfalls of physician assisted suicide.

Older people who are nearing death think about things in a different light. They want to be on good terms with God and with as many people as possible. While this is a great intention, it can leave them vulnerable. One fear of the elderly is being a burden. They care so much for others as they prepare to leave this world that they don’t want to inconvenience others on their way out. This is when a theoretical right to die public policy measure becomes a duty to die in many people’s minds.

Many people today in nursing homes have very early childhood memories of the Great Depression. They worked and saved their entire lives so their kids wouldn’t have to wait in breadlines or hope a world war lifts them out of poverty. Their concern for others combined with financial costs associated with keeping them alive can coerce them to choose death when physician assisted suicide is a legal option.

Many people require specialized care for many years at the end of their lives. Their specific medical situation may prevent them from living with a son or daughter, even if both parties strongly desire it. While assisted living is very expensive, living in a skilled care facility magnifies that expense many times over. A Roth IRA or employer retirement account that took discipline and decades to build can quickly disappear when used to pay for a nursing home. Many people protect assets in a trust as part of a good estate plan and attempt to qualify for entitlements such as Medicaid, but many estate assets may still be subject to recovery by the government. Questions can begin to linger in people’s minds: “Is it worth it for me to spend all my money to live like this for just a few more years? I really want my kids and grandkids to have my mutual fund portfolio. Everyone says it’s ok and legal now to have my doctor help me die a little faster. Maybe I should just do that.” Beneficiaries can think things like “Would I rather visit Grandpa in the nursing home for the next 3 years, or would I rather be thankful for the good times we had together and instead have a share of his stock account that is quickly depleting?” Public policy in American must not reach the point of making physician assisted death look more appealing and valuable than human life.

Suicide is a crisis in the West, despite our status as the most prosperous and free people in all human history. We cannot simultaneously prevent suicide and promote suicide in different contexts to different people just because of various pitfalls of the human condition.

---

[1]Law Library - American Law and Legal Information, https://law.jrank.org/pages/7987/Kevorkian-Jack.html

[2] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 752.1027 (1992).

[3] People v. Kevorkian, 527 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994).

[4] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.329a (1998).

[5] People v. Kevorkian, 639 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

Trauma Informed Lawyering Makes a Difference

 This guest post is from Elie El-Habr, Regent Law 3L:

"What on Earth is wrong with this person?" This is likely the most commonly asked question after just one day of observing courtroom proceedings in Virginia's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. But sometimes, the question ought to be asked differently. As lawyers, we must ask it differently. "What on Earth happened to this person?" is probably a good place to start. 

Our past trauma, whether experienced in adulthood or childhood, influences almost everything we do. It affects how we deal with happiness or grief, success or failure, love or hate, and calm or stress. Almost every human emotion is flavored by trauma. We can somehow take this precept as a truism, but still struggle with conducting ourselves in accordance with it. Am I really to consider opposing counsel's childhood trauma when I am on the verge of seeking Rule 11 sanctions against him? Do I really need to worry about my client's trauma when deciding how to advise her in a divorce lawsuit? The answer depends on another question: Who am I, as a lawyer?

If I view myself as a hired gun, then considering my client's trauma could not matter less. But I strive to be more than just that. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you," Matthew 7:12. As lawyers, we are gifted. We have the gift of stepping into the role of trusted stewards, bold advocates, and wise counselors. Our clients will most likely seek our assistance during their life's lowest moments. Being a trauma-informed advocate is thus paramount. I firmly believe that to live my life with Christ as a model, to achieve the highest possible level of self-actualization, to maximize fulfillment, and to promote the kingdom of God and His glory, I must seize every opportunity to contribute to my client's personal well-being---not just his legal well-being. It starts with knowing my client. And you do not really know people until you know what happened to them.

Personally, my childhood trauma affects nearly everything I do. It was not until recently that I discovered that, but growing up in an abusive household never leaves you (with every meaning the word carries). It's a double-edged sword. Wield it properly and it can propel you to prosper. Falter with it and you'll be on your way to failure. Through my relationship with Christ, I am learning how to wield it properly. But I also want to learn how to help others deal with their trauma and how to better serve others with an understanding of how their trauma affects them.

Children Lost from Families in Immigration

 This guest post is courtesy of Sally Glanzer, Regent Law 2L:

One of the pressing issues in navigating immigration policies is how children are impacted by the detention and deportation process. Both when families are processed at the border or during deportation proceedings, families are tragically often separated. Red tape, conflicting court orders, or immigration policies have resulted in families being separated from each other. As a result, there have been reports of “lost” children with some estimated numbers of 300,000 children missing from the system. These reports have been seen in each administration, so keeping track and ensuring safety for children when they are separated from their parents has been a consistent issue.

In 2018, an immigration regulation entitled the “Zero Policy” act greatly increased the separation of parents and children. Under this strict immigration policy, parents were prosecuted under the “improper entry” while simultaneously treating children as unaccompanied minors. The parents and children were transferred to different departments, and as a result, children and parents were navigating the immigration system separated from each other.  Although this process was eventually halted because of the harm it was causing to the children, it still had a lasting impact on those families.

Under the next administration, there were reports of an estimated number of 300,000 children that were “lost” in the system. It is important to note that these numbers primarily reflect children whose address is unknown, who missed court dates, or possibly never received notice. But these children that are lost both on paper and physically is evidence of a clear lack of organization and the increased risk of trafficking and danger that these children face in a system that overwhelms them.

Regardless of the administration in power at any time, immigration reform has become a pressing concern at the hearts of many Americans. At its core, we must ensure that our policies are protecting the most vulnerable. Families need to be reunited and kept together as they navigate the immigration system. These “lost” children are significantly at risk for trafficking in a confusing system full of adults. Whether Congress enacts laws or Homeland Security operations change, immigration reform should prioritize the best interests of the child and family reunification. That advances family restoration.

When Faith Demands Foresight: A New Year of Blessings

 This guest post is from Kainat Chaudhary, Regent Law 3L:

This past weekend, my dad became extremely sick, and our family was immediately thrown into chaos. Fear has a way of collapsing time, and suddenly, nothing mattered except getting to the hospital. On the drive to the hospital, my dad began telling me about his assets, how they must be distributed, and other important numbers. He spoke calmly, but with the awareness of someone who believed he may not survive. I was overwhelmed by the fear of uncertainty. In that moment, inheritance stopped being an abstract concept and became painfully real.

Thankfully, after spending two days in the hospital, my dad was released from the hospital. I was relieved and felt compelled to reflect on this incident.

As Christians, we confess that life is fragile. Scripture reminds us that “you do not know what will happen tomorrow” (James 4:14). We repeat this truth often, but rarely do we feel its weight until we are forced to. When mortality is no longer theoretical, clarity matters. And clarity is a gift we either prepare in advance or leave our loved ones to piece together in grief.

The life-giving words of John 3:16 must be at the foundation: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Inheritance is more than money. Spiritually, parents pass down faith, values, and example. Proverbs tells us that “a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children’’ (Proverbs 13:22). That inheritance includes wisdom, order, and peace—not just assets. Yet physical inheritance matters too, because when someone passes away, the law must step in and distribute what remains.

Legally, if no will or estate plan exists, the state applies intestacy rules, default formulas that decide who receives property and in what share. These rules do not account for spiritual priorities, family complexities, or international assets. When property spans more than one country, the absence of planning can leave families navigating multiple legal systems while grieving, multiplying confusion at the worst possible moment.

Scripture consistently teaches stewardship. Everything we own belongs to God, and we are accountable for how we manage it. This responsibility does not end with our last breath. Creating a will or estate plan is not a lack of faith; it is an act of love and obedience to wisdom. It is a way of caring for others when we can no longer.

What struck me most was not just the fear of loss, but the burden my dad carried in trying to communicate everything at once. No one should have to compress a lifetime of work, sacrifice, and intention into a conversation overshadowed by sirens and uncertainty.

Christian faith calls us to trust God and also to act wisely. Planning what we leave behind is part of loving our families well.

Blessings to you and your family this new year.

The Birth of Christ & the Marital Presumption

 

Celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ is a special time of year for so many reasons, but most of us never think about the family law rule that protected the Holy Family.

The marital presumption is the legal assumption that a child born to a married woman is presumed to be the child of her husband. This presumption helps to establish paternity and supports the stability of the family structure in a legal context of marriage.  It provides a beautiful context for the child's safety and stability.

That presumption is at work in Matthew chapter 1 when the birth of Jesus Christ is told:

"This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.' 

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' - which means, 'God with us.' [citing Isaiah 7:14]

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."         Matthew 1:18-25

Even at the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ God Almighty was at work protecting him with the law, and with parents married to each other for his benefit, stability, and continuity.

Rejoice this Christmas for His holy birth, and God's legal protection in the midst.