For many people going through a divorce or separation, it is a concern that the other parent may take the kids out of the state without permission. Even more alarming is the possibility that they make take the children out of the country.

Believe it or not, it may be considered kidnapping when a parent takes a child out of the state without permission from a court, if there is a divorce or other legal proceeding taking place.

If you have these concerns, you may have legal options to provide safeguards against parental kidnapping. Unfortunately, many parents find themselves in exactly this position when families live near the state border (as many do in Durango), or when one parent is not a citizen of the United States.

In Colorado, the legislature recognized the difficult position that a parent faces when he or she believes the other parent is going to take the kids from Colorado without permission. To address this problem, a parent may seek an Abduction Prevention Order from the court.

If the court believes that your child may be abducted, it can make court orders to protect your child. The court has the power to protect your child from abduction and can order any of the following actions to prevent a kidnapping:

• Restricting the child’s ability to travel;

• Prohibiting the parent from taking the child outside Colorado or the U.S.;
• Prohibiting the parent from taking the child from day care or school; and
• Requiring that the child’s name be placed in the U.S. Department of State’s Child Passport Issuance Alert Program.

Although these are the major things that a parent can do with a Abduction Prevention Order, there are also many other options that may be available depending on your circumstances.

Although an Abduction Prevention Order may not prevent all child kidnappings, it is a great tool for a parent that believes his or her child may be taken out of the state or country without permission.

When a court enters orders against a parent, it sends a strong message that the minor child is to remain in the state of Colorado.

Today, Vail Resorts announced a major new proposal to increase its summer activities and programming as part of a federal initiative to encourage increased use of public lands during the summer. The new activities will include zip-lining, tubing, an alpine slide, and numerous educational classes.

Following a dismal snow season, it doesn’t come as much of a surprise that Vail is making an effort to bolster its off-season business. Across Colorado, the 2011-2012 ski season was lackluster, with low snowpack and sluggish tourism. The snow conditions had such a negative impact on the ski business that, in March of this year, Vail was accused of over-exaggerating its snow reporting in order to encourage and salvage skier activity.

While the summer activities would be a major change for Vail’s operations, here in Durango, Durango Mountain Resort already offers a slew of summer fun. Many of the activities that Vail is considering are already established and available at DMR. 

However, what will be interesting to see is how Vail executes its plan and what impact it will have on off-season revenue. For many other Colorado ski areas that don’t already have summer programming, Vail’s program may act as a roadmap to expand their revenue base.

Do you know someone that has waited for years to obtain his or her green card after immigration documents have been filed? One reason for the delay could be that the United States government is experiencing a huge back-log in processing applications. The government issues a Visa Bulletin every month showing how far behind it is in processing applications.

The August Visa Bulletin for immigrant visas, available at http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5749.html, shows the government’s progress for August. The Visa Bulletin shows the processing time for immigrant visas. For example, if your United States citizen brother filed immigration documents for you in February 2001, the United States government is now ready to process your request for lawful permanent residence (i.e. your green card). 

But, the processing times vary depending upon your nationality. For example, if you are from the Philippines, the government is now processing requests for lawful permanent residence that were filed in 1989. The variation is due in part to the large numbers of individuals intending to immigrate to the United States from certain countries.

If a family member filed immigration documents for you, it is important that you check the Visa Bulletin every month. Once the government is processing requests near the month that your family member filed documents, you should contact an immigration attorney.

Padilla Law is pleased to announce that it has opened its new law office in Durango, Colorado, located at 736 Main Avenue, Suite #8.  The office is located in the heart of historic downtown Durango, catty-corner from the Strater Hotel.

Please stop by the offices, or feel free to either email or call to schedule an appointment.  The firm is currently accepting new clients and offers free consultations.

736 Main Avenue
Suite #8
Durango, CO 81301
Tel: 970.764.4547
Fax: 970.764.4549
[email protected]
paul@padillalaw

Padilla Law is pleased to announced the successful outcome of Sanchez v. Sanchez, in the district court of Rio Arriba County, New Mexico.  Padilla Law acted as second-chair co-counsel in the quiet title action concerning approximately 50.8 acres of real property.  Plaintiff's primary counsel was Padilla Law Firm, P.A., based in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

The lawsuit resulted in a two-day bench trial in Rio Arriba County, with Judge Sheri Raphaelson ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, quieting title to the property in the plaintiffs and granting ejectment of the defendant from the property.

Padilla Law is pleased to announce the successful resolution of Dr. Michael Riley v. Purpose Medical, et al, in Denver District Court.  Acting as defense counsel, Padilla Law was able to negotiate a stipulated dismissal of the case with prejudice, with no settlement payment or other financial obligations for the defendants.

In the case, plaintiffs alleged three causes of action: UCC Breach of Contract, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Deceptive Trade Practices.  The defendants, through Padilla Law, counterclaimed with Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution, and Libel Per Se.