Recently in Family Law Category

47-year-old archaeology professor Chris Ratte is perhaps not the most careful of parents; he says he didn't realize when he bought a $7 "Mike's Hard Lemonade" at a Tigers game, it was an alcoholic beverage (all of 10 proof), and let his 7-year-old son Leo drink the 12-ounce bottle. A vendor noticed the boy with the drink; the boy had no symptoms of inebriation but said he was nauseated; and stadium officials, in a prime example of defensive overreaction, summoned an ambulance, which found Leo fine with no trace of alcohol in his system.

Silly enough so far, no harm, no foul, but Michigan Child Protective Services intervened, held Leo in foster care for two days (refusing to release him to the custody of his aunts, who drove from New England on short notice for just such a possibility), and forced Ratte to move out of the house until a second hearing okayed his return. If Ratte and his wife weren't upper-middle-class academics with access to the University of Michigan Law School clinic professors, it could have been much worse. "Don Duquette, a U-M law professor who directs the university's Child Advocacy Law Clinic, represented Ratte and his wife. He notes sardonically that the most remarkable thing about the couple's case may be the relative speed with which they were reunited with Leo." (Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Apr. 28 (h/t B.C.)).

Some policy proposals are for taxpayers to fund attorneys to defend parents victimized by Child Protective Services; some go so far as to call it a constitutional right, albeit one having nothing to do with the underlying text of the Constitution. But that would only treat the symptom and ossify the underlying problem of abusive government intervention into the home.

"A Queens mom is so determined to get child support from her ex-husband that she filed a rare lawsuit against two of the world's best-known bakeries for more than $8 million - alleging they failed to garnish his pay." Chandra Myers says that Sara Lee Bakeries and Bimbo Bakeries USA, the subsidiary of a Mexican company that distributes such brands as Entenmann's and Thomas's English Muffins, "defied orders to garnish a total of $36,000 from Robert Sean Myers' wages from 2001 to 2004." According to New York City records, Bimbo handed Ms. Myers $18,382 in 2003; the company says it finds her ongoing claim to be without merit, while Sara Lee "declined to comment on claims it owes $11,000 in back child support." (Nancie L. Katz, New York Daily News, Apr. 21).

The Washington Post has an editorial on a theme that Ted posted on Feb. 28: the way blood relatives who weren't involved in kids' lives before the tragedy have a habit of coming around to sue afterward. ("Belated Action", Apr. 12).

Logistical problems following the gigantic raid on the Texas polygamy sect: Although 350 Texas lawyers are said to have volunteered to represent the 416 seized children -- each of whom presumably requires individual representation -- a small army of others are expected to be needed as well, given that, for example, more than a hundred mothers may soon be locked in custody litigation. (AP/New York Post, Apr. 14).

An Italian pornographic movie star/politician who was formerly married to wealthy American artist Jeff Koons is back in court with a child support demand, a decade after the two carried out an extraordinarily acrimonious and hard-fought custody battle over their son, now 15. In the course of losing that battle Koons spent $4 million on legal fees, "some of which he later challenged unsuccessfully. Among Koons' complaints was his lawyers charged him for time they spent watching his ex's porn films, one of which famously includes" a scene rather too raw for description on this blog involving a reptilian co-star. (Dareh Gregorian, "Porn Star Sues Papa To Pay Up", New York Post, Mar. 27).

Chicago: "Child endangerment and obstruction charges were dropped Thursday against a woman who briefly left her 2-year-old daughter sleeping in the car while she and her two older daughters poured coins into a Salvation Army kettle." A lawyer for the mother, Treffly Coyne, said that she had stayed within sight of the car while making the donation.
("Charges Dropped for Leaving Kid in Car", AP/Las Vegas Sun, Mar. 14). And from upstate New York: "Though not 'ideal,' a couple's efforts to control the weight of their obese daughter were made in good faith and did not justify a county agency's repeated removal of the girl from her parents' custody, an upstate New York appeals court ruled Thursday." (Joel Stashenko, "Appeals Court Faults Removal of Obese Child From Parents", New York Law Journal, Mar. 3; similar case in Dundee, The Scotsman).

Indicating perhaps that divorcing Paul McCartney is an only slightly less remunerative affair than being Bear Stearns, even if she didn't get the claimed £125 million. (David Byers, Times Online, Mar. 17). Reader Jim T. sends along this video of Mills's press statement and describes as "hilarious" the "references of how it is 'very, very sad' that her daughter was only awarded enough travel expenses to travel 'B class' even though Heather Mills was just awarded $50 million dollars." (& welcome Above the Law readers).

Family members of the children Banita Jacks murdered, who apparently cared so much about the children that they didn't notice Jacks had starved them to death months before they were discovered, "have hired lawyers to pursue claims against the D.C. government for failing to prevent months of neglect and abuse. ... In interviews yesterday, the grandmothers' lawyers declined to say when their clients last saw Jacks or her daughters."

DC taxpayers will be thrilled to note that the city is refusing to rehire three workers fired in a scapegoating frenzy after the Jacks revelations, even after a hearing officer has held that the firings were unwarranted. More lawsuits to come. (Keith L. Alexander and Petula Dvorak, "D.C. Could Have Done More To Help 4 Sisters, Families Say", Washington Post, Feb. 28).

For an example of the post-Jacks overreaction, see Hans Bader at POL, who has beat me to the Greg and Julianna Caplan story, which was also extensively covered in the Marc Fisher blog.

As a Valentine's Day promotion, Charleston, W.V. radio station WKLC-FM is offering a drawing for a free divorce. "Charleston attorney Rusty Webb will handle the actual filing" and says winners should not expect anything complicated in the line of contested proceedings. (Charleston Gazette, USA Today).

Through the rise of palimony law, courts in New Jersey have laid out a bright line against its being awarded in cases where a couple did not live together. Now, however, the state's high court is being urged to overturn that rule and open the door to claims for compensation by a broader class of romantic partners (Michael Booth, "N.J. High Court Hears Pitch for Palimony Sans Cohabitation", New Jersey Law Journal, Jan. 23). Two years ago an appellate judge upheld the bar to recovery:

"Without such a bright-line requirement, the concept of 'marital-type' relationship is unacceptably vulnerable to duplicitous manipulation," Judge Jose Fuentes wrote in Levine v. Konvitz. "Requiring cohabitation also provides a measure of advance notice and warning, to both parties to a relationship, and to their respective family members, that legal and financial consequences may result."

(Michael Booth, "Despite 70-Year Romance, Palimony Is Denied for Lack of Cohabitation", NJLJ, Feb. 17, 2006).

A reader writes regarding our post on the perverse incentives given social workers:

Frankly, I'm surprised this story is news. The belief of every case worker I know (I've only been at this since July) is that if a kid on your caseload dies, the odds are that you'll be fired no matter what you did right or wrong. Besides the perverse incentives you mentioned, that cause over-removal of children at lower levels, there are perverse incentives for the people at the top of the chain--if they make the requirements so unattainable they can never be done perfectly, and keep caseloads high enough that no one can complete all his tasks, there will always be something they can find that caseworkers didn't do, and the caseworkers (and sometimes their immediate supervisors) can be fired.

One of the greatest needs I've seen for a loser-pays system has been this year in my work with county dependency courts. The Child Protective Investigators, who remove children and work with the state AG's office to get them adjudicated dependent on the state, prosecute the most absurd cases because it hardly costs them anything if they lose.

Right now I'm working with a CPI who is trying to take custody of a 17-year-old girl from her mother--even though by the time the trial comes around and the girl is adjudicated (probably won't be, because the CPI has a crappy case against her) she'll be one month away from aging out of the system. Since the CPIs don't pay if they lose, and don't even usually show up at trial to get chewed out by the judge, they have no reason not to waste my time, the judges' time, the attorneys' time, and (worst of all, since these poor folks aren't paid to be there) a phenomenal amount of innocent parents' time and money.

The single biggest problem with the dependency system, at least here in Florida, is that we don't have loser-pays.

Sorry for the rant. That post hit close to home!

Banita Jacks, a high-school dropout with four children by at least three different men (not including a fourth man she incorrectly accused in a paternity suit), was found living with the corpses of those four children (whom she is accused of murdering) in Southeast Washington DC. The city has responded by announcing that it will fire several workers who, it is said with 20/20 hindsight, failed to adequately respond to warnings that the children were in danger. [WaPo]

And, several months from now, if there is an incident where parents are having their children unjustly taken from them at the drop of a hat, it is because city officials now know that their jobs are more at risk for possibly under-reacting than they ever would be if they over-react.

Update, January 16: A surprising number of commenters are taking the side of the scapegoaters, where one seizes a single particular warning, and says "You should have known"—a frequent tactic of the trial lawyer seeking deep-pocket blame. Richard Wexler has a good summary:

But when a police officer arrives, he finds four children "well and healthy." Mom claims she's home-schooling the children. The officer sees the books mom says she is using.

What do you do?

The police officer saw no evidence of abuse or neglect. Yes, mom wouldn't let him in without a warrant, but in America, that is her right. The school social worker suspects mental illness -- but she's also the one who said the daughter was being held hostage, something apparently contradicted by the police.

If you happen to be psychic, know that the mother is Banita Jacks and know what will be discovered more than eight months later, presumably you drop everything and find a way to get into that home.

But if you are simply a typical D.C. caseworker -- juggling many other cases -- then you move on to all those situations that, on the surface, look far worse than a home-schooler with "well and healthy" children. ...

Because there's nothing like yelling "Off with their heads!" to fuel a foster-care panic.

Every CFSA worker is now terrified of having the next Banita Jacks on his or her caseload. So agency personnel will rush to tear large numbers of children from their parents. Those children will suffer the trauma of needless separation from everyone loving and familiar, and they'll be placed at risk of abuse in foster care itself -- several studies suggest that one in three children are abused while in foster care. Worst of all, a deeply troubled child-welfare system will be further overwhelmed, making it even more likely that some child in real danger will be overlooked.

...say some divorce lawyers. (Dareh Gregorian, "Splitting Time", New York Post, Jan. 9)(via Jones/WSJ law blog).

Prompted by our post of yesterday about Virginia lawyer-legislators, commenter Hans Bader at his own blog nominates New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey as examples of how bad matrimonial law can get: "the more lawyers are in a state legislature, the more unfair a state’s divorce laws tend to be". (OpenMarket.org., Jan. 2). Plus: our family law archives are here.

The action was "in protest at a possible reform that could cut them out of many divorce cases." Notaries public would be authorized to handle many divorces involving mutual consent, at a large likely savings to divorcing couples. (AP/IHT, Dec. 19).

Once again, the combination of contingency fees and law enforcement spells trouble: an article by Tresa Baldas in the National Law Journal reports that controversy is mounting over the activities of private firms that go after noncustodial parents' child support obligations in exchange for a percentage share of the bounty ("Suits collecting around child support collectors", Sept. 17, no free link). "Critics of the industry -- many of them lawyers -- claim that private collectors of child support are engaging in predatory practices, such as charging excessive contingency fees as high as 50%, and using aggressive collection tactics that run afoul of federal laws." The private agencies escape the scrutiny of federal debt collection laws and have been operating effectively without regulation, but state lawmakers are now moving to fill the gap, with 13 states having passed laws intended to protect the services' clients (if not always their adversaries) by capping fees, prohibiting the agencies from collaring state-directed payments, and giving clients more leeway to withdraw from contracts.

Since 1979 nineteen countries led by Sweden have banned corporal punishment by parents of kids in the home. A bill scheduled for debate today before the Massachusetts legislature would make that state the first to join the trend. (Laurel Sweet, "Bay State’s going slap-happy", Boston Herald, Nov. 27; "Anti-spanking bill is folly" (editorial), Nov. 28; Stephen Bainbridge, Nov. 22 (New Zealand)). Earlier: Apr. 19, 2004 (U.K.); Feb. 14 and Feb. 24, 2007 (proposal in California).

More: such laws in both Sweden and New Zealand have been softened (i.e., made more lenient toward parents) by the interpolation of reasonableness standards, per Kiwi website Big News (via QuizLaw).

A Nassau County, N.Y. judge rebukes two parents "engaged in a 'vitriolic and venomous' dispute over child custody and visitation." Note that it's not a case of divorce or its aftermath: "The couple never married." (Vesselin Mitev, "Judge Blasts Parents for Using Court to Attack, Demean Each Other", New York Law Journal, Oct. 24).

Dwayne Dail spent 18 years in a North Carolina prison on false charges of rape. When he got out based on new DNA findings, his ex-girlfriend promptly sued him for child support. (Mandy Locke, "Dail, expecting $360,000, sued by ex-girlfriend", Raleigh News & Observer, Oct. 24; "Wrongly Convicted Man Sued for Child Support", WRAL, Oct. 23; "Prosecutor: Wrongful Conviction Is 'Nightmare'", WRAL, Aug. 29; "Dwayne Dail responds to lawsuit", Goldsboro News-Argus, Oct. 28).

Another object lesson in how your rights to privacy stop when litigation begins:

High-tech surveillance tactics are now commonplace in divorce cases, changing the nature of matrimonial law practice.

Soon-to-be-divorced spouses routinely steal each other's BlackBerries and install snooping software on each other's computers. This not only enables them to read each other's e-mail but to monitor, in 15-second increments, what a perhaps-erring marital partner is doing on the Internet, reports the New York Times. What they can't find out, their divorce lawyers perhaps can by hiring even more technologically sophisticated private detectives.

"In just about every case now, to some extent, there is some electronic evidence,” says Gaetano Ferro, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “It has completely changed our field.”

Amusingly or not, the one area where the law is ferocious in responding to adversaries' invasions of each others' privacy is that of clients' communications with their lawyers -- mustn't infringe on the lawyer-client privilege, after all. (Martha Neil, "Divorce Practice Now a Surveillance War", ABA Journal, Sept. 18).