Her kids are “too attached” to her, she was told by her soon-to-be-ex husband. Huh? Well, maybe there’s more to it than that: “His lawyer had advised him that to get what he wanted in the divorce, he would need to take a hard line on custody because that’s what mattered most to me.” (Katie Allison Granju, “Losing Custody of My Hope”, New York Times, May 8). And divorced British fathers crusade against a court system they see as stacked against them (Susan Dominus, “The Fathers’ Crusade”, New York Times Magazine, May 8).
Posts Tagged ‘family law’
Terri Schiavo case
A reader writes requesting my opinion of the Terri Schiavo case. For what it’s worth, I find Jacob Sullum’s and Glenn Reynolds’ analyses of the case (and, specifically, the issue of federal intervention) to be generally persuasive. For factual background on the case, the place to start is Matt Conigliaro’s.
“Stalingrad” divorce tactics
In a rancorous fourteen-month divorce trial, John Ofori-Tenkorang disputed the existence of his marriage to Jacqueline Anom, claiming marriage photos had been falsified; claimed to have routinely thrown away bank records, failing to disclose what the judge concluded were assets exceeding $1.7 million; and “wouldn’t stipulate that he wasn’t a close relative of his wife’s, or under the care of a conservator — two grounds for invalidating a marriage, forcing those issues to be proven in court.” Judge Kevin Tierney compared Ofori-Tenkorang’s tenacious assertion of legal issues to the 1942 battle deep inside Russia: “German troops surrounded the Soviet city of Stalingrad on the Volga River. They used aerial attacks, artillery bombardment and intensive panzer assaults. The city was reduced to rubble. Virtually no building stood.” (Thomas B. Scheffey, “‘Stalingrad’ Defense Tactics Prove Costly in Divorce Case”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Mar. 28).
More: reader (and historian) John Steele Gordon (his site) writes:
It sounds like the judge is a better jurist than a historian. Stalingrad, backed by the Volga River, wasn’t surrounded. That’s how the Russians were able to resupply their troops and hold the city. Then, with Zhukov’s offensive, in November, 1942, it was the Germans who were surrounded and trapped in the Stalingrad pocket.
Update: Virginia not-so-primitive, and state mini-FMAs
The Virginia legislature has voted to repeal the state’s law, the only one of its kind in the nation, prohibiting insurance companies from offering coverage of domestic partners as part of employer-provided health plans (see May 31, 2004, next-to-last paragraph). Gov. Mark Warner (D) has announced his intent to sign the bill. The Virginia Chamber of Commerce backed the repeal, citing principles of economic liberty: “If you believe in a free market, then restrictions like this don’t make any sense,” said Chamber vice president for public policy Stephen D. Haner. The repeal was strenuously opposed, however, by Religious Right figures such as Del. Robert Marshall (R-Manassas), and passed the House of Delegates by only a 49-48 margin (Pamela Stallsmith, “House backs letting firms extend health benefits”, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Feb. 25; Lou Chibbaro, Jr., “Va. DP ban repealed by 1 vote”, Washington Blade, Mar. 4; Tim Hulsey, Feb. 25).
On a related topic, last November Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment providing that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose” (see Nov. 2). At the time, opponents argued that the measure might well be interpreted to forbid cities, state universities and other public entities from offering domestic partnership benefits to their employees, but proponents of the measure dismissed that notion: a spokeswoman for Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, a group heavily backed by Michigan’s seven Catholic dioceses, told the Detroit News “nothing that’s on the books is going to change. We continue to confuse this issue by bringing in speculation.” However, with the amendment now in effect, the state’s attorney general — to cheers from most of the amendment’s organized backers — has issued an advisory opinion stating that it does indeed prohibit the city of Kalamazoo from providing DP benefits to its employees after the expiration of their current union contract. (Ed Finnerty, “City under fire over same-sex benefits plan”, Kalamazoo Gazette, Mar. 17; Claire Cummings and Melissa Domsic, “Cox: No future same-sex employee benefits”, State News (Michigan State U.), Mar. 17). Don Herzog of Left2Right, who has assembled plenty of links on the story, aptly labels the sequence of events “Bait and Switch” (Feb. 11 and Mar. 18). Update: Feb. 17, 2007 (Mich. appeals court rules benefits illegal under amendment).
Reservists’ child support
More harsh consequences of our laws aimed at “deadbeat dads” (see Feb. 19 and links from there): Radley Balko, Matt Welch, John Hawkins. Some attempts at relief: California, Illinois.
Family neglects 3-year-old, wants cash for her death
“Lawyers for the estate of Porchia Bennett blame the city for the 3-year-old child’s death at the hands of abusive caretakers in a squalid South Philadelphia row house. … [I]f the estate’s lawsuit is successful, some taxpayer money could go to the dead child’s allegedly abusive mother, an often-homeless drug abuser who left Porchia with the child’s alleged killers a year before Porchia was slain.” Tiffany Bennett, the mother, is awaiting trial on charges of child endangerment. Also standing to benefit financially will be Lester Trapp, the girl’s father, who hadn’t seen her since she was a year old, according to a lawyer. Both Trapp and Tiffany Bennett “are listed as ‘beneficiaries’ of the estate in documents filed with the Register of Wills office.” The suit was filed by attorney Alan Denenberg, whose partner Thomas Bruno was appointed administrator of the child’s estate last year. (Jim Smith, “Suit faults city, DHS for Porchia’s death”, Philadelphia Daily News, Feb. 25; Jill Porter, “Family’s lawsuit over tot’s death is an obscenity”, Philadelphia Daily News, Feb. 25)
“Deadbeat dads”
A decade of harshly punitive laws later, policymakers discover it’s not so simple (Leslie Kaufman, “When Child Support Is Due, Even the Poor Find Little Mercy”, New York Times, Feb. 19). See Feb. 3, Jun. 11 and Aug. 19, 2004 and many other posts in our family law category.
Washington state: can parents monitor children?
Carmen Dixon, the mother of 14-year-old Lacey, was concerned about a phone call Lacey received from her 17-year-old boyfriend Oliver Christensen, so she listened in on another line. Oliver discussed a purse-snatching, and Carmen turned him in to police. But, last December, the Washington Supreme Court threw out Christensen’s 2000 second-degree robbery conviction, because the eavesdropping violated the children’s privacy. The legislature is just getting around to changing the law in response. (Robert L. Jamieson, “Courts should let parents do their duty — and pry”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Feb. 7; Rachel La Corte, “Parental snooping bill gets a hearing”, AP/Seattle Times, Feb. 3; Christine Clarridge, “Eavesdropping against law even for parent, court says”, Seattle Times, Dec. 13) (via Bashman).
Appellate Court: Jordan suit should be heard by jury
Michael Jordan sued his ex-lover in 2002, claiming that she attempted to extort $5 million from him. The woman, Karla Knafel, countersued and claimed that “Jordan owed her the money for remaining silent and agreeing not to file a paternity suit after she became pregnant.” The district court dismissed the case, stating that the claim was extortionate and against public policy. The state appellate court, in a ruling yesterday, overturned this ruling and reinstated the case. The court wrote that the claim “is not inherently coercive or exploitive or motivated by an improper influence” and should only have been dismissed “if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven” entitling her to win. “We find that whether this particular oral agreement was exploitive or coercive is a matter best left to the trier of fact.” (Mickey Ciokajlo, “Jordan Headed Back to Court,” Chicago Trib., Feb. 4).
Supreme Court takes no action on Florida adoption law
The Supreme Court denied certiorari on an appeal of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision that let stand a Florida law that forbids gays from adopting. Professor Volokh comments.