Los Angeles Divorce and Family Lawyer Blog

Single, Unwed Mothers Under Age 30 On the Rise

2012-02-19T11:03:00.000-08:00

For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage

By JASON DePARLE and SABRINA TAVERNISE

LORAIN, Ohio — It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage.

Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.

Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.

One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.

“Marriage has become a luxury good,” said Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.

The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill. Liberal analysts argue that shrinking paychecks have thinned the ranks of marriageable men, while conservatives often say that the sexual revolution reduced the incentive to wed and that safety net programs discourage marriage.

Here in Lorain, a blue-collar town west of Cleveland where the decline of the married two-parent family has been especially steep, dozens of interviews with young parents suggest that both sides have a point.

Over the past generation, Lorain lost most of two steel mills, a shipyard and a Ford factory, diminishing the supply of jobs that let blue-collar workers raise middle-class families. More women went to work, making marriage less of a financial necessity for them. Living together became routine, and single motherhood lost the stigma that once sent couples rushing to the altar. Women here often describe marriage as a sign of having arrived rather than a way to get there.

Meanwhile, children happen.

Amber Strader, 27, was in an on-and-off relationship with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant. A former nursing student who now tends bar, Ms. Strader said her boyfriend was so dependent that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind. “It was like living with another kid,” she said.

When a second child, with a new boyfriend, followed three years later — her birth control failed, she said — her boyfriend, a part-time house painter, was reluctant to wed.

Ms. Strader likes the idea of marriage; she keeps her parents’ wedding photo on her kitchen wall and says her boyfriend is a good father. But for now marriage is beyond her reach.

“I’d like to do it, but I just don’t see it happening right now,” she said. “Most of my friends say it’s just a piece of paper, and it doesn’t work out anyway.”

The recent rise in single motherhood has set off few alarms, unlike in past eras. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a top Labor Department official and later a United States senator from New York, reported in 1965 that a quarter of black children were born outside marriage — and warned of a “tangle of pathology” — he set off a bitter debate.

By the mid-1990s, such figures looked quaint: a third of Americans were born outside marriage. Congress, largely blaming welfare, imposed tough restrictions. Now the figure is 41 percent — and 53 percent for children born to women under 30, according to Child Trends, which analyzed 2009 data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Still, the issue received little attention until the publication last month of “Coming Apart,” a book by Charles Murray, a longtime critic of non-marital births.

Large racial differences remain: 73 percent of black children are born outside marriage, compared with 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites. And educational differences are growing. About 92 percent of college-educated women are married when they give birth, compared with 62 percent of women with some post-secondary schooling and 43 percent of women with a high school diploma or less, according to Child Trends.

Almost all of the rise in nonmarital births has occurred among couples living together. While in some countries such relationships endure at rates that resemble marriages, in the United States they are more than twice as likely to dissolve than marriages. In a summary of research, Pamela Smock and Fiona Rose Greenland, both of the University of Michigan, reported that two-thirds of couples living together split up by the time their child turned 10.

In Lorain as elsewhere, explanations for marital decline start with home economics: men are worth less than they used to be. Among men with some college but no degrees, earnings have fallen 8 percent in the past 30 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the earnings of their female counterparts have risen by 8 percent.

“Women used to rely on men, but we don’t need to anymore,” said Teresa Fragoso, 25, a single mother in Lorain. “We support ourselves. We support our kids.”

Fifty years ago, researchers have found, as many as a third of American marriages were precipitated by a pregnancy, with couples marrying to maintain respectability. Ms. Strader’s mother was among them.

Today, neither of Ms. Strader’s pregnancies left her thinking she should marry to avoid stigma. Like other women interviewed here, she described her children as largely unplanned, a byproduct of uncommitted relationships.

Some unwed mothers cite the failures of their parents’ marriages as reasons to wait. Brittany Kidd was 13 when her father ran off with one of her mother’s friends, plunging her mother into depression and leaving the family financially unstable.

“Our family life was pretty perfect: a nice house, two cars, a dog and a cat,” she said. “That stability just got knocked out like a window; it shattered.”

Ms. Kidd, 21, said she could not imagine marrying her son’s father, even though she loves him. “I don’t want to wind up like my mom,” she said.

Others noted that if they married, their official household income would rise, which could cost them government benefits like food stamps and child care. W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, said other government policies, like no-fault divorce, signaled that “marriage is not as fundamental to society” as it once was.

Even as many Americans withdraw from marriage, researchers say, they expect more from it: emotional fulfillment as opposed merely to practical support. “Family life is no longer about playing the social role of father or husband or wife, it’s more about individual satisfaction and self-development,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.

Money helps explain why well-educated Americans still marry at high rates: they can offer each other more financial support, and hire others to do chores that prompt conflict. But some researchers argue that educated men have also been quicker than their blue-collar peers to give women equal authority. “They are more willing to play the partner role,” said Sara McLanahan, a Princeton sociologist.

Reviewing the academic literature, Susan L. Brown of Bowling Green State University recently found that children born to married couples, on average, “experience better education, social, cognitive and behavioral outcomes.”

Lisa Mercado, an unmarried mother in Lorain, would not be surprised by that. Between nursing classes and an all-night job at a gas station, she rarely sees her 6-year-old daughter, who is left with a rotating cast of relatives. The girl’s father has other children and rarely lends a hand.

“I want to do things with her, but I end up falling asleep,” Ms. Mercado said.

Vanessa Bryant Files for Divorce

2011-12-19T22:37:00.000-08:00

VANESSA FILES FOR DIVORCE

Inside Edition, December 19, 2011

Was it a photo of actress Sanaa Lathan at Kobe Bryant's side at a Jay-Z and Kanye West concert last week at the Staples Center in Los Angeles that led to the end of his marriage?

Lathan and Bryant were reportedly seen flirting and dancing together in the VIP suite.

But a spokesperson for Kobe is squashing the reports, saying "There was no flirting. There's nothing there."

And Lathan denies her having an affair with Kobe, tweeing, "I'm not, never have been, involved with Kobe in any way."

Another report is linking the basketball star to yet another woman, Carla Dibello. Get this - she's Kim Kardashian's best friend! Dibello has been a fixture on the sideline at Laker games for several years.

In the divorce papers obtained by INSIDE EDITION, Kobe's wife Vanessa cites "irreconcilable differences" as the reason for the split.

They've already agreed to joint custody of their kids, Natalia and Gianna and because there's no pre-nup - the couple is expected to split everything down the middle.

Family Law Attorney, Kelly Chang Rickert, told INSIDE EDITION "He is going to have to pay alimony, which is a monthly obligation based on earnings. But whatever he earned during the marriage, any rights that he acquired, all endorsements can also be half of Vanessa's."

Kobe is worth an estimated $140 million - so that's $70 million each. Vanessa keeps their $5 million Los Angeles mansion. And she also gets that $4 million so called make-up ring that Kobe famously bought her after he was accused of sexually assaulting a hotel concierge in Colorado in 2003. Kobe was acquitted at trial.

It was Kobe's alleged serial cheating that ended the marriage. A close friend of Vanessa's quoted as saying:

"She's been dealing with these incidents for a long time and has been a faithful wife, but she's finally had enough."

Yet another Murder-Suicide Caused by Divorce

2011-10-20T18:22:00.001-07:00

50 YEAR OLD MAN BEATS WIFE TO DEATH, SHOOTS TWO CHILDREN, COMMITS SUICIDE - WHILE DIVORCE WAS PENDING

Not even a week after the Seal Beach shootings (the murderer was involved in custody battle with ex-wife), comes another tragedy in Westchester, NY. Sam Friedlander (age 50), in the midst of divorce proceedings, beat his wife Amy (age 46) to death with a piece of furniture - a table leg. Sam then shot his two children (ages 10 and 8) to death, before he shot himself to death in his basement.

There are rumors about Amy being verbally abusive, emasculating Sam, for several years leading up to the tragedy. Sam was known to be a peaceful, no one could ever have predicted this.

Why does this happen? For an insightful article, see Why Do We Hurt the Ones we Love, by my dear friend Diana Mercer.

Custody Battle and Its Victims

2011-10-13T17:02:00.000-07:00

HUNTINGTON BEACH – Neighbors of a house searched late Wednesday in connection with the deadliest shooting in Orange County history said one thing stood out about the man who lives there: His total devotion to his son.

Police identified Scott Dekraai as their suspect in the midday shooting at a Seal Beach beauty salon that left eight people dead; he was being held on suspicion of murder. Court records show he has been fighting his ex-wife – who colleagues said worked at the salon – for custody of their son since 2007.

They were in court together Tuesday, the day before the shooting, for a routine hearing, records show. His ex-wife's attorney said Dekraai had been seeking full custody of their son, but a court-ordered report issued last week had recommended against that.

"His demeanor was always very controlled, almost serene," attorney John Cate Jr. said. "In my dealings with him, I never saw him get upset, get agitated." He described Dekraai as "monotone."

Cate said he believes his client was one of the first killed in the mass shooting at Salon Meritage on a busy Wednesday afternoon. Police have not released a list of the victims, and the Register is not naming the ex-wife without official confirmation.

Dekraai, who turns 42 next week, had worked for some time as a tugboat operator. He badly injured his leg in 2007 when he rushed to help another crew member after a tow line snapped, according to a Register report at the time.

His next-door neighbor, Stephanie Machow, 29, said he sometimes grumbled about his ex-wife, saying their divorce case began shortly after his leg injury. Machow waved to him Wednesday morning as she left for work, and assumed he was returning home after dropping off his son at school.

"Never could I imagine him doing this," she said. "I thought he was the nicest guy ever. ... The only reason I could imagine him flipping out is because of some kind of argument over his son. He was everything to Scott."

Several neighbors identified a photo of the suspect as the man they knew as Scott.

Dekraai lived in a single-story gray house on Melody Lane in Huntington Beach, which police blocked off with yellow tape Wednesday evening. Neighbors said they often saw Scott walking his white Lab or playing baseball with his son.

Jake Rennison, 17, said Scott once asked him to teach his son to skateboard. Jake said he taught the boy how to kick flip. "He was totally devoted to his son. Totally," Jake said. "I can't believe this happened. The only thing I can imagine is with the custody battle. His son was his life."

Dekraai married the woman who is now his ex-wife in Clark County, Nev., in early 2003, records show. He filed for divorce in Los Angeles County in 2007, a month after his tugboat accident, court records show.

His attorney at the time, Don Eisenberg, said Dekraai gave him "no reason to suspect a thing." Another attorney has since taken the case, and Eisenberg said he hasn't heard from Dekraai since 2009.

"I know they had a difficult relationship," he said of Dekraai and his ex-wife. "But that's nothing that would foreshadow a tragedy life this."

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ampamp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ampamp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ampamp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ampamp;amp;gt;Your browser does not support iframes.&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ampamp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ampamp;amp;gt;

–Register staff writer Ron Campbell contributed to this report.

Contact the writer: 714-704-3777 or dirving@ocregister.com

Top Custody Complaints and My Advice

2011-10-12T17:11:00.000-07:00

TOP THREE (3) CUSTODY COMPLAINTS (AND MY ADVICE)

Kelly Chang Rickert, Esq., CFLS**

** California State Bar Certified Family Law Specialist

Law Offices of Kelly Chang, A Professional Law Corporation

If you are going through a divorce or a paternity case with children, and you absolutely hate your spouse/partner, I strongly urge you read this article.

First, as a custody lawyer, if there was ONE trait I could wish on all my clients, it would be MATURITY. That’s correct, 95% of nasty custody battles happen because one, or both parties, are incredibly immature. So, the first piece of advice I give to those entrapped in these battles is: GROW UP. Seriously, GROW UP!!!!!! I understand that sometimes it’s your SPOUSE/PARTNER that is immature. But as a famous Judge once said on the bench: “Mother Theresa does NOT marry Hitler”. Your complaints reflect more about YOU as a person than the other person.

Below please find a compilation of the top 3 custody complaints my firm (and ALL family law judges) hear, ALL THE TIME.

1. He/she doesn’t really want joint custody. He/she is only requesting that so he doesn’t have to pay as much child support.

Even assuming this is true, barring any drug and alcohol dependency/addiction/domestic violence/psychological issues, or a moveaway, the Courts will assume that a joint custody parenting plan is in the best interests of the child. It COULD be true: California’s child support formula (Family Code section 4055) and TIMESHARE is a huge factor. So, if your spouse/partner is well-versed with Dissomaster and the Family Code, potentially, this could influence things. But, if there is a history of regular bonding with both parents, it will be very difficult prove that one party is requesting custody to simply avoid payment of child support

MY ADVICE: Work it out. Go to mediation to work out a good parenting plan. If there are no drug dependency/addiction/domestic violence/psychological issues, or if there isn’t a pending MOVE across an ocean, JOINT legal and JOINT physical custody will be preferred and awarded, especially in a case where the child(ren) have had times of appropriate bonding with both parents. Joint custody is not necessary 50/50, just as quality isn’t necessarily quantity. If you are willing to put the children first, knowing their schedules can help you figure out a good parenting plan. BE REASONABLE.

2. The children can’t live without me. I raised them on my own. He/She was never around. They need to be with me, it’s in their “best interests”, so I should have full custody.

I generally hear this complaint from mothers of very young children (typically under age 5). It is somewhat true that young children (under age 5), generally spend more time with their moms – this is especially true in households where only one parent (typically the father) works. However, times have changed: nowadays, both parents do work. As such, it is natural to assume the child spends an adequate amount of time during the day away from both parents. Lesson? CHILDREN ADJUST.

Sometimes the children DO spend more time with one parent, particularly if only one parent works. However, in most divorces and/or separations, THINGS CHANGE. The law will NOT punish a working parent. If you are father that frequently travels for his job (i.e., 280 days of the year), you may need to get a new job in order to bond with the children. If you have historically been absent, there may be a period where you gradually “step up” to your eventual role as a “present parent”.

If you are the stay at home parent, the award of joint custody may be shocking at first. But it may be an opportunity for the other parent to step up, and really be the parent you always wanted him/her to be. In addition, I have been informed by several of my at-first reluctant clients that after the initial shock and adjustment, they actually prefer the shared custody because they now “get a break from the kids”.

MY ADVICE: Work it out. Accept this reality: divorce splits a home. Every child will need to go through an adjustment period. They may have seen mommy, or daddy, every single night of their lives. But now there are TWO homes, and there will be times where they will not see you. This is the harsh reality of divorce. But understand that as long as the co-parenting is peaceful, the times without the children will not harm their development. You may miss them, but they are with their father (or mother). It is GOOD, and what the Legislature intended – that the child(ren) maintain “frequent and continuing” contact (NOT “every single second and none to the other parent”) with BOTH parents. Remember, you and your spouse/partner are going through the divorce/separation, NOT the children.

3. He/she is an “unfit parent”. He/she does not cook, does not discipline, does not help them with their homework, does not dress them warmly, is dating an ex-convict/prostitute; does not take them to the doctor,_______________ (insert complaint), etc, etc, etc.

Co-parenting is tough, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE TOGETHER. I am a co-parenting mother. In our home, you will frequently hear accusations of this sort flying back and forth:

“You are late picking up our daughter, again!”

“No, do NOT feed her McDonalds AGAIN for dinner.”

“Can you not hover over her? She needs to breathe!”

“WHY is she watching Princess movies again when I just bought three (3) books for her?”

“It is 80 degrees out, and you dressed her in a sweater. What is wrong with you?”

“It is 50 degrees out and you dressed her in a T-Shirt. What is wrong with you?”

“Uh, she has 103 fever!! You were with her all day, didn’t you THINK about calling the doctor, or ME?”

Oh, and, I am happily married (most of the time). Imagine co-parenting with someone you hate? EXPONENTIALLY more difficult.

MY ADVICE: Enroll in parenting classes and individual counseling. Why parenting classes? Duh. Why counseling? Because sometimes, it is EASIER to learn how to teach, feed, educate a child, than it is to learn patience and understanding of the other side’s parenting style. Let’s face it, someone is always going to be the more attentive/considerate parent. But that does not necessarily mean the other side is “unfit”. In my experience (both professionally and personally), once the more critical parent lets up, the other side will step up. Once the critical parent relinquishes control, the other side can feel un-judged, and assume responsibility. Individual counseling can greatly help. And, if you are the parent suffering criticism, enrolling in parenting classes can do wonders for your relationship! It may seem ridiculous and absolute surrender to a control freak, but I assure you, taking a parenting class once in a while is super worth your time. Even the world’s most perfect parents can use it one in a while.

Obviously, my article is geared towards custody disputes which do not involve child abuse, drug/alcohol addiction, domestic violence, and other demons which do clearly exist out there. When one of more of the above-mentioned factors are present, you are no longer able to deal with REASON. As such, a professional evaluation may need to be performed, and treatment applied before joint custody can be granted. However, having handled divorce and custody matters for over a decade, I can assure you: most divorcing/separating couples with children do NOT need court intervention. And those who tragically took that route will tell you that after hundreds of thousands of dollars, even after their children become adults, their situation has NOT improved. Learn from their lessons. Take my advice.

**Kelly Chang Rickert founded the Law Offices of Kelly Chang, A Professional Law Corporation. She is a Certified Family Law Specialist, and her firm specializes in Divorce and Family Law, and handles all areas of Divorce, Annulment, Spousal Support, Child Support; Modification, Child Custody and Visitation, Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements, Adoptions, Property Division; Restraining Orders; and Family Law Mediation. She has offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. Ms. Chang Rickert is married with children.

Secrets to a Long, Happy Marriage

2011-10-01T10:22:00.001-07:00

Divorce is Costly for Women

2011-09-29T10:31:00.000-07:00

From supermarket tabloids to the New York Times, the financial costs of divorcing are widely publicized with every celebrity split-up. Now a scholarly study has documented divorce’s significant impact on women’s economic security.

Kenneth Couch, an economics professor in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences who studies the economic effects of unexpected lifecycle events, has presented the results of an unusually long-term study, covering 40 years in the lifespan of more than 2,000 women, showing that “family structure matters a lot” for their economic well-being.

In short, marriage has such a significant economic benefit for women that even divorcees who develop their own careers can’t match it.

The study, developed in collaboration with the Social Security Administration, analyzes the economic impact on about 600 women from the time of their divorces in the 1970s – when divorce in the U.S. was at its peak – into their retirement, as late as 2008.

It shows that economic pressure forced many divorced women into the job market. This created large jumps in their personal income at first, since many of them had reduced or given up their jobs while they were married, perhaps in anticipation of having children or because they were expected to expand their care-giving roles.

Seventy percent of divorced women in the U.S. remarry, however. When they do, their job status and personal income again drops, going back to what it would have been if they had been married all along.

The divorced women in the study who did not remarry maintained their careers and higher personal earnings to the end of their working years. “They really ramped up their work effort for the rest of their life,” Couch says, giving them a larger individual Social Security benefit at retirement.

But at retirement, the households of the married women who had earned less money during their working lives collected more in Social Security benefits because of the extra boost from their spouse’s benefit. Where divorced women who never remarried had an average monthly benefit of around $1,000, the figure more than doubled, to $2,231, for continuously married women who enjoyed the combined effect of their husband’s benefit, too.

Divorced women who remarried had a similar advantage compared with those who did not: Their benefit, combined with their spouse’s, came to more than $2,000 monthly.

In the long run, staying married, or remarrying after a divorce, translates into greater economic security for women.

“It seems like most people understand there are advantages to forming durable relationships and staying in them,” Couch says.

Still, while divorce rates have fallen since the early 1980s, divorce “remains a high probability life cycle event” with a significant impact on women’s earnings and Social Security benefits, according to the study.

Divorce and poverty

Recently released U.S. Census figures on divorce rates tend to confirm the economic advantage of marriage for women. In 2009, during the recession, women who divorced in the previous year were more likely to receive public assistance than men, and they reported lower household income. They were also more likely to be poor than recently divorced men.

Couch’s study was presented at a Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco “Conference on Unexpected Lifecycle Events and Economic Well-Being” that he helped organize last spring. The collected papers, edited by Couch and Mary C. Daly of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, will be published by Stanford University Press, with chapters on the economic impact of unexpected changes in family structure, health, and job loss.

The basic research can be used to inform government policy responses in areas such as unemployment benefits, or how divorce law addresses financial assets and child support, Couch says.

Couch is well known for studying what happens to people when the unexpected event of job loss occurs. When the recession hit, he was asked by the SSA to work with its staff, analyzing the impact of the job losses that have occurred during the current recession as well as the effect of changing family structure on the well-being of Americans. He has spent part of the past two years in Washington, D.C. working with the SSA.

His co-authors on the divorce study – “Impact of Divorce on Women’s Earnings and Retirement over the Life Course,” are Christopher R. Tamborini, an SSA research analyst; Gayle L. Reznik, an SSA economist; and John W.R. Phillips, a health scientist administrator at the National Institute of Aging.

One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring

2011-09-06T10:17:00.000-07:00

One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring

By JACQUELINE MROZ

Cynthia Daily and her partner used a sperm donor to conceive a baby seven years ago, and they hoped that one day their son would get to know some of his half siblings — an extended family of sorts for modern times.

So Ms. Daily searched a Web-based registry for other children fathered by the same donor and helped to create an online group to track them. Over the years, she watched the number of children in her son’s group grow.

And grow.

Today there are 150 children, all conceived with sperm from one donor, in this group of half siblings, and more are on the way. “It’s wild when we see them all together — they all look alike,” said Ms. Daily, 48, a social worker in the Washington area who sometimes vacations with other families in her son’s group.

As more women choose to have babies on their own, and the number of children born through artificial insemination increases, outsize groups of donor siblings are starting to appear. While Ms. Daily’s group is among the largest, many others comprising 50 or more half siblings are cropping up on Web sites and in chat groups, where sperm donors are tagged with unique identifying numbers.

Now, there is growing concern among parents, donors and medical experts about potential negative consequences of having so many children fathered by the same donors, including the possibility that genes for rare diseases could be spread more widely through the population. Some experts are even calling attention to the increased odds of accidental incest between half sisters and half brothers, who often live close to one another.

“My daughter knows her donor’s number for this very reason,” said the mother of a teenager conceived via sperm donation in California who asked that her name be withheld to protect her daughter’s privacy. “She’s been in school with numerous kids who were born through donors. She’s had crushes on boys who are donor children. It’s become part of sex education” for her.

Critics say that fertility clinics and sperm banks are earning huge profits by allowing too many children to be conceived with sperm from popular donors, and that families should be given more information on the health of donors and the children conceived with their sperm. They are also calling for legal limits on the number of children conceived using the same donor’s sperm and a re-examination of the anonymity that cloaks many donors.

“We have more rules that go into place when you buy a used car than when you buy sperm,” said Debora L. Spar, president of Barnard College and author of “The Baby Business: How Money, Science and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception.” “It’s very clear that the dealer can’t sell you a lemon, and there’s information about the history of the car. There are no such rules in the fertility industry right now.”

Although other countries, including Britain, France and Sweden, limit how many children a sperm donor can father, there is no such limit in the United States. There are only guidelines issued by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a professional group that recommends restricting conceptions by individual donors to 25 births per population of 800,000.

No one knows how many children are born in this country each year using sperm donors. Some estimates put the number at 30,000 to 60,000, perhaps more. Mothers of donor children are asked to report a child’s birth to the sperm bank voluntarily, but just 20 to 40 percent of them do so, said Wendy Kramer, founder of the Donor Sibling Registry.

Because of this dearth of records, many families turn to the registry’s Web site, donorsiblingregistry.com, for information about a child’s half brothers or half sisters.

Ms. Kramer, who had her son, Ryan, through a sperm donor, started the registry in 2000 to help connect so-called donor families. On the Web site, parents can register the birth of a child and find half siblings by looking up a number assigned to a sperm donor. Many parents, she said, are shocked to learn just how many half siblings a child has.

“They think their daughter may have a few siblings,” Ms. Kramer said, “but then they go on our site and find out their daughter actually has 18 brothers and sisters. They’re freaked out. I’m amazed that these groups keep growing and growing.”

Ms. Kramer said that some sperm banks in the United States have treated donor families unethically and that it is time to consider new legislation.

“Just as it’s happened in many other countries around the world,” Ms. Kramer said, “we need to publicly ask the questions ‘What is in the best interests of the child to be born?’ and ‘Is it fair to bring a child into the world who will have no access to knowing about one half of their genetics, medical history and ancestry?’

“These sperm banks are keeping donors anonymous, making women babies and making a lot of money. But nowhere in that formula is doing what’s right for the donor families.”

Many of those questions were debated in Britain shortly after the birth there, in 1978, of Louise Brown, the first baby born using in vitro fertilization. In 1982, the British government appointed a committee, led by Mary Warnock, a well-known English philosopher, to look into the issues surrounding reproductive health.

The groundbreaking Warnock Report contained a list of recommendations, including regulation of the sale of human sperm and embryos and strict limits on how many children a donor could father (10 per donor). The regulations have become a model for industry practices in other countries.

“It is quite unpredictable what the ultimate effect on the gene pool of a society might be if donors were permitted to donate as many times as they chose,” Baroness Warnock wrote recently in an e-mail.

Without limits, the same donor could theoretically produce hundreds of related children. And it is even possible that accidental incest could occur among hundreds of half siblings, said Naomi R. Cahn, a law professor at George Washington University and the author of “Test Tube Families: Why the Fertility Markets Need Legal Regulation.”

Sperm donors, too, are becoming concerned. “When I asked specifically how many children might result, I was told nobody knows for sure but that five would be a safe estimate,” said a sperm donor in Texas who asked that his name be withheld because of privacy concerns. “I was told that it would be very rare for a donor to have more than 10 children.”

He later discovered in the Donor Sibling Registry that some donors had dozens of children listed. “It was all about whatever they could get away with,” he said of the sperm bank to which he donated. “It is unfair and reprehensible to the donor families, donors and donor children.”

Ms. Kramer, the registry’s founder, said that one sperm donor on her site learned that he had 70 children. He now keeps track of them all on an Excel spreadsheet. “Every once in a while he gets a new kid or twins,” she said. “It’s overwhelming, and not what he signed up for. He was promised low numbers of children.”

The fertility industry has long resisted regulation, but the explosion of related half siblings may change that. Dr. Robert G. Brzyski, chairman of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine ethics committee, had been skeptical that there could be donors with more than 100 children. But now, he said, it is time to take another look at donor limits.

“In the past, when decisions were made about how many children should be attributed to a donor, it was based on estimates of the risk of unintended consanguinity between brothers and sisters who could meet and marry,” Dr. Brzyski said. “I think those models were very limited in their vision when they were created. Now I think there needs to be a reassessment of the criteria and the policies regarding the appropriate number of offspring.”

Because there is so much secrecy surrounding sperm and egg donations, Ms. Kramer said, it has been difficult for families of children born via sperm donation to step forward with their concerns. Some heterosexual couples never tell a child that he or she is the product of a sperm donation.

Ms. Daily, the Washington social worker, said that other parents in her son’s group had been secretive because of fears that their children would be stigmatized. She and other donor parents are coming forward, she said, because they “need to start advocating for some regulation.”

Experts are not certain what it means to a child to discover that he or she is but one of 50 children — or even more. “Experts don’t talk about this when they counsel people dealing with infertility,” Ms. Kramer said. “How do you make connections with so many siblings? What does family mean to these children?”

****

For more information on sperm donors and paternity rights, see our blog entry at http://divorcefamilylaw.blogspot.com/search?q=sperm+donor

Why Buy the Cow...

2011-08-17T16:36:00.000-07:00

More Unwed Parents Live Together, Report Finds

By SABRINA TAVERNISE

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans who have children and live together without marrying has increased twelvefold since 1970, according to a report released Tuesday. The report states that children now are more likely to have unmarried parents than divorced ones.

The report was published by the National Marriage Project, an initiative at the University of Virginia, and the Institute for American Values, two partisan groups that advocate for strengthening the institution of marriage. The report argues that the rise of cohabitation is a growing risk for children, and that their lives are less stable in such families.

The report cites data from the Census Bureau as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and includes work from 18 researchers who study family issues.

According to the National Survey of Family Growth, part of the Centers for Disease Control, 42 percent of children have lived with cohabiting parents by age 12, far more than the 24 percent whose parents have divorced.

The numbers also suggest a correlation with class. Americans with only a high school diploma are far more likely to cohabit than are college graduates, according to the report.

“There’s a two-family model emerging in American life,” said W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project and an associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. “The educated and affluent enjoy relatively strong, stable families. Everyone else is more likely to be consigned to unstable, unworkable ones.”

Cohabiting parents, Mr. Wilcox said, are more than twice as likely to break up as parents who are married.

The increase in unmarried couples cohabitating and having children swept poor communities beginning in the late 1960s, Mr. Wilcox said, citing data from the National Survey of Family Growth, and now has moved into working class and lower-middle-class families.

Out-of-wedlock births among white women with a high school diploma rose more than sixfold in recent decades, the report said, jumping to 34 percent in the late 2000s, from 5 percent in 1982. In contrast, the rate for white college graduates stayed flat at about 2 percent.

While births to white women in cohabiting relationships rose by about two-thirds from the early 1990s to the mid-2000s, the proportion jumped by about half for black women and nearly doubled for Hispanic women, though that increase was affected by a large influx of immigrants, said Sheela Kennedy, a research associate at the Minnesota Population Center, which conducts demographic studies and whose work was cited in the new report.

“There’s growing evidence that families that would be unstable anyway are just skipping marriage,” Ms. Kennedy said.

The report cited studies in the Journal of Marriage and Family, and in Sociology of Education, asserting that children in cohabiting families tend to perform worse in school and be less psychologically healthy than those whose parents are married.

It also cited a 2010 report on child abuse by the federal Department of Health and Human Services that found that children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rates of harm — 6.8 per 1,000 children — while children living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the house had the highest incidence, at 57.2 per 1,000 children.

Husband Files for Divorce, Wife Cuts Off His Penis

2011-07-12T16:19:00.001-07:00

HUSBAND FILES DIVORCE; WIFE CUTS OFF HIS PENIS

By DENISSE SALAZAR / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

GARDEN GROVE – A woman is behind bars after police say she poisoned her husband, cut off his penis and threw it in the garbage disposal because he "deserved it."

At about 9 p.m. Monday, officers went to a condominium in the 1400 block of Flower Street after a woman called 911 and reported a medical emergency, Garden Grove police Lt. Jeff Nightengale said.

The woman, Catherine Kieu Becker, met officers at the door and told them her husband was in the bedroom, Nightengale said. Becker also told officers that he "deserved it," he said.

Officers found a 51-year-old man tied to the bed and bleeding profusely from his groin, he said. The man, who has not been identified, underwent emergency surgery at UCI Medical Center in Orange and was listed in serious condition.

Becker, 48, is accused of using an unknown poison or drug in her husband's food to make him sleepy, Nightengale said. She then tied him to the bed and, as he woke up, she cut off his penis with a 10-inch kitchen knife, Nightengale said.

"He woke up right before she cut off his penis," he said.

She tossed the penis in the garbage disposal and turned it on, Nightengale said, adding that pieces of penis were recovered and taken to UCI.

The victim told detectives that he believed there was something wrong with the food Becker prepared for him, Nightengale said, adding that detectives took the food to be tested.

The couple married on Dec. 29, 2009. The victim filed for divorce in May, citing "irreconcilable differences," according to court records. The couple have no children.

Nightengale said there is no record in Garden Grove of domestic violence between the couple.

Becker was arrested on suspicion of aggravated mayhem, false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, administering a drug with intent to commit a felony, poisoning and spousal abuse, Nightengale said. She is being held at the Orange County Jail in lieu of $1 million bail.

"We have not been able to interview him and she is not talking," Nightengale said. "The motive is unknown other than the divorce proceedings."

The investigation is ongoing.

Contact the writer: 714-704-3709 or desalazar@ocregister.com

Bifurcations

2011-07-07T14:18:00.000-07:00

BIFURCATIONS IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS

by Veronica Blangy

Sometimes parties in dissolution action want to bifurcate their case and seek a judgment on certain issues. California policy encourages parties in a dissolution action to bifurcate trial whenever it might expedite settlement or simplify the determination of other contested issues. See Marriage of Wolfe, supra, 173 CA3d at 893–894, 219 CR at 340; Marriage of Macfarlane & Lang (1992) 8 CA4th 247, 257, 10 CR2d 157, 163–164.

Generally, the courts will bifurcate a dissolution action for one of the following reasons:

1) Status- only
The court may sever and grant an early and separate trial on the issue of dissolution of marriage status (“status only” judgment), expressly reserving jurisdiction for later determination of all other pending issues (including division of the community estate). Family Code § 2337(a) & (f); see Marriage of Wolfe (1985) 173 CA3d 889, 894, 219 CR 337, 340 (citing text); Marriage of Bergman (1985) 168 CA3d 742, 755, 214 CR 661, 669. A bifurcated proceeding is particularly appropriate where the parties want their marriage terminated as soon as legally possible (e.g., so they will be free to remarry) but substantial time will be required to resolve complex property, support and/or custody issues. The bifurcation allows a judgment of dissolution to be entered (“status only” judgment), reserving jurisdiction to resolve the contested issues thereafter (see Fam.C. § 2337(f)—judgment granting status only dissolution “shall expressly reserve jurisdiction for later determination of all other pending issues”).

2) Bifurcation of issues for separate trial
On a noticed motion of a party, the parties’ stipulation, or the court’s own motion, the court may bifurcate any one or more issues to be tried separately before other issues are tried. CRC 5.175(a).

3) Determination of “pivotal issues”.
Bifurcation is also recommended in “pivotal issue” cases—i.e., where resolution of the bifurcated issue(s) is likely to simplify the determination of, or lead to settlement of, other issues in the case. CRC 5.175(c); Marriage of Wolfe, supra, 173 CA3d at 894, 219 CR at 340–341; Marriage of Macfarlane & Lang, supra, 8 CA4th at 257, 10 CR2d at 163.
For instance, where the central dispute focuses on a particular asset (such as business goodwill), an immediate (bifurcated) trial resolving the focal dispute may then prompt a settlement of the balance of the case, eliminating the need for a protracted trial of other issues.
Specifically, CRC 5.175(c) offers these examples of issues that may, in some cases, be appropriate to try separately in advance:
• The validity of a postnuptial or premarital agreement. (The outcome of this issue may be dispositive of all other property issues in the case.)
• The date of separation. (Because accurate identification of the date of separation can be dispositive of critical property characterization and valuation issues, yet is often intensely fact-driven and hotly contested, separation date disputes are particularly suitable for an early separate trial.)
• The date to use for valuation of assets.
• Whether one or more assets are separate or community property. See Marriage of Lafkas (2007) 153 CA4th 1429, 1432, 64 CR3d 100, 101 (whether H’s interest in partnership established before marriage, but that was the subject of a new partnership agreement executed during marriage, was H’s SP or partially CP).
• How to apportion the increase in value of a business.
• The existence or value of business or professional goodwill; or the value of a major asset.

There are many reasons to seek a bifurcation, however, the majority of the time, parties seeks a bifurcation to obtain a “status only” judgment. In a status only judgment, the parties will be classified as divorced, meaning back to single status, however, the remaining issues are reserved in the case. The tough part is that the court can impose various conditions on the grant of a “status only” bifurcation so as to protect the other spouse’s entitlement to certain benefits that attach only to marital status.

Parties seeking to bifurcate their dissolution case must obtain the bifurcation through a noticed motion. Preliminary declarations of disclosure with completed schedule of assets and debts, Fam.C. § 2104, must be served along with the § 2337 bifurcation motion.

Status only judgment are favored by public policy because it furthers the legislative intent that marriage dissolution not be postponed simply because issues relating to property, support, custody or attorney fees are not ready for decision. Marriage of Fink (1976) 54 CA3d 357, 363–364, 126 CR 626, 630] As such, the propriety of a “status only” bifurcation is deemed to be an issue of law. Gionis v. Super.Ct. (Gionis) (1988) 202 CA3d 786, 790, 248 CR 741, 744.

The moving party need only present “slight evidence” in support of a “status only“ bifurcation request: i.e., generally, the supporting declaration need simply allege reconciliation is not possible; that, for reasons stated, it would be in the parties’ best interests to dissolve the marriage without delay (e.g., so as not to complicate characterization of postseparation acquisitions, so as to free the parties to remarry at the earliest possible date, so as to alleviate “emotional strain and pressure” and help facilitate settlement on reserved issues, etc.); and that the other issues (support, custody, property division, etc.) would require a lengthy trial. Gionis v. Super.Ct. (Gionis), supra, 202 CA3d at 788–790, 248 CR at 743–744.
In contrast, the opposing party’s evidentiary burden to defeat a “status only” bifurcation motion is far heavier. Since denial of the motion would contravene public policy, the opposing party must present “compelling reasons” in opposition—i.e., a showing of some actual prejudice that would result. Procedural objections are not themselves “compelling reasons” (indeed, procedural defects may be cured by amending the motion). Gionis v. Super.Ct. (Gionis), supra, 202 CA3d at 789–790, 248 CR at 743–744—trial court erred in denying H’s bifurcation motion on ground that he failed to make compelling showing of need where W, in opposition, showed no prejudice.

Because of the statutory conditions on “status only” bifurcations, Family Code amendments postdating Gionis, supra, implicitly raise the possibility that the moving party’s burden may now be far more onerous, and in some cases perhaps nearly impossible to meet. This is because of a vast array of financial conditions that the court may impose on the granting of a “status only” bifurcation motion and entry of a “status only” dissolution judgment Fam.C. § 2337(c) & (d)).

COURT’S POWER
A judgment of dissolution effectively terminates a vast body of rights and benefits attaching to marital or domestic partnership status. Courts are therefore empowered to impose various conditions on the granting of a “status only” bifurcation motion and entry of a “status only” dissolution judgment that will protect the other party against losses that would result from such adverse consequences. Fam.C. § 2337(c) & (d).

In the event of the moving party’s death, whatever § 2337 conditions are imposed by the court will also bind his or her estate; and “shall be enforceable” against any assets (or proceeds thereof) as to which the § 2337 obligations would have been enforceable before the moving party’s death. Fam.C. § 2337(c) & (g).
The potential status only bifurcation conditions are extensive and have significant economic impact; they may cost the moving party a lot of money up front before the community estate is fully divided by a final judgment. It is therefore important that counsel for both sides (whether making or opposing the status only bifurcation motion) be thoroughly conversant with Fam.C. § 2337. In particular, it is imperative that counsel for the moving party discuss the potential § 2337 conditions with the client and advise him or her (both orally and in writing) of their economic impact. A party considering making a § 2337 bifurcation motion may ultimately conclude the financial exposure is simply too steep and that, on balance, it would be best to forego the early termination of marital/domestic partnership status.

The court “may impose” upon the moving party any of the following conditions on granting the status only bifurcation motion (Fam.C. § 2337(c)):
(1) Tax liability indemnification: That the moving party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any taxes, reassessments, interest and penalties payable by the other party in connection with division of the community estate that would not have been payable if the parties were still married when the division was made. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(1).
(2) Continued health care coverage and indemnification: Until judgment is entered on all remaining issues and becomes final, that the moving party maintain all existing health and medical insurance coverage for the other party and any minor children as named dependents, so long as the moving party is eligible to do so. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(2).
Further, if at any time during this period the moving party is not eligible to maintain that coverage, he or she shall, at his or her sole expense, provide and maintain health and medical insurance coverage that is comparable to the existing coverage to the extent it is available; and, to the extent it is not available, the moving party “shall be responsible to pay, and shall demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction the ability to pay” for the other party’s and their minor children’s health and medical care to the extent that care would have been covered by the existing insurance coverage but for the dissolution of marital status, “and shall otherwise indemnify and hold the other party harmless” from any adverse consequences resulting from the loss or reduction of the existing coverage. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(2) (emphasis added).
For purposes of § 2337(c)(2), “health and medical insurance coverage” includes any coverage for which the parties are eligible under any group or individual health or other medical plan, fund, policy or program. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(2); see FL–347, item 5.b.
(3) Indemnification re probate homestead and family allowance: Until judgment is entered on all remaining issues and becomes final, that the moving party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any adverse consequences to the other party if the bifurcation causes the other party to lose (i) the right to a probate homestead in the residence in which the other party resides when the status only bifurcation is granted, and/or (ii) the right to a surviving spouse probate family allowance. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(3) & (4).
(4) Indemnification re retirement benefits: Until judgment is entered on all remaining issues and has become final, that the moving party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any adverse consequences to the other party if the bifurcation causes the other party to lose rights with respect to any retirement, survivor or deferred compensation benefits under any plan, fund or arrangement, or to any elections or options associated therewith, to the extent the other party would have been entitled thereto as the moving party’s surviving spouse. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(5).
(5) Indemnification re social security benefits: That the moving party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any adverse consequences if the bifurcation causes the other party to lose rights to social security benefits or elections to the extent the other party would have been entitled thereto as the moving party’s surviving spouse. Fam.C. § 2337 (c)(6).
(6) Maintaining other party as beneficiary of nonprobate transfer: That the court enter an order (as authorized by Prob.C. § 5600(b)(3)) requiring the moving party to maintain a beneficiary designation for a nonprobate transfer, as described in Prob.C. § 5000, for the other party for up to one-half of or, upon a showing of good cause, all of a nonprobate transfer asset until judgment is entered with respect to the community ownership of the asset and until the other party’s interest therein has been distributed to him or her. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(7)(A). Absent a showing of good cause, the above condition does not apply to:
(7) Assignment/transfer of CP interest in IRA: That one-half or, upon a showing of good cause, all of the community interest in any IRA, by or for the benefit of the party, be assigned and transferred to the other party pursuant to IRC § 408(d)(6), in order to preserve the party’s ability to defer distribution of the IRA upon the other party’s death. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(8) (also stating, “[t]his paragraph does not limit the power granted pursuant to subdivision (g)”.
(8) Security interest: Upon a showing that circumstances exist that would place a “substantial burden” on enforcement of either party’s CP rights or that would eliminate the surviving party’s ability to enforce his or her CP rights if the other party died before the division and distribution or compliance with any court-ordered payment of any CP interest therein—including, but not limited to, situations in which federal preemption applies to a party’s asset, or purchase by a BFP has occurred—the court “may order a specific security interest designed to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that a postmortem enforcement proceeding would be ineffective or unduly burdensome to the surviving party.” Fam.C. § 2337(c)(9) (emphasis added).
The security interest orders may include, but are not limited to:
—if a retirement plan is not subject to an enforceable order for the payment of spousal survivor benefits to the other party, an interim order requiring the moving party to pay or cause to be paid, and to post adequate security for the payment of, any survivor benefit that would have been payable to the other party on the moving party’s death but for entry of the status only dissolution judgment, pending entry of judgment on all remaining issues (Fam.C. § 2337(c) (9)(E)).
(9) Miscellaneous. “Any other condition the court determines is just and equitable.” Fam.C. § 2337(c)(10).

JOINDERS REQUIRED
Court’s usually require certain conditions to be implemented on entry of “status only” dissolution judgment, such as a Joinder of retirement/pension plan where the moving party’s retirement or pension plan “shall be joined” as a party to the dissolution proceeding unless joinder is “precluded or made unnecessary” by ERISA (29 USC § 1001 et seq.) “or any other applicable law.” Fam.C. § 2337(d)(1).

If a plan is not covered by ERISA, such as Federal government plans, the court may require an interim order. “An interim order preserving the nonemployee party’s right to retirement plan benefits, including survivor and death benefits.”

MILITARY/ FEDERAL SPECIAL AREAS WHEN REQUESTING BIFURCATION
When there is a federal government plan involved such as military retirement or federal employees, commonly known as FERS, the plan falls under the federal preemption and makes the request of a bifurcation trickier. It is no longer strictly governed by the California state laws.
Special problems may arise for former spouses in a bifurcated dissolution proceeding. When a judgment of dissolution is obtained before the property division, the now-single employee spouse might retire before the court issues a QDRO and elect to take a life annuity consistent with ERISA; the former nonemployee spouse cannot prevent this election, insisting instead on a joint and survivor annuity, because no longer married to the employee and not yet having the protection of a QDRO. In effect then, the former spouse’s property rights could be “conclusively determined” by the trial court’s decision to bifurcate its judgment.

There is no federal question jurisdiction over community property division of military retirement pay. State courts are bound to follow procedures under the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA, 10 USC § 1408) for enforcing support and property division orders against military “disposable retired or retainer pay.” But those procedures do not create independent “federal question” jurisdiction over the division of marital rights in military retirement pay. Steel v. United States (9th Cir. 1987) 813 F2d 1545, 1548; Marriage of Mansell (1989) 217 CA3d 219, 228–229, 265 CR 227, 231–232, cert.den. (1990) 498 US 806—USFSPA preemption requires state courts to defer to federal law in characterizing military pay but does not withhold state court subject matter jurisdiction; see also Marriage of Babauta (1998) 66 CA4th 784, 787–788, 78 CR2d 281, 282–283—state court jurisdiction to divide military voluntary separation incentive pay not preempted.
To fill this gap, the trial court is empowered to subject the granting of a “status only” bifurcation and entry of “status only” dissolution judgment to various conditions designed to ensure the nonemployee spouse’s right to pension benefits, elections and/or survivor benefits will not be forfeited or prejudiced by the early termination of marital status before those rights can be adjudicated. Fam.C. § 2337(c) (5) & (d). The optimum way to protect the nonemployee spouse is to secure an interim QDRO re survivor benefits as a condition to entry of a status only dissolution judgment. Fam.C. § 2337(d)(2) (B).
Federal employee benefits—limited federal preemption
State community property law claims against federal employee deferred compensation benefits are preempted by federal law only to the extent conflicting community property law would do “major damage” to “clear and substantial” federal interests. Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (1979) 439 US 572, 581, 99 S.Ct. 802, 808; see also Marriage of Schofield (1998) 62 CA4th 131, 135, 73 CR2d 1, 3—“California courts may apply community property principles to federally created benefits so long as the result does not frustrate the objectives of the federal legislation” (internal quotes and citation omitted).
Extensive federal law has eradicated most “wholesale” preemption of community property rights in federal employee benefits.
Military retirement pay—Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act: Effective February 1, 1983, the historical preemption of state law community property treatment of military retirement pay (McCarty v. McCarty (1981) 453 US 210, 232–235, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 2741–2742) was completely nullified.
Pursuant to the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA, 10 USC § 1408), state courts are fully empowered to divide military retirement pay as community property; and state court domestic relations community property division and support orders are fully enforceable against the military. Marriage of Smith (2007) 148 CA4th 1115, 1120, 56 CR3d 341, 344.
The USFSPA completely eradicates “all vestiges” of McCarty preemption retroactive to the date McCarty was decided (6/26/81) and applies to all cases not final as of the Act’s 2/1/83 effective date ... without regard to whether the pension rights accrued before or after June 26, 1981. Casas v. Thompson (1986) 42 C3d 131, 140, 228 CR 33, 38—noting USFSPA’s “express intent to erase McCarty’s impact on all cases ... ”; Aloy v. Mash (1985) 38 C3d 413, 421, 212 CR 162, 167—“no case within our memory has received less retroactive application than McCarty.” Unless the court reserved jurisdiction, the USFSPA expressly prohibits reopening pre-McCarty (pre-June 25, 1981) final judgments in order to divide unadjudicated military retirement benefits. 10 USC § 1408(c) (1); Marriage of Curtis (1992) 7 CA4th 1, 14, 9 CR2d 145, 153; see also Marriage of Olsen (1994) 24 CA4th 1702, 1705–1707, 30 CR2d 306, 307–309.

Retirement pay is affected—state court jurisdiction reaches only 50% of “disposable retired pay”: Although the USFSPA grants state courts the power to divide military retirement pay, its language is still preemptive regarding the limits of state court jurisdiction. State court authority to treat military retirement pay as community property extends only to the military member’s “disposable retired pay” as defined by the Act. 10 USC § 1408(c)(1); Mansell v. Mansell (1989) 490 US 581, 588–589, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 2028–2029; Marriage of Smith (2007) 148 CA4th 1115, 1120, 56 CR3d 341, 344. Further, of the “disposable retired pay” subject to the court’s jurisdiction, only a maximum of 50% can be ordered payable for support and a property division. (The court’s order cannot exceed the 50% limit even with the member’s consent.) 10 USC § 1408(e)(1).

The Dangers of Family Law

2011-06-13T15:09:00.000-07:00

Grim reminders of the dangers of family law

by Karen Sloan

At 9:20 a.m. on June 2, Carey Hal Dyess walked into the converted single-story house that served as Jerrold Shelley's law office in Yuma, Ariz.

Dyess, 73, instructed an office administrator to move out of the way and then shot and killed the 62-year-old lawyer, who had been in the process of packing up his office and retiring.

The attack wasn't random. Shelley had represented Dyess' ex-wife in a bitter divorce in 2006. He was one of five victims of a rampage that lasted six hours and ended only when Dyess turned the gun on himself.

Family law attorneys reacted to the news of Shelley's death with sadness, but not surprise. At least five family law attorneys have been killed or violently attacked by clients' ex-spouses since February 2010, and the recent deaths have highlighted the safety risks they face. In addition to Shelley:

• Redmond Coyle, 61, was shot and killed outside his office in Pickens, S.C., on Feb. 3, 2010, in front of his wife and child. His killer was Jerry Crenshaw, the ex-husband of a woman Coyle had represented in divorce proceedings. After shooting Coyle, Crenshaw killed himself.

• Terri Melcher on June 11, 2010, was stabbed nearly 30 times in her law office outside Minneapolis by the ex-husband of a woman she represented in a child custody case. Melcher was able to persuade her attacker to stop the assault and survived. The attacker, Sheikh Nyane, turned himself in to police.

• Judith Soley, 65, was shot and killed on Feb. 16 alongside her client at a restaurant near Fresno, Calif., while on court recess in the client's divorce. The assailant was the client's estranged husband, who later killed himself.

• Criminal defense attorney Emmett Corrigan, 30, was shot and killed in the parking lot of a Walgreens outside Boise, Idaho, on March 11 — one day after he had filed divorce proceedings on behalf of the attacker's wife, who was one of his employees.

It's difficult to gauge whether these incidents are on the rise because major legal organizations, including the American Bar Association, don't track statistics on crimes committed against attorneys because of their work. But family law is seen as a riskier practice than most, because people in the midst of divorce or facing the loss of their children tend to be highly emotional and may direct their anger at their estranged spouse's lawyer.

"There's a saying that in criminal court, you have bad people at their best," said Texas Supreme Court Judge Debra Lehrmann, who spent more than 20 years as a family court judge. "In family law, you get good people at their worst. In criminal court, dangerous people are in handcuffs. In family court, you don't have any idea who is dangerous."

Family court judges helped push for improved courthouse security measures after numerous shootings during the past two decades, many of them perpetrated by participants in family law cases, Lehrmann said. But metal detectors and security guards in courthouses can do little to protect attorneys in their homes and offices.

'EVERYONE HAS A STORY'
"It's not uncommon," said Linda Lea Viken, a family law practitioner in Rapid City, S.D., and the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "I've talked to women lawyers who have had guns pulled on them. I've talked to a lot of lawyers who were threatened. It seems like everyone has a story."

Viken has had her mailbox smashed and a golf ball sent through her office window; she suspects that both incidents were instigated by estranged husbands of clients. The only time she felt truly frightened for her safety, however, was when a man against whom she had obtained a protection order for a client followed her home from her office one night two years ago.

"We have a security system at our home now," she said, but many family law attorneys are solo practitioners or work in small offices and don't have the budget for elaborate security measures.

Todd Scott, vice president of risk management and member services for Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co., began looking in 2010 for safety advice that he could pass on to his attorney clients and was surprised to find few formal resources. "I would go to these attorney panels and seminars, and almost everywhere I spoke, there was a local story about someone getting attacked or killed, and family law is at the top of the list," Scott said. "There are some blind spots in our profession, and I think this issue of safety is one of them."

Viken agreed that colleagues rarely discuss safety openly. "There's a concern among attorneys that they don't want to give anyone ideas about doing things and create copycats," she said. "And for some people, it's embarrassing when they are threatened or harassed. They think, 'How did I let this happen?' I guess it's not something we talk about, but maybe it should be."

Scott plans to fill that void with an online seminar in July titled "Safety and Security in the Law Office." He suspects that lawyer attacks have become more frequent in recent years as more attorneys have hung out their shingle as a result of the hiring slowdown at large firms.

SECURITY TRAINING
Security consultant Jonathan Lusher has visited law firms with virtually no security beyond a receptionist, he said. He recommends that receptionists receive security training and have a plan in the event that a problem arises. Access to law offices beyond the reception area should be restricted, possibly through a buzzer system, Lusher suggested. Adding impact-resistant glass is another smart move for law offices, and attorneys should communicate with colleagues about their schedules and who is expected in the office, he said.

In Canada, the Ontario Bar Association formed a task force on lawyer safety in 2003 and later issued a personal security handbook with numerous recommendations, including that attorneys meet with potentially volatile clients in an open space or in a conference room with windows if the matter does not involve personal or privacy issues. The handbook also recommends brushing up on visual clues that someone might act out, such as clenching a fist or jaw and flushing of the face.

One way to reduce the likelihood of violence would be to make family law less adversarial, Lehrmann said. The legal community has been moving toward more collaborative approaches, she said.

Last year, the ABA launched its Families Matter initiative, which encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution in family disputes. "The idea is to reduce the negative impact that the process can have on a family," she said. "The process itself can make a situation more dangerous, so it's best if you can defuse things before they ever get to that level."

Even the way that lawyers draft letters and court filings can set the tone for how their adversaries view them, Viken said. She always takes pains to preface any allegations recorded in documents with, "My client advised me that…".

"Family lawyers have to choose their words carefully," Viken said. "People in a divorce situation are not in their right minds. They are ratcheted up and they can strike out. The worst thing a lawyer can do is buy into that anger. I try to keep a calm attitude with my clients and keep them involved and informed. You can engender hatred and anger in how you handle a case."

Returning phone calls in a timely manner is also key, since people who feel they are being ignored may grow angrier over time and lash out, she said. It's also a smart idea to have a code word that will alert colleagues to emergencies. "Sometimes there is no way to tell how scary a former spouse of a client really is," Scott said. "And some lawyers just don't think anything like this will ever happen to them."

Karen Sloan can be contacted at ksloan@alm.com.

Man Dies from Spousal Abuse

2011-06-11T11:08:00.000-07:00

SPOUSAL ABUSED LEADING TO MURDER: MAN PUSHED OUT OF WINDOW AND FALLS TO HIS DEATH

Josh Hilberling, a 6-foot, 5-inch, 220-pound former football player, died after he plunged 17 stories from his Oklahoma apartment building, an alleged victim of spousal abuse. Tulsa police say Hilberling, 23, was pushed out of his 25th floor apartment window at the University Club Tower on Tuesday by his wife, Amber Michelle Hilberling, 19, who is being charged with
first-degree murder. "We taught him to never hit a woman, but what we didn't think to teach him was to get away," his mother, Jeanne Hilberling, told ABC's affiliate KTUL. "We just will never forget him. He's one of a kind." "Anybody that knows Josh is going to miss that smile, but no one more than his proud military parents who wanted the world for son," she said. The couple had been married only a year, according to his parents, but just last month their son went to
Domestic Violence Intervention Services looking for help. It had been hard, they said, for him to admit he was a victim. They said Josh, who was in the Air Force, didn't leave because Amber was eight months pregnant with their first child.

"Most of the time you have a homicide similar to this and typically the woman is the victim," said Officer Jason Willingham, spokesman for the Tulsa Police. "I don't recall any situation that is similar in recent history, for sure." But Amber Hilberling's lawyer said that she is the victim of domestic violence. "This is a tragedy for everyone involved and what it wasn't --was a crime," Jason Corns told local television station KRMZ. Police received a call Tuesday afternoon from
witnesses who reported a suicide at the apartment tower, according to Willingham. Hilberling had fallen from the 25th floor to an eighth- floor parking garage. When paramedics arrived, police questioned witnesses and those who knew the couple, determining that Josh had been "pushed out the window, breaking the window and causing his death," said Willingham. "It was a heck of a fall." At first Amber Hilberling was arrested on second-degree murder, but later police changed it to first-degree when they looked at the evidence. "It tipped the scale," he said. So far, no charges have been filed, according to Susan Witt of the Tulsa District Attorney's office.
"Tulsa police are still investigating," said Witt. "When their investigation is complete, reports will be forwarded to the district attorney's office for review and a decision about charges."

Willingham said the couple had a history of domestic violence and there had been protective orders "on both sides." Tulsa police said that investigators found a protective order that that Josh Hilberling requested in May because he said he wife hit him on the head with a lamp and he
needed 21 stitches. The order was dismissed when the couple did not show up in court. "I can say we have seen absolutely no criminal evidence of wrong doing by Mrs. Hilberling," said Amber Hilberling's lawyer Corns, who said Josh was the aggressor.

An estimated 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a 2000 National Violence Against Women Survey. About 37 percent of all domestic abuse victims are men, according to Denver clinical psychologist Jeanne King, who is author of "Abused Men." She co-founded the education advocacy group, Partners in Prevention.

Battered Men Don't Report Crimes

"They are silenced because men don't speak about it," she said. "It's two-fold. One is the shame – it's greater for men than women. There are also less resources available to men…Try to think about where a center is for abused men and you scratch your head."

Researchers began looking at husband battering cases in the 1970s. One study a Boston University described scenarios where women struck out at their husbands for just talking loudly.

Others said that after being in the house with children who would "get on my nerves" all day long, they got mad and hit their spouses. One woman said she became violent just because her husband was "such a bore."

"I was trying to wake him up, you know," she was quoted as saying in the study. " He was such a rotten lover anyway. So I'd yell at him and bit him to stir him up."

Other studies have shown that women are more apt to throw things or kick their husbands. Violence is also associated with sexism, lack of self-control and mental illness.

As for Amber Hilberling, she was released from jail Thursday on a $250,000 bond and will appear back in Tulsa County Court on June 15.

She is required to wear an ankle monitor and surrender any passport she owns while the murder investigation continues.

As the Hilberling family plans a private funeral service, they are broken-hearted over their son's violent death.

"I want people to remember who Josh was, not how he died," said his mother. "I want them to remember the kind compassionate friend who would do anything for anybody."

Josh Hilberling's father told ABC that the day his son died, he had been trying to leave the relationship for good.

"That's the only thing people need to know is that when you're trying to leave, it's the most dangerous time," said Jeanne Hilberling.

"You bet," said psychologist King. "Abuse is fundamentally about control and violence will escalate when a person feels they have lost control. There is no greater sense of loss than to see the victim walk out the door."

To find help for male spousal abuse, go to Partners in Prevention.

Mother loses custody of her children - because she has breast cancer

2011-05-09T13:51:00.000-07:00

Mother loses custody of her children - because she has breast cancer
By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 7:05 PM on 9th May 2011

A woman with terminal breast cancer says she has lost custody of her children because doctors do not know how long she will live.

A judge ruled that 37-year-old Alaina Giordano, from Durham, North Carolina, must give up both her children to her estranged husband after she was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer.

The decision comes after a bitter legal battle that has included allegations of cheating and other domestic problems.

Mrs Giordano said she is ‘devastated’ and that her children are what gives her strength.

The mother-of-two was first diagnosed with cancer in 2007, but her condition has worsened as it has spread on her bones.

After their marriage fell apart, her husband Kane Snyder, 37, sought to gain full custody of their children Sofia, 11, and Bud, 5.

He asked the judge that the children be moved to live with him in Chicago, where he is working as a leadership associate at Sears.

Durham County Family Court judge Nancy Gordon ruled that Mr Snyder should get the children after a psychiatrist recommended that they should live with him because of the ‘deteriorating condition of the mother’s health’.

The ruling also noted that Mrs Giordano is not currently employed. She had been working as a freelance writer and editor.

‘On April 25, we went in to get the ruling, it was pretty shocking,’ said Mrs Giordano.

‘Anybody who knows me knows my children are my life,’ she told ABC News.

‘They are what give me strength and part of the reason I’m doing so well.’

On her campaign blog, she claimed: 'Because I have a cancer diagnosis, I have spent the last sixteen months in court defending myself from the attacks of my abusive husband who filed a lawsuit against me in Durham County, NC asking for full, permanent custody of our two children using the argument that I have a cancer diagnosis.

'He then chose to move to the Chicago area to take a job at Sears Holdings, Inc. leaving our children in my sole physical custody since August 2010.'

'How does a woman with no kids and who has never been married become a judge in family court?' she wrote on her blog.

'From some of the things that she wrote in the order, it is clear that she has no insight into motherhood, marriage or an intimate partner relationship.

'This judge is trying to use theory to make decisions upon which she has no practical experience. This is very dangerous.

'A mother would know better than to rip happy, well-adjusted children from their mother who has been their primary caregiver since conception and send them to a father who was a weekend dad at best.

Every child deserves better than a judge with no parenting experience.'

The ruling states that Mrs Giordano must hand over her children to her estranged husband on June 17.

Custody-Prompted Double-Murder

2011-05-06T10:35:00.000-07:00

Man charged in execution-style murders of ex-wife and her father

Orange County prosecutors allege that he waited to shoot them at his Costa Mesa home just hours after losing custody of the couple's 7-year-old daughter, who was sent out for ice cream with his current wife.

By Lauren Williams and Robert J. Lopez, Los Angeles Times

May 6, 2011

A Costa Mesa man has been charged with the execution-style murders of his ex-wife and her father after allegedly waiting to kill them at his home just hours after she was awarded sole custody of their 7-year-old daughter.

The slayings shocked neighbors in the quiet residential neighborhood not far from South Coast Plaza, where prosecutors allege the gunman chased his victims into the street Tuesday evening as he reloaded his weapon and continued to fire as they lay bleeding on the ground.

Robert Lehmann, 36, was charged Wednesday with two counts of special circumstances murder with sentencing enhancements for using a weapon, lying in wait and committing multiple murders, according to the Orange County district attorney's office. He is scheduled to be arraigned June 24.

His ex-wife, Emily Ford, 32, who worked as a preschool aide at a nearby school, had arrived at Lehmann's home on Santa Clara Circle to pick up the child with her father, Russell Ford, 62. The mother had left her 3-month-old son, who is not Lehmann's child, in a car seat inside her vehicle.

Earlier in the day, Emily Ford had been awarded sole custody and sole decision-making powers regarding the education of her daughter after Lehmann failed to appear at a custody trial, according to records filed in Orange County Superior Court.

Lehmann was angry about the custody order and, before his ex-wife arrived, sent the daughter and his current wife out to buy an ice cream, prosecutors said. As he opened the door, he allegedly began shooting at Emily Ford and her father. They ran into the street, with Lehmann following them.

"Lehmann is accused of pursuing them outside and continuing to shoot," Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas said in a statement. "As Emily Ford and Russell Ford lay bleeding on the ground, Lehman is accused of reloading his firearm and executing the victims by shooting them repeatedly in the back and back of the head."

Shots streaked past the vehicle containing Emily Ford's baby and struck cars across the street, where parents had parked to pick up their children at a day-care center. No other injuries were reported.

Afterward, police cordoned off parts of Lehmann's modest, single-story house with yellow crime scene tape. A thin trail of blood had dried and was crusted on the path that led to the well-manicured lawn.

A brown truck parked in the driveway had the license plate "Dady ♥ AJ."

Marco Antonio Arroyo, who lives two homes away, said the family always seemed very happy.

Lehmann's daughter often played outside the home, Arroyo said, adding that her father was always very affectionate with her.

"I would have never imagined," Arroyo said. "Never! I never saw anything contrary. They always seemed happy."

The girl is a special-needs student who attends Sonora Elementary School in Costa Mesa, officials said.

Emily Ford was a special-education preschool instructional aide who worked with autistic children at Paularino Elementary School in Costa Mesa. She also waited tables part-time at Morton's steakhouse in Santa Ana, court records show.

Colleagues at the school described Ford as engaging and well liked by the staff.

"She was a wonderful, nice lady who always had a smile on her face," said Principal Stacy Lynne de Boom-Howard. "She was very happy with where her life was. She was in a very happy relationship."

Russell Ford was an educator with the Santa Ana Unified School District from 1978 to 2010.

Court records show that the custody battle began amicably when the couple separated in 2004 after 10 months of marriage. But tensions surfaced when Emily Ford wanted a divorce and was set to remarry in 2009, according to court documents filed by her attorney.

Lehmann worked for Hewlett-Packard Co. as a "solution architect," according to court papers, and grossed more than $13,000 a month.

In 2009, Ford alleged in the court filings, Lehmann threatened to stall the divorce unless she reached an agreement with him outside of court on custody and support issues.

The records show that Lehmann questioned Ford's parenting skills, saying that their daughter had gotten scratches while on the school playground,

In the end, the court sided with Ford and ordered her to pick up the daughter from Lehmann's house at 6 p.m. Tuesday — the same time she was killed.

lauren.williams@latimes.com

robert.lopez@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Unemployment Down; Divorce Filings Up

2011-04-28T22:57:00.000-07:00

DIVORCE FILINGS GET A BOOST FROM THE ECONOMY

By LYNEKA LITTLE
April 28, 2011

A recovering economy has provided a boost for, of all people, divorce attorneys. After the great recession, more and more couples are seeking to finalize divorces after months of hesitation.

"It's been driven primarily by finances," says John Slowiaczek, the vice president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "In Nebraska, where there is low unemployment, our practice was very healthy last year. Now we are finding we have a lot [more clients]."

From January to April 2011, Slowiaczek says his firm, Lieben, Whitted, Houghton, Slowiaczek, and Cavanagh, saw an increase of 25 percent over the same period last year.

"When the market was down it was a great time to file," says Slowiaczek. As the market began to pick up, more and and more clients are wishing they filed last year to decrease the size of settlements."

The recession created difficulties for couples on both financial and emotional levels, Linda Lea Viken, the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, told ABC News.

Couples may have "assets that have gone down in value, they may have a home that is underwater, and the business value has gone down, making it very risky for one side or the other to get a divorce during a financial downturn," says Viken.

Viken says some couples may have had doubts or insecurities about divorcing because they worried about paying the bills, which were once divided in half, on their own.

In 2009, 57 percent of the attorneys in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported a decrease in divorce filings. The academy includes 1,600 attorneys.

"Forced to weigh damaged marriages against tight budgets and uncertain financial outlooks, many spouses seem more willing to try and wait out the recessionary storm," said Gary Nickelson, the president of the academy at the time.

Now there has been a turnaround.

"I'm seeing an increase in divorce filings and business," says Lewis Kapner, a lawyer in West Palm Beach, Florida. "With the recession there was a big slowdown. There's definitely an increase in the last few months."

But Kapner says he is unable to define the reason behind the recent traffic. "We've always had people that were money-short and they still would seek some sort of relief in terms of their marital problems."

With an improving economy,the surge in divorces means clients must take precautions to avoid losing out when a couple's assets are divided.

"There are a lot of things that you have to really be careful about in this kind of economy if you're moving forward," with a divorce, says Viken. "You have to be very sensitive to what's happening in the market so things don't come back to bite them."

Some couples are still stuck, though.

Gaye Markham, who lives near San Francisco, has a cautionary tale. In December, her husband said he no longer loved her. Soon after, he lost his job -- and could not afford to move out.

"We had to cash in his IRA and use his unemployment to live on now," says Markham. "There is no way we can have two households and pay."

Markham and her ex-husband-to-be have been forced to divide up their home. She now sleeps in the guest room and the two share meals together. They have four children; the youngest, a senior in high school, is caught in the middle.

Markham, who once worked in accounting, says she has applied for 120 to 150 jobs, but only received two invitations for interviews.

"I know that I want to be responsible for myself so not only am I interviewing to help the financial situation right now," says Markham, "I want to have a home my children can come home to and I want to help with their college expenses."

Split Ends: What Happens When the Rich Divorce

2011-03-29T20:08:00.000-07:00

$plit ends By LINDA STASI Last Updated: 11:37 AM, March 29, 2011 Posted: 11:11 PM, March 28, 2011

The most shocking thing about tonight's quite interesting CNBC documentary, "Divorce Wars," is the discovery that for insanely greedy newly-rich people, a bad divorce will cost them even more than their out-of-control, million-dollar-plus weddings!

Correspondent Melissa Francis takes a look at some of the most repulsively fascinating -- and expensive -- divorces of recent times including the divorce of the guy who brought us PayPal, Elon Musk. According to divorce-attorney-to-the-rich Raoul Felder, now that we're in the age of no-fault community property splits, divorces are no longer about which spouses cheat -- but about how spouses try to cheat each other out of the shared assets. Take the Musks, for example. He and his future wife, Justine, met when they were in college. Shortly thereafter, they moved in together into a terrible college apartment with two roommates and three dogs. They got married after he struck it rich, and he had her sign a post-nup agreement. Eight years and five kids later, they split and then all hell broke loose. He was worth billions, and she had agreed to a $750,000 post-nup pay out. Fair? Wrong? Incredibly greedy? How much does one guy need?

Then, there's the infamous case of Margaret Spenlinhauer, the Connecticut housewife and mother of scores of kids whose very rich husband immediately seemed to suddenly be not very wealthy after they split up. It took 18 -- yes, 18 -- years for her to personally find the money he'd hidden. And his deception amounted to fraud -- a criminal offense. Another rich guy's wife snooped in his computer, opened his journal and discovered that he considered her an unfit mother. What did she do? Loaded up his computer with kiddie porn and then took it to her attorney. Millions of dollars and a federal investigation later revealed that she had loaded it all up during one week -- when he was out of town -- and then erased the memory so it couldn't be traced back to her. The result? It was so dastardly a deed that she even lost custody of her own kids.

But, seriously, what kind of idiot keeps a journal on his computer? A psycho, that's who.

As Felder says, "If you go into a marriage without a pre-nup, you don't need a lawyer, you need a psychiatrist."

Parental Rights of a Paralyzed Mother - Judge to Rule

2011-03-24T19:26:00.000-07:00

LOS ANGELES — Even though Abbie Dorn was paralyzed giving birth to triplets, her parents say that doesn't mean she should be denied the right to hold her children and watch as they grow up — even though she can't eat, speak or move.

The parents have gone to court in an effort to persuade a judge that their daughter not only wants motherhood, but has a constitutional right to it as well. Her condition doesn't mean she loves her children any less than any other mother would love hers, they say.

But allowing three preschoolers to spend lengthy periods of time with a woman who can only lay motionless will traumatize them, argues their father, Dan Dorn. He has been raising the two boys and a girl as a single parent since the day he brought them home from the hospital nearly five years ago. He wants things to remain that way.

After hearing closing arguments from both sides Thursday, Superior Court Judge Frederick C. Shaller is expected to decide whether Dan Dorn must agree to grant his ex-wife regular visitation rights.

Ultimately, Shaller's ruling will likely only resolve the matter temporarily. A parental rights lawsuit brought by Abbie Dorn's parents, Paul and Susan Cohen of South Carolina, is expected to take place later.

The tragic events that led all parties to Shaller's courtroom this week began on what should have been the happiest day of Abbie Dorn's life. That was June 20, 2006, when she left for the hospital to give birth to her sons Reuvi and Yossi and their sister Esti.

The first two births took place without incident, but as a doctor was delivering Yossi he accidentally nicked Dorn's uterus. Before doctors could stop the bleeding, her heart had stopped, a defibrillator they used malfunctioned and her brain was deprived of oxygen.

A year later her husband, believing she would never recover, divorced her and is raising their children at his Los Angeles home. Her parents, meanwhile, took her to their Myrtle Beach, S.C., home where they are caring for her. As the conservators of her estate, they also manage her malpractice settlement of nearly $8 million.

They want her ex-husband to bring the children there for regular visits.

Until a four-day visit last December, Dan Dorn had not done so. His ex-wife's parents say that was the first chance she had to hold her children since the day they were born.

Both sides agreed in court last week that the visit went well and the children would like to see their mother again.

But their father wants to limit their interaction to avoid traumatizing them. He noted that his ex-wife can't speak and he believes she isn't aware of her surroundings.

Abbie Dorn's mother disagrees. She says her daughter expresses her emotions when she smiles or cries and that she communicates with others by blinking her eyes. One long blink means yes. No response to a question means no.

When a Los Angeles Times reporter visited her last year and asked if she wanted to see her children, Dorn responded with a long, firm blink.

The Times reported that neurologist Dr. Angela Hays, who examined Abbie Dorn, testified that she can perceive sounds and images. "She does perform an eye blink maneuver to attempt to signal yes or no answers," Hays said, although "it was difficult for me to get her to do that reliably."

Dwayne Wade Wins Custody Battle

2011-03-16T21:06:00.000-07:00

MIAMI — When the Miami Heat ended practice Sunday, Dwyane Wade went home to his sons.

That will be a regular event going forward.

Ending a long and often-vengeful fight, a Chicago court has awarded Wade sole "care, custody and control" of his two sons. The boys arrived in Miami on Friday, shortly after the ruling was filed, and Wade told The Associated Press that "a huge weight is off my back."

"My life changed in a huge way," Wade told the AP. "Mentally, I've been preparing for it for over a year now. To me, it's bigger than that. For me, it shows a lot of people that you need to fight to be in your kids' lives sometimes. You fight until you can't fight any more. That's all I was trying to be, a father in his kids' lives."

Wade did not immediately announce the decision after receiving word Friday, trying to make sure that his sons fully understood what it meant first. Teammates, informed of the ruling in a locker room meeting on Saturday after Miami's victory over the Memphis Grizzlies, gave him a rousing ovation.

Wade had one of his finest all-around efforts of the season Saturday: 28 points, nine assists, five rebounds and five blocked shots.

It may not have been a coincidence.

"I heard the best news I could possibly hear," Wade said. "So I was like, 'I'm going to go out there and play free and enjoy it.'"

Wade's divorce was granted last June, after a lengthy separation. The financial portion of the divorce remains unsettled.

The boys' mother, Siohvaughn Wade, will have what the court described as "regular parenting time" on alternating weekends in Miami, as well as several other times during the year, including Mother's Day. Dwyane Wade has also repeatedly said that he wants his sons to have healthy relationships with their mother.

Still, the 102-page ruling had some sharp words for Wade's ex-wife.

"This court finds that (Siohvaughn Wade) has embarked on an unstoppable and relentless pattern of conduct for over two years to alienate the children from their father, and lacks either the ability or the willingness to facilitate, let alone encourage, a close and continuing relationship between them," read a portion of the ruling entered by Judge Renee G. Goldfarb.

Wade's attorney, James Pritikin, said the custody trial "was one of the longest ever in Cook County history."

Wade filed the motion asking for sole custody nearly a year ago, though the legal tussle has gone on considerably longer.

He and his ex-wife separated in August 2007 and it took Wade years to get the divorce, a process that was slowed by his ex-wife often changing attorneys. He also sued Siohvaughn Wade for defamation after she made unfounded allegations against him in 2009 – claims she eventually withdrew.

More claims against Dwyane Wade followed during the custody case, including that he was abusive to his children. The court found them all to be baseless.

"The court agreed the best home is with Mr. Wade and that he is also willing to foster a relationship with the children's mother," Pritikin said. "I know he will continue to be a phenomenal parent."

The court acknowledged that Wade's schedule as a professional athlete is "demanding," given the rigors of training camp, preseason, an 82-game regular season and then the playoffs.

"Is every day the same? No. Is it consistent? No," Goldfarb's ruling read. "But, to posit that (Dwyane Wade) does not have the time to be a primary parent is incorrect. He has the time if he makes the time."

Wade said all the measures are in place for as smooth a transition for his sons as possible. A school for the boys has been selected, and a plan for child-care was presented to the court, which found it acceptable.

"We had to have that, nanny care, everything already booked and planned out," Wade said. "That's the easy part."

The court ruling also had some other interesting items, including Siohvaughn Wade's contention that Dwyane Wade could have found employment in Chicago, where she has lived with the boys.

Wade met with the Chicago Bulls twice last summer when he was a free agent, but according to the ruling, Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf never met with Wade, nor did the team ever present the 2006 NBA finals MVP with a contract offer.

The ruling also states that Wade is on the U.S. roster for the 2012 London Olympics. Wade played with the U.S. team at the Athens Games in 2004 and the Beijing Games in 2008, but has not yet said publicly if he definitively plans to play at the London Games.

Wade told the AP that the waiting for the ruling has been difficult, and expressed again Sunday a desire for his ex-wife to "play a healthy role" in the boys' lives.

"I'm not going to say, 'OK, I won,'" Wade said. "I think them living here, being here, it's a great opportunity for them and I'm looking forward to it for them, to grow up with me and us learning together, how to be father-son. So I'm excited."

The 7-year itch is now the 3-year glitch

2011-03-09T11:46:00.000-08:00

3 Year Glitch?

LONDON (Reuters) – The "three-year glitch" has replaced the "seven-year itch" as the tipping point where couples start to take each other for granted, according to a new survey.

Weight gain, stinginess, toe-nail clippings on the bathroom floor and snoring are a few of the passion-killers that have led to a swifter decline in relationships in the fast-paced 21st century, said the study commissioned by Warner Brothers to promote the release of comedy film "Hall Pass" in UK cinemas.

The survey of 2,000 British adults in steady relationships pinpointed the 36-month mark as the time when relationship stress levels peak and points to a new trend of "pink passes" and "solo" holidays away from partners and spouses that many Britons resort to in order to keep romance alive.

"Longer working hours combined with money worries are clearly taking their toll on modern relationships and we are seeing an increasing trend for solo holidays and weekends away from marriages and relationships in order to revive the romantic spark," said pollster Judi James who oversaw the survey.

The poll compared feedback from those in short-term relationships (defined as less than three years) and people who were married or in longer-term partnerships.

The findings showed that 67 percent of all of those surveyed said that small irritations which are seemingly harmless and often endearing during the first flushes of love often expand into major irritations around 36 months.

More than half of the Brits surveyed (52 percent) who were in younger relationships said they enjoyed sexual relations at least three times a week, compared to just 16 percent of those in relationships older than three years.

This suggests that as we get older together, romance gives way to day to day practicalities, supported by the fact that 55 percent of busy people in longer-term relationships admit that they now have to "schedule" their romantic time.

The report also said that those in the first flush of love can look forward to an average of three compliments a week from their partners - a figure which falls to an average of a single weekly compliment at the three-year high tide mark.

The prognosis gets worse the longer we stay in relationships, three in 10 of those surveyed that have been in a relationship for five years or more said that they never receive any compliments from their partners.

The findings also showed that more than three quarters (76 percent) of all people surveyed responded that "individual space was important" within a relationship and pointed to a rise of individual activities.

A third (34%) of those who have been seeing their partners for longer than three years have at least two evenings a month defined as a "pass" or a "ticket" where it is accepted that they can pursue their own interests and 58 percent of the same sample group enjoy regular holidays without their partners.

The top 10 everyday niggles and passion-killers:

1. Weight gain/lack of exercise, 13 percent;

2. Money & Spend thriftiness, 11 percent;

3. Anti-social working hours, 10 percent;

4. Hygiene issues (personal cleanliness), 9 percent;

5. In-Laws/extended family - too much/too little, 9 percent;

6. Lack of romance (sex, treats etc.), 8 percent;

7. Alcohol - drinking too much, 7 percent;

8. Snoring & anti social bedtime habits, 6 percent;

9. Lapsed fashion-Same old underwear/clothes, 4 percent;

10. Bathroom habits - Stray nail cuttings etc., 4 percent.

==

Japan and Child Abductions

2011-03-07T11:36:00.000-08:00

How Did Japan Become a Haven for Child Abductions?
By Lucy Birmingham / Tokyo

UPDATED: 03/07/2011

Like any loving father, Christopher Savoie just wanted to do the best thing for his two kids. In August 2009, his Japanese ex-wife broke U.S. law and abducted their children from his home in Tennessee, moving them to Japan. But when Savoie went to get them weeks later, he was arrested. It didn't matter that he had legal custody in both countries; that she had violated a U.S. court order or that there was a U.S. warrant issued for her arrest. Nor did the fact that Savoie was a naturalized Japanese citizen and fluent in Japanese make a difference. After 18 days in jail, Savoie returned to the U.S. empty handed and broken hearted. A year and half has now passed, and he is still unable to see his son and daughter, now 10 and 8.

Despite all this, Savoie's ex-wife is beyond the reach of international law. Japan has not signed the Hague Convention on the Prevention of Child Abduction, an international accord adopted by 84 nations and aimed at returning abducted children back to the country from which they were taken. Along with an increasing number of international marriages and divorces, child abductions to Japan - the only G7 nation that has not signed the treaty - have been on the rise. In 2009, the State Department ranked Japan at the top of its list in reported abductions from the U.S. among non-signatory nations. "It is our understanding that no U.S. citizen child abducted to Japan has been returned to the United States," says Paul Fitzgerald, a U.S. Embassy official in Tokyo. The issue could tarnish U.S.-Japan relations; as Assistant Sec. of State Kurt Campbell told reporters during a trip to Tokyo in February, "The situation has to be resolved in order to ensure that the U.S.-Japan relations continue on such a positive course."

Japan's antiquated domestic family law complicates matters. In a Japanese divorce, child custody is awarded to only one parent - typically the mother. Visitation can be negotiated but there is no legal enforcement and agreements are often broken. In Japan, it's not unusual for the non-custodial parent to lose contact with their child, and domestic abductions, when they do occur, are often ignored by the police as a family matter. It's a devastating scenario for a growing number of fathers residing in Japan - both Japanese and foreign - who have few legal rights to see their children. "Clearly, the best legal scenario is for the children is to be here in the U.S. where each parent would be guaranteed visitation," writes Savoie by email.

International pressure for Japan to make a change has been mounting. Over the past year, several ambassadors from embassies in Tokyo have met with high-level government officials to urge Japan to sign the convention. A Japanese government panel was set up in January to study the pros and cons, but opposition remains firm at most levels. Japanese lawmakers are worried the Hague Convention does not properly take into account past cases of domestic abuse in demanding a child's repatriation, or a child's own right to choose where they live. "This is why Switzerland tried to amend the treaty, even though it is a signatory," explains Kensuke Ohnuki, a Tokyo attorney who has represented several women who have abducted children from foreign countries to Japan. "They failed. So instead, they made their own new law which enables the Swiss court to refuse the return of a child when it's against the child's will."

On Feb. 22, the Japan Bar Association issued similar Hague recommendations to the government, including a guarantee in domestic law that children not be returned to their country of residence if they had been subjected to abuse or violence. Left-behind parents, including Christopher Savoie, have said the recommendations are draconian and anti-joint custody, in part because abuse is both difficult to prove and is commonly cited as one of the main reasons for abduction.

One of Ohnuki's clients, who uses the alias Keiko, says she left the U.S. with her child because she discovered her husband was abusing their son. "There were no obvious physical marks so it would have been impossible to prove in court," Keiko explains tearfully. After consulting a therapist and an attorney in the U.S., she feared getting sole custody as a Japanese citizen would be nearly impossible. "When we were in Japan, my son told me he feels safe, far away from his father... I didn't really want to leave the U.S. I had a good job and many friends. But I wanted to do what was best for my son." Keiko is now one of about 50 members of the Safety Network for Guardians and Children, a support group for women who have abducted their children to Japan from various countries.

Finding a internationally recognized legal resolution to cases like Keiko's will not be easy. But in the meantime, Japanese mothers living abroad who have no intention of removing their children from their families are also beginning to be affected by the problem. Jeremy Morley, a U.S. attorney specializing in Japanese child abductions says that foreign courts are "increasingly ordering Japanese mothers living overseas not to take their children to Japan even for a family visit because of Japan's status as a renowned haven for international child abduction."

A winning diplomatic strategy will need teeth to make a difference for everyone involved. "The mantra now is 'Japan sign the Hague', but that's not enough," U.S. Rep. Chris Smith said during a recent trip to Tokyo. The Republican New Jersey congressman, who is also the chairman of a subcommittee overseeing human rights issues, is pushing for a bill that would establish an Office of International Child Abductions within the U.S. State Department to handle cases like these and discuss sanctions against uncooperative nations. "I don't know what the answer is," says Keiko. "But we need to find a solution that's in the best interest of the child."

Photo: Yoshikazu Tsuno / AFP / Getty Images

Valentine's Day Divorce

2011-02-10T21:04:00.001-08:00

Heartbreak! Divorce filings rise 40 percent around Valentine's Day: study
By CLEMENTE LISI

Valentine's Day may be an occasion for sweethearts to exchange gifts, but it has increasingly become a time for divorce, according to a new study.

Data compiled by Avvo.com, a site that offers free ratings and profiles for lawyers and licensed MDs, found that divorce filings skyrocket about 40 percent this time of year.

“Over the past two years we’ve seen an average increase of 40 percent in the number of requests for divorce lawyers around Valentine’s Day, compared to the previous six months,” said Mark Britton, founder and CEO of Avvo.

“Furthermore, the number of questions about divorce has soared 36 percent during that same time. Indeed, there’s definitely a major Valentine’s spike when it comes to divorce.”

Kelly Chang, a Los Angeles-based divorce lawyer said she has seen an increase in divorce filings shortly after Valentine’s Day.

"This can be attributed to two major groups of people: the ‘Delayed New Year’s Resoluters’ who are merely moving forward on their resolution to be single, just a month late, and the ‘Waiting to Exhalers,’ who, depending on the actions of their spouses on Valentine’s Day, will either reconcile or file for divorce,” she said.

New Jersey lawyer Cary Cheifetz agreed, saying, “We see a definite spike in divorce cases around Valentine’s Day. I see it as a combination of cabin fever, people waiting until after the holidays and most importantly, people waiting until they know what their spouse’s bonus and income situation will be in the New Year."

Postcards from Children of Divorce 7

2011-02-01T14:12:00.001-08:00

Have you heard of PostcardsFromSplitsville?

Straight from their website -- OUR MISSION: A website where children can share their divorce-related feelings anonymously and parents can get a new perspective on how this life-changing experience impacts their children’s lives.

Most of these children are between the ages of 10-12.

Postcards from Children of Divorce 6

2011-02-01T14:11:00.001-08:00

Have you heard of PostcardsFromSplitsville?

Most of these children are between the ages of 10-12.

Postcards from Children of Divorce 5

2011-02-01T14:10:00.001-08:00

Have you heard of PostcardsFromSplitsville?

Most of these children are between the ages of 10-12.

Postcards from Children of Divorce 4

2011-02-01T14:09:00.001-08:00

Have you heard of PostcardsFromSplitsville?

Postcards from Children of Divorce 3

2011-02-01T14:07:00.001-08:00

Have you heard of PostcardsFromSplitsville?

Postcards from Children of Divorce 2

2011-02-01T14:05:00.001-08:00

Have you heard of PostcardsFromSplitsville?

Postcards from Children of Divorce

2011-02-01T13:38:00.000-08:00

Have you heard of PostcardsFromSplitsville?

Most of these children are between the ages of 10-12.

Financially Preparing for a Divorce

2011-01-18T17:13:00.000-08:00

Financially preparing for a divorce

It's the busiest time of the year for divorce lawyers. Family law attorney Kelly Chang talks with Tess Vigeland about why so many people seek to end a marriage at this time, the average cost of divorce and what she thinks about pre-nups.

Click here to listen to the interview.

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

TESS VIGELAND: We've gone a couple of weeks now without hearing about it being the "most wonderful time of the year." So let's get right to the not-so-wonderful part of the year. January is considered the busy season for divorce attorneys. And as the economy returns -- somewhat -- to normal, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reports an uptick in clients wanting to end their marriages.

Los Angeles family law attorney Kelly Chang is here to talk money, marriage, and the dissolution thereof. Welcome.

KELLY CHANG: Thank you. It's good to be here.

VIGELAND: What is it about this time of year that encourages people to take that first step toward ending a marriage. Were they just hoping to get through the holidays?

CHANG: Yes. There's a lot of that. And it's also the same reason you see long lines at the gym. It's New Year's resolution to be single.

VIGELAND: So much of this is circumstantial based on the individual lifestyle, but what does the average divorce cost?

CHANG: Well, it really depends. If you hire a divorce lawyer, they're going to bill you by the hour. You can do it on your own for relatively cheap. So it really depends. It's kind of like a roof -- you can do it for cheap or you can hire a professional contractor to do it for a lot more.

VIGELAND: Let's talk a little bit about how people can prepare themselves for this happening. What should each party start doing with their finances?

CHANG: Generally, I see in a couple, in a relationship, somebody assumes the total responsibility, leaving the other person in the dark. So if you're the person in the dark, I would get out of the dark. Find the latest statements -- they're mailed the house or you could call the bank. What matters, if you don't have a pre-nup, is what is acquired during the marriage and that includes credit card debt.

VIGELAND: What do you find in terms of the cost for trying to get a settlement between yourselves versus going to court?

CHANG: Much better.

VIGELAND: Court has to be more expensive.

CHANG: Everything costs money, so if it takes up too much time, it's costing too much money. So if you can reach a settlement agreement, do it on your own. It saves money.

VIGELAND: What do you find in terms of couples being able to do that. Is there a ratio of amicable to not amicable divorces?

CHANG: It's interesting. I think in the past few years, I have seen a rise in more amicable behavior in the divorces and it's probably because people can't afford to fight.

VIGELAND: Ah, because of the economy?

CHANG: Correct.

VIGELAND: Because I have a divorce attorney in the studio with me, I do have to ask about your thoughts on pre-nups. Based on your experience with couples going through a divorce, does it help? Does it make things easier or worse?

CHANG: I think it makes things much easier. Get a pre-nup. Marriage is grand. Divorce is twenty grand. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. I don't care if you don't have anything. You have to come in. If you have a 401(k), half of that could be belonging to your spouse, whatever is accumulated during the marriage. You have to protect yourself.

VIGELAND: Kelly Chang is a family law attorney here in Los Angeles, and we've been talking about January as a big month for, unfortunately, divorces. Thanks for coming in.

CHANG: Thank you, Tess.

Lawyers Sanctioned For Insults

2011-01-07T10:48:00.000-08:00

From the ABA Journal

The Legal Ethics

Lawyers Sanctioned for E-Mail Insults, Including ‘Scum Sucking Loser’ Comment

When hiring a divorce attorney, put "ability to get along with others" on the list of top traits.

It's natural that in a divorce case, the parties hate each other. From my experience, that alone won't bar settlement. It also won't necessarily drive up the fees.

What WILL, however, is how your attorneys handle the case.

I have had many, many cases where opposing counsel and I differ on our interpretation of the law, and facts. But because of our maturity (We are all grown-ups!!!), the case was still able to settle.

Unfortunately, I have also had opposing counsel who 1) do not educate themselves on the law and misguide their clients; and 2) were raised in a barn.

HOW MUCH YOUR CASE WILL COST IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO WHETHER YOUR ATTORNEYS CAN GET ALONG.

Below is an article which appeared in today's ABA Journal. I wish more Judges would do this.

Two Florida lawyers who called each other a “retard” and “scum sucking loser” in escalating e-mail insults have been sanctioned by the state supreme court.

Nicholas Mooney of Tampa, a lawyer representing Volkswagen of America, received a public reprimand and must take a class on professionalism, according to the St. Petersburg Times. He is identified as a former partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson and a lawyer for Bromagen & Rathet on the law firm’s website. Kurt Mitchell of Palmetto, an accident lawyer who is identified as “an experienced litigator and biker” on his website, was suspended for 10 days and must attend an anger management class, the story says.

The St. Petersburg Times cites e-mails quoted in the bar complaints against the men. At one point, Mooney called Mitchell a jerk; at another, Mitchell called Mooney an "old hack." Later e-mails went so far as to insult wives and children. They story cites these exchanges:

• From Mooney to Mitchell, written after an accusation that he couldn’t handle the pressures of litigation: Mooney said he was handling more than 200 cases, "many of which were more important/significant than these little Mag[nuson] Moss [warranty] claims that are handled by bottom feeding/scum sucking/loser lawyers like yourself."

• From Mitchell: Mooney displays symptoms of a disability marked by "closely spaced eyes, dull blank stare, bulbous head, lying.”

• From Mooney: Mitchell should look in the mirror to see signs of a disability. "Then check your children (if they are even yours. … Better check the garbage man that comes by your trailer to make sure they don't look like him)."

• From Mitchell, after learning Mooney's son suffers from a birth defect: “While I am sorry to hear about your disabled child, that sort of thing is to be expected when a retard reproduces.”

Sustainable Love

2011-01-04T13:47:00.000-08:00

Sustainable Love
The Happy Marriage Is the ‘Me’ Marriage

By TARA PARKER-POPE

A lasting marriage does not always signal a happy marriage. Plenty of miserable couples have stayed together for children, religion or other practical reasons.

But for many couples, it’s just not enough to stay together. They want a relationship that is meaningful and satisfying. In short, they want a sustainable marriage.

“The things that make a marriage last have more to do with communication skills, mental health, social support, stress — those are the things that allow it to last or not,” says Arthur Aron, a psychology professor who directs the Interpersonal Relationships Laboratory at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. “But those things don’t necessarily make it meaningful or enjoyable or sustaining to the individual.”

The notion that the best marriages are those that bring satisfaction to the individual may seem counterintuitive. After all, isn’t marriage supposed to be about putting the relationship first?
Not anymore. For centuries, marriage was viewed as an economic and social institution, and the emotional and intellectual needs of the spouses were secondary to the survival of the marriage itself. But in modern relationships, people are looking for a partnership, and they want partners who make their lives more interesting.

Caryl Rusbult, a researcher at Vrije University in Amsterdam who died last January, called it the “Michelangelo effect,” referring to the manner in which close partners “sculpt” each other in ways that help each of them attain valued goals.

Dr. Aron and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., a professor at Monmouth University in New Jersey, have studied how individuals use a relationship to accumulate knowledge and experiences, a process called “self-expansion.” Research shows that the more self-expansion people experience from their partner, the more committed and satisfied they are in the relationship.
To measure this, Dr. Lewandowski developed a series of questions for couples: How much has being with your partner resulted in your learning new things? How much has knowing your partner made you a better person? (Take the full quiz measuring self-expansion.)

While the notion of self-expansion may sound inherently self-serving, it can lead to stronger, more sustainable relationships, Dr. Lewandowski says.

“If you’re seeking self-growth and obtain it from your partner, then that puts your partner in a pretty important position,” he explains. “And being able to help your partner’s self-expansion would be pretty pleasing to yourself.”

The concept explains why people are delighted when dates treat them to new experiences, like a weekend away. But self-expansion isn’t just about exotic experiences. Individuals experience personal growth through their partners in big and small ways. It happens when they introduce new friends, or casually talk about a new restaurant or a fascinating story in the news.

The effect of self-expansion is particularly pronounced when people first fall in love. In research at the University of California at Santa Cruz, 325 undergraduate students were given questionnaires five times over 10 weeks. They were asked, “Who are you today?” and given three minutes to describe themselves. They were also asked about recent experiences, including whether they had fallen in love.

After students reported falling in love, they used more varied words in their self-descriptions. The new relationships had literally broadened the way they looked at themselves.

“You go from being a stranger to including this person in the self, so you suddenly have all of these social roles and identities you didn’t have before,” explains Dr. Aron, who co-authored the research. “When people fall in love that happens rapidly, and it’s very exhilarating.”

Over time, the personal gains from lasting relationships are often subtle. Having a partner who is funny or creative adds something new to someone who isn’t. A partner who is an active community volunteer creates new social opportunities for a spouse who spends long hours at work.

Additional research suggests that spouses eventually adopt the traits of the other — and become slower to distinguish differences between them, or slower to remember which skills belong to which spouse.

In experiments by Dr. Aron, participants rated themselves and their partners on a variety of traits, like “ambitious” or “artistic.” A week later, the subjects returned to the lab and were shown the list of traits and asked to indicate which ones described them.

People responded the quickest to traits that were true of both them and their partner. When the trait described only one person, the answer came more slowly. The delay was measured in milliseconds, but nonetheless suggested that when individuals were particularly close to someone, their brains were slower to distinguish between their traits and those of their spouses.

“It’s easy to answer those questions if you’re both the same,” Dr. Lewandowski explains. “But if it’s just true of you and not of me, then I have to sort it out. It happens very quickly, but I have to ask myself, ‘Is that me or is that you?’ ”

It’s not that these couples lost themselves in the marriage; instead, they grew in it. Activities, traits and behaviors that had not been part of their identity before the relationship were now an essential part of how they experienced life.

All of this can be highly predictive for a couple’s long-term happiness. One scale designed by Dr. Aron and colleagues depicts seven pairs of circles. The first set is side by side. With each new set, the circles begin to overlap until they are nearly on top of one another. Couples choose the set of circles that best represents their relationship. In a 2009 report in the journal Psychological Science, people bored in their marriages were more likely to choose the more separate circles.

Partners involved in novel and interesting experiences together were more likely to pick one of the overlapping circles and less likely to report boredom. “People have a fundamental motivation to improve the self and add to who they are as a person,” Dr. Lewandowski says. “If your partner is helping you become a better person, you become happier and more satisfied in the relationship.”

Do you have a sustainable marriage? Try the Marriage Calculator.

Why Buy the Cow When You Can Get the Milk For Free? Answer: Cuz It Ain't Free!

2010-12-30T10:17:00.000-08:00

Live-in lovers break up... then pay up: Court hearings boom for unmarried couples
By Tamara Cohen

Couples who break up following a live-in relationship are paying tens of thousands of pounds in settlements to their former partners.

A new phenomenon of ‘break-up payments’ is increasingly common because more and more couples are living together for several years without marrying.

When a marriage collapses, a spouse is usually entitled to half the couple’s assets, but for cohabitees the legalities can be a minefield.

Law firm Pannone has reported a 40 per cent rise in these payments in the past five years, claiming people are taking advantage of the uncertain legal status of unmarried couples to issue ‘nuisance’ demands.

Some people were willing to pay up to £100,000 to former partners to avoid lengthy legal action which can last up to 18 months, it said.

Recent actions have involved custody of children, jointly owned property, bank accounts and even pets.

There are 2.3million cohabiting couples and the number is expected to double in the next 25 years. One in four children is born to cohabitees.

Vicki McLynn, a senior associate at Pannone, suggested the problem was partly due to such disputes being dealt with using property rather than family law, as no legislation had yet been passed making clear the rights of unmarried partners when they split up.

She said: ‘It can ultimately be a case of “he said, she said” – one partner’s ability to be more convincing than the other in court can be crucial in determining how cases are settled.

‘Given that element of risk and the assets at stake, many family and litigation lawyers in our firm and elsewhere are seeing clients wanting to pay up to end the matter.’

Unmarried couple Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy split after five years together. They are not thought to have sought settlements from each other

In 2007, the Law Commission published a series of recommendations for the government following a review of the rights of unmarried couples. It concluded that the ‘unclear’ current law made for ‘unfair’ outcomes.

The commission urged a series of reforms including legislation enabling unmarried men or women who had lived together for at least two years to make a claim against their ex-partner. The recommendations have so far not been acted upon.

Miss McLynn suggested that while some disputes involved individuals who had genuinely made contributions to building up joint assets, others featured demands which could best be described as ‘nuisance’.

She said: ‘We have seen instances in which people have issued demands to complicate their exes’ new relationships.’

Earlier this year, family law firms reported a 15 per cent rise in the number of cohabiting clients seeking advice on relationship breakdown as a result of the recession.

Is Reading your Spouse's Email a CRIME?

2010-12-28T09:32:00.000-08:00

Michigan man could go to jail for reading his wife's e-mail
By Hayley Tsukayama

A Michigan man faces five years in prison for reading his wife's e-mail, under a state law intended to prevent identity fraud. As the Detroit Free Press reports, computer technician Leon Walker accessed his wife's Gmail account on a laptop in their home. From her e-mail messages, he learned she was having an affair with her ex-husband -- a man previously arrested for domestic violence. Walker then filed for emergency custody of his wife's young son.

Walker's soon-to-be ex-wife testified that the laptop her husband used to access the e-mail account was a private laptop, and that she was the only one who knew the password.

Leon Walker, on the other hand, said the laptop was a family computer and that his wife kept all her passwords in a little book next to the computer.

The legal question at heart here is whether or not Walker's wife had an expectation of privacy.

Frederick Lane, a Vermont lawyer and electronic privacy expert, told the Free Press that the fact that the two still were living together, and that Leon Walker had routine access to the computer, might help him, Lane said.

"I would guess there is enough gray area to suggest that she could not have an absolute expectation of privacy," he said.

Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper told the Free Press she defends her decision to charge Leon Walker.

"The guy is a hacker," Cooper said in a voice mail response to the Free Press last week. "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained. Then he downloaded them and used them in a very contentious way."

Other lawyers in the Detroit area told the Free Press that this application of the law was ludicrous. One told the paper that if this case is applicable under the law, the state would also have to prosecute parents monitoring their children's Facebook accounts.

By Hayley Tsukayama December 27, 2010; 10:38 AM ET
Categories: Digital culture, E-mail, Policy and politics, Privacy

---

Note by Kelly Chang Rickert: Though it may or may not be a crime, if you are in the midst of divorce proceedings, it would be wise to keep your emails/facebook/social network stuff private. Please see my article with tips for preparing for a divorce.

How to Survive The Holidays Without Your Children

2010-12-10T10:30:00.000-08:00

HOW TO GET THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS WITHOUT YOUR CHILDREN:
8 Survival Tips for the Non-Custodial Parent

Happy Holidays, everyone! I posted this last year, but due to demand, I am posting it again...

It already hurts a little during the year, but being without your children during the holidays may be downright depressing.

If you have joint custody with alternating holidays, this may be your year without the children. Here is how to make it better.

1. Have Christmas a week, a month early. As with all natural disasters (earthquakes, fires, being without your children!), plan accordingly. If this is an ODD year, and you have your children for Christmas on even years, you will need to celebrate early this year!

Purchase gifts, have a tree, and explain to the children that you are not skipping the celebration just because you don't have them this year. Instead of Christmas without you, they will get TWO Christmases!

2. Get Skype and see them on Christmas! If you are on good terms with your ex (and you should be, especially during the holiday season - REMEMBER THE MEANING OF CHRISTMAS), arrange for the children to see you (and you them) via webcam.

Skype is also particularly useful for grandparents, who always have to share custody of their grandchildren for Christmas. :)

3. Volunteer your blues away! You think your life sucks? Go to the local orphage, where you will find children who don't have parents. They would love to have you. If you have gifts of song or dance - or baking - or just simply being there to hug them, GO AND BE WITH the needy. They will love you. And love is what you need. Google local churches. They'll get you the volunteer A-List.

Here, I just googled it for you. How to Find Volunteer Projects at Christmas Time. Enjoy.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4549189_find-volunteer-projects-christmas-time.html

4. Celebrate your day without children by doing adult things! If you have very young children, this tip is for you. There are some restaurants and resorts that do NOT allow toddlers and babies. Yay! These are for you. Watch a REAL movie without cartoon characters. Get a massage, and then hang out and lounge at the steam room. Enjoy a nice long dinner with your friends without rushing home. Drink a glass of champagne. Listen to music that Elmo doesn't sing.

5. Change your Custody Order. Get together with your ex, and if it's feasible (location, emotion) see if both of you can agree to share the children on this special holiday.

6. Take lots of pictures and videos during your year, and view them every year. It is amazing what a walk down memory lane can do for your mood.

7. Spoil yourself rotten. Pamper. Indulge. Overindulge. You deserve it.

8. Take a trip. A long trip. An international trip with a huge time change. You won't even know you missed them.

The holidays are only a lonely time if you choose to feel that way. If you look around, there are many people who need you in so many ways. You can benefit by turning the focus on others (ah, the true holiday spirit). So many people forget the meaning of Christmas - it is the utmost celebration of the birth of our saviour Jesus Christ, who died to save our wretched souls. Being in the true spirit of Christmas is thinking of others, and forgetting our own selfish needs and desires.

If you cannot find solace in that (and believe me, I can understand why the above is not consoling at all), look to your friends. Being surrounded by other people will magically help you feel better. Remember, it's just this year. Next year, you'll have them again.

Finally, remember, all parents (whether separated, divorced/married, widowed) all eventually deal with not having children for Christmas. Consider it a blessing that you have the opportunity to deal with such a tragedy earlier than later!

For all of you - children, no children, married, single, divorced, widowed, it's complicated - Have a Wonderful Holiday.

Love,

The Law Offices of Kelly Chang

Marriage Advice for William and Kate

2010-12-08T11:42:00.000-08:00

LONDON (AP) — Prince William and fiancee Kate Middleton have another chore on their must-do pre-wedding list: Sit down with priests to think about the vows they will make.

The couple are expected to meet Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Bishop of London Richard Chartres before they marry April 29, palace officials said Wednesday. Both clergy will be involved in the wedding ceremony at London's Westminster Abbey.

"It's customary for a priest to meet with the couple before their wedding," said Maria Papworth, Williams' spokeswoman.

These marriage preparation sessions include discussions on how to handle marital disagreements and how to prepare for the changes brought on by parenthood. Meetings often take place in groups, but talks for the soon-to-be royal couple will be private and strictly confidential.

The marriage of William's parents, Prince Charles and Princess Diana, ended in divorce. St. James Palace would not comment on whether they also received similar attention, but it is normal practice for a Church of England wedding.

For more marriage advice (from a divorce lawyer), see here.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Dodgers Divorce: Judge Gordon Throws Out Postnup

2010-12-07T11:16:00.001-08:00

Judge rules in favor of Jamie McCourt in Dodgers ownership struggle

See the Statement of Decision.

The decision denying Frank McCourt's claim to sole ownership of the team is not expected to immediately affect day-to-day operations. He may use other legal strategies to challenge his ex-wife's case.

By Bill Shaikin and Carla Hall

Frank McCourt is not the sole owner of the Dodgers, a judge ruled Tuesday, a decision that keeps the team in legal limbo for what might be several more years.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon granted Jamie McCourt's plea to throw out a 2004 marital agreement that would have left her without an ownership share in the Dodgers.

"The court finds that the marital property agreement is not a valid and enforceable agreement," Gordon wrote in his ruling. "The court orders that the marital property agreement is set aside."

The ruling is not expected to have an immediate impact on the day-to-day operations of the team. Frank is expected to employ other legal strategies to dispute his ex-wife's claim to co-ownership of the team.

Frank could decide to appeal Tuesday's ruling. He already has notified the court he wants to use a different legal strategy in another claim to sole ownership of the Dodgers, one based on the concept that he bought the team with a company he established before his marriage to Jamie.

Frank's attorneys have said such a trial could be completed in one day and that all the necessary evidence is in the court record. Jamie's attorneys have said such a trial could require up to 60 days, preceded by months to collect new evidence.

Dennis Wasser, an attorney for Jamie, said he hoped the ruling would enable both sides to settle the case, for what he said would be the good of the Dodgers and the community. "We are very pleased that the marital property agreement has been invalidated. Now that Jamie has prevailed in this case, we hope it will be possible to resolve the matter in a reasonable way going forward."

Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig has declined to comment on the case. The Times reported in September that the possibility of years of legal battles between the McCourts had prompted him to consider intervening on behalf of the Dodgers, but it is uncertain what options he might contemplate.

The McCourts also could use Gordon's ruling to renew settlement talks, with the validity of the 2004 marital agreement no longer a wild card in negotiations.

The sides have been unable to reach a settlement despite several rounds of discussions -- with and without mediators -- over the last year.

In the absence of a settlement, Gordon eventually would determine permanent spousal support. In May, Gordon ordered Frank to pay Jamie $637,159 per month in temporary support, including costs associated with the couple's homes.

The McCourts filed for divorce on Oct. 27, 2009, one week shy of what would have been their 30th anniversary.

In March 2004, two months after baseball owners approved their purchase of the Dodgers, the McCourts each signed a marital property agreement that specified the team belonged solely to Frank and the couple's homes belonged solely to Jamie.

In the initial phase of the divorce case -- and in a trial that lasted 11 days -- the only question before Gordon was whether the agreement was valid.

Frank asked Gordon to enforce the deal, arguing that Jamie was the driving force behind the agreement and that she had gotten exactly what she wanted from it -- that is, to protect the homes from creditors should the Dodgers suffer severe financial losses.

Jamie asked Gordon to overturn the agreement, claiming she never intended to surrender her rights to Dodgers ownership and never would have signed the document had she been explicitly informed of its impact in the event of divorce. She said she should be considered co-owner of the Dodgers.

As the trial approached, lawyers discovered the McCourts had signed six copies of the agreement, three of which listed the Dodgers as Frank's sole property and three that did not.

Larry Silverstein, the Boston lawyer who drew up the agreement, testified that he had botched the wording in the latter three copies and had corrected his mistake by replacing the relevant page in the agreement -- after the McCourts had signed the document, and without informing either of them of the alleged error.

Frank argued that Silverstein had made an unfortunate mistake but corrected it to conform with what Jamie had wanted -- that is, no financial responsibility for the Dodgers.

Jamie argued that Silverstein's blunder, whether innocent or intentional, resulted in two versions of the agreement with materially opposite terms. If one version said Frank owned the Dodgers and the other version did not, she contended, there never could have been an agreement in the first place.

bill.shaikin@latimes.com

carla.hall@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

Taking Sides in a Divorce, Chasing Profit

2010-12-05T11:22:00.000-08:00

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Michelle Pont and her husband amassed millions of dollars in properties and investments from a freight-hauling business that they started with a single stake-bed truck in 1991. They bought a four-bedroom home, then a second home, a vacation home, a motor home and half a dozen cars.

Michelle Pont is one of the company’s clients.

But when Ms. Pont decided to seek a divorce last year, she quickly ran out of money. She had no job. Her husband controlled the family’s investments. A few months of legal bills maxed out her credit cards and drained her retirement account.

She wrestled with accepting a smaller settlement than she considered fair. Then a lawyer referred her to Balance Point Divorce Funding, a new Beverly Hills lender that offers to cover the cost of breaking up — paying a lawyer, searching for hidden assets, maintaining a lifestyle — in exchange for a share of the winnings.

In October, Balance Point agreed to invest more than $200,000 in Ms. Pont’s case.

“It’s given me hope,” Ms. Pont said. “I don’t view it as a loan; I view it as an investment in my future. They are helping me to get what is rightfully mine.”

With some in the financial world willing to bet on almost anything, it should be no surprise that a few would see the potential to profit from the often contentious and emotional process of ending a marriage.

So far, the number of companies investing in divorce is small — Balance Point is one of the few that do it exclusively. But other businesses are gearing up. A New York start-up, Churchill Divorce Finance, also is planning to enter the business. The company’s chief executive previously co-founded a publicly traded Australian company, ASK Funding, that has invested tens of millions in divorce cases there.

While this business is in its infancy, Balance Point is part of a bigger trend — the growing industry that invests in other people’s lawsuits, arming plaintiffs with money to help them win more money from defendants. Banks, hedge funds and boutique firms like Balance Point now have a total of $1 billion invested in lawsuits at any given time, industry participants estimate.

Lawsuit lenders initially focused on personal injury cases, but over time they have sought new frontiers, including securities fraud cases brought by disgruntled investors, whistleblower claims against corporations and property development disputes.

Stacey Napp, a lawyer by training who has spent her career in finance, founded Balance Point last year with money from her own divorce. Since then, she has provided more than $2 million to 10 women seeking divorces. She says she is helping to ensure both sides can defend their interests.

“Everybody knows somebody where at the end of the day, the divorce was not equitable,” she said. “We want to help those people, the underdog, to make sure they get their fair share.”

Divorce cases may be a promising niche for lenders because costs can mount quickly — some top lawyers in Los Angeles charge more than $500 an hour — and because state laws uniformly require plaintiffs to pay lawyers upfront, rather than promising them a contingency fee, or a share of any winnings, as is common in other civil cases.

The state laws were written to make people think twice before pursuing a divorce. But Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, a New Jersey lawyer who serves as a vice president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, which sets ethical standards for divorce lawyers, said she welcomed the use of divorce financing as a workaround because, in her view, society also has an interest in helping people who are determined to separate.

“It furthers the concept of putting both spouses on an equal playing field,” she said.

Ms. Napp developed the idea for Balance Point during an eight-year legal battle with her former husband, which she paid for with loans from family and friends. She filed to divorce David Napp in 2001 after 13 years of marriage. Mr. Napp, an investor in mobile home parks, agreed to pay $500,000 and allow her to keep the family home. But shortly after the deal was finalized, Ms. Napp was stunned to discover that Mr. Napp was about to sell his stake in the parks for $5.7 million. She asked the court to reopen the settlement, setting off a legal dispute that lasted until the spring of 2008, when an Arizona judge ruled in her favor.

“Somewhere along the way a light bulb went off,” Ms. Napp recalled. “I said, ‘I’m kind of a perfect storm. I know how to find assets, I understand litigation, I have resources — what happens to people who are missing even one of those elements?’ ”

She decided to seed a business with some of the money she had won in Los Angeles, the city of fleeting marriages. Balance Point has since raised additional money from private investors. Ms. Napp said she expected the first case to be resolved later this fall, providing her first profit.

Her customers fall into a pattern. They are women. They generally do not have jobs. They often are raising small children. And their husbands run their own businesses, making it tough to obtain financial information.

A stay-at-home mother with three children spent 16 months trying to compel her husband to produce current financial statements for his solo law practice. She was running out of money when Balance Point agreed in August to provide financing.

A woman who signed up in January has used the backing to build a case that she is entitled to share the value of 17 properties her husband put in a trust for the benefit of his children from a previous marriage. Both women declined to be identified.

Then there is Ms. Pont, who is battling her estranged husband, Jeffery D. Pont, over the value of their trucking company. The couple met in 1990. The next year, he bought his first truck with Ms. Pont’s tax refund of $2,300, she said. He started a small business carrying ink and printing supplies. Mr. Pont and his lawyer did not return calls for comment. By 1996, the couple had married and the company had rented an 1,100-square-foot warehouse. Ms. Pont said she answered the phones while nursing their first child.

By the late 1990s, there was enough money flowing in for Ms. Pont to stay home with the child. And the company has continued to prosper. The main warehouse is now 150,000 square feet.

But she moved out in the spring of 2009 and filed for divorce. The estranged couple has since spent several hundred thousand dollars on lawyers, accountants and investigators. The judge overseeing the case has warned that the total could exceed $1 million if the two sides cannot reach a compromise.

Ms. Pont said the money from Balance Point would allow her to sustain the case for as long as necessary. Balance Point does not charge interest; instead, clients pay the company a percentage of their winnings.

Lawyers who finance other civil cases generally keep at least a third of the winnings. Ms. Napp said Balance Point required a “substantially smaller” share from clients, though she declined to be more specific.

The company wants to focus on people with marital assets between $2 million and $15 million, a bracket Ms. Napp described as “the lower end of the high end.” She said that investing in smaller disputes was not worthwhile. Wealthier people, she said, seemed to resolve divorces more easily — perhaps because they still felt wealthy in the aftermath. “Anything south of $15 million, when you divide that in half and take out the legal fees, you’re not in the same house, you’re not taking the same trips — your life is different,” she said. “You can’t maintain that same quality of life that you’re used to.”

Ms. Napp says she urges clients to set aside emotions and negotiate a settlement. Indeed, she says she will not take clients who seem unwilling to compromise, fearing that their pursuit of justice will undermine Balance Point’s pursuit of profit. She cannot compel clients to settle.

But Ms. Napp concedes that clients are attracted to Balance Point in part because she did not settle her own case. Most lawsuit lenders avoid any role in the management of cases, seeking to disarm critics who worry that lenders seeking profits will corrupt the pursuit of justice. Ms. Napp, by contrast, sells the benefit of her own experience.

Ms. Napp said that as she decided to create Balance Point, she realized that she could not settle her own case. “I had to win,” she said. “Because I don’t know that, if you don’t have a happy ending, that people are going to think it’s such a fantastic idea.”

Nicole Richie Seeks Permanent RO Against Paparazzo

2010-12-01T10:33:00.000-08:00

LOS ANGELES ( KTLA) -- Nicole Richie is set to appear in a Los Angeles courtroom Wednesday to request a restraining order extension against a paparazzo who allegedly got too close to her daughter.

Richie claims Fabricio Mariotto frightened her 2-year-old daughter Harlow while trying to take photos of the child at her preschool.

Richie is seeking a permanent restraining order.She is also reportedly expected to testify that other photographers have also crossed the line with Harlow and her 15-month-old son Sparrow.The restraining order is part of a larger campaign Richie is waging against the paparazzi who persistently pursue celebrities' children.Richie has been dating her children's father, Joel Madden, since 2006. The pair are reportedly set to marry later this month.

Richie is best known for co-starring with Paris Hilton in the 2003-2005 reality TV series "The Simple Life." She is the daughter of singer Lionel Richie and has recently become a fashion designer.

There are several types of restraining orders in California:

•Emergency Protective Order (EPO). This type of Restraining Order is issued by law enforcement and is valid for 5 days. It is used by domestic violence victims for their immediate protection and safety.

•Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Order (TRO or DVRO). A California Temporary Restraining Order is in force for three weeks, but it can be made into a permanent restraining order for 1 to 3 years. This is also useful for domestic violence victims.

•Criminal Protective Order (“No Contact” Order). This type of restraining order is obtained through the District Attorney’s office, and is issued in active domestic violence cases. With this order, your abuser cannot call, write, e-mail or contact you at all except through lawyers.

•Civil Harassment Restraining Order (CHO). This restraining order doesn’t need to qualify as a domestic violence restraining order. It can be used to stop harassment, threats, stalking, etc. by neighbors, roommates and co-workers.

The best way to determine which restraining order you need to to work with an experienced California Restraining Order attorney who will focus on your best interests.

Parental Divorce Doubles Stroke Risk In Children

2010-11-24T18:53:00.000-08:00

Children with parents who have gotten divorced at some point, have more than twice the risk of having a stroke during their lives.

Research on these findings was presented at The Gerontological Society of America’s (GSA) annual meeting.

Data for the study was compiled from more than 13,000 people in a 2005 health survey, and analyzed by a University of Toronto research team.

After accounting for additional health risks, researchers still found parental divorce to hold a very high rate of stroke in children who experienced the divorce.

From the total study population, more than 10 percent explained to have a parental divorce, and nearly 2 percent reported to have had a stroke at some time during their life. After accounting for health factors including age and gender, the stroke risk was more than two-fold for those who have experienced a divorce of their parent(s).

Even when analyzing other risk factors like health habits, mental health, or other childhood experiences, the risk for stroke in those experiencing a parental divorce remained significantly higher than those who did not.

Researchers suggest these findings to be interesting, but explain it to potentially put an added strain on distressed parents.

Additional research needs to be compiled to determine if additional factors exist to present these findings.

Japan's Child Custody Law

2010-11-24T18:46:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Sorting out child custody isn't east even in the most amicable of divorces but when an acrimonious separation involves two different nationalities, things can get even trickier, especially if a Japanese citizen is involved.

Still, it's unlikely that Japan will bend to international pressure to encourage equal guardianship of the children of failed relationships as it continues to adhere to the single-custody system that only allows one parent to have sole rights to a child.

The heat is on for Japan to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, with the European Union urging Japanese Justice Minister Minoru Yanagida at an October ministerial meeting in Tokyo to address the issue head-on. The 1981 treaty is designed to prevent one parent from a dissolved marriage between two people of different nationalities from taking their offspring against an existing child custody agreement and has been signed by 82 countries. Among the Group of Eight, Japan and Russia are the only nations that aren't signatories.

The United States too has ratcheted up its call for Japan to take the cross-border custody issue more comprehensively, and the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007 was passed by the late September calling on the Japanese government to "immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan."

Patrick Braden, for one, can't wait for Japan to sign the international pact. The father of now 5-year-old Melissa, Braden hasn't seen his daughter since the mother of his child took the baby to Japan without Braden's consent four years ago. Even though a Los Angeles court had granted joint custody of Melissa to the couple, Japanese authorities haven't adhered to the court's ruling and have effectively given Melissa's mother full custody rights.

For his part, however, Braden hasn't once visited Japan either before or after his relation with the mother of his child, Ryoko Uchiyama, with whom he was never married.

"I don't see the point," Branden said. Instead, he has focused his energy on getting U.S. support for his cause, founding Global Future, an advocacy group focused solely on getting Japanese-American children currently with their Japanese parents back to their parents in the United States. About 300 children are believed to have been affected by the current legal limbo.

Still, it's unlikely that the Japanese government will sign the Hague treaty any time soon. Part of the reason why Japan hasn't given in to the demands of foreign parents is because the concept of joint custody doesn't exist. Rather, one parent -- usually the mother -- takes sole responsibility for children after a divorce and, while parents are free to argue on who should be the one responsible before a family court, any decision reached is final, and could spell the end of visiting rights for the losing parent.

Granted, such a drastic ruling on custody rights is coming under greater scrutiny in recent years, especially as Japan's divorce rate continues to rise. Nevertheless, there is no real public outrage over the current status of sole custody, and so long as that is the case, then the fact that a mother has taken over her child from the United States after ending her relationship with the father won't be viewed as bizarre.

In fact, there are greater concerns about how to actually implement joint custody when the parents live on two different continents, argued Sayuri Umeda, senior foreign law specialist at the Law Library of Congress who is also a lawyer both in Japan and the United States.

As for the pressure on the Japanese government to sign the Hague convention next year, it's likely to "be postponed again and again," Umeda said.

The real victims of the political impasse aren't the Japanese government or the disputing parents but the children who are forced into such extreme positions.

"It's a great tragedy for the children," Umeda said.

--

(Shihoko Goto is a former senior correspondent for UPI's Business Desk and is currently a freelance journalist who divides her time between Washington and Tokyo. She has written for Dow Jones, Bridge News, Congress Daily and a number of Japanese publications including AERA, a weekly magazine of Asahi Shimbun.)

--

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Eva Longoria Files For Divorce

2010-11-17T11:19:00.000-08:00

Eva Longoria Parker has filed for divorce from her husband of three years, San Antonio Spurs point guard Tony Parker, UsMagazine.com has learned.

She filed Wednesday morning in Los Angeles Superior Court.

In the filing, she requested that her name be restored from Parker's name to Eva Jacqueline Longoria.

Documents also state that the couple had a prenuptial agreement. It was signed in 2007, the year they wed, and amended in 2009.

She is seeking spousal support.

She cited irreconcilable differences for the split.

The filing comes on the heels of the latest Us Weekly, which reports that Longoria Parker, 35, recently discovered that her husband, 28, has been exchanging personal texts with a mutual female friend for nearly a year -- hundreds in just one month.

"Eva is heartbroken by the betrayal," says one insider (Longoria Parker’s rep had no comment; Parker’s rep could not be reached).

The two met in November 2004.

They had a brief rough patch that year -- "We were going through growing pains," she explained to Cosmopolitan -- but they worked it out.

He popped the question in 2006. "It was more than I'd imagined," she told Cosmo of his proposal. "I was shocked, too. It was like two in the morning. He got down on one knee. He was so nervous, which is what I find so surprising and sweet. I said, 'Honey, you know how much I want to marry you!'"

They famously wed in a $1.5 million wedding at a 17th century castle in Paris in July 2007 -- in front of her Desperate Housewives co-stars, including Teri Hatcher and Felicity Huffman.

Baby rumors soon followed.

"Tony and I want ... as many as we can have. Three, four, five," she said in 2008. "We think about adopting too."

The same year, the 5-foot-2 star dodged pregnancy rumors when she packed on 7 lbs. for Housewives ("I'm just fat," she quipped).

The two appeared to be in fine shape this past summer as they celebrated his birthday and their third wedding anniversary.

"We're thinking about it. Pretty soon," he told Us in June when asked about starting a family. "She's got one more year with Desperate Housewives, so we'll see what happens."

With their time apart, he told Us, "Skype helps a lot. As long as you both make an effort, it works ... [but I miss] not being able to kiss her every day!"

I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Sign Here

2010-11-13T08:42:00.000-08:00

Move over, heirs and heiresses: Baby boomers are flocking to sign prenuptial agreements, too..

New Yorkers Laura Jackson and Gary Zaremba met on a dating website in 2005. Two years later, Mr. Zaremba, a 52-year-old real-estate developer, popped the question. Ms. Jackson accepted.

Then he popped another: "Will you sign a prenuptial agreement?"

He had been through a divorce, had a college-age son and several real-estate investments. She, a publicist and also 52, had never married.

"When he first mentioned it," Ms. Jackson, now Ms. Jackson-Zaremba, says, "I thought, 'Oh, my God.' It definitely took a little bit of the romance out."

Baby boomers looking to protect their assets are increasingly turning to prenuptial agreements—legal contracts drawn up before a marriage that dictate what happens to assets in the event a couple should part ways, either by divorce or death.

"They used to be for the rich and famous," says Marlene Eskind Moses, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and a lawyer in Nashville, Tenn. "It's become more commonplace in the market as an estate-planning opportunity for boomers."

Even before the financial crisis hit, prenuptial agreements were on the rise: Some 80% of matrimonial lawyers said they had seen an increase in couples signing them in recent years, according to a 2006 survey sponsored by the matrimonial lawyers group.

The financial crisis—which hit boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, especially hard—accelerated the trend. Many of them, just on the cusp of retirement, saw their investment portfolios pounded, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 53% from Oct. 9, 2007, to March 6, 2009. Home values, which represented significant chunks of boomer net worth, were down almost 31% as of March 31 from their peak in mid-2006, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller national index.

As a result, boomers have become more anxious to hold on to whatever they have left, says Gabriel Cheong, a divorce attorney with Infinity Law Group LLC in Quincy, Mass. Today, the majority of inquiries come from boomers "concerned about protecting their assets," he says. "Not just with the markets, but with protecting their spouses and children." And they often enter a marriage with substantial assets—and children from an earlier union.

Baby boomers are more likely to get married multiple times than younger or older couples because they also are more likely to have gotten divorced. Almost 40% of boomers who have been married have gone through at least one divorce, according to 2004 Census data, the most recent available, while only about 30% of all people who have been married have been divorced. By their 50th birthday, 27% of boomers have moved on to their second or third marriage.

None of this, of course, makes discussing a prenup with one's betrothed any easier. Ms. Jackson-Zaremba and Mr. Zaremba "put the elephant on the table," he says, and disclosed everything to each other before their lawyers drafted the agreement. Though his net worth was significantly higher than hers, she had retirement savings and an annual salary she wanted to keep separate. He owned a string of properties in several states and several lighthouses he was in the process of restoring that he, too, wanted to keep separate.

Under the terms of the prenup, one investment property on Long Island's North Fork that the couple purchased would be owned 75% by Mr. Zaremba and 25% by Ms. Jackson-Zaremba. A second property on Long Island would have the same split, but after five years ownership would change to 50-50. Assets filed on a joint tax return wouldn't be considered joint assets, the agreement states, and Mr. Zaremba's name would be added to the lease on Ms. Jackson-Zaremba's New York apartment. Neither party would take on each other's debts. Ms. Jackson-Zaremba also would receive a life-insurance policy, a provision added in the drafting.

Lawyers usually recommend that couples with substantial assets—or those who expect to inherit such assets later on—consider a prenup. Without one, they are at the mercy of a smorgasbord of state laws in the event of a divorce or death. In "community property" states, such as California, marital assets are typically split 50-50. In "equitable distribution" states, judges generally look at what is "fair," so all marital property is considered before it is divided.

Such uncertainty has helped prenups gain favor as estate-planning tools. Yet they are anything but simple to execute, and prospective couples need to make sure they avoid some common traps.

Bulletproofing a Prenup

The drafting of a prenuptial agreement, and the discussion surrounding it, should begin several months before the wedding date. If the signing terms of a prenup are later deemed rushed or ill-informed, a court can choose not to enforce the contract. Prenups are contracts, after all, and lawyers rely on decades of case law for guidance in drafting them. That has made the documents more complicated.

There still isn't any guarantee that the agreement would be bulletproof from future challenges by a former spouse, says Gary Skoloff, a family lawyer with Skoloff & Wolfe in Livingston, N.J. "A lawyer can no more guarantee that a prenup is enforced than a doctor can guarantee the result of a surgery," he says. Having each party represented by a lawyer generally decreases the likelihood that a judge might deem a prenup unfit, experts say.

Still, there are some general rules that experts say will help the document hold up in court. When drafting a prenup, lawyers generally divide goods into two major pools: assets created before the marriage and assets created during the marriage. In addition to assets, responsibility for paying off debts incurred both before and during the marriage can be divided in a prenup.

Some older prenups cited fixed-dollar amounts. That made it easier to contest them, as inflation eroded the value of many assets or, conversely, as some assets, such as real estate, saw their value sharply increase. Lawyers now prefer to disclose the ownership stake—and, when possible, the value—of all assets for transparency, but also to address how appreciation of assets or new contributions will be divided.

One of the biggest mistakes you can make is trying to hide assets. "The worst thing you can do is play games," Mr. Skoloff says, "because then you've lost credibility with your spouse. And a judge."

Another rule of thumb: A prenup can't contain anything that violates a state's laws or public policy. In Florida, for example, any kind of debt incurred before a marriage—regardless of what a prenup says—is considered a nonmarital debt, so it wouldn't transfer over to a spouse, says Mitchell Karpf, a marital and family lawyer with Young, Berman, Karpf & Gonzalez in North Miami Beach, Fla. Some couples do choose to insert sunset provisions, so that the prenup expires after a certain number of years of marriage.

Doctors, lawyers, members of a family business or others who have a shared practice may suggest their peers draft prenups to ensure a spouse can't take income from the business. Conversely, a spouse who contributes to a business might want to ensure that their work is compensated.

The Next Generation

Tanya Porter, 60, and her husband, Darrell, 72, signed a prenup when they were married 27 years ago for one overriding purpose: to ensure their assets would go to their children from previous marriages in the event of a divorce or death. Today, many things in the agreement are moot, with stocks sold, cars long since traded in and kids all grown up. "It's funny now to reread it," says Ms. Porter, now a full-time wedding planner in Englewood, Colo.

In recent years, as more couples have drafted prenups, the documents have expanded to spell out terms of the marriage itself, addressing issues such as adultery, intimacy or weight gain, Ms. Moses says. Some prenups also determine things like what religion children will be raised as, or where they will attend school. However, child-support and custody agreements typically aren't included in prenups because those are to be determined separately by the courts.

Because prenups are general legal contracts, same-sex couples may be able to draft financial agreements, even if their state doesn't legally recognize the union, she says. "People are free to contract," Ms. Moses says.

Some baby boomers, anxious about how their assets will be passed on, are even requiring their children to consider prenups, says Daniel E. Clement, a divorce lawyer in New York. Typically, younger couples just starting out with equal assets wouldn't need one. But if a spouse has wealth such as a trust or inheritance they either intend to give or receive, a prenup might make sense.

"When they hand that money down, they want to make sure it's not lost on an heir's spouse when they want to give it to the heir," Mr. Clement says. "I think people are more cognizant that money can be there today, gone tomorrow in a flash."

Another concern for many couples: how inheritances are spent. A spouse's inheritance may belong only to that spouse, but if it is spent toward a home that both live in, it could be considered joint property. Couples can use a prenup to clearly spell out ownership stakes.

Melissa Brides and her husband Aaron Ockman of Santa Monica, Calif., decided that a prenup wasn't in order, even after his parents suggested one. Although taken aback, Ms. Brides—herself a child of divorce—says she "understood why they were asking." The two 34-year-olds have roughly the same net worth, but Mr. Ockman co-owns an apartment building with his parents.

Even though the couple finally decided against getting a prenup, having the discussion was beneficial. Mr. Ockman's parents drafted a separate agreement among the three family members stipulating what share of the property Mr. Ockman owns in the event the building is sold.

As for the Jackson-Zarembas, their prenuptial agreement was written to sunset after 15 years. It was signed on July 11, 2008. The couple was wed the next day and have been happily married ever since.

"Sometimes," Mr. Zaremba says, "the best contracts are the ones you don't have to use."

I Do's and I Dont's
Some pointers on what and what not to do when considering a prenuptial agreement:

Do
- Have each party represented by a lawyer
- Start talking about and drafting the agreement several months before the wedding
- Consider enlisting the help of a marriage counselor, financial planner or accountant.
- Research whether an additional waiver is needed for a workplace retirement plan.

Don't
- Hide any assets from a future spouse.
- Forget to assign responsibility for joint and separate debts, if applicable.
- Include things that could violate state laws, such as child-support payments.
- Use a prenup as a substitute for a will or estate plan.

"The prenup changed me," she says. "I became more assertive." Most of all, she finds it much easier, both professionally and personally, to discuss money.

Write to Mary Pilon at mary.pilon@wsj.com

For more information on prenups, please visit our websites here and here.

2010-11-11T15:31:00.000-08:00

Father and son fight over £5.1m divorce settlement

By Stephen Howard, PA

A father is fighting his son in court over a £5.1 million divorce settlement he made with his former wife two months before she died.

Fraser Richardson inherited his mother Harriet's estate and is resisting his father Eric's application to cut the settlement.

The father ran a hotel chain and flats business with his wife and faces a massive damages claim after a child was injured falling from one of the apartments.

His insurers have warned him they may not indemnify him and he wants the divorce settlement figure varied so that any damages award is shared with the estate of his late wife.

Sally Harrison QC, representing the son, told three judges at the Court of Appeal: "The relationship between Fraser Richardson and his father has broken down entirely and they could not work together in any way in the future."

The son says that when the divorce settlement was agreed, his father retained 52.5% of the couple's joint assets, close to £11 million, and in return agreed to take on all the risks of the business from which his mother had retired.

Nigel Dyer QC, representing the 71-year-old father, said any damages award should be a joint liability because the accident happened when his former wife was his business partner.

He said it was not foreseeable during the divorce proceedings that the insurers might repudiate liability under the insurance policy and refuse to indemnify the business.

"In these circumstances it is not fair or reasonable that the husband alone should be liable for the damages award; any damages award should still be a liability to be met by the husband and wife's estate."

He said the husband had been advised by solicitors that if the claim succeeded on liability, the damages could be in the region of £3 million with costs of £300,000.

"If the husband has to pay £3.3 million he will lose nearly 60% of the assets he retained under the order."

Mr Dyer said it would not affect the wife's estate by staying the settlement order until after the accident damages hearing.

"The wife is dead so she does not need the money," he said.

At the time of the divorce settlement hearing, both husband and wife were 70 and had been married for more than 40 years.

During their marriage they carried on a business as hoteliers, property investors and landlords.

Their assets comprised two hotels in the North West, five in Devon and Cornwall and nine blocks of flats in Manchester, worth a total of £40 million.

After deducting investment loans mainly taken out by Mr Richardson, the net assets were £10,906,734.

The accident in 2004 involved a two-year-old girl who fell from a window in one of the couple's blocks of flats.

Mr Dyer said that three and a half years after the accident, a personal injury claim was issued against Mr Richardson and the Richardson Group which he ran with his wife.

He said: "If the husband has to meet the damages claim with no contribution from the wife's estate, then Fraser will end up with a much greater share of his parents' wealth than his father will retain."

He said the settlement order should be set aside and a new lump sum order made to reflect the true value of the assets after any damages award had been taken into account.

Ms Harrison said Mr Richardson failed to act promptly in appealing against the order.

When the settlement was made, the judge had balanced the fact that the husband was retaining assets with far greater potential for growth against a lump sum paid to Mrs Richardson with the husband's acceptance of all the risk laden assets and any losses, she said.

Judgment was reserved in the case.

How To Be a Good Client

2010-11-02T14:23:00.001-07:00

HOW TO BE A GOOD CLIENT

(And Save Yourself Money)

by Attorney Kelly Chang Rickert

1. DO YOUR JOB.

a. Tell me the truth. In order for me to be at my very best, I need you to tell me the whole truth about your legal matter, even if it is unpleasant, and even if you think it hurts you. Remember, our success depends on the accuracy of the information I receive.

b. Return my phone calls and emails and promptly comply with my requests. During the course of my representation, I may ask you to do some things to help me help you. At such times, please do your part and promptly comply with these requests. Remember, you are paying for my time, which includes "nag" time.

c. Tell me how you feel. I hope you will be satisfied with my work. If so, please tell me. And if for some reason, you are not satisfied, do not be afraid to tell me so that I may discuss the matter with you.

d. Ask questions. If at any time you do not understand something that is, or is not, happening, please ask questions.

e. Pay your bill timely. Remember, in order to represent you, I rely on services and staff, whom I have to pay. I have a business to run. If you do not pay your bills, my services will be terminated, no matter how much I like you. It’s not personal – it’s business.

2. LET ME DO MY JOB.

a. My commitment is to give you my best effort. I commit to give you all of my experience, training, and energy in my representation of you.

b. To promptly return your phone calls. I understand how important it is that your phone calls be promptly returned. I will make every effort to return your call the same day, and at the latest, within 24 hours.

c. To be honest with you. I will tell you the truth as I honestly see it.

d. To keep you informed. I am aware that your legal issues are very important to you. I do not take your trust for granted, and I plan to keep you fully advised about the progress of your legal matter.

e. To tell you what is going to happen step by step. I intend to tell you as best I can what to expect before it happens, so that you are not surprised or confused.

f. To treat you with respect. You are my client, and as such, you deserve the utmost respect from your attorney.

3. WHAT YOUR DIVORCE LAWYER CAN DO FOR YOU

a. Explain the law in California on issues of divorce, annulment, child custody and visitation, child support, spousal support, property division, and restraining orders. What is an annulment? What happens between filing and Judgment? What is an OSC? What is the date of separation? How much support can you expect to pay?

b. Explain procedure of the court. How long will this take? What will the Judge be like? What can you expect when you make this particular demand? Is it worth it to go to court?

c. Represent you in court. Your lawyer will be your voice. They will step into your shoes and tell your side of the story, convincingly and appropriately. They will speak the law language for you. They will pacify a grumpy Judge who doesn’t like excessive verbosity.

d. Represent you to opposing party and counsel. You are a good person. You have reasonable demands. Your lawyer will be on your side, arguing for your demands.

e. Protect your interests. You have rights defined by the law. You need to know your rights, and how to enforce them. Your lawyer is your protector.

f. Creatively argue the FACTS to best support the LAW. We can’t easily change the law, but lawyers are gifted at spinning FACTS which can get you the most you need under the law.

4. WHAT YOUR DIVORCE LAWYER CANNOT DO FOR YOU

a. Easily Change the Law. Times change. Laws change. But let’s be realistic, will the laws change during your divorce? Probably not. The 401k you acquired during the marriage, with no prenup? That is community property. We can’t change that. Your wife isn’t working and hasn’t worked for 10 years? You need to pay spousal support. Even if she cheated on you? That’s right. You have to pay spousal support. We can’t change that. You are a stay-at-home mom with a law degree with 2 school-aged children and you never want to work a day in your life, and want to collect support forever? You will eventually need to find a job. Child support terminates at age 18, or 19 if in high school. Spousal support – depends on many other factors. But unless you find another source of support, you WILL need to find a job. We can’t change that.

b. Make Your Personal Decisions For You. I can always give excellent advice and counsel on legal issues. For example, is $2500 a fair amount of support to pay, for 10 months? Is your parenting plan reasonable under the circumstance? Can you move to Hawaii? However, I can never tell you to get divorced.

c. Speed Up the Process. You can trust me to deliver prompt service. However, I cannot control the other side. Or their lawyers. It only takes one party to drag out a case. I promise you that unless it is due to strategy, I will not purposely prolong your case. Also, I do not control the courts. I promise that I will get you the earliest mediation and court appointment. However, I can never promise you’ll get a trial date by January 2011, or an OSC date by May 2012. I do not control the court calendar.

d. Predict the Outcome with Guarantee. I have a lot of experience with the court system, and family law. It is my job, and I do it well. However, I am not God. I do not have a crystal ball, and I don’t have sixth sense. I am human, and I err. So do NOT rely on me to tell you, to absolute perfection, what will happen if we go to court.

e. Finally, We Cannot Be Your Personal, On-Call, 24/7 Advisor. We understand that your case is important to you. And we honor that. You have our word that we do not take our clients’ trust for granted. Please understand – there are other clients in your similar situations. If I am in court on the day of your emergency, I simply cannot tend to you immediately. I am very fortunate to have very competent staff, who are always here to respond to your needs. However, if you need to talk to me, you will need to make an appointment. I will do my best to get to you ASAP.

f. Understand my role and do not take me for granted. I am your lawyer. Some of my clients – I even consider my “family”. But I am NOT an on-call robot, and barring true emergencies, I cannot respond to your calls after-hours, or on the weekends. I cannot give you my cell phone number. You have my email, and during work hours, you can expect a response, same day. There are times we may look at and answer your email over the weekend, but this is generally the exception and not to be relied upon by you that we are accessible on weekend.

Divorce: Three Times a Charm for Charlie Sheen

2010-11-01T20:50:00.000-07:00

It's been a tough week for Charlie Sheen. On Tuesday, the 45-year-old actor was hospitalized after an "adverse" reaction to prescription medication. And on Monday (November 1), the "Two and a Half Men" star and wife Brooke Mueller filed for divorce citing "irreconcilable differences."

Back in May, Sheen and Mueller signed a 43-page settlement that divided all their assets and settled a child custody agreement. According to documents obtained by TMZ, the couple are seeking joint custody of their twins, Bob and Max.

In addition to physical custody, Mueller will receive $55,000 a month in child support. That monetary sum must be no less than the amount of support he is obliged to pay for his children with ex-wife Denise Richards, as the document reads, "Under no circumstances shall the child support paid by Charlie for Bob and Max be less than the child support paid by Charlie to Denise Richards for Sam and Lola."

The couple, who married in May 2008, have experienced their share of trouble, including a domestic dispute over Christmas at their home in Aspen, Colorado. Sheen had reportedly threatened Mueller with a knife and was charged with misdemeanor third-degree assault as a result of a plea deal. He later entered rehab "as a preventative measure," according to a statement issued by his publicist.

2010-10-21T17:22:00.000-07:00

Divorce: Why the big breakup in China?

By Jaime FlorCruz, CNN Beijing Bureau Chief

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Divorce in China was once frowned upon
In today's China, some 4,500 couples split up every day
Psychiatrist: Divorce on the rise because of social, economic changes
Another reason for increase in divorce: Changes to regulations make it easier to split

"Jaime's China" is a weekly column about Chinese society and politics. Jaime FlorCruz has lived and worked in China since 1971. He studied Chinese history at Peking University (1977-81) and served as TIME Magazine's Beijing correspondent and bureau chief (1982-2000).

Beijing, China (CNN) -- There was hardly any confusion about marriage and family life in old China. Traditional Chinese culture frowned on divorce. An ancient proverb admonishes newlyweds: "You are married until your hair turns white."

In practice, of course, men played a more dominant role in Chinese families and got away with most things, including marital dalliances. It was shameful for women to marry more than once while it was easy for men to take one or more concubines.

But the times are changing in modern China. The economic miracle that followed the country's opening to the outside world after 1979 has dramatically changed social mores --- and getting divorced no longer carries the social stigma it once did.

In today's China, some 4,500 couples split up every day. More than 2.46 million couples divorced in the country last year -- nearly twice the number in 2001.

See more of CNN's special coverage of China

"The rise in divorce rate is expected because China over the years has been going through drastic social and economic changes," said Xu Haoyuan, a U.S.-trained psychiatrist who offers marital counseling on a Beijing radio hotline. "Views on sex and marriage have swung from one extreme to another -- from the extremely puritanical to the free-wheeling."

So, why are couples in China splitting up? Experts have many explanations, but a key reason was the revision in 2003 of the marriage registration regulation, making it easier to divorce.

Before the change, couples seeking a divorce were required to get letters from their work units or neighborhood committees that explained and endorsed their reasons for breaking up.

Those who did not want to be subjected to lectures, gossips and shame opted to stay miserably married. Under the new rules, if couples are not fighting over property rights or child custody, they can get their divorce in minutes.

Other reasons for the spike in divorce: increased social mobility, especially the relaxation of the "hukou," or household registration system, that has accelerated internal migration; the one-child policy, some negative effects of rapid economic growth on peoples' values, and the dramatic change in the status of women.

Ideologues blame it on fickleness that comes from social-climbing, gold-digging, unsatisfied sexual or romantic desire. Still others attribute it to indiscriminate adoption of Western values and "bourgeois ideas" of materialism and egotism.

Not surprisingly, marriage counselors find that a common cause of Chinese divorces is marital infidelity, euphemistically referred to as "di san zhe," or "a third party."

"Extra marital relations are quite common nowadays," said the psychiatrist Xu. "Almost every couple who call in say they have extramarital relations. People are confused about what is right and what is wrong."

For four years, one of my friends had carried on a long-distance marriage with his wife. He worked in Beijing as a producer of movies and TV programs, while his wife chose to stay in her native Shanghai, where she worked as a white-collar employee in a trading company.

Not long ago, my friend found a girlfriend -- a young Beijing native. When his wife learned about it, she demanded a divorce. They parted ways amicably.

In some regions in China, the reasons for divorce have nothing to do with the romantic relationship: some people, wanting to take advantage of government programs, have entered into fake divorces.

For example, many property-hungry couples in Shanghai were found forging divorce documents in early October in order to circumvent a new government regulation. To curb speculation and cool the red-hot Shanghai property market, the local government recently issued new rules limiting families to buying one additional home per family. By faking divorce, couples hoped to buy as many as four homes instead of two, according to the Chongqing Business Newspaper.

In the past, marriage in China was mainly an economic arrangement where women were dependent on husbands and relegated to the role of breeder and nurturer.

Chinese women are now achieving higher economic and social status. These changes transform marriage into a mutually satisfying partnership.

Many Chinese now put a premium on love, mutual affection, compatibility and sexual equality.

All things considered, I see rising divorce rates in China in a positive light.

The World's Most Powerful Women

2010-10-06T15:58:00.000-07:00

The World's Most Powerful Women

When it comes to power, cultural impact means as much as money and political influence.
Forbes' power lists are synonymous with moguls and movie stars, heads of state and captains of business. One look at the 2010 World's 100 Most Powerful Women list and it is clear that we've come up with a new ranking of the female power elite that reflects the New Order of now.

When we set out to identify this year's list, we decided it was time to look up and out into the broader culture. Our assessment is based less on traditional titles and roles and more on creative influence and entrepreneurship. These power women have built distinctive companies and brands and championed weighty causes, sometimes through unconventional means; in other cases they have broken through gender barriers.

In Pictures: The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women

Click here to see the full list of The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women

We divided our power women candidates into four groups: politics, business, media and lifestyle (that is, entertainment, sports and fashion). We ranked the women in each group, and then group against group. Not easy, but that's today's reality: an unpredictable, diverse mash-up of hard power (currencies and constitutions) and dynamic power (audience and audacity).
Why else would Lady Gaga (No. 7) and Ellen DeGeneres (No. 10) share top 10 billing with Michelle Obama (No. 1), Irene Rosenfeld, CEO of Kraft Foods ( KFT - news - people ) (No. 2), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (No. 5) and Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo ( PEP - news - people ) (No. 6)? If anything, it's inspiring.

We included many heads of state and hopeful candidates, but we also have queenmakers who don't hold office, first ladies of various sorts, Surpreme Court justices and cultural icons, bankers and bestselling authors. We rely on these women for, yes, managing our money, creating paychecks and governing at home and on the international stage, but also what we eat, download, talk about around the dinner table and the causes we support. What we think and how we act.

At the top of our list, First Lady Michelle Obama is a true change-maker since taking lodge in the White House in 2008. The first African-American in the post, she's changed the face of the office (literally), and with consistently high approval ratings, she's given a new generation of girls and women around the world a role model. A former private attorney and public servant in Chicago, her interest in working with young people and advocating for healthy eating, among other issues, is evidenced by her Let's Move! campaign, which aims to solve the epidemic of childhood obesity within a generation.

Power women are connected, each one leveraging the power of the next. As a result of Let's Move!, for example, major food and drink manufacturers (including Rosenfeld's Kraft Foods and Nooyi's PepsiCo) have pledged to cut 1.5 trillion calories from their products by 2015 through new products, recipes and reduced portion sizes. At the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) last month, Secretary of State Clinton led a plenary session on empowering women and girls, a new CGI action area, and attended by Katie Couric (No. 22), Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan (No. 76) and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (No. 86).

Back to how Nooyi and talk show host DeGeneres landed together among the top 10 most powerful women in the world? While Nooyi helms PepsiCo, which has revenues of $43 billion annually and a portfolio of brands that include Tropicana, Frito Lay and Gatorade, DeGeneres directly connects with 3 million viewers daily weekdays through her talk show. And that's just one hour of her day.

Off-camera, the out-and-proud DeGeneres spreads her message to more than 5 million Twitter followers, notably bringing national attention to a gay teen's fight for same-sex prom dates last spring. Her high-profile, high-energy personality--as a television host, CoverGirl model and former judge of American Idol--has made LGBT issues more than mainstream. She's instilled a sense of glee and attractiveness to it all.

Traditionally, women's lists are heavily salted with the language of "firsts." First woman CEO. First woman on the Supreme Court. First female president. To be sure, there are firsts on this list: Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the House, while race car driver Danica Patrick is the first (and only) woman to have won an IndyCar series. With the impending launch of OWN, Oprah Winfrey is the first woman to own her own cable network and Julia Gillard and Johnson Sirleaf are currently the first female prime minister of Australia and Africa's first female president, respectively.

First females make for good copy, but the real headline is that packs have emerged. Three women sit on the Supreme Court, marking an unprecedented tipping point for change. This year Diane Sawyer joined Couric as a female nightly solo news anchor, with Rachel Maddow and Christiane Amanpour as compats. Gillard is among 10 female heads of state on this year's rankings. From Singapore to Silicon Valley, 25 women on the list hold CEO titles.
Ripening for political leaders, generally, comes at the 50s and 60s, while business leaders peak in their 40s and 50s. Media and lifestyle power women seem to come of age in their 20s and 30s. But there are notable exceptions and crossover. Madonna and Arianna Huffington have exceptional staying power, while Sarah Palin and Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg are early bloomers.

Redefining the idea of power as influence is a challenging feat, particularly hard in that we looked at the world in all of its complexities to find the women who wield their importance in four distilled spheres to create change. Add the pace of the year 2010--the speed at which we consume and communicate--and the task becomes even greater.
What we've found is that power, hard or dynamic, can be fleeting. One million or so Twitter followers today can be kissed goodbye as quickly as a company can go bankrupt or a government overthrown. And so we consider this list a frozen moment in time.

We invite you to visit forbes.com/woman where the list will live, breathe and be shaped and reshaped in months to come.

The Most Powerful Women In The World—click on each woman to view profile
1. Michelle Obama, First Lady, U.S.
2. Irene Rosenfeld, Chief Executive, Kraft Foods
3. Oprah Winfrey, Talk show host and media mogul
4. Angela Merkel, Chancellor, Germany
5. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S.
6. Indra Nooya, Chief Executive, Pepsico
7. Lady Gaga, Singer and performance artist
8. Gail Kelly, Chief Executive, Westpac
9. Beyoncé Knowles, Singer and fashion designer
10. Ellen DeGeneres, Talk show host
11. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, U.S.
12. Angela Braly, Chief Executive, Wellpoint
13. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Homeland Security, U.S.
14. Cynthia Carroll, Chief Executive, Anglo American
15. Sheila Bair, Chair, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
16. Sarah Palin, Political maverick and commentator
17. Mary Schapiro, Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission
18. Ellen Kullman, Chief Executive, DuPont
19. Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Justice, U.S.
20. Ursula Burns, Chief Executive, Xerox
21. Angelina Jolie, Actor and UN Goodwill Ambassador
22. Katie Couric, News anchor
23. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Health & Human Services
24. Anne Lauvergeon, Chief Executive, Areva
25. Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Justice, U.S.

Click Here To See The Next Most Powerful Woman In The World

Canada: 40% of First Marriages End in Divorce

2010-10-04T19:59:00.000-07:00

4 in 10 1st marriages end in divorce: report

CBC News

Forty per cent of Canadian marriages end in divorce, says a new study from the Vanier Institute of the Family.

The traditional definition of family is changing in Canada, with 4 in 10 first marriages ending in divorce, according to a new study.

For the first time in Canadian history, there are more unmarried people than legally married people age 15 and over in this country, says the study from the Vanier Institute of the Family released Monday in Ottawa.

It was based on data from the 2006 census, and some of the information has been reported in the years since.

"Marriage is still a vitally important part of the experience of families in the fabric of our country and most young people do aspire to marriage," said Clarence Lochhead, executive director of the Vanier Institute, adding that even people who have divorced or separated will end up partnering up again.

"We just have to come to grips with the diversity that actually is within our experience. Then we need to find ways to address and take on the challenges that face families, but do it in an inclusive way that makes sense for the reality and not some ideal notion of what a family is or ought to be."

According to Statistics Canada, about 38 per cent of all marriages taking place in 2004 will have ended in divorce by 2035. The total divorce rate was down slightly from its peak of about 41 per cent in the mid 1980s, but slightly higher than the rate of about 37 per cent recorded in the mid 1990s.

Newfoundland and Labrador had the lowest rate of divorce at 21.6 per cent — while Quebec had the highest at 48.4 per cent.

Top 8 reasons people marry
1. Feeling that marriage signifies commitment
2. Moral values
3. Belief that children should have married parents
4. It is the natural thing to do
5. Financial security
6. Religious beliefs
7. Pressure from family
8. Pressure from friends

Top 5 reasons couples separate or divorce
1. Different values and interests
2. Abuse — physical and emotional
3. Alcohol and drugs
4. Infidelity
5. Career-related conflict
Source: Vanier Institute of the Family

The highest proportion of married people was in Newfoundland and Labrador where 54.3 per cent were married, while Quebec had the lowest proportion of married couples with only 37.5 per cent of adults falling in this category.

Newfoundland and Labrador also had the lowest rate of divorce, while Quebec had the highest.

Also for the first time in Canada, there were more couples without children than with children, and this was true throughout the country, with families with children representing a minority of families in all provinces and territories.

For married families with children, 18.6 per cent of children live with only one parent. Common-law families are growing faster than any other type of family with one in 10 Canadians living in such relationships and 14.6 per cent of children living with common-law parents.

The 2006 census was the first to report on same-sex marriages and 16.5 per cent of same-sex couples now marry.

The recent economic downturn has proven to be a stressor for families. The higher cost of living means most families now require two income earners to achieve an average standard of living.

More families are also struggling with debt and poverty. Men are also working longer hours and spending less time with their families.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/04/vanier-study004.html#ixzz11RwJBynn

CONVICTION: Movie Review

2010-09-30T11:42:00.000-07:00

I normally wouldn't take the time out to "blog" about a movie, but after an amazing preview screening last night, I had to quickly write my review to help promote this movie about the American legal system.

FYI - "Conviction" hits general theaters on October 15, 2010.

I have free passes for all interested to a screening next Thursday, 10/7/2010, 7:30 pm, at the Grove. Please email me if you are interested.

Conviction Movie Review

by Attorney Kelly Chang Rickert

It starts with his, and ends with hers.

"Conviction" is an aptly-named movie about an innocent man, Kenneth Waters (Sam Rockwell), who endured and lost a criminal trial for murder, and subsequent appeals. With no money (so no lawyer), his baby sister Betty Anne Waters (Hilary Swank), takes on the job - finishes high school, college, law school and passes the bar, to become his attorney. With newly-established DNA law and evidence, she is able to release him.

It only took 18 years, but Betty Anne was able to successfully set aside the wrongul conviction.

The legal system isn't all too easy on folks with modest means (my favorite line in the movie is by Abra Rice, played by the beautiful Minnie Driver - "The legal system is so f'cking inconvenient!!")

Inconvenient, yes. Not for the weak, yes.

But justice IS served at the end - and that is my favorite part of the movie.

I have practiced law for over a decade (and will likely practice for 2 more), and this is by far one of my favorite law movies of all time. It presents a naked version of the legal system - hoop-hopping, paper-pushing, and sometimes corrupt.

The many obstacles faced by Kenneth and Betty Anne can really put a damper on the legal system. But the movie ends the way it should - with justice, and teaches us that fierce determination and a strive for justice will defeat any travesty.

The movie speaks loudly to me as an attorney. I distinctly recall June 5, 2000 - the day I was sworn to practice law for the good. I took an oath to fight for justice. Without movies such as "Conviction", it is very simple to see how that message gets eroded over years of paperwork, deadlines, and procedural BS. It reminds me to look past all that - and DO GOOD.

The movie also speaks to me as a tax-paying citizen, a wife, and a mother. I loved the inspirational message of hard work overcoming any difficult circumstances. (Law school was hard for ME, and I was 21 years old, unmarried, no children AND receiving subsidies from my parents!) I am very fond of the message that ANYONE, even a poor single mom of 2 can become an attorney, and FIGHT for justice.

Finally, I loved the very real portrayal the American legal system. It can be big and scary, but you can work your butt off, and it JUST may pay off.

The title was very clever - a true double-entendre, and the movie came full circle - beginning with his conviction, ending with hers.

I've always loved my job, but damn, after seeing this movie, I gotta stand up and say, "I AM PROUD TO BE A LAWYER".

Mediation for the McCourts

2010-09-26T20:02:00.000-07:00

Mediation scheduled in McCourt divorce case

By GREG RISLING (AP) – 4 days ago

LOS ANGELES — Divorce lawyers for Frank and Jamie McCourt are planning to go into mediation as soon as Friday over who owns the Los Angeles Dodgers, The Associated Press has learned.

A person familiar with the case who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about settlement discussions told the AP late Tuesday that the two sides would meet in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom on Friday.

The mediation talks were first reported by Yahoo! Sports.

Jamie McCourt contends that she deserves a part of the team, while Frank McCourt argues that he is the team's sole owner. Earlier this week, she testified that she didn't read a postnuptial marital agreement which gave her estranged husband sole possession of the Dodgers.

An attorney who represented the couple and drafted the agreement said he replaced an addendum that excluded the Dodgers from Frank McCourt's separate property with wording that included the team and didn't notify Jamie McCourt about the switch.

Larry Silverstein, who is expected to resume his testimony Wednesday, said he made a "drafting error" when he prepared the agreement that didn't include the Dodgers, the stadium and the surrounding land, worth hundreds of millions of dollars from Frank McCourt's side of the ledger.

When Silverstein gave the documents to the McCourts to sign in March 2004, three had the team as Frank McCourt's separate property, and three others didn't. Jamie McCourt ended up signing all six; Frank McCourt signed three at the couple's Massachusetts home and the remaining three a couple of weeks later while he was in California.

The agreement is at the center of the dispute between the McCourts and could decide who owns the Dodgers. Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon must decide whether the pact is valid. He also could order the sale of the team.

Silverstein said the original plan was to have three copies of the agreement, one each for Frank and Jamie McCourt and one for himself. However, he decided at the last minute before the couple signed them to produce three other copies out of an abundance of caution.

"I was simply trying to have a set of protective documents," he said.

Silverstein said he doesn't recall switching the versions Frank McCourt signed in California that excluded the Dodgers with wording that did include the team, but believes he did so shortly thereafter after he looked at company records.

It wasn't until a few months ago, after forensic analysts were hired by both sides to examine the six copies, that it was determined Silverstein made the changes.

Jamie McCourt's attorney David Boies asked Silverstein if he thought it was OK to switch a legal document after it had been signed and notarized.

"In certain circumstances, yes," Silverstein replied.

Boies asked his fellow litigator, who has practiced law for more than 30 years, if he ever recalled a situation where an attorney had removed part of a legal document and replaced it with something else without the written permission of both parties.

"Express permission or implicit permission, no," Silverstein added.

Silverstein said he didn't tell Jamie McCourt about replacing the addendum that gave her husband the Dodgers. On Monday, she testified she never read the agreement, nor did anyone tell her, namely Silverstein, that she would be giving up her purported ownership stake in the team.

However, another attorney who worked at the same firm as Silverstein said he was directed by Jamie McCourt to come up with the marital agreement during a meeting at Dodger Stadium shortly after the team was bought in February 2004 for about $430 million.

Reynolds Cafferata said in conversations he had with Jamie McCourt, she asked him questions about California's community property provision and told him it was a family practice to keep assets separate.

"She said 'We do things differently. I own the houses, Frank owns the businesses,'" said Cafferata, who added Jamie McCourt wanted a draft agreement created quickly. "She was interested in having this done immediately."

Gordon on Tuesday excused several witnesses from testifying at the trial, including Major League Baseball general counsel Thomas Ostertag. The trial could end early next week. Gordon then has 90 days to make a ruling.

Conviction Movie

2010-09-23T21:19:00.000-07:00

Conviction is an upcoming drama film directed by Tony Goldwyn. It stars Hilary Swank as Betty Anne Waters and Sam Rockwell as Kenneth. The film is scheduled to premiere September 11, 2010, at the Toronto Film Festival and to be released in U.S. theaters on October 15, 2010.

The film is based on the true story of Betty Anne Waters, an unemployed single mother who, with the help of attorney Barry Scheck from the Innocence Project, exonerated her wrongfully convicted brother. In order to do this she earned her GED, then her bachelor's, a master's in education, and eventually a law degree from Roger Williams University in Rhode Island. She accomplished this while raising two boys alone and working as a waitress part-time. While in law school she began investigating her brother's case.

Kenneth Waters, her brother, was convicted of murdering Katharina Brow in Ayer, Massachusetts, in 1983 (the murder occurred in 1980). His sister Betty Anne located biological evidence and then worked with the Innocence Project, a nonprofit organization devoted to overturning wrongful convictions, to obtain DNA testing on the evidence-- proving Waters' innocence and leading to his exoneration on June 19, 2001.[1] Betty Anne Waters now lives in New England and continues her work in freeing wrongfully convicted criminals, as well as fighting for the rights of prison inmates.

TEXAS: NO gay marriage; NO gay divorce

2010-09-02T09:09:00.000-07:00

DALLAS — Gay couples legally married in other states cannot get a divorce in Texas, where same-sex marriage is banned, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 5th Texas Court of Appeals ruled that a Dallas district court judge didn't have the authority to hear a divorce case involving two Dallas men who married in Massachusetts in 2006. Republican state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office had appealed after Judge Tena Callahan, a Democrat, said she did have jurisdiction and dismissed the state's attempt to intervene.

"Today's court of appeals decision overruled the district court's improper ruling, confirmed the constitutionality of Texas' traditional definition of marriage and correctly found that Texas courts lack the legal authority to grant divorces to same-sex couples," said Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland.

Callahan also had ruled Texas couldn't limit marriage to a man and a woman, but the appeals court said the state's same-sex marriage ban was constitutional.

"A person does not and cannot seek a divorce without simultaneously asserting the existence and validity of a lawful marriage," Justice Kerry P. Fitzgerald wrote on behalf of three Republican appeals court justices. "Texas law, as embodied in our constitution and statutes, requires that a valid marriage must be a union of one man and one woman, and only when a union comprises one man and one woman can there be a divorce under Texas law."

The appeals court ordered the case be sent back to Callahan, who must vacate her order.

The men, known only as J.B. and H.B. in court filings, separated amicably two years after getting married.

J.B.'s attorney, Peter Schulte, has said the two men had no children and weren't arguing over how to divide their property, but wanted an official divorce. Schulte said Tuesday they had not yet decided whether to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

"We obviously disagree with the justices' ruling, but we respect the process and respect the court," Schulte said.

Abbott's office had argued before the three-judge appeals court in April that the couple was not eligible for a divorce in Texas because the state didn't recognize their marriage. Jody Scheske, another lawyer for J.B., argued his client was entitled to a divorce because he had a valid marriage.

The appeals court agreed with Abbott that such unions could be dissolved by having the marriage declared void.

Among the reasons J.B. argued for a divorce rather than a voidance was that spousal support and community property laws only apply in divorce cases. The appeals court said those issues are policy arguments that must be addressed by the Legislature.

"It's deeply disappointing to see courts deny same-sex couples equal treatment under the law," said Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, which promotes equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Texas voters passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage by a 3-to-1 margin in 2005 even though state law already prohibited it. Kelly Shackelford, president of the conservative Plano-based Liberty Institute, said the Tuesday ruling "strikes down an activist judge's attempt to take the law into her own hands."

Abbott's office also appealed a gay divorce case in Austin after a judge there granted a divorce earlier this year to two women who married in Massachusetts in 2004. The Austin appeals court has not yet heard arguments in that case.

One of the women, Angelique Naylor, told The Associated Press in April, "We didn't ask for a marriage; we simply asked for the courtesy of divorce."

She referred requests for comment about Tuesday's ruling to Scheske, who also is her attorney.

E-mail us at huffpolitics@huffingtonpost.com

Kelly Chang Rickert Explains "The Jude Law"

2010-08-23T16:50:00.001-07:00

I had the privilege and pleasure of appearing on this fabulous TV show last night on Style Network.

In case you missed it - here is a piece of advice, straight from a divorce lawyer's mouth.

The Dish Presents: Surviving a Bad Romance

2010-08-20T15:07:00.000-07:00

THE DISH PRESENTS:

SURVIVING A BAD ROMANCE

Sunday 8/22/2010; 8pm PST, Style Network

(Kelly Chang Rickert appears as an expert on this show.)

Survive a cheating no good loser on 'The Dish Presents'

Know a cheater, loser, drunk, druggie, no good can't get a job to save his life piece of work?

Don't we all.

Then don’t miss the one-hour Style special “The Dish Presents: Surviving a Bad Romance,” as Host Danielle Fishel, relationship experts and comedians offer up a hilarious pop-culture guide for the do's and don'ts for surviving a bad romance!

“The Dish Presents: Surviving a Bad Romance” airs this Sunday, August 22 at 8:00pm et/pt, only on The Style Network!

It’s estimated that close to half of all guys will cheat at some point in their lives. So, what’s a girl to do when her man is caught with his pants down?

Luckily, hope is on the way, as Danielle Fishel, host of the hit series “The Dish,” introduces a group of relationship experts and comedians who will serve up hilariously helpful commentary, offer advice about how to deal with cheaters and help scorned women avoid the pitfalls while maximizing the perks of their situation.

Investigating the most shocking celebrity breakups to date, no high-profile couples will be off limits as the team scrutinizes the unfortunate events that lead to their failed romances. From scandalous extramarital affairs, to explosive admissions and the unexpected and even bizarre outcomes, women will learn from these mistakes and know what to do when faced with an unfaithful partner.

Tune in to this instructive yet sassy guide to overcoming a broken heart, on “The Dish Presents: Surviving a Bad Romance.”

What is the difference between Divorce and Legal separation?

2010-08-19T17:21:00.000-07:00

Divorce

Legal Separation

and other FAQ's

by Certified Family Law Specialist Kelly Chang Rickert

Divorce with Lawyer Kelly Chang Rickert sound bite

Open Letter from Divorce Lawyer

2010-08-17T10:55:00.000-07:00

Open Letter from Divorce Lawyer

By a renowed Maryland Lawyer Who shall remain Anonymous

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS SATIRE AND NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY...

Dear client:

I am pleased that you have hired me to represent you in your divorce. I'm pleased because I need the money you and others like you pay me. I'm tired of working with people like you who are always fighting and never happy, and often unhappy with me, but I feel trapped now and don't know how I could change my practice at this point in my career without a huge financial setback, so I hang on and do the best job I can, the best way I know, for clients like you.
If you're like most people going through divorce, you've heard a chorus of voices -- from your mother to your neighbor to the person who cuts your hair -- warning that you better get a mean "junkyard dog" lawyer. I don't like being a junkyard dog lawyer, and I don't think it would be in your best interest for me to be, but I have to give you the impression early on that I am so you will hire me. I don't like doing it, but you demand it, so I do it.

That means that when we met in our first consultation, I talked about how experienced I am. I gave you an optimistic assessment of what you would give up and what you would get working with me. If your spouse had come the same day instead of you and presented the very same facts, I would have given your spouse an equally optimistic assessment from their perspective. I learned long ago not to lose any sleep about doing this. You demand it, and I'm going to give it to you so you will hire me.

You can see what happened now, can't you? I gave you an optimistic assessment of your case from your perspective, then one of my colleagues gave your spouse an optimistic assessment of the case from your spouse's perspective. Together, we worked knowingly or unknowingly to convince both of you that the other is being unreasonable and that you each needed us to win you a better deal.

I told you in our initial consultation that you should avoid communicating directly with your spouse about anything other than parenting of your children. I did this because nothing is so important to me as client control. I want to be the gatekeeper of all communications between you and your spouse, so I can decide how much information to provide to you and what "spin" to put on it. This will make you and your spouse more suspicious of each other, and it will make you more dependent on me. I like that, at least in the early stages of divorce negotiations.
I required you to pay a large retainer when you hired me. I told you that I have a fixed retainer for all divorce clients, or I may have told you that I set your retainer after carefully considering the complexity of your case, the time I expect to put in, and the risk that my estimates might be too low. In reality, though, my technique for setting your retainer was far simpler: I charged the highest retainer I thought I could get. The reason I did this is that the retainer is often the only money I ever see for representing someone in a divorce case. I may try to bill you and get paid later, but many of my clients don't pay me anything after the initial retainer, even though they owe me a great deal of money, and I hesitate to sue them for fear they will counterclaim for malpractice and drive up my insurance premiums. The fact that I have so much trouble getting clients like you to pay me what they owe me is another reason my work is so unpleasant for me.
I also will work to appear successful. I may drive a luxury car and maintain a sumptuous office, because I want you and my colleagues -- especially my colleagues -- to believe that I am earning lots of money. In one sense, I am earning lots of money. I charge a high hourly rate, and I have a great deal of business, so I have high billings. I also have a high overhead, however, and I have trouble getting paid. In reality, I have financial struggles just like you do.

There's more than a 93% chance that your case will settle before trial. Nevertheless, I will prepare your case as if you were going to trial. This will be wasteful and expensive. I will conduct lengthy discovery, including interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, and depositions, charging you a great deal of money to prepare documents that I simply have printed from my word processor with minor changes.

I will do this not because it's in your best interest but because I'm afraid of being embarrassed in front of other lawyers and judges and because I'm afraid you will sue me. The result is that you and/or your spouse will spend a great deal of money preparing for a trial we know will almost certainly not occur. I've heard that much of this could be avoided by simply exchanging documents and affidavits, but that's not what I'm used to doing. If there's a better way, I don't know it, and even if I knew it, I probably wouldn't do it. The way I practice law is what I know and understand, and it's safe for me.

I live my professional life in and around the courthouse. I gauge my schedule and my priorities to make sure cases that have an imminent court date are ready to present. This means that if your case doesn't have an imminent court date, it will be hard to get me to focus much attention on it. Your case will move much more slowly than you would like.

When we are at the courthouse, there will be huge blocks of time when I will leave you alone while I negotiate or just swap stories with your spouse's lawyer. Every now and then, I'll report back to you on progress and tell you how negotiations are going. You probably will find it jarring that I'm so friendly with your spouse's lawyer. Remember, you and I have a temporary relationship.Your spouse's lawyer and I have seen each other several times a week for years, and our relationship will continue long after you're gone from my life. It's not surprising, then, that I'm more attentive to that relationship than I am to the one with you.

Early on in our relationship, you are in emotional distress, you believe that no one in the world has ever faced the problems you are facing, and you view me as a savior who can protect you from all the cruel insults you are facing. Over time, however, you will begin to stabilize emotionally, you will begin to view me and my services more realistically, and you will begin to realize just how expensive all this is becoming. You may begin to resent me, and you may place a lower priority on paying my fee. You will also begin to hold me accountable for producing results that I know are unrealistic.

Although at the outset I stated an optimistic assessment of your case, over the term of our relationship I will become increasingly pessimistic with you about your chances. I will do this because, by then, I will become tired of you and tired of your case. I will want you to become more flexible in negotiations so I can reach an agreement with your spouse and your spouse's lawyer. By then, I will have spent enough time on your case to justify keeping all the retainer, and I will be afraid that I may never see any more money, so I will press you to reach agreement with your spouse.

Also, as our relationship continues, I will be increasingly harder to reach. I may fail to return your phone calls, or I may call you back but be evasive about giving you useful information, always seeming in a hurry. I will do this perhaps without even realizing I'm doing so, primarily because it will be unpleasant for me to deal with you when you become increasingly unhappy.
Often an agreement will happen because you and your spouse meet over the kitchen table or on the phone and work it out, then communicate it to your respective lawyers. This agreement may be remarkably similar to what the two of you could have agreed had you been willing to cooperate with each other at the beginning through mediation or negotiations, but you won't think about that by then, because to do so would be to admit to yourself that you've wasted several thousand dollars on legal fees. Even though I told you at the outset not to talk to your spouse, I will by then be secretly glad that you did and will work to help your agreement succeed (if I can avoid spending much time on it). Remember, by then, I will want out.
I have learned that most of my business comes by referral from other professionals, so it's more important to me that referral sources feel good about me than that clients feel good about me. I devote lots of attention to my relationships with judges, other lawyers, and other professionals. On the other hand, I have over the years become quite comfortable with unhappy clients, even clients who complain about me to the bar association. This bothered me in my early years of practice, but I've become jaded to it now. The bar association knows as I do that clients of divorce lawyers are often unhappy. I know the bar association is accustomed to receiving these complaints and taking them with several grains of salt, so it doesn't worry me much that you might complain about me.

I like you, and I'm a caring professional who wants to do a good job for you. I've learned not to trust you, though. I wish I could trust you, but I've been burned too many times by clients like you. I'm going to keep my guard up. Now that you know the way this works, let's get started.

Sincerely yours,

Your Divorce Lawyer

Open Letter from Former Divorce Lawyer

2010-08-17T10:51:00.000-07:00

Open Letter from a Divorce Lawyer - Alternate

By John Ballew. Mark my words. Here is a lawyer who cares deeply about his clients and his profession. I can't find a web site for him, but you can reach is firm at 402-436-3030, and his e-mail is jwb@bcslawfirm.com.

Some days I feel like sending this letter....

Dear Client:

Now that your divorce has been granted, I wanted to share some observations about the process, our working relationship and the results obtained in light of your expectations and recent complaints:

1 . Our Expectations of You As A Client: When you first came in our office, you certainly presented well and acknowledged your role in causing this divorce. Once we agreed to represent you and you signed the engagement letter, we gave you some information regarding our expectations of you as a client. In short, you were expected to be truthful, prompt in getting us information we requested and it was suggested that you obtain counseling from a qualified and competent psychotherapist because the difficulties you were having with the emotional impact of the divorce. We also asked that you not involve the children in the process and that you not seek and rely upon advice (as opposed to emotional support) of your friends, family members and co‑workers. Unfortunately, you failed to abide by almost all of our suggestions which is one of the many reasons why this case took so long to resolve, why part of the case ultimately needed to be tried and why your fees were much more significant than they ordinarily should have been had you been emotionally stable, cooperative and truthful with us.

2. The Results: Early in the case, we explained the law regarding various aspects of the divorce and we repeatedly discussed the pros and cons of the proposed settlement offered by your spouse given the uncertainties of how our judge would rule on issues of tracing of inherited and gifted property, the date used for valuation of the marital estate, the valuation of your spouse's closely held business, the dissipation of assets leading up to the divorce, alimony and deviation from the child support guidelines. While we were able to settle most of these issues, your insistence that you receive what we told you was an excessive settlement ultimately lead to a trial on certain issues. The fact that the results could potentially be less than what we could have achieved in the way of a settlement was discussed prior to preparing for and appearing at trial.

3. Your Bill: At the outset, we explained to you that the charges you were expected to pay for with our firm would vary greatly, depending upon several factors beyond our control. The complexity of the issues, the attitude of your spouse, the identity of and cooperation received from your spouse's attorney and the judge assigned to the case all make a difference in fees. As you know, we ultimately prepared for trial because the case was not settled and our preparation in advance of the trial date allowed us to negotiate a settlement that was much more favorable on the issues resolved because the other side was not prepared. Our retention of a CPA for advice on tax and valuation aspects also helped us devise a settlement on certain issues that the other side failed to even consider. This process was made more difficult by your spouse's failure to comply with informal discovery requests and, ultimately, formal discovery requests which led to the issuance of an order compelling discovery and the issuance of sanctions against your spouse and your spouse's attorney. All of this takes more time and consequently resulted in higher fees. Despite the fact that we are not a bank and do not "finance" legal matters, as a courtesy to you, we carried your unpaid balance and incurred significant additional charges without being paid until after you received your settlement in the case.

4. Your Behavior: As you know, when we first met, I explained to you the procedures utilized by this office to handle these cases and my reliance on paralegals to keep your costs down and efficiently process information and prepare much of the standardized court filings. However, I also explained to you that the paralegals cannot give legal advice and those types of questions need to be directed to me. Unfortunately, you chose throughout the case to call and seek legal advice from the paralegals (probably in a misguided attempt to save money), became abusive with our office staff on numerous occasions, called me at home on weekends (4 times on one particular Saturday) and evenings over matters ranging from the removal of a lawn mower from the garage to your spouse's choice of movies for the children and made/sent abusive phone calls/e‑mails to your spouse. You also (against our advice) became romantically involved with someone shortly after the case was filed which further angered your spouse and hindered settlement negotiations.

5. Complaint To Bar Association: The recent complaint that you filed with our Bar Association has been received and reviewed by me and a response was sent to the Counsel for Discipline. Although some of my clients are occasionally unhappy, most are gratified by the effort this office puts forth on their behalf. We frequently receive thank you notes and gifts from clients who come to realize that our assistance and dedication was invaluable to them during one of the most difficult and trying times of their lives. While my letter to Counsel for Discipline addresses most of the complaints you had, I note that in ‑your letter to the Bar Association you failed to note a couple of details that do not necessarily pertain to my ethics as a lawyer but do perhaps shed some light on your behavior:

a. Your complaint failed to advise the Bar Association that you threatened to file a complaint against me unless I reduced your bill;

b. Your complaint failed to mention that, following entry of the divorce decree you cleaned out the safety deposit box, vandalized the home and refused to turn over or destroyed personal property, all of which was done without informing me as your lawyer which has now resulted in contempt of court proceedings being instituted against you;

c. On several occasions while in public, you approached me and made overt comments of a sexual nature and at the same time requested that we meet for drinks, which I refused;

d. Without notifying me, you obtained a Protection Order against your spouse after the decree was entered based upon perjured testimony under oath and after dismissing the initial Protection Order as part of our settlement agreement.

There are fewer and fewer lawyers choosing to practice in the domestic relations area because of the demands placed upon them and their staff by clients, the significant exposure to malpractice they have because of the complexity and number of issues which are required to be dealt with in most cases and because many clients like you do not appreciate the effort expended on their behalf in trying to deal with their problems, many of which are created by the client themselves.
Our office wishes you the best of luck in obtaining new counsel in dealing with what will undoubtedly be years of additional bickering with your ex spouse.

Our advice to you: Spend the money.

Get some help.

Sincerely,

Your Former Divorce Lawyer

Sperm Donation and Law

2010-08-16T23:21:00.000-07:00

WHAT IS THE LAW REGARDING SPERM DONORS AND PATERNITY RIGHTS/CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS?

So, I keep seeing ads for Jennifer Aniston's new film, The Switch. In the age of independent women, single moms, and vanishing importance of men, what is the law regarding sperm donation???

Short answer: sperm donors (known or unknown) have no paternity rights or obligations IF the sperm donation is done CORRECTLY, through licensed physician or licensed spem bank.

The relevant law is CA Family Code 7613:

(a) If, under the supervision of a licensed physician and
surgeon and with the consent of her husband, a wife is inseminated
artificially with semen donated by a man not her husband, the husband
is treated in law as if he were the natural father of a child
thereby conceived. The husband's consent must be in writing and
signed by him and his wife. The physician and surgeon shall certify
their signatures and the date of the insemination, and retain the
husband's consent as part of the medical record, where it shall be
kept confidential and in a sealed file. However, the physician and
surgeon's failure to do so does not affect the father and child
relationship. All papers and records pertaining to the insemination,
whether part of the permanent record of a court or of a file held by
the supervising physician and surgeon or elsewhere, are subject to
inspection only upon an order of the court for good cause shown.

(b) The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician and
surgeon or to a licensed sperm bank for use in artificial
insemination or in vitro fertilization of a woman other than the
donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the natural father
of a child thereby conceived.

So...what if the parties had a previous intimate relationship which did not lead to conception - but the sperm donation did?

Case on point:
STEVEN S., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEBORAH D., Defendant and Appellant.

COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR

There, Steven and Deborah had agreement that Steven would be sperm donor. Deborah was artificially inseminated by Steven's semen, and got pregnant. However, the pregnancy was not to term. Later, Steven and Deborah had sexual relationship, but Deborah never got pregnant. They broke up. After they broke up, Deborah used Steven's sperm again, and this time, got pregnant and had baby.

Trial Court held that 7613 does not apply, and accorded paternity rights to Steven.

Appeal Court disagreed, and held for Deborah - NO paternity rights for Steven. Appeal Court reaffirmed the Legislative intent of FC 7613 - which is protection of the right of women to bear children through sperm donors without fear of paternity claims, and also to protect sperm donors from child support obligations.