Believe Half of What You See*: The "Skier's Fetus Custody Case", And Other Internet Rumors

To say that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act   (UCCJEA) isn't usually the stuff of the internet tabloids, and the "entertainment news" shows and sites is an understatement.   So when it does make an appearance,  it's frankly not horribly surprising when the tabloids, reputable online news outlets, and even the "Grey Lady" of American news media, don't get the details exactly right.

The short version of the story (and I haven't read the full trial court record either in New York or in California) seems to be that in May, a New York judicial officer made an odd, and fairly clearly wrong-headed decision on the issue of custody jurisdiction, kicking the case back to California.  A judge in California, faced with an apparent "we don't want it!" from the New York court, then decided to act, since, at that point, no other court was willing to do so.  Several months later, the appellate court in New York, in what is characterized as a "scathing" opinion, reversed the New York trial court's mistake.

Is any of this really news?   Judges (and other judicial officers) sometimes make wrong decisions.  Sometimes, they even make stupidly wrong decisions.  That's what the appellate process is about.






*"People say believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear."   Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong:   Heard It Through the Grapevine

4000 Answers

I just answered my four thousandth question on Avvo.  Think I'll rest.

SAME-SEX UNIONS: THE STATE IN THE STATES

    A decade ago, my (law) partner* and I worked on writing same-sex “union” contracts from scratch.**   There’s been a sea-change since then, but the wave is still rolling in, and exactly where it is on a given day, and what we’re advising our clients on a given day, is still very fluid.

IN CALIFORNIA

    In 2004, California adopted “new” Registered Domestic Partnerships (NDP’s).  California NDP’s were thereafter to be treated as having the same legal rights and responsibilities as spouses under California law.  

    This was, however, the era of state and Federal “Defense Of Marriage” Acts.   Under Federal law, and under the law of (then most other) states, NDP’s were not recognized as “spouses” for any purpose, notwithstanding whatever California law had to say about the subject.  By a rough count at that time, Federal laws and regulations referred to “spouses” in a couple of thousand places. This meant, among other things, that California NDP’s had no spousal federal tax rights or benefits, had no spousal rights in connection with any employee benefit plan covered by ERISA, could not file a joint bankruptcy, had no spousal or family rights in regard to immigration, and that none of the spousal rights California conferred were necessarily “portable” to any other state. 

    Following years of court battles, California now permits same-sex couples to marry, i.e., they’re “spouses” not just in effect, but by actual label.  The NDP framework however, still remains available and in place.

IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY: LABELS STILL MATTER

   
    Federal law and Federal practice, in regard to same-sex partnerships, is slowly changing.  Since Congress has not yet acted to make wholesale changes in Federal law, or to explicitly repeal all parts of the Federal DOMA, these changes are still being made on a department-by department basis.  As noted elsewhere on the blog, both the Treasury Department (IRS) and the Labor Department (ERISA) have now stated that they will recognize any couple designated as “spouses” by the law of a state to be “spouses” for purposes of their Federal regulations.      To date, they have indicated that couples labeled as something other than “spouses” by the law of the state or country where they “contracted the relationship” will not be treated as spouses.

    Exactly how and when remaining Federal laws, regulations, and practice will change remains unclear; equally unclear is whether any of the changes will be given any retroactive effect.

    It also seems likely, after the Supreme Court next addressees the issue that states will no longer be able to decline to recognize “marriages” contracted between same-sex couples from other states.  This result too will probably not carry over to “civil unions”, “domestic partnerships” etc., since those states don’t recognize such status for their own citizens.

    So, for the moment, “labels still matter”.

*Not my law partner any more, but still my wife, now a judge...
**or from duct tape and general contract law.  See Gould-Saltman, D. J., and Gould-Saltman, R.F. (2002) "Gay and Lesbian Marriage and Its Alternatives"  2002 Family Law Update, Brown, R. and Morgan, L. eds,  Aspen Law & Business.

When Should the U.S. Return A Child to a Country In Which Sharia Law Might Be Applied?

The Federal Court of Appeals for New York weighs in on whether a U.S. court must order a child returned to a "country of habitual residence" when that country is a signer, with the U.S. of the Hague Convention on child abduction, but which might possibly apply Sharia law to the adjudication of the custody dispute. Thanks and the usual hat tip to Prof.Volokh.

Surprisingly, Los Angeles is NOT the Divorce Capital!

In fact, California's not really in the running. Looks like Indiana and Florida are the big contenders.

Divorce Across The Border, or Madness Across The Water

As the world economy (or the world's economies) slumps*, different aspects of law come into sharp focus, while others, momentarily, lose relevance making them worthy of attention. I'm now far more interested than I've been in a couple of decades, in the possible remedies my clients' refinance mortgage-holders may have when the mortgage doesn't get paid**. The formulas by which the parties get to divide up the appreciation on a parcel of real estate, on the other hand, seem at least for the moment like debating the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

As money and employment shift around, so do the people holding them; again, where people have gone, from economic necessity, is affecting whose law governs what happens when someone feels the marriage is over and files something. At all levels, from the user of "free-divorce-advice-on-the-internet" , to the "multinational couple," I'm answering more "I'm here, she's there; can I file here, and what happens if she files first, there?" questions than I've seen in a long time.

These are thorny questions at best, and often the best answer is no more than "It depends, and my best educated guess is..."

* "dives"? "tanks"? "enters a flaming death-spiral"?
** because only one party's living in, and paying for, the house where "wedded bliss used to dwell".