Friday, June 26, 2009
Divorce, Tabloid News, and the First Amendment
The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that once someone with a "celebrity divorce" signs an agreement that gives away the right to blab about the divorce to the media, in exchange for money from her ex, that agreement will be enforced, and isn't an improper violation of the would-be-blabber's First Amendment rights.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A Cup of Coffee on the Way, Part 3: Pre-Marital Agreements: Romance-Killer or Marriage Insurance?
Back in February, I started down a path of discussing what we, as a society and as a state, intended when we set up our "family law" and rules, and how, and whether, that should change. I've been contemplating those issues since then and talking to lots of people, about 'em.
One of the issues which has nagged at me is the relative ease with which we as a society let (some) folks undertake the "off-the-shelf" marriage contract, but for various reasons, make them jump through complicated hoops if they want to fine-tune and customize that contract (which is what a pre-marital agreement really does) , and refuse to let some other couples (that'd be the same-sex couples) enter into that contract at all.
Pre-marital agreements have finally made their way into popular song*, but they're still regarded by much of the public as something that only the celebrity rich need or want, and as a "romance killer" no matter who's considering them.
My view** is that they're exactly the opposite; they're a form or marriage insurance. I believe that the discussions which fiances have with each other in regard to the terms of a pre-marital agreement are the conversations which they should be having already if they're getting married. I'll offer the anecdotal observation, based on 30 years of family law practice, that the biggest cause of divorce isn't specifically sex, or money, or power, or boredom, it's that moment when one spouse says "This isn't the deal I thought I'd made when I signed up."
. . . and in other news, in at least one state, you can still get a jury verdict for "alienation of affection" (someone stealing your spouse) by someone who's engaged in "criminal conversation" (adultery).
*"If you aint no punk, holla 'We Want Prenup! WE WANT PRENUP!" Kanye West: "Gold-Digger"
** about which I rant and rave all the darn time
One of the issues which has nagged at me is the relative ease with which we as a society let (some) folks undertake the "off-the-shelf" marriage contract, but for various reasons, make them jump through complicated hoops if they want to fine-tune and customize that contract (which is what a pre-marital agreement really does) , and refuse to let some other couples (that'd be the same-sex couples) enter into that contract at all.
Pre-marital agreements have finally made their way into popular song*, but they're still regarded by much of the public as something that only the celebrity rich need or want, and as a "romance killer" no matter who's considering them.
My view** is that they're exactly the opposite; they're a form or marriage insurance. I believe that the discussions which fiances have with each other in regard to the terms of a pre-marital agreement are the conversations which they should be having already if they're getting married. I'll offer the anecdotal observation, based on 30 years of family law practice, that the biggest cause of divorce isn't specifically sex, or money, or power, or boredom, it's that moment when one spouse says "This isn't the deal I thought I'd made when I signed up."
. . . and in other news, in at least one state, you can still get a jury verdict for "alienation of affection" (someone stealing your spouse) by someone who's engaged in "criminal conversation" (adultery).
*"If you aint no punk, holla 'We Want Prenup! WE WANT PRENUP!" Kanye West: "Gold-Digger"
** about which I rant and rave all the darn time
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
For Those Who Thought I was just Goofing Off In New Orleans
AFCC Annual Meeting, New Orleans Saturday, May 30, 2009, 9:15 am (now available for download) "You Signed WHAT?" Mental health professionals have an ethical obligation to provide an “informed consent” process to the families they serve and attorneys are obligated to advise parents and protect their rights. This includes reviewing consent forms presented bymental health professionals. This interactive workshop will identify problematic provisions in consent forms encountered in practice and present essential elements of any informed consent process. Risk management strategies for both attorneys and mental health professionals will be discussed. |
|
|
|
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Now They're Chopping Down The Totem Pole We're the Low Guy On...
In the wake of the vote-down of the Governor's various last-ditch "budget-rescue" bills, the Los Angeles Superior Court has announced that they will be closing all courtrooms one Wednesday per month, commencing in July, and continuing for the next fiscal year.
This is, in a word, not likely to improve the functioning of the family court system, and not likely to make it more responsive to the needs of the public.
As I've noted in these pages earlier, the system is already working short-handed and short-budgeted.
This change will mean that family law court calendars will be, on average, five percent longer, or one or two extra cases, per day, per judge. That may not seem like much, until you consider that family law judges are often already hearing fifteen to twenty cases per day. Assuming a judge is on the bench hearing testimony, or calling calendar, six hours per day (the rest of the time is to READ the reams of stuff) that's a total of 24 minutes per hearing per case. . . . whether or not anyone involved in the matter speaks English, or has brought along a real interpreter. . . . . .and whether or not anyone can coherently explain why they're in court, or what they want the court to do about it...
It means that the time before someone can get into court to address what they, at least, regard as important issues (where their kids stay, with whom; who pays to feed the kids; who stays in the house, when there's been domestic violence etc.) will be on average, five percent longer (custody hearings are already being set two months plus from the date of filing, with support hearings often following along with that delay).
It means, unfortunately, that the job of being a family law judicial officer, already generally recognized as a high-burnout judicial assignment, will be regarded as even less of a "plum", and even more of a "lemon".
This is, in a word, not likely to improve the functioning of the family court system, and not likely to make it more responsive to the needs of the public.
As I've noted in these pages earlier, the system is already working short-handed and short-budgeted.
This change will mean that family law court calendars will be, on average, five percent longer, or one or two extra cases, per day, per judge. That may not seem like much, until you consider that family law judges are often already hearing fifteen to twenty cases per day. Assuming a judge is on the bench hearing testimony, or calling calendar, six hours per day (the rest of the time is to READ the reams of stuff) that's a total of 24 minutes per hearing per case. . . . whether or not anyone involved in the matter speaks English, or has brought along a real interpreter. . . . . .and whether or not anyone can coherently explain why they're in court, or what they want the court to do about it...
It means that the time before someone can get into court to address what they, at least, regard as important issues (where their kids stay, with whom; who pays to feed the kids; who stays in the house, when there's been domestic violence etc.) will be on average, five percent longer (custody hearings are already being set two months plus from the date of filing, with support hearings often following along with that delay).
It means, unfortunately, that the job of being a family law judicial officer, already generally recognized as a high-burnout judicial assignment, will be regarded as even less of a "plum", and even more of a "lemon".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)