My girlfriend and I are celebrating our fifteenth unmarried anniversary in the coming days. While the idea of marriage has never appealed to either of us, I have always viewed contract marriage–and by contract I mean an explicit contract rather than the rudimentary implicit social contract–as slightly better than the traditional alternative. Still, the concept of contract marriage (like the prenup) has the downside of being a bit too much like a business arrangement for my liking.

I have often wondered if, were courts to fully embrace contract marriage, they might also recognize a status short of it: something akin to a relationship contract. That’s the issue facing an Illinois court right now Continue Reading »

One Westport split cost the divorcing couple an estimated $13 million. It differed in degree, but not really in kind, from many lesser domestic catastrophes: “Divorcing couples in Connecticut regularly rack up bank-busting legal bills that can put the lesser earning party — and there often is an economic imbalance between warring couples — into bankruptcy. … the most expensive and sought-after divorce attorneys are commonly referred to as ‘junkyard dogs.’” Then there are the hefty sums you may be forced to hand over to lawyers who get themselves appointed guardians ad litem, to represent your kids against, well, you and your ex (Daniel D’Ambrosio, Hartford Advocate, Jul. 24).

The old joke is that chutzpah is defined as the case of the orphan who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.

A pair of Philadelphia parents, however, may redefine the idea for all time.  Danieal Kelly, who suffered from crippling cerebral palsy, was 14 when she starved to death in a West Philadelphia rowhouse, covered in bedsores, weighing just 42 pounds.  Her mother, “Andrea Kelly was charged with murder on July 31. Daniel Kelly, who authorities say abandoned his daughter despite knowledge of her mother’s neglect, was charged with endangering the welfare of a child.” (Three friends of the mother were charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury; four social workers were also charged with felony endangerment, which will no doubt screw up incentives further for over-reacting child protective services everywhere.)

The parents responded as any parents would, and sued the city, the state, city and state agencies, and four social workers, blaming them for Kelly’s death, and seeking damages for “love, tutelage, companionship, support, comfort and consortium” as well as the “economic value of her life expectancy”–which couldn’t possibly be anything other than the taxpayer-funded disability benefits.  Public outrage has caused the lawyers, Brian Mildenberg and Eric Zajac, to substitute other parties as plaintiffs so that there is no direct hint of Daniel and Andrea Kelly profiting, but the underlying appallingness of the suit remains.  (Julie Shaw & Catherine Lucey, “Lawsuit by Danieal’s parents called ‘disgusting’”, Phil. Inquirer, Aug. 13; Nancy Phillips and Kia Gregory, “Danieal Kelly’s parents sue the city”, Phil. Inquirer, Aug. 13; John Sullivan and Craig R. McCoy, “Nine indicted in fatal neglect of girl”, Phil. Inquirer, Aug. 1; ongoing Inquirer coverage).

Wayne Gibbs and RoseMary Shell were engaged to be married.  Gibbs gave Shell an expensive engagement ring, and $30,000 to pay off her debts, but discovered that her financial situation was considerably more precarious, and broke off the engagement.  (Shell also alleges that Gibbs was cheating on her.)  Shell sued, and a jury awarded $150,000. (”Hall Co. jury awards jilted bride $150,000″, WDUN, Jul. 23; ABC News, Jul. 23).

Of course, if the two married, and Gibbs filed for a no-fault divorce a couple of days later, Shell would have no cause of action.  One of many reasons that breach of promise to marry suits are especially absurd in twenty-first century America.

I have no idea if the allegations that former presidential candidate John Edwards has a love-child with Rielle Hunter are true–though his actions seem pretty damning.

But let me be the first to point out that, if the allegations are true, Elizabeth Edwards can take advantage of North Carolina’s unusual tort law to sue Hunter for alienation of affection. When we last looked at the state of affairs in North Carolina in 2006, there were 200 such suits a year, with some verdicts in the six and seven digits. Of course, Mrs. Edwards would need a trial lawyer willing to take on her husband first.

Efforts to abolish the tort in the state have not been successful, though it is worth noting the fact that several dozen states have abolished heartbalm statutes without anyone suggesting that this tort reform is constitutionally problematic.

Update: Edwards persuades me that the story might be true when he gives a lawyerly non-denial denial filled with negative pregnants: “That’s tabloid trash. They’re full of lies. I’m here to talk about helping people.”  Someone needs to ask a more targeted question of a purported candidate for vice president or attorney general.

So rules an appellate court in what Eugene Volokh calls “a sharp and detailed rebuke of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services” (@ VC; Ambrogi, Bader).

Airline mechanic Arnim Ramdass, 52, allegedly “disconnected the phone line at home and forbade his stay-at-home wife, Donna Campbell, 48, to watch television, Campbell claims in a lawsuit. Eventually, however, she learned the truth: Ramdass, along with 16 other mechanics at Miami International Airport, had won a $19 million lottery jackpot.” (Martha Neil, “Wife Sues Husband for Share of Secret $600K Lottery Win”, ABA Journal, May 13). See Nov. 20-21, 1999 (similar case from California).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On a similar point: see Illinois Alliance for Parents & Children, whose website isn’t quite finished.

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