Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
A New Jersey couple who never married fought for three years over custody of Dexter the pug. Now they can look forward to having not only the canine in question, but also lawyers, in both of their lives for the indefinite future. [Gloucester County Times, Philadelphia Inquirer]
{ 3 comments }
“Smokers banned by Welsh council from adopting or fostering children“. At some cost, it should be noted: “critics have pointed out there are already not enough foster parents in Wales”.
A century-old New Jersey law bans parents’ habitual use of profane or indecent language around kids [Eugene Volokh and followup]
{ 2 comments }
{ 3 comments }
“Brother sues brother over Packers tickets” [Green Bay, Wisc. Press-Gazette via Obscure Store]
Family disputes between a wife and the mistress over a will are probably one of the few times when the “not about the money” saying really is true. But after a two-week trial and two trips to the Georgia Supreme Court, it’s hard to imagine that attorneys aren’t going to get the majority of the $6 million at stake in the five-year battle over Harvey Strother’s will. A penalty clause calling for the disinheritance of anyone who challenged the will appears to have been successfully challenged by the wife’s family. (AP/Washington Post, Apr. 13; Talia Mollett, “Millionaire’s will trial begins today”, Marietta Daily Journal, Jul. 15; Tom Opdyke, “Life’s final chapter to play out in court”, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jul. 13; Melican v. Parker, 283 Ga. 253 (2008)).
{ 1 comment }
“The [New Jersey appellate] panel declined to adopt a best-interests-of-the-pet standard as urged by amici in the case.” Judge Jane Grall wrote that in the absence of legally cognizable abuse or neglect to an animal, there might not be “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving questions of possession from the perspective of a pet”. [New Jersey Law Journal]
{ 1 comment }
The Times (U.K.) is running a big campaign on abuses of the family court and social services system and unjustified removal of kids from their families.
And the husband is going to hold her to the letter of that, even though Patricia Craissati’s “cohabitation” is with a cellmate at the prison where she’s serving time for a DUI accident. A dissenting judge called it an “absurd result”. (Susan Spencer-Wendel, “Ex-wife’s alimony cut off because she has cellmate”, Palm Beach Post, Dec. 10).
{ 2 comments }
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 [click to continue…]
{ 4 comments }
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).
{ 1 comment }
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).
{ 8 comments }
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.
{ 5 comments }
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.
{ 31 comments }
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).
{ 4 comments }
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.
{ 9 comments }
Point of Law Volokh