Charlie Sheen Pays $110,000 a Month in Child Support

American actor Charlie Sheen is a very wealthy man. Rumour has it that before he was fired (or did he quit?) from Two and a Half Men, the popular CBS sitcom, he earned $1.8 million dollars per episode.

Nice work if you can get it.

Not a stranger to the justice system, Charlie has had his share of legal encounters including court appearances for drug offences, criminal mischief, multiple divorces, and spousal assault.

This week however, he was in court supporting a temporary custody order in favour of ex-wife #2, Denise Richards, who as a result of ex-wife #3, Brooke Mueller’s substance abuse problem, is now caring for Sheen and Mueller’s four-year-old twins while Mueller dries out at the Betty Ford Clinic in Palm Springs.

Sheen’s counsel argued that Ms. Mueller’s application to have the twins cared for by her brother while she is in rehab, rather than Ms. Richards, is a crass ploy to continue to receive $55,000 a month in child support, money he says she needs to support herself.

Reportedly, Ms. Mueller’s counsel’s rebuttal is that Denise Richards wants the extra $55,000 to add to the $55,000 she receives from Charlie Sheen for their two children.

Nonsense says Sheen, who confirmed that Ms. Richards has not requested a penny to step in to assist with the twins.

Apparently Mr. Sheen’s position prevailed, as the Court confirmed the young boys will remain with Denise Richards.

Sheen released a statement shortly after his children were taken from Mueller’s home.

“Charlie supports the actions of the Department of Children and Family Services,” a representative for the Sheen told the News. “He knows Max and Bob are safe and in a stable, loving environment with Denise and the boys’ sisters. Charlie will fully cooperate and fully participate in all proceedings.”

A complicated family, no doubt, but tell me…How does one spend $55,000 a month on two four-year-olds?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Frisbee/Hula Hoop Heiress Appeals Court Order to Pay Her Ex-Husband More Money

When Americans Elena and Peter Marano separated in 2007 after twenty years of marriage they each received one-half of their net worth of $20 million dollars. End of story, right? Not so fast.

Between 2007 and 2010 Mr. Marano’s interest in certain real estate investments in London England, where they had lived for most of their marriage, plunged from a value of $88 million dollars to a net loss of $10 million, an astonishing decrease, all on account of the world-wide economic disaster of 2008 and 2009.

As a result of Mr. Marano’s stupefying losses, his ex-wife was ordered to pay him an additional $5 million dollars from her share of the family pot. Needless to say, she took great objection to this outcome and launched an appeal of the order to pay.

Two year prior to their separation, Ms. Marano’s father, American entrepreneur John Bowes died leaving a substantial estate. He was the creator of both the hula hoop and the frisbee, which he sold to toy company Mattel in 1994 for $250 million. However, even before his passing, Ms. Marano was the beneficiary of a significant trust fund set up by him.

Ms. Marano argued that it was “monstrously unfair” that she should be compelled to pay her ex for his business losses, suggesting that if the market recovered he would reap the original value of the assets, but she would not. Her counsel suggested a more reasonable approach would be to sit on the assets for a further five years, then sell them and order the parties to share equally in any profit or loss.

After all she argued, if the real estate investments had increased in value from the date of separation to the date the assets were divided, she would not likely have shared in their uptick in value.

She also argued that she had new evidence that would prove the investments had already increased from $10 million in the red to between $4 million and $15 million in the last two years.

Unfortunately for her, the Appeal Court refused to admit her new evidence of value and dismissed her appeal of the order.

Not unlike other vastly wealthy couples, the court learned that the Maranos’ spent over $1 million dollars each on legal fees. It seems to be the thing to do these days: Marry, become obscenely rich and then spend a couple of million dollars fighting over your millions.

There is something wrong with this picture…

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Guest Post: How to Find Your Perfect Divorce Lawyer

Let’s face it, most of us who commit ourselves into the bond of marriage are reluctant to think about it one day crumbling into a messy divorce, but the truth is, with today’s increasing divorce numbers, the reality is downright dismal ( in the US around 50% of all first marriages end in divorce, about 67% for second marriages and the numbers quickly rise with the number of additional marriages).

So what does this mean in terms of finding an attorney if you are among that fifty percent wanting to dissolve you marriage? Plenty!

Here are a few tips to heed if you find yourself needing someone to help you wade through the murky and unfamiliar waters of divorce.

• Before you file: Really consider the ramifications of filing for divorce. Have you exhausted every avenue before taking the steps for your divorce? Counseling and separation can be important steps to take before you make the final move.

Be very careful about moving about before the divorce, this could potentially be used against you, especially in the case of determining custody for minor children. Run a credit check for yourself, if possible get your finances in the best shape that you can. Divorce is extremely expensive and no matter the verdict, both parties will lose when it comes to finances.

Are you the non-breadwinner? You will need to take care of your personal finances as well as your healthcare, housing, cars and personal effects. A good attorney will inform you of what you should do long before you sign anything. Above all, if you can avoid divorce, then do so. Except in the cases of abuse or criminal behaviors on the part of your spouse, you should give your marriage every effort. Divorce should always be a last resort.

• Arbitration and Mediation versus litigation: The dissolution of a marriage cannot be on the same footing as breaking a business contract, though similar as seen through the eyes of the law, no one can put a price on the cost of someone’s betrayal or the lives of children of divorced parents who will forever grieve the loss of a family unit.

But there are ways to lessen the emotional trauma often association with divorce. If at all possible going through mediation services versus outright litigation will help not only with the overall costs, but will help families make choices over issues that can become quickly contentious if presided over by a non-family member or law enforcement.

Talk with your attorney; chances are if they have experience with family law and especially mediation expertise, this would make a better fit than someone hell-bent on taking on your spouse for every nickel and dime. Consider arbitration as an alternative to a lengthy, drawn-out court battle.

• Your attorney’s personal history: Find out about your attorney. Are they married? Or have they also been through a divorce, child custody battles with their own children or were they able to use their legal acumen to help minimize the trauma inflicted on all parties involved.

Sit down and talk with them about your personal feelings in regards to your spouse’s role, your custody concerns and your future. Do they really seem to be listening, adding thoughtful comments to your concerns or do you feel even more ambivalent after you leave their office?

Other than the death of a family member, going through a divorce is right there when it comes to life-altering experiences and more than ever, you will need someone who you feel confident in, someone who will stand up and defend you and fight for all rights.

A good family law lawyer will explain your rights and what you can expect with a divorce, they will not try to sugarcoat the truth about how difficult the situations will be, they will in all likelihood try to talk you out of a divorce, but if you are both in agreement about pursuing a divorce, they will be with you every step of the way.

GUEST AUTHOR NOAH KOVACS has over ten years experience in the legal field. He has since retired early and enjoys blogging about small business law, at Noah Kovacs and everything in between. He recently purchased his first cabin and spends his free time remodeling its kitchen for his family. Twitter: @NoahKovacs.

Divorce Becomes “Forensic Point Scoring”

Americans Mark and Jenifer Evans started their marriage with nothing, but after 25 years were worth millions of dollars as a result of their successful internet technology company. They lived primarily in the United Kingdom, but had homes in the United States and in the Turks and Caicos.

When Ms. Evans learned her husband was having an affair the marriage ended in trauma, but the drama had just begun.

In a three-year court battle, referred to by the judge as a “forensic point scoring”, the Evans’ ran up legal bills of over $3 million dollars in their collective efforts to make the other spouse pay…I mean really pay!

Lord Justice Thorpe divided their assets, valued at $60 million dollars, equally between them. Ms. Evans kept their London home and would receive the balance of her cash upon the sale of shares in their company. But the judge was not amused by what he had observed. He described their dispute as “puerile”, telling them “Somebody has to come into the nursery to make some rules”.

But nursery school was not over. Ms. Evans was nervous and fearful that her husband would dispose of the shares, leaving her with nothing, so she asked the Court for a rehearing and a new order.

By this time, Mark Evans had sold 65% of the business to a venture capitalist firm for $30 million. Jenifer Evans got her rehearing, but now the assets were worth $10 million dollars less and Judge Moylan reduced her share of the pot to 45%.

Yes, she should have stuck with what she had, as she lost millions in the new order. I somehow have the feeling that this case is not over.

Ms. Evans remains in London with one of her teenage daughters, while Mr. Evans has married the woman who distracted him from his marriage and lives in California with his eldest daughter. His wife is pregnant with their first child.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

When Adoption Goes Awry

South Carolina couple Matt and Melanie Capobianco were over the moon when they adopted new-born baby Veronica in 2008. But their joy turned to grief, when at the age of three, Veronica was removed from their home and placed with her biological father, a person Veronica had never met, but whose ancestory trumped the Capobianco’s legal parenthood.

Father Dusten Brown, who lives in Oklahoma, was a member of the Cherokee nation.
He brought a court action seeking to have custody of his daughter in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal law passed in 1978. The Act provides that Native American tribes and relatives should have a say in the placement of aboriginal children.

Mr. Brown successfully argued he was unaware that Veronica’s mother had given her up for adoption and her Native American heritage could only be fostered if she was raised by her father. The Appeal Court agreed. The judges said the Capobianco’s are “ideal parents”, but the law demanded a change in custody.

This week the United States Supreme Court will hear the Capobianco’s appeal and will weigh in again on the vexing question of aboriginal adoption.

The Court ruled in 1989 that tribal courts should determine these issues. In the 1989 case a tribal court permitted the adoptive parents to keep their adopted toddler twins, despite a claim by the children’s aboriginal relatives.

The federal government and eighteen other states, including Washington, California and Oregon, support the law. It’s difficult to believe that the removal of a three-year-old from the only parents she knows is in her best interests, particularly if the adoptive parents embrace and encourage her native heritage.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Twenty-Year Old Divorce Case Reopened: It’s Not Over Til It’s Over

In 1990 New York securities trader Steven Cohen was just beginning to see the fruits of his Wall Street career ripen. The only bad news was that his marriage didn’t survive and he needed to negotiate a financial settlement with his wife, Patricia Cohen.

At the time he told his wife that he had lost $9 million dollars in a co-op apartment investment he made in 1986, leaving his net worth at a mere $8.1 million. She didn’t believe him, but had no grounds to refute his assertion.

Mr. Cohen remarried two years later and built his business, SAC Capital, growing it from $25 million in assets to several billion dollars. Life was very good for him, until 2008.

It was then Ms. Cohen discovered a court file that revealed her ex-husband had settled the investment loss case with one of his co-op partners and recovered $5.5 million. She filed a lawsuit against him in 2009 alleging fraud.

Unfortunately, the first judge who heard the case threw it out saying the claim was too old to pursue and was unsubstantiated.

The Manhattan Appeals Court saw it differently. This month they reinstated Ms. Cohen’s lawsuit holding that the lack of timeliness in its filing was because she only discovered evidence of fraud eighteen years after the divorce.

My advice to Mr. Cohen: “Settle this case now, after all, you are a multi-billionaire and will likely not even notice a shortage of a couple of million.”

Besides, Cohen’s $15-billion dollar hedge-fund is the target of an insider trading investigation that has already seen the arrest of five individuals related to his Connecticut-based business. As well, two companies affiliated with SAC Capital have recently settled insider trading allegations with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for $614 million dollars, the largest insider trading settlement in the United States.

While there have been no charges laid against Mr. Cohen, the SEC is breathing down his neck. He really doesn’t need the aggravation of his ex-wife’s court action and the publicity that accompanies it.

Family law is different however. Cases that should be settled often are not because of petty vindictiveness and the need to win, and of course, Cohen can afford to bury his ex in legal fees.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

American Psychiatrists Say Parental Alienation Syndrome is Not a Mental Disorder

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have recently debated whether parental alienation syndrome qualifies as a mental disorder. Of course, family law lawyers across North America see examples of it every day.

In my experience the circumstances that give rise to allegations of parental alienation follow three typical patterns:

1. A parent who has been a victim of spousal abuse, either physical, mental or emotional, who refuses to permit a young child’s father or mother to be alone with the child or spend quality time with the child;

2. A parent who harbours extreme anger at his or her partner for events that took place during the marriage or after its breakdown. This parent involves his or her children in the minutia of the marriage breakdown and creates a picture of their father or mother as an uncaring “rogue” who is abusive, cheap and doesn’t care about them. Every nuance of the marital separation is fodder to denigrate the parent who has left the family unit;

3. A parent, usually a mother, who believes that her children belong to her and since her spouse has left her, he has no right to see the children. This parent typically enlists support from friends and relatives who all subscribe to the mother’s theory of parenting after marital breakdown.

Obviously there are situations where the custodial parent’s protection of a child is warranted. For example, where a parent has no parenting skills, or is generally unreliable or disinterested, steps must be taken to ensure the child is not at risk.

Parenting skills can be learned and most jurisdictions offer free classes on parenting after separation. A parent who is unreliable must have structured parenting time with his or her child until the parent understands that children require consistent and reliable relationships, particularly after marriage breakdown.

Even for parents who have only a passing interest in their children, it is the child’s right to have a relationship with each parent and a custodial parent is acting in their child’s best interests if they foster a relationship between their child and the child’s “occasional” father or mother.

The harder cases are ones where the parent seeking parenting time is debilitated by substance abuse or alcohol, mental illness or other anti-social behavior. Even in these cases, where a parenting arrangement can be put in place that ensures the child is not at risk, children do better with two parents in their lives. These scenarios call for supervised access with a trustworthy friend or relative or a trained, paid access supervisor.

Frequently, people who make lousy husbands or wives are wonderful, caring parents. A bad marriage marked by abuse does not necessarily translate into an abusive parent. However, where there has been abuse in the family, a psychological assessment of the family members is necessary.

Angry, vengeful parents who interfere with a child’s relationship with his or her other parent victimize their former partner, but worse yet, they set their child up for future failure. European studies show that children who are victims of parental brainwashing are more likely to suffer from emotional disorders than children who are not alienated from a parent.

As a family law litigator I have seen both sides of the coin: Mothers and fathers who refuse to recognize that their child needs his or her other parent; and parents who are tormented to the point of emotional and financial bankruptcy, desperate to restore relationships that should never have been severed.

The American Psychiatric Association, who will update their manual of psychiatric diagnoses in 2013, have recently decided against including parental alienation syndrome as a psychiatric disorder, a decision that will no doubt be greeted with disappointment by parent victims of this terrible behavior.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Custody Battle Poisons Children

Parents who fight over child custody and access bring out the worst in themselves and often poison their children along the way. Divorce lawyers who are stuck in the middle of high conflict family disputes often remind their clients that children deserve both a mother and a father, and that a child immersed in conflict is usually headed for a disastrous future.

Frequently, the worst of these types of conflict peter out once the children mature, interact with their peers and begin to think for themselves. Some parents also eventually recognize that their anger hurts them more than it does their ex-spouse…but not always.

A recent court case in Illinois illustrates the worst possible outcome where parents refuse to put their children first and instead continue with angry reprisals and revenge, apparently oblivious to the seeds of destruction they are sowing, for themselves and their children.

In Miner and Miner v. Garrity 2011 IL App (1st) 1103023-U the Court of Appeal dealt with a lawsuit brought against Kimblerly Garrity, mother of the plaintiffs, Steven and Kathryn, who were 20 and 18-years old when they commenced their lawsuit.

Their father, attorney Steven Miner, together with two other attorneys, filed the suit for them which claimed damages of $50,000 each, alleging their mother had intentionally or negligently inflicted emotional distress on them during their young lives.

Mr. Miner was quick to point out in media interviews that he tried to talk his two children out of filing the lawsuit, but they insisted. His protestations are unbelievable in view of the claims he advanced on their behalf.

The Garrity/Miner marriage ended after ten-years in 1995. Mr. Miner was awarded sole custody of Steven and joint custody with his ex, of Kathryn, who resided primarily with him. So how bad an access parent was Kimberly Garrity?

The children’s grievances included their distress when their mother tried unsuccessfully to obtain primary residence of Kathyrn. She also allegedly treated the children unequally, requested medical receipts from their father before she would pay her one-half share, and referred to their father as a “Disneyland” dad.

Worse yet was the claim that when her mother began living with another man, Kathryn’s distress caused her to gain weight, which was only exceeded by her mother’s gall in taking a new name when she remarried, a change that upset Kathryn.

Even more petty was Steven’s complaint that his mother forced him to wear a seatbelt when he was 7-years old, and Kathryn’s upset at her mother’s refusal to take her to a car show. Both were also slighted by either no birthday or Christmas cards, or cards that were declared inappropriate and contained no cash or check for them.

One of the “inappropriate” cards from American Greetings showed a table full of red tomatoes with the centre tomato wearing googly eye glasses. The card read “Son I got you this birthday card because it’s just like you…different from all the rest.” On the inside Steven’s mother wrote “Have a great day! Love and Hugs, Mom xoxoxox”. How insensitive!

Not surprisingly, their litany of childish complaints impressed no one and simply confirmed their outrageous sense of entitlement, immaturity and lack of gratitude. Their father’s role in their claims of “bad mothering” deserves even greater rebuke. His participation was both contemptible and shabby.

Needless to say, their lawsuit was thrown out of court, as it should have been.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Fox’s Bill O’Reilly in Custody Battle

Funny how Bill O’Reilly’s divorce in 2011 didn’t make national headlines, particularly when every B list actor/actress/model/athlete/musician/singer’s divorce is splayed across the headlines in every newspaper, blog, and gossip rag.

While the divorce may have been low-profile, website Gawker released a story this week that is not likely to go unnoticed.

Gawker reports that Mr. O’Reilly and his much younger ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy, who were married for fifteen years, resolved their differences via a separation agreement wherein they share joint custody of their two children, ages 10 and 13 at the time of the divorce.

The agreement provided that the children’s counsellor, Lynn Kulakowski, would be utilized as a neutral expert to assist the parties if disputes arose regarding their children.

The cause of the current dispute between the exs’ is that unbeknownst to Maureen McPhilmy, Bill O’Reilly put Ms. Kulakowski on his payroll as a nanny for the children when they are resident with him.

So much for any expectation that psychologist/nanny Lynn can impart objective parenting advice while Mr. O’Reilly pays her a “six-figure salary”, according to Gawker.

The parties were recently in a New York appeal court where the court ordered that the issues raised by Ms. McPhilmy be resolved in a trial and the children be represented by independent counsel.

The case is listed in the New York court registry as “Anonymous 2011-1 v. Anonymous 2011-2″. Not sure what the New York rules are, but in British Columbia the shielding of the names of litigants is the exception, not the rule, hence, the publicly battling Aquilinis’, Mr. being an owner of the Vancouver Canucks and many other enterprises.

Gawker also reports that Bill O’Reilly’s ex married the man she was having an affair with, a member of the local constabulary. Apparently O’Reilly has done everything possible to destroy the police officer’s career.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church, at O’Reilly’s request, has condemned Ms. McPhilmy for her remarriage, which is against church policy and O’Reilly is pursuing an annulment of the marriage.

Altogether a nasty situation and likely to get worse. Probably the last person one would want to battle is the irrepressible Bill O’Reilly.

I wonder what he thinks now of his trademark phrase “We Report, You Decide”?

Supreme Court Says “No” to Common Law Spouses in Quebec

The Supreme Court of Canada put an end today to the long running saga of Quebec’s most famous common law spouse when they confirmed that neither she nor any other common law spouse in Quebec is entitled to spousal support.

The story is classic. Wealthy, thirtyish businessman falls for 15-year-old Latino bombshell, has three children with her, and calls it quits after a seven-year extravaganza of “champagne wishes and caviar dreams”. The titillating tale unfolds in the Reasons for Judgment from the Quebec Superior Court in A. v. B. 2009 QCCS 3210.

In Quebec, unlike the rest of Canada, legal matters concerning persons, relationships and property are subject to a code of law based on French Napoleonic law.

The dilemma Ms. A faced is that the Quebec Civil Code did not make provision for spousal support after unmarried couples separate, while married spouses and spouses joined in a civil union have that benefit.

In every other province in Canada she would be entitled to apply for support and so, Ms. A. tried to persuade a judge that the Quebec Civil Code was discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedom because it treated married and unmarried couples differently.

The Court acknowledged that Quebec has the largest population of unmarried couples, rising from 8% to 35% between 1981 and 2006 and 60% of children born in Quebec are the offspring of unmarried parents. The Canadian average for common law unions is a mere 18%.

Ms. A. argued that the Civil Code should be changed to accommodate unmarried spouses by introducing a law that would provide equal treatment if a couple had cohabited for three years or had a child and lived together for at least one year. She audaciously sought $56,000 a month in spousal support, together with $5 million dollars.

The Quebec Court disagreed, holding that an amendment to the Code was not within their purview, rather it was up to legislators to change the law if they so desired.

The Court also found that the Civil Code was not discriminatory, emphasizing that the objective of Quebec’s support law is to preserve freedom of choice and respect the dignity and autonomy of common law relationships. Simply put, if a person desires the legal treatment afforded married couples, then that person should get married.

Quebec’s Court of Appeal saw it differently, finding that no support for common law spouses was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

In today’s decision, the Supreme Court of Canada issued diverse opinions dismissing Ms. A’s appeal, but confirming that Quebec’s law was either not discriminatory, or if it was, it was a reasonable intrusion, justified by the well-established regime of legal marriage and civil unions in Quebec.

While Ms. A’s loss today in the highest court will no doubt be disappointing, the good news is that her legal journey has been relatively comfortable as she resides in a $2.4 million dollar home and enjoys the benefits of her ex-boyfriend’s largesse, which reportedly includes $34,000 per month in child support, travel reimbursement, the provision of a driver, use of a Lexus automobile, and the payment of taxes, insurance and general maintenance and renovations of her home.

The term “gold digger” suddenly comes to mind…

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang