Guest Post: What Happens When Nannies Get Stuck Between Divorcing Parents

Divorces are stressful, that cannot be denied. The long and arduous process of dividing family property can leave feelings of animosity and regret. As a parent going through divorce you need to consider how the disruption inherent in divorce is going to affect your much-loved nanny.

Of course, your nanny will have to change the daily routine depending on where the children are at during that point in time, but what legalities are involved in continuing the employment of your caregiver once the divorce process begins.

1. Scheduling – As you and your spouse have more than likely separated, or are planning to separate, exact scheduling needs to be addressed for your nanny. Of course, this is going to be dependent on the new schedules of each household. Any overtime incurred from alterations within the time-frame will also have to be addressed. You will need to discuss the situation with your nanny and discover if the new schedules are something he or she can keep.

2. Payment Responsibilities – You and your former spouse will need to discuss the payment responsibilities of maintaining the nanny for your child. This may or may not be decreed by the judge during the custody hearing. If the two of you can devise a reasonable plan for retaining your nanny, there is a solid chance the judge will consider the idea. In a joint custody situation, usually both parents pay an equal share of the amount owed to the caregiver.

3. Time Off – Scheduled time off will be dependent on how the new living arrangements are developed. If one of you takes the child on vacation during a scheduled work-week for the nanny, does he or she get paid time off? Will your nanny now have to work weekends in either household due to these changes? After a divorce, there could be extreme changes to the scheduling and if your nanny is unable to adapt, you may need to look for an alternative solution.

4. Parental Rights – If there are agreements or court orders involving the parental rights of your former spouse, your nanny needs to be informed immediately. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the divorce, there could be specific rules put into place by the courts for yourself or your ex-partner. Your nanny needs to know if there are specific times that a parent is allowed to visit the child and/or if the parent can pick up the child to take him or her out to dinner.

This is as much for your benefit as it is for the child and the nanny. Without this knowledge, the nanny could end up in a battle with one parent, being unaware of the court ordered parenting schedule. Your nanny needs to be in the loop so that she can ensure that your child is protected. A prized nanny will not let anyone assert access rights over your children, without a court order.

AUTHOR bio
SARA DAWKINS is an active nanny as well as an active freelance writer. She is a frequent contributor of http://www.nannypro.com/. Learn more about her at http://www.nannypro.com/blog/sara-dawkins/.

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

Another Nigerian Scam: Fake Fertility Clinic

A married couple from the United Kingdom tried for eight years to have a baby with no luck at all. After years of disappointment the couple were referred by family members to the Miracle of God Fertility Clinic in Port Harcourt Nigeria. They travelled there, and after paying $20,000, she underwent a fertilization procedure and became pregnant, according to Dr. Chinyere at the Clinic.

With much joy the couple returned to their home in England to await the birth of their child. Their first stop was a visit to their family doctor who informed his patient that she was not actually pregnant.

However, she was undeterred, relying on the Clinic’s advice that due to the nature of the procedure, her pregnancy would be more difficult to detect. As expected, she began to gain weight as well.

Nine months passed and the couple returned to Nigeria for the birth of their baby. After a painful birthing process under heavy sedation, the couple were presented with their baby, complete with its umbilical cord.

Arriving in England, they took their baby to its first medical check-up. Their doctor was stunned to see the child and contacted the police and social services who took their baby into custody after the doctor advised them that his patient had never been pregnant. DNA testing confirmed that the child was not biologically connected to the couple.

Court proceedings ensued where the couple sought the return of their child. The Crown, however, alleged that the parents of Baby D were fully aware of the child’s true circumstances and had knowingly participated in a fraud.

In a hearing before Mr. Justice Coleridge the couple were found to be innocent victims of a fertility scam. The Judge said:

“Gullible they may well have been, dishonest they most certainly were not. They had no inkling of the scam in which they were involved and the light only dawned after the production of the DNA tests. That is the conclusion to which the police and the Local Authority each independently have come and I think they are right.”

In a further court appearance the couple succeeded in obtaining custody of Baby D. A representative of “Children and Families Across Borders” expressed concern about the decision and its potential impact on trafficking in babies:

“Behind every one of these children lies an actual birth mother. She has been coerced, she may have been kidnapped or raped. These children are not given up willingly”.

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

Former Governor Ignores Divorce Court Order

Remember Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina? He was the guy who disappeared for five days in 2009 and when he returned explained he’d been off on his own, hiking the Appalachian Trail. He didn’t explain why nobody, including his closest aides and his wife, were kept in the dark.

But then the truth came out: He had a girlfriend in Argentina that he was in love with and wanted to marry. Jenny Sanford, mother of four children, was shocked and humiliated. Like those before her, she entered the talk-show circuit and wrote a book about the Governor. Their divorce followed shortly thereafter.

Sanford went through an impeachment hearing in South Carolina but when it concluded his punishment was not impeachment but censure. He spent the last few years working on restoring his reputation and image as a trustworthy politician and he was succeeding, until this week.

He’s been on the road campaigning for a congressional seat in South Carolina and was expected to win the election on May 7, until the news leaked that he breached a court order which prevented him from being at his ex-wife’s home, unless she specifically consented.

He admitted that he went to Mrs. Sanford’s home to watch a football game with his 14-year-old son when his ex-wife was out-of-town and did not have her consent.

You say, what’s the problem? First of all, there is a court order restricting him from attending at the home and secondly, in a situation like his, where the divorce was far from amiable, he would be naive to think that he could ignore the order without consequences.

As well, Mrs. Sanford is entitled to her privacy. Like most divorced spouses, the last thing she wants is for her ex to be snooping through the house, invading her space.

It’s difficult to know whether Mark Sanford is shamelessly arrogant or just plain stupid. After the story was leaked to the media, the National Republican Party announced they would no longer support Mark Sanford’s campaign, leaving Democratic candidate Elizabeth Colbert, sister of Stephen Colbert, as the likely winner.

To make matters worse, he recently gave a campaign speech with his fiance, Maria Chapur and two of his young sons on the platform. Turns out the boys had never met Sanford’s paramour until on the stage that evening. Parenting 101? Slowly introduce the children to your new partner in a setting that is comfortable for the child.

Sanford appears in court on trespassing charges on May 9, two days after the election.

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

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

So, you’re just a regular guy doing your thing and you happen to come across a Craigslist ad where a lesbian couple want to have a baby and need a sperm donor. Because you’re such a good guy, you figure, what the heck, why not help them out?

They offer to pay you $50.00 but you say “hey, I’m not doing this for the money, keep your $50.00″. Of course, you sign an agreement waiving all your paternal rights so you can’t be on the hook down the road. Your good deed results in a bouncing baby girl.

Fast forward to today, the little girl is three-years old, and the couple have split up. An application is made for health insurance for the child and the Kansas Department for Child and Families won’t approve the application until the name of the sperm donor is provided.

Now our good guy is faced with a lawsuit brought by the government agency for child support of $6000.00 to cover past payments and a claim for ongoing support.

How can that be, you say? Doesn’t the agreement he signed protect him? Not according to the Kansas authorities. Kansas does not recognize same-sex couples as parents unless conception is through a licensed physician or clinic. They say they are obliged by the law to pursue the father for support payments.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang