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

Making Babies Is a Tricky Business

With the extraordinary science that benefits childless couples and the growing popularity of reproductive technologies, the prediction from early naysayers that baby-making would create criminal, social and ethical problems can no longer be ignored.

Public awareness of the foibles of procedures such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and anonymous sperm donation began with the news that a California woman, Nadya Suleman, gave birth to eight children via in vitro fertilization in 2009. Twelve embryos had been implanted, apparently at her request.

Ms. Suleman’s octuplets joined her already large family of six children, also born through in vitro fertilization. That she was a single mother with limited financial resources and was eventually compelled to work as a stripper and a nude model further rankled critics who denounced her physician, Dr. Michael Kamrava, who later lost his medical license.

The latest scandal in the baby-making industry involves a home-grown business called Canadian Fertility Consultants, with offices in British Columbia and Ontario, whose CEO, Leia Picard, has been charged with 27 criminal offences including purchasing sperm and egg from a donor and paying a surrogate to carry a baby for a client.

Under Canadian law it is illegal to pay sperm or egg donors and surrogates are only allowed to be paid for their reasonable expenses. While limited information has been released by the RCMP, it has been reported that two women who donated eggs were paid $5000.00 each.

Ms. Picard has also been charged with four counts of forgery in relation to allegations that her clients received false profiles of two of her sperm donors and two potential surrogate mothers.

Canada’s legislation has been in force for almost nine years, but this appears to be the first time that charges have resulted from a breach of the law, with related criminal charges.

There is speculation that Ms. Picard’s present legal problems arise from her purely innocent interaction with Maryland lawyer Hilary Nieman, who ran a surrogacy business with California lawyer, Theresa Erickson, that later proved to be anything but altruistic.

Under a unique California law, a woman can enter into a surrogacy agreement with prospective parents, but the agreement must be signed and finalized prior to the fertilization of the surrogate. Where there is a surrogacy agreement, the prospective parents do not need to go through an adoption to become the child’s legal parents as the child’s birth certificate will record the names of the prospective parents, not the surrogate’s name.

Lawyers Nieman and Erickson both specialized in reproductive technology law. Working together, they paid American women an average of $40,000 to travel to the Ukraine to be implanted with embryos. This was necessary because no doctor in California would do the in vitro procedure under the circumstances presented by the surrogates.

The lawyers got around the requirement for an executed agreement prior to fertilization by submitting forged documents to the Court which attested to the agreement being signed as required by the law.

Ms. Erickson with Hilary Nieman’s help, accumulated a stable of new-born babies ready to be sold to unsuspecting couples for $100,000 to $150,000 each.

In the twelfth week of their pregnancy the women, referred to as “gestational carriers”, flew back to the United States where the lawyers would find a couple who were told that a surrogacy agreement with another couple had fallen through after the couple backed out.

For couples who had tried numerous procedures over many years without the blessing of a child, the prospects of a new-born baby was like winning the lottery.

Erickson and Nieman, both plead guilty to wire fraud and conspiracy, involving the sale of twelve babies. Although lawyers for the State and Ms. Nieman agreed to a plea bargain of nine months of home confinement, the Court would have no part of that and sentenced Nieman to five months in federal prison and seven months of home confinement. She was also order to pay back profits of $133,000 and was later disbarred.

We now await full particulars of the charges against Ms. Picard, but payments of several thousand dollars to egg donors hardly seems worth the cost of the RCMP’s year-long investigation. Allegations of forgery, however, puts an entirely different spin on the agency’s practices.

Ms. Picard says she will vigourously defend against the charges and is inviting donations to her legal fund.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Anti-Gay Bill in Uganda Resurfaces

When you live in a country where human rights and the equality of every man and woman is revered, it is difficult to comprehend a society where Parliamentarians debated and considered imposing the death penalty for people who are gay, lesbian or transgendered.

Uganda’s gay agenda, introduced in 2009, made international headlines in 2011 with the murder of Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato, who was bludgeoned to death in his home in Kampala.

Mr. Kato was one of a large group of gays and lesbians “outed” by the Ugandan newspaper, Rolling Stone (no relation to the American publication) in October 2010. The headline read: “100 Pictures of Uganda’s Homos Leak”. The article contained Mr. Kato’s name and home address. It also identified venues frequented by gays and lesbians. Its subheading read “Hang them”.

Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda and imprisonment of up to 14 years may be imposed. However, it was a bill introduced by politician David Bahati in 2009, and recently resurrected, that has upped the ante for Uganda’s gay population.

The original Anti-Homosexuality Bill imposed the death penalty for serial homosexual offences; for sexual activity with persons under the age of 18 or the disabled; and for sexual activity where HIV is passed to another.

It has now been reported that after world-wide criticism, including from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the death penalty provisions have been abandoned in favour of life in prison.

However, government fervor behind the bill has not faded. In November 2012 the Speaker for the Ugandan Parliament announced that the amended bill would be passed before the end of 2012 as a “Christmas gift” for Ugandans, which has support from 96% of the electorate. Fortunately, this deadline passed with no new law, but law makers are expected to vote on the legislation this month.

Some media outlets report that Bahati’s bill came to fruition after he spent time with certain evangelical christians who came to Uganda in 2009, espousing family values and denouncing homosexuality as a sin. Barack Obama’s inauguration “Pastor”, Rick Warren from Saddleback, California, has been named as a Christian leader who influenced Mr. Bahati and other high-placed politicians.

Warren’s mega-church has focused considerable charitable efforts in Africa, including Uganda, however, Mr. Warren has forcefully denounced the death penalty bill, while adhering to biblical standards concerning sex outside of marriage and the sanctity of marriage, between one man and one woman.

A leading evangelical group in Canada, Crossroads Christian Communications, has also come under fire in recent days. Crossroads receives over $500,000 in funding from the Canadian government to bring aid to Uganda by building wells, latrines and promoting good hygiene.

Critics, however, decrie the organization’s public stance against homosexuality and it is reported that Crossroads funding will be reviewed in light of this position.

What cannot be overlooked, however, is that while many world religions consider homosexuality a sin, discrimination against gays, lesbians and the transgendered is a human rights issue and unlike the hateful Westborough Baptist Church in Kansas, there is no evidence to suggest that Rick Warren or Crossroads support human rights abuses. To the contrary, these organizations are bringing hope and change to Uganda.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Gay to Straight Therapy Banned in Calfornia

Controversial “gay conversion” therapy will no longer be used in California to treat children 18 and under who seek to change their same-sex attraction to heterosexual attraction.

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a Bill prohibiting state licensed therapists to engage in treatments intended to assist gay and lesbian kids to change their sexual preference, a law that comes into effect on January 1, 2013.

Proponents of the new law argue that therapies designed to alter a minor’s sexual orientation have been scientifically shown to be ineffective. Homosexuality as a psychiatric diagnosis was completely removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health in 1986, and in 2005 the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposition that therapy could be useful for those who wished to “go straight”.

In 2007 Professors Stanton Hope from the prestigious Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois and Mark Yarhouse from Regents University in Virginia Beach joined forces in a study to test the APA’s theory that therapy was of no use.

Thirty-five of their original 98 participants dropped out almost immediately, leaving 65 research subjects at the conclusion of the study. The data was obtained through the organization called Exodus International, a Christian group whose mandate is to give homosexuals “freedom through Christ”.

Drs. Hope and Yarhouse published their results, finding that 23% of their group reported no change, 30% opted for celibacy, 20% embraced their orientation, while 23% reported they were “cured” with no harmful psychological aftermath.

However, critics say their lack of scientific rigour suggests their research is flawed and unreliable. Others say that their results do show behavioral changes, which are different from changes in sexual orientation.

What exactly is conversion therapy? It has been described as encompassing intrusive aversion treatments, drug therapy, Christian informed psychoanalysis, and spiritual intervention. Critics say the treatment brings on shame, grief, and anxiety causing patients to suffer depression and increased suicidal tendencies.

Critics of the new law have already filed lawsuits challenging the legislation on the basis that it breaches constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They say the law is a disgusting abuse of government powers and a tyrannical interference with parental rights, who alone should determine how to help their child.

Until the law is overturned, a result that I believe is highly unlikely, therapists who continue to practice “gay to straight” therapy will be disciplined for unprofessional conduct.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

The Church and Child Abuse

We are all familiar with the odious stories of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and the trail of damaged lives as a result of sex crimes that were ignored or covered up. However, the Catholic faith is not alone in facing the legal consequences of their leaders’ actions.

This week in Oakland California a jury ruled that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses, must pay more than $20 million to 26-year-old Candace Conti, who was sexually assaulted by a church member, not a leader or an elder, when she was nine years old and attending the North Fremont Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The core of the case against the church was church policy enacted in 1989 that instructed church leaders to keep child abuse accusations secret. The tragically flawed policy meant that while the church leaders were aware of Ms. Conti’s allegations, they took no steps to confront her offender or protect her or other children from his criminal behavior. As well, the jury heard that sex offender, Jonathan Kendrick, had a year earlier been convicted of misdemeanor child molestation and nothing was done to ensure that he did not victimize children in the North Fremont congregation.

The Church’s policy only came to light as a result of Ms. Conti’s lawsuit and the disclosure requirements of a civil lawsuit.

The attorney for the Church advised the media the verdict would be appealed and that the notion that a rank-and-file member of a church, not a leader or elder, could be the cause for an enormous compensatory award was inappropriate.

Ms. Conti’s lawyer said that the verdict is the largest ever ordered for a victim of sexual abuse involving a religious institution.

Sex offender Jonathan Kendrick was also convicted in 2004 of molesting another girl. He has not yet been charged criminally for his assaults of Ms. Conti.

It is outrageous that the church, a sanctuary of peace and hope, can be allowed to operate as a haven for the sexually depraved. This case sends a strong message to churches and other faith ministries that children must come first and that sexual deviants must be exposed for who they are, no matter the position they hold.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Divorce and Double-Dipping

A common complaint from ex-spouses who are obliged to pay spousal support is that all too often, the supported spouse gets a double-dip, and I don’t mean an ice cream cone.

Double-dipping occurs when a payor spouse pays support based on his employment income, but also pays support on his investment, rental or capital gains income arising from assets that were divided between the spouses, or for which the supported spouse received compensation through the receipt of cash or the retention of the family home.

Let me give you an example. If a husband retains a rental property valued at $100,000 and an investment portfolio worth $200,000 and in return the wife receives the former matrimonial home with a basement suite, valued at $300,000, it seems unfair for her husband to include these additional income sources as income for the purpose of paying spousal support. Yes, he may earn income on his share of the family property, but the wife also has that option.

As well, consider that the wife’s home has a basement suite she declines to rent and therefore eliminates an additional source of income for herself.

On top of all that, keep in mind that for Canadians, the matrimonial home is a tax-free asset, while the husband’s rental property will attract capital gains tax as will the investment portfolio.

Do our courts care? Nope. But lawmakers in California are addressing this issue. Bill SB 481 has been tabled in California’s Senate with the goal of passing legislation that would give judges the discretion to consider the sources of income utilized for a support calculation to prevent unfair, blatant double-dipping.

Another common example of this practice is where a business is valued by capitalizing the business’ income stream and the wife is compensated for her interest, while the husband is ordered to pay support on that same income stream.

The treatment of this issue by North American courts is divergent to say the least. In Mississippi the courts have declared double-dipping a “glaring inequity” while in other jurisdictions there is passive tolerance with no apparent will to resolve the unfairness that can occur.

Of course, cynics will say that because double-dipping most frequently prejudices husbands, not wives, it will be a long time until our courts get around to fixing the problem.

California is on the right track with their double-dipping bill. Perhaps it will catch on in other jurisdictions. Let’s hope so. Fair means fair for everyone.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang