Why Would Angelina Jolie Demand Sole Custody?

GeorgiaLeeLang025When I read this morning that Brad and Angie were kaput, I didn’t believe it. After all, every month for the past several years some gossip magazine has splashed this headline across their cover page. Only it was never true.

But today it is, and to my surprise the liberal heroine of human rights, Ms. Jolie,  wants to deprive her children of a basic human right: the right to have a full relationship with their father.  Yes, children have a right to know both their parents, a right so precious that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child includes this provision in Article 18:

“State parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.”

In this day and age when a mother, like Ms. Jolie, asks a court to award sole custody of the children to her,  it can only be interpreted as a denunciation of the children’s father. In most family courts, a claim for sole custody in favour of one parent usually signals that the other parent is a drunk, an addict, a child molester, is in jail,  or so mentally ill that he or she is incapable of taking care of the children.

Sole custody means that the custodial parent alone will decide where the children live, where they go to school, what kind of school they will attend and what religion will be taught to them.

In Canada a judge of the Supreme Court held that a non-custodial parent has no more rights than an “interested observer”- A shocking pronouncement for a parent who finds him or herself estranged from his children by virtue of relationship breakdown.

If reports that the Jolie-Pitt’s are frequently on different continents is accurate, it will be difficult to craft an equitable parenting schedule. Note that I didn’t say equal. That may be impossible, but children need stability as much as they need both parents in their lives.

Ms. Jolie has a reputation as a compassionate humanitarian and has undertaken massive charitable projects throughout the third world focusing on children’s rights.  I believe that if she understood what her claim for sole custody really meant, she would resile from it.

I hope that for the children’s sake she does and does so very quickly.

GUEST POST: FATHERLESS IN NORTH AMERICA

BarristerTERRY BRENNAN is the co-founder of “LEADING WOMEN FOR SHARED PARENTING”, an organization based in the United States, with invited members located world-wide. Members include women who are Senators, members of the House of Representatives, state and municipal politicians, social workers, psychologists, scientists, psychiatrists, journalists, attorneys, child custody experts, domestic violence experts, and many other professional women. I am a member of LEADING WOMEN FOR SHARED PARENTING and proud of it.

Terry Brennan’s  letter to the editor  of the Kearney Hub, a Nebraska publication, dated August 30, 2016, has caused quite a stir in the Cornhusker State, a state whose Bar Association actively lobbied against shared parenting in an attempt to maintain the revenue they earn from custody litigation. They were successfully sued for their misguided efforts.

The Kearney Hub deserves praise for calling out the largest social issue impacting America. Fatherlessness is an epidemic connected to virtually every social pathology in children. More local papers, who are in the trenches of America’s problems, are calling out the desperate need to address fatherlessness, even as the national media stays silent.

However, it’s ironic to see a Nebraska paper calling out fatherlessness. Why? Because while fatherlessness has multiple causes, using the low estimate, family courts create a fatherless child every single minute of every single day, and Nebraska courts are among the worst offenders.

Every mother of a son should know, a 10-year study found Nebraska family courts gave children an average of five days a month “visitation” with their non-custodial parents, a.k.a. “father.” Recently, Nebraska family courts showed they prefer that convicted pedophiles spend time with children rather than their loving and capable fathers. It’s shameful, considering the overwhelming research that shows shared parenting is best for children.

Shared parenting is endorsed by 110 world experts, supported by 43 peer reviewed papers, favored by 70 percent of the population, and was the conclusion of the largest study on children of divorce, reviewing 150,000 kids. The 110 experts stated they’re “united in their concern that flawed science is leading to parenting plans and custody decisions that harm children.”

Cordell & Cordell, a law firm with offices in 30 states, noted: “It is becoming increasingly clear that any argument against shared parenting is not based on empirical data. Logic would dictate that it should be painless to pass laws that grant children more equal access to each parent following a divorce.”

With such support, 20 states recently considered shared parenting with Arizona, Utah and Missouri changing laws, allowing children more time with the paternal side of their family.

Although bills are put forth annually, shared parenting hasn’t advanced in Nebraska as it reduces the income of lawyers. In reviewing the implementation of shared parenting in Australia, Professor Edward Kruk found a marked reduction in child custody litigation has also been noted since the new legislation, with applications to court over child custody falling by a staggering 72 percent. Court-determined parenting arrangements fell from 7.8

percent to 2.8 percent of cases and lawyer negotiation from 10.6 percent to 5.8 percent of cases, Kruk found.

Corresponding to decreased litigation has been a marked increase in the use of family relationship centers and family mediation services. And most Australian parents (72 percent) now resolve parenting arrangements without the use of any legal services. (“The Equal Parent Presumption”)

The Nebraska Bar Association so feared this loss of revenue it acted illegally and was sued for lobbying against shared parenting, resulting in its dues being halved, the elimination of staff, and sublet of office space.

If we’re to pay more than lip service to addressing fatherlessness, follow the advice of psychiatrists, psychologists, child development experts and domestic violence practitioners who’ve endorsed shared parenting as best for children.

Until the Nebraska Legislature follows the lead of other states, the fatherless crisis will continue.”

Terry Brennan, Newtonville, Mass.

LAWDIVA’S NOTE:

Several bills  advocating shared parenting have been voted on in Canada’s Parliament. None have passed.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

New York Rabbi Ousted from Synagogue After His Fifth Divorce

BarristerIn 2007 Newsweek magazine reported that Rabbi Marc Schneier was one of the top 50 Jews in America, renowned for founding the Hampton Synagogue in tony West Hampton Beach and the New York Synagogue in Manhattan.

A media darling and interfaith leader,he was also the Vice-President of the World Jewish Congress and President of the North American Board of Rabbis. As a star in the Jewish firmament, he had one major problem. He couldn’t stay married.

His first marriage took place in 1981 while he was studying at Yeshiva University, a union that ended after less than one year. He married again to Esther Melamed, but divorced her in 1992. It was during this marriage that he initiated the upscale Hampton Synagogue, catering to the well-heeled Jewish community of the Hamptons, including celebrities like Steven Spielberg and Revlon’s Ron Perelman.

In 1993 he wed Oregonian Toby Gotesman at Gracie Mansion in New York, a coupling that produced a son, Brendan. But again it fell apart after Ms. Gotesman learned in 2005 that her husband was cheating on her with divorced fashion designer Tobi Rubinstein.

By now Rabbi Schneier was a wealthy man, earning a salary of $800,000 a year, with a posh $3 million residence in Westhampton Beach, and eager to embark on his pending nuptials to Ms. Rubinstein. The rabbi was 50-years-old and to commemorate his 50th birthday and his 4th wedding, his new wife gifted him a 400 lb. endangered Asian lion to be housed at the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo.

But Ms. Rubinstein was not as naive as his former brides. She hired a private investigator to look into her husband’s activities and discovered that on a so-called business trip to Israel  he was accompanied by synagogue member, Ginny Leiner. A divorce followed in 2010.

In 2013 Rabbi Schneier married Ms. Leiner, who was wife number five. She gave birth to a baby girl, just before another infidelity ended that marriage in 2015.

At this point, the rabbi’s congregation could take no more. In a concerted effort to force him to leave, they withheld their payments and pledges, money that was required to carry on church life. He resigned in April of 2016, but his randy ways continue. He is said to be squiring a 30-something Israeli blonde around  New York social circles these days. He is 57.

With another wedding in the offing, it is apparent the Torah means nothing to the rabbi, for in Malachi 2:16 it is written:

“For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Child Custody Dispute Leads to Hitman

GeorgiaLeeLang100Dan Markel worked hard and led a blessed life, until he didn’t. Toronto born and raised, the 41-year-old graduated with a degrees from Harvard, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Cambridge, capping his academic achievements with a  Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School. He practiced white-collar criminal law and civil litigation before he became a tenured professor at Florida State Law School teaching criminal law. He wrote for academic journals and crafted controversial opinion pieces for  prestigious publications including the New York Times, Slate, and The Atlantic. Mr. Markel was an impressive man who was revered by his colleagues.

He was married to Wendi Jill Adelson, also a lawyer and professor at Florida State, and had two young sons. But his happy life began to crumble when his marriage  floundered, followed by a bitter divorce in 2013.  But the worst was yet to come.

In July 2014 Dan Markel pulled into the driveway and garage of his upscale Tallahassee, Florida home, just about to end a call on his cell phone, when he advised the caller that another vehicle was in his driveway. Those were likely Dan Markel’s final words before he was shot in the head. He died the next morning.

At first the police believed his death was related to online criticism he had received or from his legal consulting practice.  Almost immediately rewards totalling $125,000 were announced for information leading to the arrest of Mr. Markel’s assailant, but the case went cold, until last month.

On May 26, 2016 Tallahassee police arrested Sigfredo Garcia in connection with Dan Markel’s death. A “probable cause” affidavit unsealed by the Court indicated that Garcia did not act alone and that as a “hitman”,  his involvement likely stemmed from the contentious child custody matters that lingered from the Adelson/Markel divorce. Court proceedings were pending which could have prevented Ms. Adelson’s parents from carrying on with their grandparent relationship with the couple’s children, based on allegations they were badmouthing Mr. Markel. As well, Ms. Adelson’s desire to change the children’s residence from Tallahassee to Miami was at issue.

Authorities have not yet suggested that Wendi Adelson is a suspect in her ex-husband’s murder, but have indicated that further arrests should be expected. Friends of Dan initially refused to speculate on Ms. Adelson or her family’s involvement in his tragic death, but news of the arrest has prompted several to confirm that all along they believed the high-conflict custody dispute played a part in his murder.

 

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Child Support as Free Pizza Will Suffice

DSC00275_1Italians have given the world many gifts including opera, the jacuzzi, liposuction, and Roman law, which fostered the foundation for many of the world’s legal systems. However,  some say Italy’s greatest contribution (apart from pasta) is PIZZA.

As Tiger Woods once said: “And I don’t cook…not as long as they still deliver pizza”.

Fast forward to 21st century Italy where an Italian court in Padau this week ordered that a divorced father and former pizza restaurant owner, who had fallen on hard times, could discharge his child support obligation by providing free pizza to his daughter, who resided with her mother.

The former couple, Nicola Toso and Nicoletta Zuin divorced in 2002 and Mr. Toso faithfully paid his child support.  But with the world recession in 2008 he began to struggle financially. By this time he had remarried and had three children with his second wife. Between 2008 and 2010 Mr. Toso offered his ex-wife pizzas and calzones, instead of the 400 Euros he had contracted to pay.

She, however, eventually became fed up with the arrangement thrust upon her, and filed a criminal complaint against her ex-husband. By 2010 Mr. Toso had lost his restaurant after being unable to pay his suppliers and employees. He then found employment managing a pizzeria.

Toso’s lawyer advised the court that her client’s financial difficulties were legitimate, and that he was an exemplary father, as evidenced by his continuing relationship with his daughter and his successful efforts to welcome her into the life of his second family. Notably, his daughter provided evidence to the court in support of her father’s position.

The court also learned that by 2011 the child had left her mother’s home and had moved in with her father and his family. At that point, Ms. Zuin had been ordered to pay her ex-husband 300 Euros per month.

Judge Bitozzi ruled that given all the circumstances, Mr. Toso had not committed a crime by delivering pizza to his ex-wife, instead of 400 Euros,  and the criminal complaint was dismissed.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Divorce Lawyers Misunderstand Effects of Minority Shareholdings

GeorgiaLeeLang025The division of business assets between spouses in a divorce can be complicated and tricky. Elizabeth Berardi of New York found this out the hard way. She retained seventy-member law firm, Philps Nizer , in 2000 to draft a marriage agreement for  her, a document that would take effect if her marriage to Eugene Berardi failed to survive.

The negotiations led to an agreement that would give her 49% of her husband’s  interests in  several bus companies, while Mr. Berardi would retain 51%. It seemed like a very good deal.

Five years later the Berardis’ marriage collapsed and divorce proceedings were commenced. Mr. Berardi’s first tactic was to  challenge the marriage agreement, attempting to set it aside. Ms. Berardi reengaged Philips Nizer, who put 23 attorneys and 16 other professionals to work on her case,  appointing lawyer Helen Davis Chaitman as lead counsel.  After a trial in 2006, the court handed down their Reasons in 2009 upholding the agreement. Philips Nizer had achieved success for Ms. Berardi , despite Ms. Chaitman’s inexperience in family law, and after charging  legal fees of $1.4 million.

But all was not what it seemed. When Ms. Berardi attempted to liquidate her share of the bus companies, she found she had little power as a minority shareholder, particularly in the face of shareholder’s agreements  executed before 2000 that limited her ability to freely sell her interests. Her minority position also diminished the value of her shares in the company.

Ms. Berardi sued Philips Nizer for malpractice and professional negligence, asserting they either knew or should have known, and told her of the effects of her minority interest and the shareholders’ agreements. In particular, when her husband sought to overturn the agreement, they should not have opposed his application. Had the agreement been set aside, by consent of the parties, she could have negotiated a bargain that would see her receive liquid assets.

She also argued that Philips Nizer were in a conflict of interest by agreeing to act for her while seeking to uphold the agreement they had drafted. In a separate claim Ms. Berardi alleged she was grossly overcharged by Philips Nizer, as her ex-husband paid his lawyers only $395,000 in legal fees.

Naturally Philips Nizer sought to have Ms. Berardi’s lawsuits dismissed, suggesting she was simply attempting to escape payment of the funds she still owed the law firm, an amount over $700,000. However, this week Justice Nancy Bannon disagreed with Philips Nizer, refusing to dismiss the court action, paving the way for the litigation to continue.

Ms. Berardi’s new lawyers, Pollock & Maguire, believe that Philips Nizer pursued and obtained minority shareholder status for Ms. Berardi, never realizing the ramifications of their successful defence, until it was too late. Lead counsel, Helen Davis Chaitman is no longer with the firm and is not a defendant in the lawsuit.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

To Sign or Not to Sign: The Prenup Dilemma

DSC01152_2 (2)_2Pre-nuptial agreements are so commonplace today that no one gives them a second thought.  They are considered de rigueur in second marriages, particularly where there are children from a first marriage, who panic at the first sign that good ol’ dad has a girlfriend. They are also regularly used when a 50-year old wealthy bachelor moves his 25-year old girlfriend into his home. Ah…young love…

Their purpose is to protect a spouse’s assets from attack by their new partner if the relationship breaks down, and often they provide that upon separation, the wealthy spouse will not pay spousal support to the other.

But do they offer the protection the monied spouse is seeking, and what happens if your partner refuses to sign one?

Prenups are, of course, simply contracts, but unlike commercial contracts, courts look at prenups differently. When a couple begin living together or get married, there should be no expectation that each of them automatically has an interest in the other’s property or can expect to be supported by their new partner.

However, there comes a time when a couples’ lives are so intertwined that the law recognizes and provides for the sharing of property and in many cases, spousal support. Some of the factors include the birth of children, the sharing of childcare, the pooling of financial resources, the length of the relationship, and the many  non-financial contributions  each makes based on their abilities and skills.

In the usual prenup scenarios, if dad’s second marriage lasts as long or longer than his first, the prenup signed at the outset may be difficult to enforce. Our bachelor with the young girlfriend may find that after she has two children and is no longer participating in the job force, the contract they signed is simply unfair to her.

Often clients will make an appointment to discuss their desire for a prenup, but frequently it is a subject they have not yet raised with their partner. While prenups are not terribly expensive, to instruct a lawyer to draft one is rather foolish unless one has broached the issue with one’s sweetheart.

Case in point: New York executive,  Yiri Sun, is a Princeton graduate and vice-president of a large insurance company. She was very excited about her wedding day. She had booked a beautiful venue, the catering was top-notch, her bridal gown was exquisite, and the invitations sent.

At the last minute she was forced to call off the wedding as she refused to sign the prenup that was presented to her. Instead of losing her $8,000  reception deposit, she decided to turn her wedding into a party for 60 needy children and their families, referred to her by  the Salvation Army. She hosted the event wearing her wedding gown.

Ms. Sun’s professional status clearly gave her the confidence to call off the wedding when she saw the terms of the contract. Most women presented with prenups simply sign them. The good news for them is that if their relationship is not short, and they have made life choices that prejudice their financial well-being, they may be able to convince a judge to overrule the prenup.

As I tell my clients, prenups are a short-term solution, that in the long-run may not meet their expectations.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang