Los Angeles Divorce and Family Law

CBS Television's Early Show airs series on divorce

CBS News' Early Show is running a series on divorce.  Articles and videos available on their website that professors may find useful in their teaching include:

Putting An End To Divorce Wars.  Reconcilable Differences: Some Couples Seek Mediation, Not Litigation, To Keep The Peace.  article

Divorce Among Senior Couples.  Deirdre Bair, author of "Calling It Quits: Late-Life Divorce And Starting Over," speaks with Harry Smith. video

How Divorce Wars Take A Toll On Kids. Children Are Often Caught In The Middle Between Feuding Parents article

Making divorce easier on kids article
 

Chicago divorce ad criticized

  ABC News

The woman behind the nation's most controversial divorce billboard defended herself and her ad Tuesday night in an interview with ABC News, while across town a politician on his last day in office ordered that the sign be taken down because of a lack of a permit.

The ad, a 20-foot-high billboard reading "Life is Short. Get a Divorce," sparked a viscerally negative reaction from lawyers, marriage counselors and the public. It seemed everybody had something to say about the sign perched above a trendy Chicago neighborhood -- even the ladies from the "The View" sounded off on the sign.

The woman behind the nation's most controversial divorce billboard defended herself and her ad Tuesday night in an interview with ABC News, while across town a politician on his last day in office ordered that the sign be taken down because of a lack of a permit.

The ad, a 20-foot-high billboard reading "Life is Short. Get a Divorce," sparked a viscerally negative reaction from lawyers, marriage counselors and the public. It seemed everybody had something to say about the sign perched above a trendy Chicago neighborhood -- even the ladies from the "The View" sounded off on the sign.

      

Read article

NY couple build wall through home

A bickering New York couple have had a dividing wall constructed inside their home as part of an acrimonious divorce. Chana and Simon Taub, both 57, have endured two years of divorce negotiations, but neither is prepared to give up their Brooklyn home. Now a white partition wall has been built through the heart of the house to keep the pair apart. Mr Taub asked a judge to allow him to erect the partition when the couple's divorce stalled over financial details. Read more

California or Texas Alimony

Houston Chronicle
Dec. 7--AUSTIN -- David and Suzanne Saperstein aren't the first couple to take a fight about alimony to the Texas Supreme Court.But they definitely are one of the richest. The couple known for lavish lifestyles and charitable donations is involved in a billion-dollar divorce that hit the high court Wednesday with appropriately high-powered legal talent.Tom Phillips, an ex-chief justice of the Supreme Court, made his first appearance before his former colleagues, arguing that Suzanne's spousal maintenance should be determined by a court in California, where she lives. The alimony laws there are considerably more liberal than in Texas, which has a three-year limit. David's case for having alimony determined in his home state of Texas was presented by Lynne Liberato, a former president of the State Bar of Texas and seasoned practitioner before the high court.David, 66, became a billionaire building a company that reported on traffic snarls. For the past three years, he has been Mayor Bill White's $1-a-year traffic czar, setting up the Safe Clear program and consulting on other mobility issues.Suzanne, 45, loves haute couture and lives in Los Angeles, where the couple's 45,000-square-foot French-style chateau was the subject of a seven-page spread in the April 2002 issue of Vanity Fair.In her legal brief, Suzanne said she was surprised in July 2005 when David lured her out of the family's Gulfstream jet when it landed in Houston for a stopover on the way to Europe. He said he wanted to talk about some serious issues regarding the children; once outside the plane he had her served with divorce papers.Days later she filed her own petition for divorce in California, where she might expect a higher and longer-lasting alimony judgment.One child lives in L.A.The couple have been married for almost 20 years and have three children. The two oldest, 19 and 17, live in Texas, but the youngest, 16-year-old Stefanie, lives with her mother in Los Angeles. (Her 2003 bat mitzvah, held at the family's horse ranch in Simi Valley, featured a big-top circus where Stefanie swung with professional trapeze artists and circled the ring nestled in an elephant's trunk.)Sometime in the fall of 2005, state District Judge Lisa Millard, a Harris County family court judge, held a brief telephone conference with a judge in California. The judges agreed to split the family support issues between them, with Texas taking spousal support and California taking child support and custody.Suzanne appealed Millard's spousal maintenance order to Houston's 14th Court of Appeals, which denied her appeal. She then petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.Meanwhile, she appealed the California judge's decision to cede jurisdiction, and a California appeals court sided with her in January.Competing court ordersConsequently, there are competing orders for temporary spousal maintenance, Phillips said. Millard granted $33,000 a month and the California court ordered a more generous $60,000 monthly payment.The $29,500 monthly child support is not disputed.There is no timetable for when the court might rule.A uniform statute enacted by all states in the mid-1990s at the insistence of Congress was supposed to prevent such interstate disputes. It places jurisdiction in the state where the divorce was first filed unless another state is the home state of the child.Phillips argued that California court should have jurisdiction over spousal support just as it has over child support. But Liberato said the issues should be decided in Texas where a court will divide the couple's property early next year."You all will be back here on property," predicted Justice Scott Brister.Cooperation encouragedAlthough the letter of the law appears to be on Suzanne's side, Liberato, who is with the Haynes and Boone law firm in Houston, cited an official comment by family law specialists who drafted the uniform statute. The comment, which she said is considered part of the law, encourages courts in competing states to cooperate and even defer to the other, depending on circumstances.Referring to the history of the dispute, Liberato told the Supreme Court, "This is a weird duck."Phillips, who served as chief justice for 16 years before leaving in 2004, now is with Houston's Baker Botts. He appeared at ease arguing before the court, but noted afterward that the 20 minutes he was given to present his case went by much faster than when he was on the other side of the bench.He said that because the law is the same in every state, the Texas Supreme Court's decision will be "highly influential when and if this problem arises in other states."

EMINEM DIVORCES WIFE AGAIN

(AP) - MOUNT CLEMENS, Michigan-Rap megastar Eminem and his high school sweetheart divorced for a second time, less than a year after they remarried.

Eminem and Kim Mathers agreed to divide property under terms of a private settlement and to share custody of their 10-year-old daughter, Hailie Jade Scott. They told a judge they understood the divorce was final.

The couple "conducted themselves with dignity and respect," Circuit Judge Antonio P. Viviano said. "All in all, they are a very fine couple to deal with."

Eminem, 34, declined to comment after the brief hearing as two men whisked him into a black Cadillac Escalade. Mathers, 31, did not speak to reporters.

Eminem and Mathers remarried Jan. 14. He filed for divorce April 5. They first married in 1999 in a secret ceremony in Missouri, and divorced in 2001.

Eminem, whose real name is Marshall Bruce Mathers III, has won nine Grammy Awards, including best rap album, for "The Slim Shady LP," "The Marshall Mathers LP" and "The Eminem Show." He won an Oscar for the song "Lose Yourself" from "8 Mile," the semi-autobiographical 2002 film in which he starred

California woman appeal sentence for violating custody order

From the Journal Gazette.link

A woman said Monday she would appeal the felony conviction and probation sentence she received for taking her son from his Fort Wayne father’s home and not returning him.

An Allen County jury convicted Latonna Whitt, 28, of El Cajon, Calif., in October of a felony custody violation charge for taking her 10-year-old son July 3, 2005, for a weekend visit but failing to return him the following Sunday as scheduled.

Although the boy’s father tried to alert police immediately, he was referred to his attorney from the custody case, court records stated. In October 2005, the father learned Whitt had withdrawn their son from Fort Wayne Community Schools and enrolled him in a school in California, according to court documents.

The law, which makes violating a custody order a felony, isn’t used often because parents usually work out custody before it reaches court, prosecutors said.

Whitt faced up to three years in prison, but Allen Superior Judge Kenneth Scheibenberger ordered her to serve 1 1/2 years on probation as well as receive a psychological evaluation and follow court orders from the Family Division, which involves the custody agreements.

“You have a whole new set of rules to live by from probation,” he told her. “If you don’t, they will issue a revocation … and no one wants to see that happen.”

Whitt shook her head as Scheibenberger spoke, prompting him to ask why.

“I just don’t understand a lot of what’s going on right now,” she replied.

Though Whitt’s attorney had already filed an appeal regarding her conviction, Whitt told the judge again Monday she wanted to appeal.

According to records, a court order allowed Whitt to have weekend visits with her son but restricted her from removing him from Indiana. She was arrested in May. At trial, her attorney said Whitt thought the court order was temporary and allowed her to go to California with the child.

The boy now lives with his father who has custody.

A Primer on Prenups-Britney played it smart. Paul will pay smartly.

Follow these five tips before saying "I do."

By Jane Bennett Clark

November 29, 2006

He's a world-renowned musician with a billion-plus in the bank and a failed marriage. She's a blonde pop singer with a flagging career and a failed marriage.

Guess what? The blonde was the smart one when it came to the prenuptial agreement. Before Britney Spears married soon-to-be-ex Kevin Federline, she had her lawyers draw up a prenup that reportedly awards him only $300,000 of her $100 million in assets. Paul McCartney, on the other hand, failed to take that precaution of a legal document protecting his assets and now faces an ugly court battle and a mega-million-dollar payout to his second wife, Heather Mills McCartney. Read More

Tabloid frenzy over Spears, Witherspoon divorce filings is keeping courthouse staff busy

From the LA Times:Los Angeles may not have a professional football team, but it does have celebrity divorce watching — and lately, that's becoming quite a rough sport. So employees of Los Angeles civil court were reminded this week, when Britney Spears filed for divorce from her husband of two years, Kevin Federline.Los Angeles may not have a professional football team, but it does have celebrity divorce watching — and lately, that's becoming quite a rough sport. So employees of Los Angeles civil court were reminded this week, when Britney Spears filed for divorce from her husband of two years, Kevin Federline.Read article

Man From Sudan Forced To Marry a Goat

From BBC Africa BBC Africa Link
A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.

The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.

"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up."

Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.

Great News For us Bloggers

From BBC website comes this great news for bloggers.

"Bloggers and US internet providers cannot be liable for posting defamatory comments written by third parties, the California Supreme Court has ruled.
To read the case

It followed the case of San Diego woman sued after posting allegedly libellous comments online about two doctors.

Some of the internet's biggest names including Google, eBay and Amazon have supported a woman in a US legal battle that may save them from libel cases.

The judges said the ruling would protect freedom of expression.

'Disturbing implications'

Overturning a decision by the San Francisco appeal court, the court ruled that people claiming they were defamed online could now only seek damages from the original author of the comments - and not the website which re-posted it.

The court ruled that that Internet Service Providers were protected by US Federal law that said providers of chat rooms or news groups are not considered the publishers of information furnished by others.

"The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," said Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.

"Nevertheless ... statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended."

The lawsuit involved a health activist who posted someone else's letter on her web site. The subject of the letter sued the activist - as well as the author - for libel.

Internet service providers have long argued that, like telephone companies, they were "common carriers" who could not be subject to libel laws."