The American Association of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) recently conducted a survey of divorce attorney which revealed a growing trend involving evidence found on social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter and Match.com. According to the survey, 66 percent of attorneys use Facebook to find incriminating photos or statements while 15percent use MySpace and only 5 percent use Twitter.

People do not realize that what you post on sits such as Facebook are permanent, even if you close your page or later delete comments.  Racy pictures and derogatory comments are discoverable because there is no right of privacy in social media forums. This information can be used as evidence of “ accurate depictions of what someone did, said (or intended to say) at the time. MSNBC.com recently highlighted some examples of such posts:

-In court, a mother denied that she smokes marijuana but posted photos of herself partying and smoking pot on Facebook.

-A husband went on Match.com and declared he was single and had no children while he was seeking primary custody of his actual children.

- A husband denied that he had anger management issues but under the “write something about yourself” section on Facebook: “If you have the balls to get in my face, I’ll kick your ass into submission”.

Because postings such as these can hurt a client’s case, more attorneys are advising their clients to shut down Facebook pages and Twitter accounts when in the admist of a divorce.

For more information, see “Facebook Can Haunt You in Your Divorce” (Razai & Nefulda, businessreviewusa.com)

Massive budget cuts and layoffs in the NYC court system are causing long delays in granting of uncontested divorces. Divorce cases are taking longer to resolve in most counties, with Richmond County and Kings County judges taking up to 10 months to sign uncontested divorce judgments.

William J. Leininger, a veteran matrimonial attorney, said “the wait to obtain a signed judgment finalizing a divorce is now nine months or more after both sides agree to terms. The finalization process used to take three or four months.” And that, he says, is “on top of the time typically required –  from a few months to two years — to reach the divorce settlement.”

These delays are hindrance to remarriage by the parties and, far more importantly, to payment of needed alimony and child support, because settlements incorporating them are unenforceable without the signed judgment. This can place some parties in financial hardship as they wait around for the final judgment, without which they cannot collect the promised sums they need to continue to support their families. Under New York’s no-fault amendments, parties may seek pendente lite support, but that, too, takes time and burdens the system, and meanwhile they are without needed support. Pendente lite support is often used to provide support to the lower income spouse while the divorce process is pending.

According to the New York City Bar Association, the state judiciary, in 2010, was subjected to a $170 million budget cut. About 8 percent of its workforce, or 1,300 employees, left the courts due to early retirements and layoffs.

Meanwhile, in New York County it only takes four to five months to finalize a divorce, but this time is increasing as more attorneys flock to file their divorces in New York County under Sec. 509.

The new administrative judge said “There have been resources transferred to the matrimonial part. I can tell you the entire staff in the matrimonial part is working very hard to decrease any type of delay, but, sometimes, it’s innate in the matrimonial part. It’s my belief that we should be up to date as of the end of March.”

One way to avoid this long wait is to include language in the parties settlement agreements which makes the payment of either child support or maintenance payable at the signing of the Settlement Agreement, which is an enforceable contract.

A recent article in the Huffington Post titled “Celebrity Adoptions: Do Stars Get An Advantage?” discusses how some new celebrity parents are bringing a good face to the adoption process, something several people in the adoption community think is important. However, the article questions whether celebrities are getting preferential status when adopting internationally, primarily due to their excess of wealth. The international adoption process can be a long, expensive, and tedious one for families, yet certain celebrities, like Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock, and Madonna seem to be able to adopt international children rather easily. This article suggests that because “international adoptions are often a much longer and more complicated process…celebrities can pay to get priority”.[1]

“According to David Smolin, a professor at the Cumberland Law School at Samford University and an international adoption expert, non-residents are not allowed to adopt in Malawi, but because of the humanitarian aid Madonna poured into the nation, she was able to skirt some rules when adopting her two children, Mercy James and David Banda.”[2] Is this fair? Should wealthy individuals be able to go around established international laws just because they have money to throw at the issue?

Over the years, American culture and its view on what “family” means has changed drastically.  Same sex marriage (while not allowed everywhere) is not as shocking as it once was.  Single motherhood has become acceptable and many couples feel that marriage is becoming obsolete.  Despite these radically shifting social views, the laws in the U.S. governing what makes up a “family” are slow to keep up.  And the people impacted the most by these legal doctrines are sometimes the least aware of them.

Take Chukwudera Okoli, who married his wife, Blessing, in 1991.  Despite years of trying to conceive, the couple remained childless through the years – including when they separated in 2001.  However, in 2003, Blessing became pregnant with twins through the use of in vitro fertilization, using donor sperm and a donor egg. On March 6 2012, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed a decision by a judge from Probate and Family Court  requiring Okoli to pay child support to the twins.

Usually, there would be nothing unusual about a married parent being required to pay child support.  Massachusetts, like New York, has a legal presumption that a man is the legal father of any child to whom his wife gives birth to, in addition to a law aimed specifically at artificial insemination, which recognizes the husband as the legal father of children his wife has conceived through artificial insemination.  Though Okoli and his wife were separated, they were not divorced (i.e. they were still married) at the time of the birth of the twins and neither of the parents is genetically related to the children.  Yet the internet blogsphere and media portrayal of the decision clearly shows a lack of understanding of either legal issue.  One such example of this confusion is a description of the decision of the Court of Appeals on Opposing Views, misstating the time of birth as “after the divorce,” when there was no legal documentation of any divorce – a legally crucial fact.

Okoli appears to be the victim of more than just ignorance of the paternity presumption though.  In the worst case scenario, his fear of deportation was also exploited by Blessing when she threatened to not support him in getting his green card if he would not give her consent for her to undergo an IVF process to receive donor eggs and sperm in to conceive in vitro.  Yet the argument that his consent should be void due to duress failed in court because Okoli failed to brief this claim properly.  One possible reason for that could be as Blessing attorney claimed in Opposing Views: Okoli already is a legal citizen and cannot be deported.  Furthermore, the Appeals Court ruled that his consent for Blessing to undergo IVF amounted to an intent “to create a child,” which is all that is required to be recognized as a father via artificial insemination in Massachusetts, “rather than consent to become a parent.”

Adding further to the confusion in the media, Okoli and his ex-wife had signed an agreement relieving him of any financial responsible for any children Blessing gave birth to through the in vitro procedure.  Not being aware of how consenting to his wife’s use of donor eggs and sperm would legally recognize him as a parent of any resulting children, despite the fact that his own sperm was not used, Okoli (or many others) could easily be led to believe the state should respect the contract between him and Blessing.  But the state’s agenda for recognizing Okoli as the father of the twins is clear.  Although the media tends to portray cases like Okoli’s as the state trying to financially ruin unsuspecting people, the state is looking out for the infant twins’ best interest.  Which, in this case, is some extra financial support.

It has been over a year since unilateral no-fault divorce was adopted in New York. No-fault divorce, which exists in all states now, permits one spouse to receive a divorce by swearing that the marriage has been irretrievably broken for six months or more.

Ever since the law’s passage, there have been critics and supporters. The law includes a small provision about temporary spousal support (also known as alimony and maintenance), is currently being analyzed by the state’s independent Law Revision Commissions because, according to a Wall Street Journal article by Sophia Hollander, there are “troubling aspects” regarding the strict formula for awarding temporary spousal support. A report is due in April.

Temporary maintenance is awarded when the income of the “less-monied” spouse is less than two thirds of the spouse with the higher income. The formula calls for maintenance to be the lesser of a) 30% of the payor’s income minus 20% of the non-payor’s income or b) 40% of the combined income minus the non-payor’s income. Income for calculation of temporary maintenance is to be capped at $500,000, and judges are free to adjust amounts when the income exceeds $500,000.

The law aimed to protect the low-income spouse, but ended up hurting the affluent spouse by shifting income unfairly. At times, it even transformed the richer spouse into the poorer one.

The movement is to make the law less binding on judges and more advisory, however, the fear is that it will lose its effect.

Westchester Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, the primary sponsor of the alimony law, said, “[The 2010 law is] better for women. But we do want to make it fair, and we do want to respect everyone involved.”

However, how is this fair?

What is fair alimony in the 21st century? Alimony was originally designed to protect a woman and family from falling into poverty after a divorce. It originated during a time when women were mainly at home caregivers  where many lacked proper educations allowing for sufficient employment. However, in recent times the majority of women work and nearly a third have college degrees.

Florida lawmakers are pushing to overhaul the state’s alimony law in a bid to better reflect today’s marriages and make the system less burdensome for the alimony payer. Florida joins a growing number of states that seek to rewrite alimony laws by curbing lifelong alimony and alleviate the financial stress that some payers — still mostly men — say they are forced to take on.

“It can strangle the person that is paying it,” said Alan Frisher, the founder of Florida Alimony Reform, an organization of 2,000 members, several of whom testified recently at legislative committee hearings. “Oftentimes, we can’t afford to pay that amount of alimony. It can provide a disincentive for the receiver to ever go back to work, to make more money or remarry. I don’t think anybody should have to be an indentured servant for the rest of their lives.”

The legislature in Massachusetts, which had some of the country’s most antiquated alimony laws, passed without opposition a measure to rewrite the laws and make them more equitable.

Commissions in other states have been set up to collect data and stories about the hardships of long-term alimony payments and presenting them to lawmakers to hopefully make the necessary changes to bring the alimony laws to the 21st Century and to take into account current household dynamics.  If the standard of living must drop after a divorce, as it often does, the burden should be equally shared.

A Cleveland, Ohio mother is losing her child for a pretty unique reason: the state has determined that her child is too fat.

The mother brought her child into a hospital sometime last year, citing concern over problems breathing.  The doctors at the Rainbow Babies and Children’s hospital diagnosed him with sleep apnea (a disease commonly associated with being overweight), contacted social workers, and enrolled the 200+ lb. youth in a program geared towards shedding pounds.  The youth experienced moderate success for a while, but quickly regained the weight. 

The mother of the child (whose name has not been released) was distraught, shocked at the fact that her child was being forced into the foster care system based on her weight.  The mother was quoted as stating, “It’s a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying”.

The Constitution places a high level of importance on the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit.  Legally, the state must have a compelling state interest in removing a child from their parent’s care.  A “compelling state interest” can be the health and well-being of an individual.  What’s curious –and possibly dangerous- about this however, is the fact that America is facing an obesity epidemic.

For those of you on the side of removing the child from the parent citing the better good, consider the case of Adela Martinez.  A decade ago, her three-year old daughter, Anamarie was removed from her care.  At 90 lbs., the state decided that the mother was unfit to raise her, and Anamarie was placed into the foster care system.  Years later, however, when no progress was made in regulating the child’s weight, it was discovered that Anamarie suffered from a genetic predisposition that complicated weight loss and growth.  She was returned to her parent’s care

This situation has the potential to directly impact parenting rights in America.  At what point is a child overweight enough to be removed from the care of their parents?  How much time should  a parent have to get their child’s weight under control?  Under this standard, would the government be wrong for not removing a child from the care of their parents if they are morbidly obese?   What about the fact that higher levels of obesity are reported in poorer communities where the unhealthier, cheaper food options are the only ones?  Is the solution to remove children from their parents care, or are the other solutions available?  There are tons of questions, and not enough definitive answers.  I think the knee-jerk reaction to remove a child from their parent’s care is a dangerous one,  especially when considering the possible ramifications of placing a child into “the system”.

In what the Los Angeles Times reported as “California’s priciest divorce” came to an end months ago with a $150M settlement agreement and over $20M in legal fees.  Frank McCourt, the Los Angeles Dodgers ex-owner, and his soon to be ex-wife, Jamie McCourt, ex-CEO of the Dodgers, finally reached a settlement after two years of negotiations.

The McCourt’s had been married for nearly thirty years and entered into a post-nuptial agreement in 2004 which specified that Frank was the sole owner of the Dodgers which the couple purchased together in 2004 for $430M.  However, multiple, dissimilar copies of the agreement were discovered and in 2010 the court ruled the post-nuptial invalid, thus leaving it unclear as to whether Mr. McCourt was the sole owner of the ballclub valued at over $800M.

John Goodman, an heir to a West Palm Beach air-conditioning fortune has adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend, Heather Hutchins. Goodman’s reasoning for this bizarre move is “for estate planning purposes and to ensure protection of both his and her minor children and the stability of all the family investments.” See Michelle Castillo, Fla. man adopts his 42-year-old girlfriend, CBS News (Feb. 2, 2012). By adopting his girlfriend, Ms. Hutchins is now entitled to one-third of the beneficiary interest in Goodman’s trust and will have access to her share immediately. With this adoption, Goodman now has three legal children, the other two of whom are minors.

This adoption comes on the eve of Goodman’s trial for a wrongful death suit. See Daphne Duret, Goodman’s adoption of his girlfriend challenged in court, The Palm Beach Post (Feb. 8, 2012). Two years ago, Goodman was involved in an automobile accident after running a stop sign that allegedly caused the death of 23-year-old Scott Wilson. See Castillo article. Goodman now faces criminal charges involving driving under the influence, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of an accident. See Duret article.

The minor children’s guardian and the attorney filed a motion in Miami court, asking for the adoption to be thrown out. They believe that Goodman failed to disclose his upcoming trial to the judge who approved the adoption. Otherwise, the adoption will result in Goodman’s trust being split three-ways, with Hutchins netting almost $9 million, in addition to $5 million in extra money Hutchins may ask for each year, according to the agreement. The question which remains – is this adoption illegal, or merely against public policy? Should Goodman have married Hutchins instead?

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, family-law practitioners and legal experts say that parents in custody battles are increasingly blaming the other parent for the health issues of their children, including poor nutrition and obesity. The evidence in each case varies. For example, in some instances, a parent is too overweight to perform proper parental duties, thus leading the child to incur a similarly unhealthy lifestyle. In others, the child’s obesity is evidence that the parent allows the child to consume an excess amount of soft drinks and fast food. Parents are using this evidence to gain leverage in custody battles while placing the blame on the other as to why their child is grossly overweight.