UPDATES IN MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW

Divorce Wars | Internet public airing of private facts

The Internet gives people a new forum for publicly airing their dirty linen. Tricia Walsh Smith, not your usual British housewife, is publishing personal and embarrassing facts about her marriage and divorce. She's angry that her husband won't offer her more than was agreed upon in a prenuptial agreement. She's not writing a Blog. Instead, she's gone to YouTube.

'Til death do we part?

This is the week of bizarre divorce news, I guess. Yesterday, it was the $48.6 million award to Heather Mills [plus $70,000/year in child support, school tuition, and about $50,000/year for a nanny] in her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney. With all the rancor of that divorce, I foresee no happy co-parenting there!

Today, I read a report of a Connecticut divorce . . . something about 'til death do we part . . .

Cohabitation - Finally, a test for trial courts to apply

On March 18, 2008, In Smith v Smith, decided (For Publication), the Michigan court of appeals adopted the test from an Ohio decision to determine what constitutes “cohabitation.” In Smith, the parties' consent judgment of divorce mandated termination of spousal support upon “cohabitation.” Mr. Smith filed a motion to terminate alimony, claiming that his ex-wife was cohabiting with another man. The trial court denied his motion, after carefully analyzing whether the ex-wife's conduct as described constituted "cohabitation." Mr. Smith appealed.

McCartney - Mills divorce decision released

Heather Mills asked for $250 million from Sir Paul McCartney in the recent divorce trial in London, England. The judge awarded her about $48.6 million. Not bad for a 4-year marriage. Mills tried to make the relationship seem longer, claiming that her 2 years of cohabitation “flowed seamlessly into marriage.” The judge didn’t buy it.

Electronic evidence used more frequently

Steve Worrall, author of the outstanding Georgia Family Law Blog, has written many posts recently about the increasing frequency with which electronic evidence is being sought and used in court proceedings. A recent blog article entitled Law evolving as divorces drag in electronic evidence, is well worth the time to read, whether you're a family law subscriber to this Blog or a layperson involved in a pending divorce.

Michigan legislators seek to limit no-fault divorce

On February 19, 2008, a bill was introduced in Michigan's state legislature to amend the divorce statute with respect to grounds for divorce. If passed, this law would take Michigan residents back 38 years. In terms of the majority view on morality, evidenced by significant increases in cohabitation rather than marriage as a lifestyle, it would take us back to the 18th century. The legislation, if passed, would state:

Sec. 6. (1) A complaint for divorce may be filed in the
circuit court upon the allegation that there has been a breakdown
of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of
matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable
likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.

Divorce Wars & Invasion of Privacy

Yesterday, I wrote about one husband's malicious rant on the Internet. William Krasnansky has published a blog, http://lookatmypugs.livejournal.com in which he reveals the most intimate (and often the most petty) information about his seven (or so) year marriage. His diatribe is obviously intended to get even with his wife who, he says, "Runnoft" and left him.

The man apparently has a Mensa membership, but whoa . . . who could read his blog and think him to be a "smart person?"  In the meantime, the judge has ordered him to remove "any and all Internet postings" about his wife. The ex parte order is challenged as unconstitutional--as an infringement upon his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Divorce Wars | Blogs, free speech & getting even

Perhaps you remember the strange case of Dr. Bartha. He's the guy who blew up an historic building in New York City after a divorce court ordered him to sell the building and split the net sale proceeds with his former wife. He had claimed the building as his separate property. His point, I suppose, was "If I can't have it, then neither can you."  I wrote about it here in "Bizarre end to separate property dispute."

Another bizarre case is pending in Vermont where William Krasnansky publishes a Blog found at http://lookatmypugs.livejournal.com/. Mr. Krasnansky's wife "Runnoft" (according to him), leaving him, the two pugs, and the cat. Unfortunately, she also left behind -- Uh Oh -- about seven years' worth of journals, portions of which he has been selectively publishing online.

Despite an ex parte court order issued Dec. 7, 2007 that orders him to take down "any and all Internet postings" about his wife or their marriage, Mr. Krasnansky has refused to take down his blog. He states that leaving the Blog up is “a deliberate act of civil disobedience.”

Lap babies | Safety for infants on airliners

In this day of economic necessity and parent relocation because of employment out of state, family lawyers are seeing more and more cases of minor children being transported by air to and from parenting time with a non-custodial parent located some distance away. Thus, the New York Times caught my attention today.

Postnups on the rise?

According to the New York Times on December 9, 2007 postnups are becoming more popular. Dr. Phil has featured them on TV, and lawyers belonging to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers who were polled state that they are being asked far more frequently to draft postnups. Usually, say these lawyers, the postnup is entered into after discovery of some marital infidelity and perhaps only props up a marriage for a while. The postnup does allow the parties to define their rights and obligations in the event of a divorce or separation.

New tool to help children cope with high-conflict divorce

If you’re a parent going through a tough divorce with custody and parenting time issues and you believe that your children are suffering from stress caused by the fighting, consider a new resource I learned about just today.

National Chauvinistic Husbands Association?

Divorce filings in Japan surged 6.1% after a change in Japanese law. The law, enacted in 2003, but effective beginning in April 2007, entitles a wife to claim up to 50% of her husband's pension in a divorce.

Apparently, it took Japan a while to catch up with reality. In the U.S., pensions have been marital property since 1985. And this makes sense. Retirement plans represent nothing more than deferred income -- whether they are 401K plans that allow employees to defer income through payroll deductions until after the age of 55 or whether they are defined benefit plans that employers use as incentives (and instead of higher salaries in the present) to attract employees. Deferred income is marital property. After all, were it not deferred, it might represent other assets such as equity in a home, investment accounts, etc.

What are Michigan's residency requirements for divorce action?

Recently, two different cases have presented here with interesting and critical questions of residency for the purposes of filing for divorce. In Michigan, a no-fault divorce state, the trial court’s authority to grant a divorce is strictly statutory. The relevant statute, MCL 552.9 provides as follows:

(1) A judgment of divorce shall not be granted by a court in this state in an action for divorce unless the complainant or defendant has resided in this state for 180 days immediately preceding the filing of the complaint and, except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), the complainant or defendant has resided in the county in which the complaint is filed for 10 days immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.

Note that there are some minor exceptions in MCL 552.9(2), but those are unusual cases.

The issue whether a party actually met these residency requirements on the date of filing is a very important question because the parties may not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court.

Can divorce be made more affordable?

Just as I hit "Enter" to post the last article dealing with the dangers consumers face when using Internet websites to do "cheapie divorces,"  incoming email offered a breath of fresh air.

Scott Bassett, a veteran lawyer who practices Michigan family appellate law, had this to say in a post to the Family Law Listserv about how the State of Michigan might better serve innumerable citizens who need and want a divorce and who cannot afford legal representation. He recommended an unusual and practical approach to legal services called "the unbundling of services." Scott Bassett said:

Online Divorce: Warning from Attorney General

I was recently contacted by a reader of this Blog who asked me for information about whom to contact to report victimization by Michigan Divorce Online. Earlier this year, the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Section became aware that people were being taken advantage of by this online "company" that took money and critical information from consumers, promised to complete and to send them documents that they could file to complete a low-cost divorce, and then sent them nothing, or sent them documents that did not conform to the promises made.

One of the most serious risks consumers faced was credit fraud since Michigan Divorce Online required the consumer to provide such highly confidential information as social security numbers and other financial information.

What can consumers who have been victimized by Michigan Divorce Online or similar web-based companies do? Michigan's Attorney General Mike Cox issued a press release in March 2007 that warned consumers and also gave them relevant advice about how to proceed. I am re-publishing this press release below for the benefit of my readers. Please note that even though 7 months have elapsed since this press release, there continue to be many, many such online services looking for the unwary consumer. A simple Google search today "divorce online forms" yielded nearly 2 million results.

There's an old saying: "Let the Buyer Beware." Don't be one of those consumers who fits P.T. Barnum's old saying: "There's a sucker born every minute."

American attitudes about marriage, divorce, cohabitation, non-marital births, and same sex marriage

A new study of American attitudes about marriage, divorce, cohabitation, non-marital births, and same sex marriage was released on Sunday, July 1, 2007. The results of a national survey were published by the Pew Research Center.  A 91-page PDF copy of this study is available on the Internet.

Marriage. According to this survey, only 4 in 10 of those interviewed say that children are important to a successful marriage. As an illustration of how times have changed, in 1990, 65% of those interviewed felt this way.

The respondents were interviewed on their views of what makes a marriage work. 93% ranked faithfulness as important. [Well, I guess that eliminates a fair portion of Hollywood, if those tabloid headlines are right. No, no, I don't buy those things! But they scream at me when I stand in line at the grocery store!]

Only 12% said that agreement on politics was essential. Other ingredients to a successful marriage were adequate income, good housing, shared religious beliefs, and common tastes and interests. Not surprising, given an increase in the number of 2-income families in the U.S., satisfaction in marriage also depends upon how much a spouse shares in household chores.

Most respondents said that they want to marry. Married persons expressed greater satisfaction with their lives than those who are not married. [I suppose it  is handy not to wonder who's taking you to the ball.]

Other findings of the study mirror earlier research by Pamela Smock of the University of Michigan Institute of Social Research. There is wide divergence in attitudes regarding whether there is a stigma attached to non-marital births and shacking up.

Texas Governor Mandates Gardasil® for sixth graders

This news from the Associated Press: Republican Governor Rick Perry in Texas bypassed the legislature completely, and issued an executive order mandating vaccination against HPV of schoolgirls entering the sixth grade (girls usually aged 11 and 12) in September 2008. The vaccine,  Gardasil, is manufactured by Merck.

Obviously, the governor intended to avoid opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and also to sidetrack parents’ rights groups who argue that requiring the HPV vaccine would send a message to children that premarital sex is OK and would interfere with a parent’s right to make important medical decisions for his or her child.

The governor’s executive order also mandated free distribution of the vaccine to girls 9 to 18 who do not have health insurance coverage. The vaccine costs about $360 for a three-shot regimen. Additionally, he ordered that Gardasil be made available to women ages 19 to 21 who are covered by Medicaid.

Critics are quick to point out that Merck is committing monies to lobby among state legislators to stimulate enactment of legislation that would make the vaccination mandatory just like vaccination for measles, mumps, and rubella. These critics claim that such mandatory vaccination could create billions of dollars in sales for Merck.

Other critics question the safety of the vaccine.

Single Mothers By Choice

Things sure are different from 1959 when I was growing up. [How many of the girls in my high school class are on their 2nd or 3rd husbands?]

Modern times? Jennifer Egan writes for the magazine section of the New York Times today about young (and not so young) ladies -- career girls who've been unsuccessfully looking for "Mr. Right" -- who are electing to bypass the love and marriage and go right to the baby carriage. They're buying sperm online and talking about their experiences on a listserv "Single Mothers By Choice."

See, Wanted: A Few Good Sperm in the March 19, 2006 New York Times.

Parentage issues have long been of special interest to Jeanne Hannah. For more information on parentage issues, you may read articles on Jeanne Hannah's website.

AFCC E-Newsletter Online

Dave Vigliotta has just alerted me to the online publication of the E-Newsletter for the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts. This E-newsletter is described as follows:

The AFCC eNEWS, published bi-monthly, will provide up-to-date information for professionals including case law and research updates, international news and the latest initiatives in family law and conflict resolution. AFCC eNEWS will be sent to AFCC members and is available to the public. Please invite your colleagues to register for AFCC eNEWS by forwarding this issue and encouraging them to subscribe. All e-newsletters will be archived in the member center on the AFCC Web site, only accessible by AFCC members.  AFCC will never share, rent or otherwise distribute the AFCC eNews subscription list.

To contact Jeanne Hannah with your questions or to view her Family Law website, click here.