Divorce notice on Facebook

I was once in family court when a woman claimed that her husband moved to Canada, and she wants a divorce, but she has no current address. The judge suggested that she put a classified ad in a Canadian newspaper, and that might be considered legal notice of the divorce action.

In view of that, this is not so silly:

Want to divorce your husband or wife but can't give them the papers in person? Just use Facebook. No, apparently this isn't a late April Fools' joke. The New York Daily News reports Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper has allowed 26-year-old Ellanora Baidoo to serve her husband Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku divorce papers via a Facebook message. In fact, Baidoo won't even be the one sending the message. Her lawyer has been granted permission to message Blood-Dzraku using her account. "This transmittal shall be repeated by plaintiff's attorney to defendant once a week for three consecutive weeks or until acknowledged," the ruling states.

Meanwhile, in case you thought that lawyers will do anything for a buck, there are apparently some limits, according to the NY Times:

The stacks of Supreme Court briefs filed on both sides of the same-sex marriage cases to be heard this month are roughly the same height. But they are nonetheless lopsided: There are no major law firms urging the justices to rule against gay marriage.

Leading law firms are willing to represent tobacco companies accused of lying about their deadly products, factories that spew pollution, and corporations said to be complicit in torture and murder abroad. But standing up for traditional marriage has turned out to be too much for the elite bar. The arguments have been left to members of lower-profile firms. …

They will defend terrorists, but not traditional marriage. I can only assume that the law firms are scared of some sort of gay retaliation.

Liberal philosopher law professor mind at work

Brian Leiter is a philosopher wannabe who became a law professor, and spreads his stupid liberal opinions on philosophy, politics, law, and ethics.

He writes:

The only exceptions to mandatory vaccination schemes should be for health reasons...

...but in crazy California you can get not only "religious" exemptions, but "philosophical" ones, not by having an argument, but simply by checking a box.  Perhaps if Child Protective Services started taking kids away from the idiot parents who don't vaccinate them, California would cease being the measles and whooping cough capitol of America -- and can polio be far behind?

I post this just to show the typical academic holier-than-thou Obama supporter mentality at work.

The main obstacle to eliminating polio was a Barack Obama decision. While he spent 6 months dithering about approval for a raid against Osama Bin Laden's compound, he approval a plan to use CIA spies to masquerade as polio vaccine workers to try to get a fingerprint or DNA sample from bin Laden. Once this got exposed, Afghans and Pakistanis think that polio vaccination is a CIA plot. 65 public health workers have been murdered as a result.

Leiter does not criticize Obama. He regularly posts name-calling rants against Republicans.

Californians used to be able to get out of vaccine requirements by something like "checking a box", but the law has recently made it more difficult. Vaccination rates are higher than reported, because some parents say that they are opting out only because they do not have the documentation for the vaccines received.

You would think that a law professor would advocate a change in the law, if he disagreed with it. Or at least find out what the law is before he comments on it. But no, he would rather use CPS to take kids away from parents in order to enforce a social policy.

He seems to have contempt for the idea of parents exercising their legal rights by just checking a box. If it is indeed a legal right, then why not just check a box?

Liberals hate parental rights.

The measles epidemic is grossly exaggerated. There are millions of cases all over Europe, Asia, and Africa. It was eliminated from the USA, and only comes back in from foreigners. The current outbreak is from foreign tourists at Disneyland. If vaccination is so important, then why don't we demand that foreign tourists show proof of vaccination?

Why does American law give more rights to foreigners than to Americans?

Here is the official California measles data: There have been 79 California cases, of which 52 are attributable to Disneyland. Most of the cases are adults who have no vaccination requirements. Stiffening vaccination requirements for school-aged American kids will have no effect on adults getting measles from foreigners at Disneyland.

Just look at that guy. Does he look like a guy who believes in individual rights? No, he cannot even hold his head up straight. He looks pathetic. He is a left-wing authoritarian who wants everyone to conform to his stupid beliefs. People like him disgust me.

How Divorced Parents Lost Their Rights

I mentioned psychology professor Robert E. Emery in 2005 and 2008 because he co-authored an article on how child custody evaluations are unscientific voodoo.

Now he has a NY Times op-ed on how family courts should allow parents to make agreements to let special masters settle disputes.

This would be a big bonanza for divorce psychologists like him, but the whole idea of psychologists running the lives of parents is a terrible idea. People would only agree to it if they were convinced that family court is worse (as it might well be).

Nevertheless the article makes several good points.

How Divorced Parents Lost Their Rights

MY wife and I disagree, sometimes vehemently, about how best to raise our four children. She’s a lawyer, and I am sure the thought of suing me has crossed her mind once or twice. But she cannot. American courts consistently refuse to entertain child-rearing disputes between married parents.

In 1936, the New York State Court of Appeals explained the reasoning: “Dispute between parents when it does not involve anything immoral or harmful to the welfare of the child is beyond the reach of the law. The vast majority of matters concerning the upbringing of children must be left to the conscience, patience, and self-restraint of father and mother. No end of difficulties would arise should judges try to tell parents how to bring up their children.”

Married parents cannot sue each other. Divorced parents (or those who never married) can and do. Judges routinely decide where the children of divorced parents will attend school, worship and receive medical care; judges may even decide whether they play soccer or take piano lessons.

Judges do this because the law assumes that divorced parents’ interests in their children, unlike the interests of married parents, are not aligned. This is an outdated idea. The view of exes as opponents dates from an era when divorce and childbearing outside of marriage were rare. It is reflected in the legal language of a bygone time. One parent won custody, care and control of the children. The other became a visitor.

So far so good. Married parents should not be able to sue each other, and unmarried should not be able to sue over routine parental decisions either.

Surprisingly, even when unmarried parents agree on a plan, judges can overrule it. For example, a judge may not like a complex joint custody schedule. If so, she can decide when the separated parents spend time with their children, even though they agreed otherwise.

This makes no sense. We may need judges to decide some divorce disputes. But when it comes to parenting, as much as possible, the law should treat unmarried people more like married people. Instead of telling parents how to bring up their children, we should honor — and encourage — agreements between parents.

To my knowledge, judges nearly always approve parenting plans if the parents stipulate (agree). So this is not an issue.

The problem is that if the parents disagree later, the judge may not enforce that parenting plan.

By honoring parental agreements, our laws would allow parents living apart to make enforceable contracts. Parents could make a deal, for example, that a parenting coordinator could make decisions for them in the future if they fail to agree. Currently, the legal status of such agreements is questionable, because judges, not divorced parents, hold decision-making authority over children. In an extreme move, Pennsylvania recently outlawed this practice, ruling that only judges could make decisions in custody cases.

It does make sense. Here is what I wrote about that Penn. decision:

One of the worst ideas to come out of the family court was to appoint some expert to micro-manage parenting decisions, without recourse to the courts. It sounds appealing to have some neutral objective child psychologist in charge because dumb parents don't know how to raise kids and might be influenced by antagonism towards the other parent. The idea would be a horrible nightmare even if it did work. But it has not worked wherever it has been tried.

National Parents Organization. reports: "Pennsylvania just eliminated the Parenting Coordinator role that it began five years ago. According to The Legal Intelligencer, its demise is related to a couple of high profile cases." ...

I had a $28,000 evaluation from psychologist Ken Perlmutter, and his main recommendation was for the court to appoint a parenting coordinator who would have the authority to make all parenting decisions until the kids turn 18 years old, with no recourse or appeal if he is making bad decisions. This was in spite of the fact that he had evaluated our 4 years of joint custody, and could not find a single bad decision that we had made.

The kind of people who do these evaluations and become parenting coordinators are the worst sort of creeps. You would never want anyone like Perlmutter near your kids. I don't know who ever decided that psychologists were good for this sort of thing. There has never been a study showing that psychologist rear kids any better than anyone else.

In the big majority of cases, the parents are pressured to accepting the evaluation recommendations. If my ex-wife and I did that, our kids lives would be run by some a**hole like Perlmutter.

Kids have two parents. No one has found a better way. It is my understanding that the Santa Clara court and some other California family courts have abolished these parenting coordinators.

Emery continues:

Allowing parents to make contracts would help solve another thorny problem: sharing care of very young children. Experts are debating how much time babies should spend with just one parent versus with both parents. Many believe that babies need to form a secure attachment to one parent (most often the mother) and that too much separation will undermine a baby’s sense of security. Others worry that too little contact will weaken the second parent’s attachment, potentially leading him to drop out of his child’s life.

A logical solution is for parents to make a plan that will grow and change along with their child. A baby might stay mostly with one parent, and time with the other parent could increase during the toddler and preschool years. Perhaps the parents would share 50-50 custody when their baby is of school age.

Sadly, this common-sense approach is undermined by laws that do not honor such agreements, and push parents to fight instead. Lawyers wisely tell breast-feeding mothers to fight for full custody. Judges are likely to be sympathetic to a nursing mother. Yet lawyers also wisely tell the fathers of babies to fight for their custody share. The father’s case will be weakened if he waits until his baby is older, because he will have a record of relative uninvolvement.

There is some merit to this argument, and the law used to favor the breast-feeding mom under the Tender Years Doctrine, but now that is considered sexist and disciminatory. His proposal will not solve that problem.

Our legal system has always seen the wisdom of encouraging married parents to work together. Now it needs to recognize that divorced and never-married parents are not so different. After all, partners with children are tied together forever.

This is a strange comment because his main proposal is for divorced parents to get parenting coordinators, and he is not suggesting that for married parents.

California and many other states already treat divorced and never-married parents the same for child custody and support. These laws are anti-marriage when they treat marrieds and unmarrieds the same.

Your emotional impulse in divorce is to hurt back, because you hurt so badly. Our legal system should work against that impulse, not encourage it. That, truly, is in the best interest of the child.

I just posted a study claiming to show that the children do not benefit at all from the parents holding back that impulse. That study may be wrong, but Emery is relying heavily on unproven assumptions.

At least Emery clearly explains part of what is wrong with the family court. Too bad his ideas for reform are so stupid.

Emery frames his argument in terms of consenting adults making a binding contract. I guess I would have to agree, if that is what the parents really want to do. But it appears that I am in a minority. President Barack Obama just released a statement about some black football player who had a fight with his fiancee in an elevator:

The President is the father of two daughters. And like any American, he believes that domestic violence is contemptible and unacceptable in a civilized society. Hitting a woman is not something a real man does, and that's true whether or not an act of violence happens in the public eye, or, far too often, behind closed doors. Stopping domestic violence is something that's bigger than football — and all of us have a responsibility to put a stop to it.

Apparently everyone agrees that Ray Rice should not be allowed to play football. The video looks incriminating, but we don't know what the fight was about and the woman decided to marry him even after he was indicted for the incident. I really don't see why Obama or the NFL should be interjecting themselves into a private incident between a husband and wife with neither of them complaining. In today's politics, domestic violence is everybody's business I guess.

Update: The NY Times published this letter in response:

I am a member of Gov. Deval Patrick’s Massachusetts Working Group on Family Law. After two years of work, we crafted a bill very similar to the points raised by Mr. Emery. The bill, not yet passed, does away with the term “visitor” and replaces it with “parent.” The bill encourages parents to cooperate, share parental responsibilities and come up with a parenting plan.

Married and divorced parents are not different. The “emotional impulse” in divorce “to hurt back” hurts the children only more. There is no greater pain than to be alienated from one’s children after separation and divorce, and most children wish that “parents would stop putting me in the middle.”

Children benefit from having contact with both parents after separation and divorce. Massachusetts and other states should pass shared parenting laws so that children can grow up knowing and loving both parents.

PETER G. HILL
Weston, Mass., Sept. 8, 2014

I doubt that his bill is any good, if his main point is changing some terminology. What is needed is a bill that recognizes parents rights, and not just using different terms.

Crazy people cannot be lawyers

A couple of female law professors complain:

Last week, all across the country, tens of thousands of law school graduates endured an agonizing rite of passage: the bar examination.

As if sitting for two or three full days in a large room full of stressing, sweating, swearing candidates weren’t bad enough, at least 40 percent of these candidates were also struggling with another challenge: gaining admission to the profession despite having a psychiatric disability. ...

(Lying is not an option because law students learn from their very first day of legal studies that the profession holds them to a duty of candor. If they ever lie about anything, they're told, the bar will find out, and they might lose their license to practice.) ...

There is good news. The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division recently stated formally that the mental health questions on bar fitness applications violate the Americans With Disabilities Act. The DOJ declared that these mental fitness questions use “stereotypes and assumptions about the disabilities and are not necessary to assess applicants’ fitness to practice,” encouraging states to focus on conduct rather than mental health status. The DOJ’s declaration is not enforceable on the states, but it is a clarion call. ...

It is time for the legal profession to stop stigmatizing bar applicants for their disabilities and for exercising good self-care.

Really? 40% of lawyer candidates have mental illnesses?

Another alternative would be to require full disclosure to the public. That is, let the mentally ill become lawyers, but stamp the info on the law license and on the Bar Assn web page.

The "lying is not an option" is amusing. My guess is that half the crazy applicants lie on the forms and conceal the mental illness. The Bar Assn has no good way of checking.

Trafficking law requires BIOTCh lawyers

I mentioned that a recent BIOTCh law forbid deporting the illegal alien kids. While many Republicans propose revising the 2008 law, they still seem to support BIOTCh due process for the foreign kids. BIOTCh hearings are hopeless and should be repealed.

Ann Coulter has another angle:

It’s been reported everywhere—The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News—that the William Wilberforce Sex Trafficking Act requires that any non-Mexican children who show up on our border be admitted and given a hearing. (New York Times, July 7, 2014: “Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking.”)

The problem, we’ve been told, is that a loophole in the sex trafficking law mandates these hearings — or “removal proceedings.”

But there is no such loophole. ...

According to last Friday’s New York Times, almost 90 percent of the 53,000 illegal alien kids given refugee status since October have already been transferred to parents or relatives living in the U.S. By the law’s clear terms, those 47,000 kids should have been summarily turned away at the border — just as Mexican children are.

I am not sure she is correct. Here is the Text of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008:

Subject to section 462(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(b)(2)), an unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. In making such placements, the Secretary may consider danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. Placement of child trafficking victims may include placement in an Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program, pursuant to section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(d)), if a suitable family member is not available to provide care.

I read this as saying that the alien kids can be placed with a USA family member, justified by BIOTCh, and while awaiting a BIOTCh hearing. Coulter says that the law excludes kids who have a suitable USA legal guardian.

And the kids get to lawyer up:

The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to appoint independent child advocates for child trafficking victims and other vulnerable unaccompanied alien children. A child advocate shall be provided access to materials necessary to effectively advocate for the best interest of the child. The child advocate shall not be compelled to testify or provide evidence in any proceeding concerning any information or opinion received from the child in the course of serving as a child advocate. The child advocate shall be presumed to be acting in good faith and be immune from civil and criminal liability for lawful conduct of duties as described in this provision.

This seems crazy to me. The so-called "child advocate" is supposed to tell the kid's story, and that story is to be believed, but the lawyer will not be under oath so he is free to tell lies in order to zealously advocate for the child.

This must have been written by lawyers who profit from endless proceedings that accomplish nothing. No one else would think that these child advocates are reasonable.

The kids should just be sent back to their home countries to rejoin their parents.

Court breaks confessional confidentiality

The nanny state meets the lawyer state. More and more, laws and policies are requiring people to snitch on others. This time it is just so some lawyer can sue for the emotional distress of being kissed.

ABC News reports:

Catholics are decrying a recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision that reaches into the most sanctified of church places, the confessional booth.

The ruling revives a lawsuit that contends a priest should have reported allegations of sexual abuse disclosed to him during private confessions and opens the door for a judge to call the priest to testify about what he was told. The lawsuit was filed by parents of a teen who says she told the priest about being kissed and fondled by an adult church parishioner.

If the priest were called to testify, Catholic groups say it could leave him choosing between prison and excommunication.

"Confession is one of the most sacred rites in the Church. The Sacrament is based on a belief that the seal of the confessional is absolute and inviolable. A priest is never permitted to disclose the contents of any Confession," Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said in a statement this week blasting the ruling. ...

The lawsuit alleges that in the summer of 2008, a 64-year-old parishioner at Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church in East Feliciana Parish kissed and fondled the 14-year-old girl and continued to pursue her with emails and phone calls.

I assume that the priest will refuse to testify, the lawyer will win, and the Catholic parishioners will have to pay a huge sum for the alleged misbehavior of some old coot. If the man committed a crime, then charge him, but there is no reason to attack a core Catholic belief that has been recognized for a millennium.

Dad blames phone for kid stranded at sea

I mentioned this story in April, and I am following up only because the parents are blaming it all on the phone company:

The family that drew national attention when they were rescued at sea off their sailboat, Rebel Heart, in April is finally setting the record straight.

Charlotte and Eric Kaufman and their two daughters were about 1,000 miles west of Cabo San Lucas in the Sea of Cortez when 1-year old Lyra became sick. That was when their adventure of a lifetime turned into a nightmare.

It began with a fever, then a rash and then Lyra became lethargic. That was when the couple used their satellite cell phone to call a doctor. ...

Kaufman noticed the phone was showing a SIM card error. He tried everything to restart the phone. He soon realized they were "in a really dangerous spot."

He said he had no choice but to activate the sailboat's emergency beacon. ...

The couple will file a civil lawsuit against the satellite phone provider later this week. Attorney Dan Gilleon says they should not only compensate the Kaufmans for their loss, but should also re-pay the federal government for the expensive military rescue at sea.

"The at-fault party here was that satellite phone company," Gilleon said. "The Kaufmans did everything they were supposed to have done."

In spite of what happened, the Kaufmans say they plan to travel the world with their kids again, as soon as they get a new sailboat.

From what little I know about the law, it seems likely to me that the phone company disclaimed consequential damages. The lawsuit may just be a way to deflect the blame.

Attacking the attorney-client privilege

A reader complains about Rule 1.6:

This Rule governs the disclosure by a lawyer of information relating to the representation of a client during the lawyer's representation of the client. ... A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client's informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation.

The constitutional basis is the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The thinking is that "Assistance of Counsel" requires because able to ask your lawyer confidential questions about your predicament without that being used against you in court.

Here is the lawsuit against Rule 1.6, with further argument here and here.

I am sorry, but this stuff is incoherent and is going nowhere. Apparently some guy is mad that he cannot get copies of the communications between his wife and her lawyer in a divorce court battle. There is no explanation why those documents would be useful or relevant, and no explanation of how the legal profession would ever function without an attorney-client. I realize that the privilege is occasionally abused, but this guy gives no evidence of any abuse.

More joint child custody laws

NPR Radio reports:

Ned Holstein, head of the National Parents Organization, formerly called Fathers and Families, says research shows that children do better academically and emotionally when they see a lot of each parent.

"We believe family courts are actively hurting kids," by not awarding joint custody more often, says Holstein. The best legislation, he says, favors joint custody, so long as both parents are fit and there's been no domestic violence.

Lawmakers in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and Minnesota have passed measures favoring more equally shared custody, though governors vetoed the last two. Other states have introduced legislation, while some have created a task force to study the issue. A task force in Connecticut recently rejected such a change in custody law, while one in Maryland will issue its report later this year.

For Holstein, it boils down to equal rights for fathers in an era of converging gender roles, but he has faced a lot of resistance.

I would favor joint child custody, even if there is domestic violence. If the parents fought before the divorce, they should not lose their rights after the divorce.

Joint custody is blocked by feminists and lawyers:

"It gets blocked time after time in legislatures because there are groups that don't want it to happen," he says.

Until recently, the State Bar of South Dakota was one of those groups.

"The bar's concern was that the individual parent's interest trumped that of the children," says Thomas Barnett, executive director of the Bar.

The parents define the interst of the children. That last sentence makes no sense unless you believe that judges and others should displace parents in child-rearing.

After blocking legislation for several years, Barnett decided to work out a compromise. Legislation passed the South Dakota Senate unanimously this year and is now in the House. One major change dropped the legal presumption of joint custody, but the bill does call on judges to consider it and lays out a series of factors to weigh, including the logistics of a joint arrangement and how parents treat each other in the child's presence.

In other words, the law will requires judges to make parenting decisions, and create work for lawyers to argue about it.

Women for Men reports on progress:

Presently eight States promote shared parenting including Arizona, Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, and Wisconsin. A Florida bill for alimony reform and shared parenting was expected to pass, but was crushed by a veto from Florida’s governor. The proposed amendment sought to increase the minimum amount of parenting time from 25% to 35%.

Connecticut established a Task Force to study the issue of shared parenting, with a report expected this month. In Maryland, legislators initiated a Commission on Child Custody Decision Making with a report due in late 2014.

Canada’s Bill C-560 on shared parenting is scheduled for second reading in the House of Commons in mid-March 2014. In previous iterations of this bill there has been non-partisan support from the Liberals, Conservatives and the Green Party, the latter two include shared parenting in their platforms.

Mel Gibson wife burns money on lawyers

The UK Daily Mail reports:

It is a decision she surely regrets

For Mel Gibxon's ex Oksana Grigorieva has filed for bankruptcy less than four years after knocking back a $15m child custody settlement offer from the Braveheart star.

The hard-up Russian pianist made the move due to prohibitive legal debts said to be in the range of $250,000. ...

During her bitter custody battle with the Mad Max actor she sacked more than 40 lawyers.

At the end of it all the Oscar-winning star was ordered to pay just $750,000 to Grigorieva, which he is stumping up in installments.

The 2011 decision came a year after she turned down a rumoured $15m offer of settlement.

According to the documents she is receiving $20,000 a month in child support for Lucia, while her former flame Timothy Dalton pays her $2,500 a month for their son Alexander.

Their settlement was the end to a lengthy feud, which made headlines across the world when the she accused Gibson of attacking her.

No love lost: This mugshot of the Mad Max star was taken after he pleaded no contest to simple battery in 2011

The confrontation took place on January 2010 - just three months after Grigorieva gave birth to their daughter.

Firing 40 lawyers must be a record. Normally I would be inclined to blame the lawyers for turning down a good settlement and for failing to give reasonable financial advice.

But it is hard to believe that all 40 lawyers were bad. This is obviously an intransigent bitch who went crazy with possessiveness about the baby. These bitter child custody battles should be impossible, because joint custody should be automatic.

This is not the Australian woman who bore Mel Gibson 7 kids and ditched him after his DUI arrest. She got $400M.

Valentines Effect Causes Divorce

Here is more evidence that wives seek divorce for shallow reasons:

When Janine Martinez's husband had not made dinner plans for Valentine's Day three days before the annual romantic holiday, the 43-year-old felt she was involved in a sub-standard marriage.

"My relationship just didn't look like what I see on television," said Martinez who began considering divorce. "I was reminded of the dysfunction in my marriage by all of the red and pink decorations in the retail stores and the candy hearts my children brought home from school."

When Martinez confronted her husband about Valentine's Day, she became convinced it was time to pull the plug.

"He didn't feel we needed to celebrate the holiday since we'd been married for seven years," Martinez told MainStreet. ...

About 67% of people searching for a divorce lawyer on the Internet in the weeks leading up to Valentine's Day are women, according to a new study by Avvo.com, which matches consumers with lawyers. ...

"For the last four years, we've consistently seen a large increase in the number of people searching for information on divorce around Valentine's Day," said Leigh McMillan, vice president of marketing with Avvo. "The spike is so consistent and so prominent to warrant calling it the Valentine's Effect."

Naybe these wives are just not showing enough enthusiam:

advocacy group StudentsNS has determined that its position on consenting to sex will be so clear and unambiguous, they have inadvertently jettisoned all sense of logic. From now on, according to their new site morethanyes.ca it is no longer enough for a sexual partner to agree to sex. Even clear consent is not enough. No, from now on the standard is — I can still scarcely believe it — enthusiasm. In a jaw-dropping graphic on its homepage, the campaign proudly asserts that “Sex without enthusiastic consent is not sex at all. It is sexual assault or rape.”

Next time you hear a rape accusation, keep in mind that hte problem may have been an unethusiastic yes. For another view, see James Taranto's Drunkenness and Double Standards about colleges cracking down on drunk students having sexual relations, especially if the girls has regrets the next morning.

CPS also causes divorce, according to this Houston story:

The Matthews' have 5 kids.

They admit a fight they had back in 2009 was a bad one.

"It doesn't mean the kids are in danger it doesn't mean the kids are abused because your having an argument with your spouse that gets kind of loud," Devin Matthew said.

The fight brought the cops out and in turn Child Protective Services.

The domestic violence charge against Aaron Matthew was knocked down to a disorderly conduct charge.

Still that fight had the couple's 5 kids in state custody for 14 months.

"Probably the most horrible time in my life and his too," Devin Matthew said. "You can only see your kids on certain days at certain times you can't kiss them goodnight you can't do anything as a family."

If she wanted them back Devin Matthew says CPS told her she had to get a divorce.

We beat them at their own game," Devin Matthew said. "I started recording every conversation with them, I started documenting everything."

The Matthews' say they learned alot from their battle with CPS.

They say they hope advice they give can help others who find themselves at odds with the state agency.

"Do not talk to them force their hand if you've done nothing wrong," Devin Matthew said. "Force them to get a warrant to talk to you, your kids. Lawyer up as soon as you can."

I would not say that they won, if CPS kept their 5 kids for 14 months. CPS has no business telling couples to get a divorce, but they do it all the time.

Update on Glass - not a lawyer

I mentioned this guy wanting to become a California lawyer, and now David Plotz writes in Slate:

Stephen Glass Should Be a Lawyer

The California Supreme Court’s cruel, self-righteous decision to reject the disgraced journalist’s bar application.

Stephen Glass, the disgraced New Republic journalist, and once my friend, lied to me most of the times we spoke. My wife Hanna Rosin was one of his closest confidantes at the New Republic, and he played her for a fool, too, and even tried to get her to defend his lies to the magazine's editor. In The Fabulist, the dreadful, self-justifying novel Glass wrote a couple of years after his disgrace, he depicted the Hanna-like character as conniving, sleazy, and disloyal, and the Hanna-like character’s husband as even worse.

So, needless to say, I don’t like Steve. And I don’t trust Steve.  

Even so, today’s California Supreme Court decision denying him admission to the California bar is misguided and cruel, a verdict that embodies what is wrong with American law. The Supreme Court spends 35 smug, self-righteous pages finding him morally unfit to be a lawyer in California. His “turpitude” required him to show overwhelming evidence of rehabilitation, but the court found his apologies self-interested, his confessions incomplete, and his pro bono work insufficient. Lawyers must be utterly devoted to “honesty,” the justices assert — a claim that only lawyers could make about law with a straight face — and Glass isn’t. ...

The Supreme Court also worries that Glass would fabricate documents and deceive clients, a bizarre and backward conclusion. The very first thing anyone knows about Glass is that he was a liar and a fraud. Any judge he appears before will know: This is that lying journalist. ...

Admitting Stephen Glass to the bar would help the people of California who need lawyers.

I have also mentioned Hanna Rosin for writing that men are obsolete and other anti-man rants.

Glass, Plotz, and Rosin are all Jewish. Rosin was born in Israel. Plotz wrote in 2006:

I picked up the Torah in the pew-back, opened it at random, and started reading (the English translation, that is). ...

The founding fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel lie, breach a contract, encourage pagans to convert to Judaism only in order to incapacitate them for slaughter, murder some innocents and enslave others, pillage and profiteer, and then justify it all with an appeal to their sister's defiled honor.

I hate to say it, but a lot of people like to hire Jewish lawyers precisely because they are sleazy and conniving. They will often do things that Christian lawyers will not do. If you want to hire a hit man, then you do not want someone who is queasy about pulling the trigger.

I am not saying that all lawyers and Jews are dishonest, immoral, anti-man, conniving, sleazy, and disloyal. But really, what do you expect? If they disbarred all the creeps, then who would do the legal work?

There are 1000s of terrible child custody decisions in California every year, and the California supreme court never does anything about them. Those justices hurt many more people than Glass did. The pot is calling the kettle black.

GOP bill would change WI child custody, support laws

Some much-needed reforms are being considered in Wisconsin:

Father's rights groups are fighting to change the way courts rule in child custody and child support cases. And they've gotten the attention of some Republican lawmakers.

Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomowoc) authored Assembly Bill 540, which seeks to establish a presumption in the law that equal placement with each parent is in the best interest of a child after a divorce. ...

"Its not really in the best interest of children to have a one-size fits all statute that does say you must equalize, unless....," countered Daphne Webb, a family law attorney with the Stafford Rosenbaum firm of Madison.

Maybe Rule of Law is not really in the best interest of divorce lawyers who make a lot more money when the judge has more discretion to rule according to his prejudices.

Rule of Law means that courts acts according to written rules and regulations in predictable ways. It was invented 1000s of years ago, and it essential for modern civilization. If you do not pay your rent or mortgage, you can be evicted, if proper procedures are followed.

Somehow the family law attorneys have convinced everyone that Rule of Law is not in the best interest of the children. They are nuts. I am glad to see some Wisconsin Republicans have a more sensible view.

Liar wants to be a lawyer

The San Jose newspaper reports:

In the journalism world, Stephen Glass was a true villain, perhaps the most renowned fabricator in the profession's history.

Dozens of his stories in magazines such as the New Republic and Rolling Stone in the late 1990s were proven to be bogus. His level of journalistic deceit became such a national scandal that Hollywood made a movie about his fall, "Shattered Glass."

But in the 15 years since Glass was caught in his fraud, he has pursued another profession that depends on honesty. And now his own fable of redemption, if it is to be believed, has set a jarring question before the California Supreme Court: Can someone who once built a career on lies be licensed to be a lawyer in this state?

Glass was not convicted of any crime. Since when does the legal profession depend on honesty?

In other news, the FDA announced:

FDA: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to plead guilty and pay over $1.6 billion to resolve allegations of misbranding and filing false claims for its schizophrenia drug Risperdal

On behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice today announced a guilty plea agreement with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (JPI) of Titusville, N.J., and a $400 million criminal fine for introducing a misbranded drug, Risperdal (risperidone), into interstate commerce. A Johnson & Johnson Company, JPI must also pay $1.25 billion under a separate civil settlement concerning the same drug. The combined criminal plea and civil settlement agreement related to Risperdal totals more than $1.67 billion. ...

The FDA maintains that physicians may, within the practice of medicine, use a drug to treat patients for symptoms or diseases even when the drug is not FDA-approved for such uses. However, if a pharmaceutical manufacturer intends its drug to be used for a new use, not approved by the FDA, and introduces the drug into interstate commerce for that use, the drug is misbranded, and introduction of that misbranded drug into interstate commerce is a violation of the law. ...

JPI also marketed Risperdal for use in children with behavior challenges, despite known health risks to children and adolescents. Until late in 2006, Risperdal was not approved for use in children for any purpose, and the FDA repeatedly advised the company that promoting its use in children was problematic and could be evidence of a violation of the law.

One of my readers has a grandchild ordered to take Risperdal by the Santa Cruz family court and its incompetent experts. If this drug is so dangerous that the maker if fined a billion dollars for promoting, I do not thing that stupid court officials should be requiring over the objections of one of the parents.

Eating the dog food

People wonder how so many family court judges, shrinks, lawyers, and others could participate in so many policies that seem so contrary to fairness, justice, common sense, and the public interest. They wonder how so many people could do so much evil without some far-fetched conspiracy theory. The simplest explanation I can give is that they eat the dog food.

Microsoft has a doctrine it calls eating your own dog food. It means that they have to use those company products if they want to keep cashing those company paychecks and stock options. They are happy to do it.

There is a related concept called Eating your own dog food, also defined here. That connotes true-believing cult-members in a suicide pact. That is a good term for people on a self-destructive ideological mission, but most of these family court jerks are more like blood-sucking leeches than kool-aid drinkers.

The dog-food eaters disclaim any responsibility for whether the policies are good or bad. They are just going along with the system in a way that allows them to cash their paychecks.

Fake Yelp reviews

Here is a crazy lawsuit story:

Julian McMillan wants nothing to do with Yelp. He runs a small law firm in San Diego, California, focusing on bankruptcy law. And yet his business, like many others, has an entry on the reviews site.

But on Tuesday, McMillan was served with a lawsuit from Yelp, alleging breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, unfair competition, and false advertising. In short, McMillan is being sued over supposed false Yelp reviews posted from 2010 to 2012. The lawsuit was filed in late August 2013.

“It has no merit,” he told Ars. “I assure you I never asked anyone to do that.”

Why would Yelp suddenly focus on a small target when presumably fake Yelp reviews are happening on a daily basis across its site? In fact, this is the second such case involving Yelp suing a business over supposed fake reviews.

I couldn't figure out the ulterior motives here. Obviously there are plenty of fake reviews on Yelp. The Yelp reviews for Kenneth B. Perlmutter, PhD were overwhelmingly negative until he started posting fake reviews. Now every review has either the lowest possible rating, or the highest. One fake review says:

Dr. P definitely has the child's best interest at heart. After working with parent's of children involved in high custody disputes I know that he has an extremely difficult job. Nonetheless, he is able to wade through the accusations, resentment and anger to find what is best for each child.

No, I am pretty sure he never did that. All of his evaluations have been bad.

Increase in narcissism and crazy lawyers

A lot of pop psychology has convinced most people that kids need more self-esteem. The NY Times reports on someone who says we have too much, and become narcissistic:

From the triumph of Botox to the rise of social networking and soccer teams that give every kid a trophy, Jean M. Twenge is constantly on the lookout for signs of a narcissism crisis in America. ...

By comparing decades of personality test results, Dr. Twenge has concluded, over and over again, that younger generations are increasingly entitled, self-obsessed and unprepared for the realities of adult life.

And the blame, she says, falls squarely on America’s culture of self-esteem, in which parents praise every child as “special,” and feelings of self-worth are considered a prerequisite to success, rather than a result of it.

“There’s a common perception that self-esteem is key to success, but it turns out it isn’t,” she said. Nonetheless, “young people are just completely convinced that in order to succeed they have to believe in themselves or go all the way to being narcissistic.”

I had a family court judge say that I might be narcissistic, even tho 5 psych evaluations said otherwise. Narcissism has become another meaningless buzzword for people not behaving the way you want.

Other psychologists say she is wrong:

Much of the disagreement between Dr. Twenge and her critics comes down to interpretation. She believes that questions like “I am assertive” and “I like to take responsibility for making decisions” are indicators of narcissism; Dr. Arnett calls them “well within the range of normal personality,” and possibly even “desirable traits.” ...

Dr. Twenge, who grows noticeably irritated at the mention of the paper, calls the analysis invalid because it takes its earliest scores from just two University of California campuses (Berkeley and Santa Cruz) and its most recent scores from a third (Davis). “These are very different college campuses with different cultures and student populations,” she said, adding, “It would be like taking height samples of men from the 1800s and comparing it to recent samples of women and saying, ‘Oh look, height doesn’t change.’ ”

I can speak from first-hand experience that students at Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Davis are not very representative of the American population.

If the experts cannot agree on what these narcissism tests mean, they should not be used in routine child custody disputes.

Meanwhile, a lawyer op-ed says:

LAST week, swarms of sun-starved, soon-to-be lawyers emerged from hiding to celebrate completing the bar exam. Passing the exam, however, won’t guarantee them admission to the bar. They also have to demonstrate that they possess the requisite fitness and moral character for the practice of law.

I worry for some of them. Specifically, I worry for those who have passed the exam and lived upright lives but may still be denied admission to the bar — not because of a criminal record or a history of academic misconduct, but because of a mental illness.

It could have happened to me. ...

At the time, I’d been given a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, which wasn’t on the list. So I wasn’t compelled, under penalty of perjury, to answer in the affirmative. I passed the bar exam and was declared “fit.”

In 2008, after I’d already been sworn in, I was given a correct diagnosis of bipolar disorder. But by then I was in the clear. (As it happens, I was lucky twice: after my swearing-in, Georgia added major depressive disorder to its list.)

Not everyone is so fortunate.

Of all the hundreds of problems with our legal system, I don't think that any of them will be solved by licensing more crazy lawyers. Parents in family court get much more psychological testing than lawyers and judges.

In orther psych news, NPR reports on a study that blames bad mothering on genes:

A gene that affects the brain's dopamine system appears to have influenced mothers' behavior during a recent economic downturn, researchers say.

At the beginning of the recession that began in 2007, mothers with the "sensitive" version of a gene called DRD2 became more likely to strike or scream at their children, the researchers say. Mothers with the other "insensitive" version of the gene didn't change their behavior.

But once it appeared that the recession would not become a full-fledged depression, the "sensitive" mothers became less likely than "insensitive" mothers to engage in harsh parenting.

So maybe in the future the dad will ask the mom for a gene test if there is a child custody dispute during a recession.

Worthless mediation training

A family court lawyer tells me that you can pay $395 to attend this:

Family Mediation Training
by Dr. Don Saposnek and Hon. Irwin Joseph

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Santa Clara, California
March 8-9, 2013

In this thirteen-hour, inter-disciplinary training for Bench Officers, Judges pro temp, Attorneys, Therapists, and other Family Court Professionals in the Silicon Valley and Central Coastal Regions of California, we explore, interactively, how to mediate a wide variety of matters in Family Court within the framework of local rules and procedures and in accordance with the recommendations of the Elkins Family Law Task Force.

This is a case of the blind leading the blind. Irwin H. Joseph was the worst commissioner or judge I've seen in the Santa Cruz family court. He was passed over for promotion to judge several times, and was eventually fired. He later got a job in the Santa Clara court.

If you want to sign up:

Contact Information
For more information about scheduled training, contact:
Irwin Joseph 831-588-6771
email: Irwin.Joseph@sbcglobal.net
or
Don Saposnek
email: dsaposnek@mediate.com
website: www.mediate.com/dsaposnek

Send your Registration to:
Family Mediation Trainings
PO Box 2686
Aptos, CA 95001

I once got Joseph reversed on appeal, and he held a grudge against me ever since. You can find many examples of his incompetence and vindictiveness on this blog.

Long term effects of divorce

The UK Daily Mail
reports:

We all know divorce is hell for children. But what no one says is that the trauma gets WORSE as you grow up - and your warring parents grow old and lonely

Upsetting: Children are known to suffer badly when their parents go through a divorce. But little has been said about the difficulties a divorce poses for children as they grow older

The article has stories about long-term ramifications of divorce.

I wonder if the judges, shrinks, and others are even aware of the persistent animosity they cause with their rules and procedures. When the kids turn 18, the court disclaims responsibility, but the damage caused by the court will continue.

Kid cheats, daddy sues school

A reader caught this letter to the editor of the S.J. Mercury News:

Son's cheating should be a lesson, not a lawsuit

Regarding your article (Page A1, April 27) on cheating: There is a reason for having students and parents sign academic honesty policies.

Cheating is very prevalent in our schools and thanks to parents like Jack Berghouse, many students feel that there's nothing wrong with copying from other sources and taking credit.

Instead of using his son's transgression as a valuable lesson, he's acting like a spoiled child and demanding that his son be reinstated in a class to which he clearly does not belong. What makes Berghouse think his son belongs in an Ivy League college if he can't handle a sophomore English class?

Does he realize that by suing the district, he is not only taking valuable funds away from the education of all students in the district but calling attention to this situation?

Our children need to learn that their actions have consequences -- both good and bad -- and letting them learn from their mistakes is part of responsible parenting.

Marcia Chron
Math teacher Sunnyvale

The story was also in yesterday's Santa Cruz Sentinel, p.C5, but without the father's occupation. Can you guess? Was he a dentist? truck driver? cop? insurance agent? No, of course not.

Here is the Mercury News followup story:

Jack Berghouse doesn't dispute that his son, a sophomore at Sequoia High School, copied someone else's homework. But the Redwood City father believes the school district was wrong to kick his teenager out of an English honors class for the offense, and his decision to sue has embroiled the family in a public, opinionated debate.

"I'm getting a lot of hate calls at my office," said Berghouse, who practices family law. "I had no freaking idea this would happen."

Berghouse's son and three other students were removed from a sophomore honors English class at Sequoia in Redwood City for copying and sharing homework. In response, Berghouse filed a suit last week in San Mateo County Superior Court, claiming his son's due process rights were violated. ...

All four students involved in the incident were transferred to regular English classes. Berghouse believes the punishment is disproportionate to the offense and will jeopardize the academic future of his son, who he said has a chance at attending an Ivy League school.

With the stakes and pressure high for students to get into selective colleges, children's grades and courses have become paramount for many parents.

"There is the possibility this will cause permanent harm. What university will it keep him out of? Will that have far-ranging consequences in what kind of job he can get?" Berghouse said.

Wow. Berghouse advises clients and goes into court every day arguing for the best interest of the child (BIOTCh), so he thought that he could bully the school officials with his stupid legalistic arguments. He "had no freaking idea" that people would hate him for it.

Lawyers are mostly evil, and family court lawyers are the worst. They thrive on exploiting human misery. His Yelp review says:

This is the unscrupulous attorney who is suing his sons' school district because they are holding the son responsible for cheating. The son admits to cheating and both he and family were notified in writing about the stern consequences of plagiarism. He evidently feels a sense of entitlement that allows his son to cheat in an honors class and not be held accountable for it. I notice that somehow several very negative reviews of this attorney have been deleted today - how did that happen? Several of the remaining reviews are overly positive and obviously fake. I would not trust this person. If he can't raise his own son to be honest how would he treat his clients? How did he influence Yelp to delete all the negative reviews about him?

Maybe he threatened to sue Yelp. If I had my way, people like Berghouse would not be allowed to argue the BIOTCh in court. If there is any justice, the court will send the boy out for a psychological evaluation, and then his Ivy League chance might depend on the whim of some creepy shrink.