Father Spared from Paying Outrageous Massachusetts Child Support

A reader writes:

A recent Massachusetts family court ruling said they do not have personal or subject matter jurisdiction over a Father that lives in Ohio for child support. My former spouse tried to extort a massive increase in child support simply because the Father moved from WV to Ohio while their child and Mother live in Massachusetts. The Father appeared in Massachusetts family court by "Special Appearance" without an attorney and challenged the courts jurisdiction in the matter. A valid order was in effect from WV and Father claimed Massachusetts did not have jurisdiction. Because the Father was not served in Massachusetts and has never lived in Massachusetts, the judge ruled that Massachusetts does not have personal or subject matter jurisdiction over the Father and that Mother must go to Ohio to modify child support. Massachusetts family court ruled they have jurisdiction over child and Mother and will only hear modification of visitation. Ohio child support is roughly 1/2 the cost of Massachusetts which is thought to be the highest in the country.

New subpoena for records

I just got a subpoena for banking records from 1996 to 2003. I guess my ex-wife is still fishing for money.

The subpoena was issued thru a legal service company across the bay, but was unsigned. I've always told her that she can inspect my records whenever she wishes. I don't know why she'd bother to issue an official subpoena and then not even sign it. I wonder whether an unsigned subpoena is even binding.

Des Moines police investigate attack by onion

Iowa news:

A Des Moines man went to jail Wednesday afternoon for allegedly throwing an onion at his wife.

The police report begins: "(The victim) states her husband had been drinking and they got into an argument."

James Izzolena, 54, of 3515 Sheridan Ave., was charged with domestic assault causing injury. Police said he became upset with his wife, Nicole Izzolena, 27, and tossed an onion at her, striking her in the back of the head.

She told police it made her head hurt. James Izzolena admitted throwing the onion, police said, but he claimed he did not intend to hit her with it. He was being held without bond pending a court appearance today.

The next time that you hear that some man is in jail for domestic violence, remember that it might be something really trivial.

The best interest of the dog

A reader sent this story, and said "Now judges determine the best interest of the dog".

IN RECENT YEARS, Dr. Amy Marder, a veterinarian practicing in Lexington, has found herself called upon to decide which human "parent" a pet prefers.

Pet custody disputes have become an increasingly common fixture in divorce cases and Marder, an animal behavior specialist, has consulted in several. To do a proper evaluation, she likes to spend at least an hour and a half with the couple and the pet. She asks the owners a barrage of questions: which of the two spends more time with the animal, who plays with it more, who feeds it. She asks about the pet's upbringing, its temperament, how much it exercises.

Marder frowns on so-called "calling contests," a method used by lawyers in some custody cases, in which the owners stand at opposite ends of a room and call the pet to see which way it will go. She prefers to observe the animal's body language as it interacts with its owners. She looks at whether it sits closer to one or the other, and how it reacts when each pets it.

At the end of the session, Marder makes her recommendation, based not only on who she thinks would take better care of the pet, but whom she has decided the pet has a stronger bond with -- the same sort of considerations that would go into deciding a child-custody case. Sometimes she recommends joint custody, but only if she thinks the animal can handle it.

"Some animals think it's terrific to go live in two homes," she says. "Others have separation anxiety and splitting time would only make it worse."

At first, I thought that this was some sort of parody or joke. But this appears in the Boston Globe, a reputable newspaper.

I don't even agree with those idiotic custody evaluations when they are applied to (human) children. I just heard from a woman who lost a custody evaluation because of her appearance. Or maybe it was some other prejudice, as you can never be sure. All she knows is that the report cited her clothing and other trivial factors negatively.

1957 divorce movie on TCM channel

I just watched Man on Fire, a 1957 Bing Crosby movie about a nasty child custody dispute. (It is unrelated to the 2004 Denzel Washington thriller.)

The dispute was actually rather tame by today's standards. There were no accusations of domestic violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, or child neglect.

Crosby's wife ran off with a higher status man, and relinquished custody of their 8-year-old boy because she wanted to start a new family. But she has a miscarriage with the new husband and cannot have more kids, and sues for full custody. The boy, now 10, is strongly attached to the father and doesn't want to live with the mother.

Nevertheless, the female judge awards custody to the mother, and lets her move away to another city! The judge was portrayed as conscientious, but also arbitrary, capricious, biased, and cruel.

On one week's notice, the judge had briefs from both sides, and an investigator's report. It appeared that the parents were not allowed to see the report. The judge interviewed the boy with no one else present. The mother lies to the judge about why she waited two years to file for custody.

In the end, both parents are overcomed with noble thoughts, and offer each other full custody. Everyone agrees that the lesson from King Solomon was that a parent can prove greater love for the child by being more willing to give up the child. The father has the greater love, lets the boy go with the mother, and the father gets a new girlfriend. I guess that this is what the 1950s movie audience expected.

Broncos running back pays for multiple kids

A reader writes that cases like this explain why most white people lack sympathy for deadbeat dads and support draconian measures to collect child support:

Travis Henry just got tackled by a $3,000-a-month child support judgment.

Sure, the Denver Broncos running back has a $25 million contract and a base monthly salary approaching $50,000, but that kind of bill can still crimp your style when you're accustomed to expensive cars and fancy jewelry — and lots of other child support payments.

Southern states and has been ordered by various judges to provide child support for seven of them, according to court records involving one child living in DeKalb County.

DeKalb Superior Court Judge Clarence Seeliger this week ordered Henry to provide $3,000 a month for the Lithonia boy he fathered out of wedlock three years ago with Jameshia Beacham, now 29.

Henry isn't the most thrifty guy, according to court records, so the judge wants to ensure payment by establishing an unusual $250,000 trust that Henry must fund by next spring.

Seeliger wrote that the football player displayed "bad judgment in his spending habits," dropping $100,000 for a car and $146,000 for jewelry. Meanwhile, Henry fell behind on support payments for his child with Beacham that were mandated by a previous order. Threatened with jail, he borrowed $9,800 from his former team, the Tennessee Titans, to pay the bill, according to court records.

... Indeed, part of the custody arrangement Henry reached with Beacham requires two weekend visits when he is playing pro ball.

I guess the argument is that Henry is rich and irresponsible, so it is better to take his money away and keep his nine illegitimate kids off welfare.

I am just not sure the courts are solving anything, even in his case. He cannot take the kids on alternate weekends while he is playing professional football. His football career is likely to be over in five years, and he won't have the big bucks anymore. While Henry is squandering his money, the moms may also be squandering the money he pays them. Some of those women may have gotten pregnant deliberately in order to cash in on child support. Bad as this situation is, it may have been made worse by child support laws.

More from the appeals court

Here is the conclusion from the appeals court:

As evidenced by the court's comments on the record, the trial court considered the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties and did not simply ignore George's factual contentions. The attorney's fees order is well-supported, and we find no error in the court's ruling.

The June 20, 2006 attorney's fees order is affirmed.

In other words, the decision is approved because the judge listened to my argument. They don't care if I showed that Miss Gray lied to cheat me out of some money.

Appellate court makes me pay attorney fees

The California court of appeals just rejected my appeal. I had been ordered to pay $10k in attorney fees for my ex-wife, in addition to previous fees.

I appealed because the lawyer, Miss Jennifer J. Gray, filed a sworn declaration in support of the fees that was filled with lies. Even my ex-wife admitted on appeal that Miss Gray lied about the length of time she was on the case.

Jennifer Gray didn't just lie about how long she had been on the case. She lied in nearly every major point of her declaration. She lied about what she did on the case, about what I did, and about what the court did. She lied deliberately, and for the purpose of defrauding me out of money.

I asked Comm. Irwin Joseph for an opportunity to cross-examine Miss Gray. He refused, and awarded her $10k of the $14k she was asking.

Keep in mind that my ex-wife is a lawyer; I am not; she was represented by a lawyer; I was not; and the fees in question were for a losing attempt to gain custody of our two kids.

It still baffles me as to why Comm. Joseph is so eager to order payments to lawyers, even when the lawyer's claims are so totally without merit. He has shown much more interest in paying crooked lawyers than in children seeing their parents.

Man has to pay alimony to lesbian couple

Usually alimony ceases when the recipient remarries, but look at this case:

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife -- even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name.

California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.

An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.

The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Garber plans to appeal.

California has a same-sex domestic partnership law that is supposed to be the same as marriage in most respects. I believe that the alimony would even be considered community property to the lesbian couple. The ex-husband should not have to support the lesbian couple.

Use martial arts class to win custody

Prof. Volokh, an indignant law blogger, writes:

From what is otherwise a pretty standard "best interests of the child" analysis in a child custody case, Foster v. Waterman, 2007 WL 2119125 (Iowa App. July 25):

Harold argues that Anjela is a child of one-fourth of Korean heritage and it is important for her to be allowed maximum involvement with her heritage.

Seems to me that courts have no business deciding, whether in a child custody case or elsewhere, how much and what sort of a connection a child should have "with her ethnic heritage." ... And it's just zany for a court to view a parent's willingness to enroll the quarter-Korean child in a martial arts class as remotely relevant to the child's best interests.

So a white mom get custody of a 7-year-old quarter-Korean girl in part by promising to enroll her in a martial arts class!

Volokh doesn't do family court cases, or he might be outraged by how all the other child custody cases are decided as well.

Preparing for a Broken Home

James Andrew Miller writes in the NY Times:

Dividing up money and assets after a marriage falls apart can be a mess, but it's often nothing compared with the agony and emotional torment of a custody battle -- dividing up the children. Money is, after all, only money ...

Engaged couples should enter into a new kind of arrangement, ... With a custody schedule outlined before marriage, children could have a single structure for their new lives from the moment their parents separate. They would know where they will be and when, they wouldn't have to witness their parents arguing about the details, and they might not be subjected to custody evaluations or, worse, be required to testify in court.

It ought to be that the marriage itself guarantees that the parents will have joint custody of the children. But that is no longer true, and the state courts do not uphold custody agreements.

In my case, I had a written and signed custody agreement and parenting plan. Judge William Kelsay ignored it, and ordered a custody change based on nothing but his own personal prejudices. He did not even accept any testimony or evidence. After a custody trial proved that he acted in error, Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph ordered another change contrary to the outcome of the custody trial. It took another six months to prove that he was in error, and get back to what our agreement said in the first place.

I appreciate Miller's suggestion that parents try to anticipate parenting and child custody, but his comments are directed at the wrong people. It would take a change in the law to make marital agreements about children to be binding.

Here is how Judge Kelsay treats a fellow judge, in an unrelated matter:

In 2004, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge William Danser was convicted of eight misdemeanors in connection with a major scandal at his court house. In 2005, the California Commission of Judicial Performance found Danser had engaged in willful misconduct 32 times, and the following year he was convicted of a felony for fixing parking tickets for his friends and members of two street gangs. However, fellow Superior Court Judge William Kelsay later reduced Danser's felony conviction to a misdemeanor on the basis that the felony would hinder Danser from finding new employment.

I guess Kelsay figures that Danser can now legally answer No if a future employer asks him if he has ever been convicted of a felony. It seems dishonest to me.

Funeral Protester Charged in Flag Stomp

WashPost reports:

Omaha, Neb. -- A member of a Kansas group that has drawn criticism for protesting at soldiers' funerals was charged Thursday with misdemeanors after her son stomped on a U.S. flag during a demonstration last month.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, 49, of Topeka, Kan., was charged with negligent child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, flag mutilation and disturbing the peace.

That Kansas group is a bunch of kooks, but it is certainly not child abuse to let a minor stomp on a flag in a protest. It is legal to stomp on a flag. This just shows how the authorities can abuse these laws for political purposes.

Oral argument on appeal

I just had my oral argument before the state appellate court.

By law, I have a right to a half hour of oral argument. There were three cases ahead of me on the calendar, and the lawyers were claiming that they'd be brief, so I only requested "5 or 10 minutes".

The first lawyer was a public defender with a perfunctory appeal for some dude who got a drug bust after a traffic stop. She was unconvincing, and choked on her attempts to pronounce "panoply" and "corollary". The DA appeared by telephone.

The next case was some sort of statute of limitations problem on when some embezzler should have been discovered.

Then the presiding judge left, and was replaced by Judge Mihara. The others on the panel were Judges McAdams and Duffy. They were the same ones I had before.

The next case was an elderly couple that tried to do some property exchange, but got caught with an increased assessment. The lawyer babbled on and on about how it was a "case of first impression", and how the assessment "exalts form over substance", and "frustrates the intent of the statute". He sounded like he had a losing case.

Finally, my case came up. There were no clocks in the courtroom, and they confiscated my electronic devices, so I could not watch the time. I briefly presented by analogy with Sole v Wyner, as that was not in the brief. Supposedly the judges had read the briefs. The judges were unimpressed, and one asked, "Did you get a chance to make this argument in the lower court?" I answered yes, and explained how Comm. Joseph did not really have the facts, and how I wanted to rebut the allegations against me, and didn't have the opportunity. The judges didn't look interested. I am now expecting a short decision saying simply that the lower court did not abuse its discretion.

My ex-wife took her turn, and she acknowledged that her lawyer misstated the length of time she worked on the case in her declaration, but claimed that I couldn't rebut the work she did do. She started to present an argument that I shouldn't be allowed to cross-examine Jennifer Gray, her lawyer, but could only say, "If he had --".

That's all. She stopped in mid-sentence. That summed it up right there. If I had cross-examined the lawyer, we would have gotten to the facts of the matter, and we wouldn't need to appeal. I would have exposed what a dishonest fraud she is. I let it go at that, and that was the end of the hearing.

Supporting kids until age 23

Missouri divorce lawyer Cynthia M. Fox writes in a Missouri paper:

[Missouri Senate Bill] SB 25 contains a provision that would lower from 22 to 21 the age at which a parent no longer is obligated to pay child support for a child still in school. ... The governor's press secretary, Jessica Robinson, told me the governor had not yet decided what to do about SB 25.

For family law attorneys, this episode will cause us to sharpen our pencils when crafting the parenting plans that we recommend to the court. We must sway judges to approve plans that obligate parents to pay their child's college expenses until the earlier of when the child graduates from college, completes eight semesters, or reaches age 23.

That's right, I said age 23. The current law, passed long before I began practicing law, didn't make a lot of sense given that so many kids reach age 22 part of the way through their last year in college.

In most states, parents have no obligation to pay for college or anything else for a child past age 18.

Notice how the divorce lawyer has her own agenda for parental obligations, even if it means selling out her own clients and ignoring the statutes.

I have heard of parents who were tricked into adverse parenting plan clauses by their own lawyers. Some lawyer will have her own opinion that children should be supported until age 23, and have her own client sign such an obligation by pretending it is just boilerplate language. Only years later does the parent discover that he has been fooled into an obligation that not even the state legislature thinks that he should have.

Lawyers are supposed to zealously protect their clients' legal rights. In family court, you really cannot trust your own lawyer to do that. You have to educate yourself on how the system works, and get rid of any lawyer who is working against your interests.

Judges deciding based on personality

An anonymous reader writes:

I have had similar problems in the past with Cmr. Joseph - he makes up his mind before he hears testimony.

He appears to decide cases based upon his perception of who is less cooperative. How does he make THAT determination? Simple. Whoever appears angry is the less cooperative party (even if the party is angry because the other side has ripped them off, lied, slandered, committed perjury and fraud). ...

Commissioner Irwin Joseph is incompetent, biased, and a complete idiot.

But don't take my word for it.

No need to take anybody's word for family court injustices. Just go down to your local family court, sit in on some hearings, and see for yourself.

I once heard second-hand from a judge who explained how he decides cases. He said that he would merely determine who the a**hole was. Then he would concoct some rationale for the a**hole to lose the case.

I was shocked that some judge would openly describe his judicial philosophy that way. He is supposed to be deciding based on the law and the facts, not on his subjective perception of who has the more abrasive personality.

I don't know whether Commissioner Joseph has this philosophy, but the possibility of a judge thinking this way is something to be concerned about in court. It is a major reason that people hire lawyers to represent them. If you insist on your legal rights in court, then you run the risk on looking unreasonable, and having the judge develop a prejudice against you. If you rely on your lawyer to make obnoxious demands, then he is just doing in job.

If you do have a judge who rules based on who he likes, and you do hire a lawyer for that reason, then you have the problem of worrying about whether the judge likes your lawyer. Some lawyers suck up to the judges at every opportunity, and some don't. If you hire a lawyer that is always trying to be liked by the judge, then the lawyer's reputation might work to your benefit, but the lawyer might very well sell out your case in order to preserve his nice guy image.

No refund on paternity fraud payments

California news:

A man who made child support payments based on a paternity judgment later proven erroneous was not entitled to reimbursement, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Affirming an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Referee Dennis Carroll, Div. Eight held that Taron Grant James could not get back the money he paid to the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department pursuant to a factually mistaken paternity finding.

James was named as father on the birth certificate of a child born to Tami Burton in 1992. The two had had a brief relationship before James, a member of the U.S. Navy, was deployed to serve in the Gulf War.

Calling it a "factually mistaken paternity finding" is an understatement. James was a victim of deliberate paternity fraud by the mom and the LA welfare agency. They knew that James was not the father, and made him pay anyway. James disputed paternity at every opportunity. He battled the case for 15 years, and still cannot get his money back. The mom should be in jail, and so should the LA welfare officials.

Notice of entry of remittitur

I just got this from the local family court:

Notice of entry of remittitur

To the above named parties and to their attorneys of record:

You are hereby notified that a Remittitur has been issued in the above
entitled matter pursuant to Rule 8.272 of the California Rules of the Court and the
Remittitur was entered on JUNE 13, 2007.

It was signed by the Deputy Clerk and had a certificate of mailing. That's all.

I don't even know what a Remittitur is. It is not in my dictionary. Why can't these guys ever say anything in plain English? Is some action on my part required? Why doesn't it send me a copy of that Remittitur, whatever that is? If it was important enough to tell me about it, why isn't it important enough to show it to me?

A reader writes:

I just perused your Angry Dad Blogspot in the hopes of seeing a very nice story in favour of dads on Father's Day. But, alas, I see you are dealing with yet another court "procedure".

The former City Attorney gave me a gift of a law dictionary. Here is how "Remittitur" is defined:
Lat: "in its broadest sense, the 'procedural' process by which the 'verdict' of a jury is diminished by subtraction......The term is used to describe generally any reduction made by the court without the consent of the jury." 116 S.E. 2d 867, 871. "The theory of 'additur' is a corollary to that of remittitur, the former to increase an inadequate verdict, the latter to decrease an excessive verdict. It is a universal rule...that a remittitur may not be granted by a court in lieu of a new trial unless consented to by the party 'unfavorably affected thereby.'' 258 F. 2d 17, 30.

Hope this helps. (Maybe it has something to do with your appeal re: your house being paid off, and the court's attempt to make you pay according to the idea that you have "more money" because of no mortgage. That was sooo unfair to you.

I am not sure if this reader is trying to be funny, but we have no jury verdicts in family court, and the clerks pay no attention to any substantive matter.

Losing without a lawyer

I have occasionally argued that people are better off without lawyers. But this man didn't use a lawyer, and his wife did, and he got laughed out of court:

Calvin goes on at some length in both his opening and reply briefs to contend all of California's statutes which have been codified in the various codes are void under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, arguing that only common law exists and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to determine any of the marital dissolution issues in this case. ... With apologies to the former television series Star Trek, we decline "to boldly go where no [rational analysis] has gone before." (Star Trek: Episode Introduction monologue.)

He lost his appeal on all counts.

Reader argues that lawyers should be paid

Mike responds to my last post:

"an appeal court might understand that attorney fees for losing legal work may not be justified"

I doubt it. Gray probably didn't take the case on a contingency basis. So whatever time she's billed for, it's time she claims she spent on the case and for which she should be reimbursed. Show me one case where the lawyers didn't get paid for losing where a contingency agreement wasn't part of the deal. There may be many reasons for not paying her, but I can't see her "losing" as being one of them.

You have a point. Scooter Libby has to pay Ted Wells, even tho he lost the case. That is because Libby contracted to pay Wells, win or lose.

But I have no contract with Jennifer Gray. She contracted with my ex-wife based on promises that she would get the money from me. A written contingency fee contract is considered unethical in family court, but it happens all the time.

There is no issue of reimbursement. Gray's law firm (Bosso et al) wants to get paid, an and it is not expecting my ex-wife to pay. It wants the money from me, and Gray has sworn that her services have justified her exorbitant fees.

California law says that a family court can order an ex-spouse to pay attorney fees and costs in order to ensure a parity of legal representation in the action, based on the relative circumstances of the parties. My ex-wife is a lawyer herself, and I am not a lawyer and was not even using a lawyer, so it is not so clear how I would have any obligation to pay her lawyer.

Here is what my ex-wife said in her April 28, 2006 brief:

In determining the amount of a §2030 need-based fees and costs award, this Court must consider what is 'just and reasonable" under the parties' "relative circumstances" and must base its determination on the parties' respective incomes and needs, and "any factors affecting" their respective abilities. Fain. C. §2030(a)(2) and §2032(a).

In addition to considering the parties' needs and abilities to pay in fixing the amount of a 'just and reasonable' fee award, the trial court must also take into account the following ten factors:

1 . Nature and complexity of the litigation;
2. Amount involved;
3. skill required and employed in handling the litigation;
4. attention given;
5. success of counsel's efforts;
6. respective attorneys' professional standing and reputation;
7. intricacies and importance of the litigation;
8. labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the case;
9. litigation costs already incurred and expected to be incurred through conclusion of the case; and
10. time consumed.

(Marriage of Keech 75 CA4th 860, 870 (1999); Marriage of Braud 45 CA4th 797, 827 (1996); Marriage of O'Conner 59 CA4th 877, 884 (1997).

Accordingly, the attorneys of record may testify directly as to the issues involved, the work performed and the rates charged, as well as to special qualifications justifying a larger fee- i.e., length of time admitted to practice, etc. Marriage of McQuoid 9 CA4th 1353, 1361 (1991) ("Counsel's statements to the court were sufficient to establish the value of his services") Jennifer J. Gray, Ms. AngryMom's former attorney, submitted a sworn declaration along with this motion, addressing every factor above, showing that the attorney's fees incurred were indeed just and reasonable. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 'T" is the Declaration of Jennifer J. Gray in Support of Petitioner’s Points and Authorities in Support of Petitioner's Motion for (1) Need-Based Attorney's Fees; (2) Family Code §271 Attorney's Fees Sanctions; and (3) Appellate Attorney's Fees)

Gray submitted a declaration with factual allegations for each of the above ten points that the court is supposed to consider. If I somehow owe the money without consideration of those factual issues, then she didn't need to submit that declaration. But she did, and I have a right to rebut her claims.

All I am saying is that the court should not just unquestionably accept Gray's lies. If she makes allegedly factual claims to the court in support of me being ordered to pay her money, then I should have an opportunity to rebut them.

Comm. Irwin Joseph refused to give me any such opportunity. Gray was sitting right there in the courtroom, representing another fool client. He just gave her a free pass, and ordered me to pay the $10k. He acted as if he just didn't want to embarrass Gray.

That is why I appealed. I think that Comm. Joseph should have given me the chance to rebut Gray's lies, if he was going to rely on those lies to order me to pay money.

Nudist cannot collect attorney fees

Tori Anne Whiner Wyner sued the state of Florida in federal court claiming that she had a constitutional right to join a nude peace protest in a public park. She won a preliminary injunction and $25k in attorney fees, but ultimately lost the case.

Today the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Sole v Wyner that Florida did not have to pay her the $25k. Justice Ginsburg said what ought to be obvious:

Wyner is not a prevailing party, we conclude, for her initial victory was ephemeral. A plaintiff who "secur[es] a preliminary injunction, then loses on the merits as the case plays out and judgment is entered against [her]," has "[won] a battle but los[t] the war." Watson v. County of Riverside, 300 F. 3d 1092, 1096 (CA9 2002).

Judge Kelly and Comm. Irwin Joseph ordered me to pay $36.5k in attorney fees for my ex-wife. Nearly all of the legal work was in support of a motion to break our 50-50 child custody deal, and give sole legal custody to my ex-wife. All I ever asked for was to maintain our 50-50 custody.

After making a bunch of silly claims, her lawyer did manage to get a temporary change in custody, pending a trial. The trial proved that her claims were bogus, and we eventually reverted to the 50-50 custody we had in the first place.

So why was I ordered to pay that $36.5k in attorney fees? Why would the court want to reward lawyers making bogus claims that waste a lot of court time and ultimately accomplish nothing? I don't know the answer, except to notice that family court judges are very favorable to lawyers, and there is no Supreme Court to correct their excesses.

To justify the attorney fees, my ex-wife submitted an affidavit from Jennifer Gray. I contended that it is filled with lies, and demanded to cross-examiner Gray. In a real court, an affidavit is meaningless unless the opposing party has an opportunity to cross-examine. Comm. Joseph rejected my request, and ordered me to pay anyway, without giving any explanation.

This is the issue that is currently under appeal to a higher California court. I say that I should be able to confront Gray on her lies, and to get her to explain why she thinks she deserves the money she is demanding. Oral argument is at the end of the month, and we should have a decision in about three months. Today's Supreme Court decision gives me a little bit of hope that an appeal court might understand that attorney fees for losing legal work may not be justified.