|
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The Risks of Being a Family Law Judge
As we've reported before, the most rancorous, emotional and contested legal battles in this country are waged in the nation's family law courts. That what makes the recent shooting of a Nevada family law judge at once shocking and tragically predictable.
Earlier this month, Judge Chuck Weller, a family law judge in Reno, was shot and critically wounded in his office by a man who apparently was upset over a ruling the judge had issued in a divorce case.
A Texas television station recently interviewed judges in East Texas about just how dangerous their jobs are. These judges' opinions are very apt, because in February, 2005, a Tyler, Texas, man - embroiled in a bitter child support dispute - opened fire outside the Smith County Courthouse and killed his ex-wife, a bystander who tried to intervene, and wounded several others before police shot him dead. Here's what the station reported:
Smith County Judge Randall Rogers and Gregg County Judge Robin Sage have been on the bench for more than 15 years. They say violence towards family law judges is getting worse.
"In family court we do highly emotional things, as a judge I have to take someone's children away," says Judge Sage.
Both say since the Smith County Courthouse shootings, just 15 months ago ... There has been additional security measures to the courthouses.
"The security measure have gotten better but they've just got a long ways to go," says Judge Rogers.
Judges interpret the law and sometimes those interpretations anger people. As a result, judges are often the focus of attack - but mainly from political attack. Many conservative "reformers" accuse judges of political activism from the bench and in doing so have created a strong bias against judges among a sizable portion of the population.
It seems to me inevitable that more and more people might believe some of this hype to the point of thinking that a judge might act out of personal animus instead of judicial impartiality.
|
|
|
The Kidman-Urban Prenup
Actress Nicole Kidman and country singer Keith Urban got married last Sunday. In reporting on the wedding, the media had several features on the couple's pre-nuptial agreement, as if that were something unusual or a bad omen.
It's not, on either account. As I have said several times, a pre-nuptial agreement is very common, even among couples who don't include an A-List Hollywood player. It's common sense, given the fact that many people, like Nicole, enter a second relationship with considerable personal property - property, which for a variety of sound financial reasons, should be kept away from the marital estate.
Terms of the agreement are apparently in dispute (Ms. Kidman's publicist is contesting the accuracy of the reports.) But it appears that Ms. Kidman - who the papers say is worth $150 million - offers her new husband a financial incentive for staying married to her, agreeing to a high- six-figure sum for every year they remain married. But Nicole can leave the marriage without paying a cent should Keith uses illegal narcotics or drinks excessively.
To me, this agreement seems a very wise precaution for a woman who is marrying an ex-cocaine addict - and who was once married to someone as frivolous as Tom Cruise.
|
|
|
Post-Nuptial Agreements on the Rise
On a subject related to prenups, there's news that more couples in south Florida at least are turning to the prenup's lesser-known cousin, the post-nuptial agreement.
According to the Palm Beach Post, more and more family law attorneys in South Florida are being asked to help couples sign these agreements, which are exactly like prenups except, of course, for the timing.
Just as with prenups, many post-nups are negotiated by couples who are marrying for the second, third - or more - time. Quite often they do so at the insistence of adult children who want to keep inheritances from their parents intact and not shared with step-relatives.
Post-nups are especially useful in Florida, where widows and widowers can challenge a spouse's will and lay claim to a third of the spouse's estate, which could throw a monkey wrench in any inheritance bequest. A post-nup closes that loophole and protects the kids' inheritance from any surprise attack by step-mom.
Post-nups also - like the Kidman-Urban agreement above - contain what I call "relationship clauses" that are designed to ensure the couple remain married. This could include penalties if one of the spouses is unfaithful.
|
|
