Saturday, October 31, 2009

A History of the Custody of Children, Part One

No, no orangutans or ocelots today. Instead, let’s engage in a little historical perspective on the legal process, specifically the maturation of the idea of Child Custody in the arena of divorce. To understand most legal concepts, it is helpful and wise to review the historical transformation of the law. The modern view of Child Custody is likewise best learned by seeing from whence it came.

Prior to the 1960s, there were few divorces and few children born out of wedlock, specifically when compared to present-day. The decade of 1960s brought about a transformation in American society that is unprecedented in American history with regard to marriage and child-rearing. World War II had resulted in the mass enlisting of women in the work force, and the evolution our concept of the “family unit”, propelled by forces such as the women’s liberation movement, anti-war demonstrations and other societal transformations which led to women abandoning the roles assigned by traditional marriage that had existed from the founding of our country. Today, the national divorce rate exceeds 50% as compared to a rate of about 5% in the early 1960s. As a consequence, disputes arose as to which parent would have physical custody of the children and also how major decisions pertaining to the children would be resolved.

In the late 1950s and into the 1960s, the Courts applied what was known as the "Tender Years Doctrine" In effect since the late 19th century, this concept established a presumption that children age eight or younger be placed with their mother. A father challenging such a presumption had a heavy burden of proving that the mother was clearly unfit to care for the children. As a result, very few children spent more than every other weekend with their fathers through the 1960s, and weekday contact for a father was rare unless the mother agreed.

The establishment of Equality of the Sexes in the 1960s established precedent which has evolved through today The number of women working full time increased dramatically, and as a result, even children belonging to solid, intact marriages found that upon their return from school, they either required the care of an adult or (if they were old enough) that they were responsible to care for each other until a parent returned from work. This new breed of youngsters became known as
"Latchkey Kids”; children who came home from school before the parents returned from work. The "Latchkey" group normally consisted of a least one child of age 14-15 or older. The younger ones were greeted by babysitters or a neighbor who agreed to fill the approximate two hour gap in time.

As a consequence of these changes, the legislatures of the states (custody is a state-not federal law) slowly equalized the playing field for the fathers in custody laws. Over time, fathers were afforded the opportunity to challenge for primary custody of the children. Although the law generally changes slowly, the presumption in favor of the mother (a societal as well as legal presumption) began to erode. By the 1980s, the standard for determining a custodial award was no longer “Tender Years”, but became "The Best Interests of the Children". However, as you may expect, the mindset of the judiciary was slower to change than the statutes that were promulgated.

The 1980s ushered in a dramatic increase in the number of divorce filings nationwide. In that decade, more and more fathers were awarded the primary physical care of their children. But the Courts were not as quick to undo hundreds of years of precedent. Consequently, unless there was strong evidence that the mother was unfit to some degree, the scales of justice continued to favor the mother. However, even when the mother was awarded primary physical care of the children, the contact/visitation rights of fathers increased substantially.

As we entered the 1990s, fathers would hire psychiatrists as experts to evaluate both the parents and the children and make recommendations. The use of such experts has increased through this day. Other experts such as psychologists and social workers played a peripheral role, but today, it is the psychiatrists that are the primary source of expert recommendation. Guardian Ad Litems (primarily attorneys appointed by the courts to represent the interests of the children) are another option available to parents embroiled in a custody dispute. The author was appointed in approximately twenty-five such cases in the 1990s in Orange County, Florida.

The testimony of such experts is afforded substantial weight at trial. The introduction of these court appointed experts saved the courts valuable time. These experts are permitted to use hearsay evidence (information acquired through interviews with third parties and the review of documents created and possessed by third parties). With the increase in divorce and related custody cases, the time saved by the use of such experts allowed each judge to handle more cases.

For instance, a custody evaluation is completed prior to trial. If the recommendation of the expert clearly favors one parent, the parent on the short end is more likely to negotiate to acquire expended contact rather than incurring the time and expense of a trial as they realize that the expert will be the primary witness called by the other parent.

As psychiatrists weighed in on what contact schedule is most beneficial to children, it became clear that the recommendation would include a substantial expansion of the traditional alternating weekend schedule applied in the early years. Rather than alternating weekends from Friday evening to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. were expanded to Fridays from after school until the non-custodial parent delivered the child to school on Monday morning.

In addition, the "non-custodial" parent was afforded weekday contact from after school until about 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday or whichever day the parent could make this fit his/her work schedule. Time during the holidays and summer vacation was also expanded. Custody not only evolved as to the time a parent spent with their child, but also came to encompass the involvement of both parents in the decision-making for the children. In Florida, this concept is known as "Shared Parental Responsibility".

My next post will bring us forward from the late 1990s to the present and will extend the discussion to include the concept of Shared Parental Responsibility, the relocation of children and other judicial considerations which include addressing the stigma associated with naming one parent with the title of Primary Residential Parent. Stay tuned.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Custody of Orangutans

In the winter of 1984, early in my legal career as an associate in my father’s law firm, a walk-in client showed up at the end of the day. We’ll call her Mary. Mary was forlorn and I agreed to stay and consult with her.

Mary and her husband “John” had met and fallen in love in 1974. They were married and planned a life together. But despite their best efforts, they found they could not conceive a child.

A few years of melancholy gave way to an idea: they decided that if they couldn’t conceive, they could adopt. But what happened is that they learned that the costs and the nature of their jobs were prohibitive to adopt. So they did what any couple with more love than the two of them could use would do:

They adopted a baby orangutan.

Mary and John loved their baby orangutan. The named him, dressed him in swaddling clothes, taught him to use the bathroom, fed him at their table, and the three of them lived in joy. It was a happy family. So happy, in fact, that Mary and John decided that their love and furniture were strong enough to expand their family again.

The adopted a second baby orangutan.

The second orangutan, it seemed, followed the lead of his older brother and was even easier to train than the elder! Their “sons” were happy and loving playmates, they were gentle and kind to their parents, and Mary and John were certain their lives were as complete as possible. Until Mary thought, “I would love a daughter…”

They adopted a third baby orangutan.

So now the family was five: John and Mary, the two boys, and a baby girl orangutan. God had truly smiled upon this couple and the children they had been chosen to raise.

But as sometimes happens in life, Mary and John grew apart. After ten years, at the age of thirty-five, Mary and John agreed that their marriage was not as fulfilling and loving as it needed to be. This is when Mary found me, and asked me to help her with her divorce.

Mary told me that their marriage was over, but that her request was to obtain “custody” of the three orangutans. My first thought was that a friend of my father’s, another attorney his age, had set this whole thing up. Custody of an orangutan reminded me of a law school exam question, and this woman and her "custody" smelled like a practical joke.

I quickly discovered that Mary’s story was real and that she truly loved these animals as she would a child. To Mary’s dismay, I explained the orangutans were Property and not subject to custody proceedings. But legal rules or not, she wanted her orangutans.

After we filed the divorce, and against my advice, she offered a settlement giving her husband the family car if he agreed that she could keep her babies, the orangutans.

I took her settlement offer to John’s attorney, and before I could show him the paperwork he told me, “This is a very easy divorce, I think. All my client wants is custody of their orangutans.” No, this was not a trick of my father’s friend; this was indeed an orangutan-custody fight.

John refused Mary’s offer, and instead offered her the same: she could have the family car if she relinquished “custody” of the three orangutans.

Mary refused, and upped her offer. She said John could have the family car and the contents of the apartment they shared, if he would give up the orangutans.

John refused, and made Mary the exact same offer; Mary could have the family car and the entire contents of their apartment, if she would give up the orangutans.

And it went back and forth; neither person was willing to give up custody of their orangutan children. This was going to court, and I prepared my client for it. Over the next few months, several items were added to the list of things the other could have, but in every case, the offer was turned down.

But on the eve of the trial, John had one final offer. His attorney told me that John was prepared to give Mary the family car, the contents of the home, his entire 401k, his retirement benefits, he would pay the rent on her new home for a year, and he would take out a $10,000 personal loan and give the entire amount to Mary, if she would let him keep the three orangutans.

Essentially he was offering cash and property valued in excess of $50k for three animals with a value of $10k, and after nine long months of negotiations, I finally convinced Mary to take his offer. Two weeks later, Mary moved out of the apartment and took the entire contents of the property. John transferred his 401k to her, gave her title to the car, sent her a $10,000 cashier’s check, and the first of twelve checks that would cover Mary’s rent for the following year.

Mary was heartbroken, but her divorce was amicable. Soon she was single again.

A few weeks after the final papers were signed, Mary received a phone call from John. Could she come over and see the orangutans? They were acting a little weird and John thought they missed Mary. Perhaps if she came over they would be return to their traditional calm demeanor. I told Mary that she’d already left her “babies” once and that returning again would just reopen the wounds. She agreed; she did not visit John or the orangutans.

A week later, Mary received another call from John. Could she come over, please? The orangutans were getting a little rambunctious and it was obvious that they missed their mommy. Again, Mary declined, as her heart couldn’t take seeing her kids missing her so.

Two weeks later, I received a call from Mary. The police were at her new apartment and she was despondent. I asked her what happened, and between heavy sighs and crying she said that the orangutans had missed her so much that they turned on John. A neighbor of John’s had heard a massive commotion from the orangutans’ apartment and he called the police.

When the police broke down the door, they saw John, battered and broken against a wall. Later at the hospital, the doctors determined that the orangutans had broken both of John’s legs, hip, one of his arms, his collarbone, and six ribs. They also broke many of John’s facial bones, he was in traction, and it would be six weeks before he was eventually released.

I asked Mary if that was all, and she sobbed no. She cried that the police who broke down the door had been confronted by three agitated and violent orangutans. The authorities had no choice... but to euthanize all three orangutans.

A few years later, I saw Mary at a restaurant. The first thing she mentioned was the orangutans and that she felt truly sorry about what had happened. However, she related that she now owned her own home, purchased a new vehicle, and that her retirement fund would allow her to retire earlier than she could ever had dreamed. On the other hand, John was still living in an apartment and rode a bicycle to work. Unfortunately, after he was released from the hospital, he started drinking and got two DUIs. Apparently, he never fully recovered from the entire episode.

Mary remarried and had two children in college as a result of her second marriage. She still sends me a Christmas card every year, and never fails to mention her first three children.