Glenn’s E-Newsletter/Week in Review, July 1, 2008
There were three interesting court decisions this week related to fatherhood--one bad and two good.
On the bad side, the New Jersey Supreme Court opened the door for alimony for the mistress. The court ruled that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup. In the case, a woman who had been a married man's mistress for 20 years but had never lived with him or had a child by him was demanding alimony.
I do believe that alimony is appropriate under certain circumstances, such as when one parent has made substantial career sacrifices in order to be the primary caregiver for the couple's children, and upon divorce their incomes are very unequal because of these sacrifices. This case, however, goes well beyond that--no kids, no real sacrifices, etc. While the woman in this case apparently isn't going to win her bid for alimony, the case opens the possibility for alimony in other cases where it is inappropriate.
On the positive side, a New Jersey court did something about the problem of domestic violence restraining orders. With these orders, all a woman has to do is tell a court that her husband "threatened her" or she is "in fear of him" and the court orders a restraining order booting the man out of his own home and prohibiting him from contacting his own kids.
The Court ruled that a key element of the New Jersey Domestic Violence Act (DVA) is unconstitutional. Currently the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is used. This means that the evidence must only be 51-49 in favor of the plaintiff, thus the woman inevitably wins the he said/she said battle. The court ruled that the “clear and convincing evidence” standard--perceived as 75-25 in favor of the plaintiff--is instead required. This could greatly reduce the epidemic of use of restraining orders as tactical weapons in divorce/custody cases.
In another positive development, the US Supreme Court cited false accusations of molestation as a problem in its ruling on the death penalty for child rape. The court expressly noted that one of the bases for its holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape is the risk of false claims. The court wrote:
There are, moreover, serious systemic concerns in prosecuting the crime of child rape that are relevant to the constitutionality of making it a capital offense. The problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony means there is a "special risk of wrongful execution" in some child rape cases..."
This undermines, at least to some degree, the meaningful contribution of the death penalty to legitimate goals of punishment. Studies conclude that children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques like repetition, guided imagery, and selective reinforcement..."
Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
www.GlennSacks.com
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
