Update -- And Custody Goes to the Cousin

The judge has ruled in the custody case for child in the Belcher-Perkins Case.   After listening to testimony and at least one expert witness, the judge decided that the cousin of the child's mother should have permanent custody.   He felt that both the paternal grandmother and the cousin would be good guardians but the cousin was better.

He also stated all those involved should remain involved in the child's life.   However, it's not clear from the news report whether this is formally in the Order.   If it is not, I foresee lots of trouble ahead.   If there is no Order to at least allow the other family members -- especially Jovan Belcher's -- access to the child, the cousin can simply deny any and all acess.   One hopes she won't do that.   However, it happens far too often in contested custody cases.   If one person has all the control over access, then they go power hungry.

This is more likely in this family considering the cousin will have to put aside her personal feelings about the family of the man who murdered her cousin.  I hope she can for the child's sake.   The child needs to know both sides of her family -- regardless of the circumstances that led to her being orphaned.

The other good news in the case is that no family member controls the very large trust fund.   A corporate trust company is managing the funds.   This will ensure (hopefully) that there is money left when the child turns 18.   And reduces the need to control access over money fights.

Happy Father's Day

Probably should have done a post on Mother's Day too.   Oh well, this blog covers family law issues in the sport world.   The sports I cover have mostly male player, so, Father's Day gets more attention.   Which is unusual.

Good knows we talk enough about fathers here.   Especially the ones who don't pay their child support.   I don't care how many kids you have -- pay your child support.

I don't care how difficult the moms are, take every second of your court ordered visitation.   There is NO excuse for not spending time with your kids.   Fine, being a professional athletes doesn't exactly lend itself to every other weekend visits.   Do what you can.   You don't have to go that party in Miami.   You don't have to go to that other sports's championship game(s).   Spend time with your kids.   Or hey, bring your kids.   They would love it.  

Two tweets (god I hate that word, someone give me an alternative PLEASE) gave some really good advice this Father's Day.  

Michael Robinson ‏@RealMikeRob25m

Wanna say Happy Fathers Day to all the good dads out there. Wanna change the world? Starts w/the man in the home. Raise your kids!

Good4Lawyers ‏@Good4Lawyers54m

"The most important thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother." - Theodore Hesbur

On that last, you don't have to be married to the Mom or living with her.   But you damn well better treat her with respect -- no matter how she acts.   And you better not bad mouth her to your kids, or let your kids see by any of your actions how you truly feel about her.   This is the mother of your children.   Without her, you would have a reason to celebrate Father's Day.   Got it?  And I don't want to hear about that she doesn't do the same.   Two wrongs don't make a right.   Be the better person.   Set a good example for your kids.   That is the best gift you can get for Father's Day, knowing your kids will grow up to be good, respectful productive members of society.

Who Gets the Kids -- When Mom and Dad Are No Longer Around

Custody is usually decided between Mom and Dad.   After all that is the point of a custody order -- to decide with whom the kids will live when.   If Mom and Dad are living together, there is no custody to decide.   If only one parent is available for some reason such as hospitalization, incarceration or sadly, death, then that parent gets custody.

Grandparents have few rights to get custody of kids.   If Mom and Dad are both around, they have almost no chance.   Even if one parent is gone, the parents of the missing parent do not just step into the void created and act as the other parent.   The surviving available parent is sole custodian of the children.   With all the rights to determine who sees the child when as before.  

Grandparents can get custody but there are some hurdles to overcome.   In Maryland you have to show extraordinary circumstances and unfitness of parents.   These two actually go hand in hand.   If the parent is unfit, there are extraordinary circumstances.   If there are substance abuse issues or incarcerations, the parents are not fit to have custody.   Usually in those situations, the child has been left with a grandparent anyway.   The grandparent then is really just getting the court to recognize legally what the situation actually is.  The grandparents are the primary caregivers of the child, making all the decisions for the child.  

But what happens when both parents are gone?   That situation is playing out in a Missouri Courtroom beginning June 11.   The underlying facts are as follows:   Jovan Belcher of the Kansis City Chiefs shot and killed Kasandra Perkins, the mother of his child last fall.   He then drove to Arrowhead stadium and killed himself in front of his coaches.   This left a little girl with no parents.  His mother was present for the shooting.   In the immediate aftermath, she began caring for the child.   She allowed the parents of Perkins to take the child to Texas for her mother's funeral.   The Perkins family then refused to return the child.  The child is currently being cared for by a cousin of Perkins.

It is up to a judge to decide which family it is in the child's best interest to live with.   He will have to look at a lot of factors, not the least why this child is an orphan.   He will also have to evaluate whether the requests to care for the child are motivated by true love and affection for the child or money.   You see the child is quite wealthy.   There is insurance money as well as a fund set up for her.  Whoever gets custody will most likely get control of the money.

Of course, the court could craft a compromise.  Physical custody with one family, visitation with the other.   Although until the child is old enough to travel alone (which won't be for years, she is only 8 months old now), the families will have to meet.   How do the families meet knowing that a member of the Belcher family killed a member of the Perkins family, leading to the current situation?   As for the money, both grandmothers could be appointed joint trustees with a requirement for agreement on any spending.  That should keep any one family from exploiting the child.  

This is one of the hard ones.   Deciding custody between two fit parents is hard enough.   Add in a murder and it becomes the stuff that keeps judges awake at night.

Keep the Ex and the New SO Apart

Thanksgiving, that time when families comes together -- and custody handoffs occur.   Everyone wants the little angels to spend Thanksgiving with them, not the other parent.   But hey, there is a court order stating otherwise.   The Court Order controls.  

So, the split has occurred and everyone has moved on.   There is a new Significant Other in one parent's life.   Gues what, this new SO is NOT a parent.   They should not be involved in the Custody Order, the pick ups or the drop offs.   Even if the new SO lives with the parent.   If the pick up and drop off occurs at the house, the new SO needs to make his/herself scarce.   No confrontations at the front door, in the living room, in the driveway.

Did I say the driveway?   Yep, that is what happened to Halle Berry with her new fiance and her old boyfriend (who happens to be the father of her child).   Halle is already irked because she was not allowed to move to France.  Turns out dad has rights.   Go figure.   Money does not trump that.

So, Dad has the little cutie overnight and returns her today.   All nice and correct.  Until the new fiance decides to insert himself in the situation.    He approached Dad during the dropoff and tries to make nice.   Which seems like a good thing -- except it is not his job to do that.   He needs to stay out of the situation between Halle and Daddy.   It is not his business.

Now, what Dad did is not right.  He charged Fiance and started a fight.   A serious fight which ended with both men in the hospital.   Dad is also facing misdemeanor charges.   Which is wonderful example to set for his kid.   Fortunately, Halle rushed the child into the house as soon as the fight started.   But kids are not stupid.   She is old enough to know daddy and Mommy's new friend got into a fight.  

Yes Dad was wrong to treat a gesture of conciliation as an invitation to fight.   However, again, fiance needs to keep his nose of things that are none of his business.    I get more calls in my practice after the case is over where the new person in the other parent's life is causing trouble.   Talking trash, trying to take the parent's place in the kid's life, disciplining the kids, and generally interefering.   This could all be avoided if the new SO just understood - you have no rights to these kids so stay out of it.   If the parent insists on inserting the SO into the situation, rather than dealing with the other parent on his/her own, that is equally wrong.   The parents are the parents.  Period.   Keep others out of it.  

Or it leads to this -- someone going to jail.   And a child who feels horribly caught in the middle.

(okay, this one is not sports related, but it was too good a lesson to teach.   And it was Halle Berry, I am not dumb enough to miss the SEO implications of that)

LOCKOUT!

It actually happened.   The implications of both the players' lawsuit and the owners' lockout are well covered by PFT, The Volokh Conspiracy and The Sports Law Professor Blog.

While there may be no football for awhile, custody, child support and divorce cases continue.   Heck, the players have nothing better to do right now, might as well get those cases moving.   There are two types of cases, those that are currently litigated and those which have been litigated and the player may want a modification.   There are different things to consider in each type.   Let's examine them.

Custody:  
    In litigation:    As always the court will be looking at the "best interest of the child."   Is an unemployed dad, the best custodial parent right now?   Dad won't be going to offseason lockouts, he won't be traveling for games during the season, etc.   If Mom does work, maybe living with Dad is the best to avoid putting the child in daycare.   If Mom doesn't work, as Mom has been providing the majority of care because of Dad's work schedule, should she retain custody?  

This all assumes that Dad is too involved in being a football player to care for the children.    It is a vast generalizations, that is certainly not true individual cases.   Football player dads can be just as involved in their kid's lives as any other Dad.   But, there unique work schedules and incredible amounts of travel have to be considered.    With a work stoppage, all that changes to just any other out of work Dad.   If the judge believes the work stoppage may continue for awhile, he may award custody to dad.   Or he may decide Mom is the best as the most stable parent all along, looking at the long term.   Judges know this lockout won't last forever.   They have to make the best decision for the children, not just today and the future.   But, if I represented Dad, I would be arguing the current situation that we have today.

  Already Litigated:   Judges probably won't accept a work stoppage that is mostly likely temporary as a "material change in circumstances" such that moving the children around is warranted.   In joint custody situations, Dad can probably get a few more nights.    In sole custody situations, hey, it's a great time to spend more time with your kids.    Get a weekend overnight that you couldn't have during the season because you worked weekends.    See if Mom lets you have the kids for a week (as long as they get to school).   Taking a trip is probably not a good idea since you don't know when your next paycheck will be.   There are lots of free or low cost things you can do with your kids though.   Time to do those things you would promised you would do "when you had the time."   Time is all you have now.   No offseason workouts with your teammates at the team facilities, no OTAs, maybe no training camp.   Take advantage of the downtime to hang with your kids.   Even if you never missed a visitation, try to spend some extra time with the kids.   They will love you forever for it.

Alimony
   In Litigation:   Again, depends on how the judge sees it.   If the judge knows this is temporary, he may look at the player's contract and based alimony on that income.  This is the most likely scenario.   No player is ever guaranteed a spot on a team and a continue paycheck  (Not even Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.   Believe me if they had not come back from their knee surgeries as well as they did, they would have been cut).   The only thing guaranteed to a player is the guaranteed money stated in the contract.   Given that reality, a temporary work stoppage has no more effect on a player's income that being waived by a team.   A judge has to look at the income and make a decision about the player's future ability to make payments.   On the other hand, the judge could look just at current income ( 0 ) and know that the player could be cut when -- and if -- training camps ever open again.   The judge could then say the player is not voluntary impoverished since the owners locked him out of his employment.   He could then look at the player's ability to get another job and what that job would pay.   The decision about alimony would be based on that likelihood of getting employment.

    Already Litigated:   The player could really be screwed here.   In some states (like Maryland), alimony is not modifiable.   What was established when the divorce was litigated is what the player is stuck paying, regardless of financial situation.   The good news is that alimony is not the lifetime pension it is was once.   In the 21st century, the wife is expected to get off her butt and get a job.    Just because she was married to a rich football player once up a time does not negate her need to be self-supporting.

Child Support
    In Litigation:    Much the same analysis as alimony.   With one huge exception -- you are expected to sacrifice and do what you can to support your children.    Supporting your ex-wife, not so much sacrifice expected.   A player would be expected to get a job during the work stoppage to make sure his kids have food on the table, a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs.    The judge may figure child support based on the player's football income, presuming the stoppage will be temporary.    Temporary unemployment will not relieve one of the obligation to pay child support.   The judge may consider the temporary job in assigning a temporary amount to be increased when the player returns to the playing field.   

     Already Litigated:    The standard for a change in child support payments is the same as for a change in custody -- "material change in circumstances."    It is up to a judge to decide whether a most likely temporary work stoppage is enough to warrant a permanent change in payment amount.   This is unlikely.   Whether dad is working or not, the kids still need to be supported.   The amount won't likely change.   The judge could decide to temporarily suspend payments until the player returns to the field.   The player would then be responsible for all the back payments.   This is unlikely though.   The lockout should not impose a hardship on the children who had no say in whether it occurred or not.   The children cannot make up the difference of the child support payments.   Dads need to continue making these payments, whatever other sacrifices they make during the lockout.

Obviously, the players should have been saving their money for just this situation.    They should have enough money saved to meet all their financial obligations until the paycheck resumes.   Some will have done so.   For those players and their families, life will go on just as before.   For those that didn't, they  may be explaining their lack of financial responsibility to a judge.   It will not be pretty.   I don't see any judge being particularly sympathetic to someone who makes more at the League minimum than most people make not saving some of that money for the lean times.  

We all hope this Lockout is temporary and we have football come fall.   For the players facing family law issues, this just complicates an already difficult time.   Resolving it quickly will mean one less uncertainty to deal with in court.