What You Can Learn from the Britney Spears Saga

Hofstra Law Professor Joanna Grossman has taken a careful, scrutinizing look at the Britney Spears case and used it as a backdrop to discuss what everyone should know about family law cases in general and child custody cases in particular.  It is a very interesting read, and here are some of the lessons she discusses:

  • Courts, not Divorcing Parents, Ultimately Decide Custody
  • Parental Behavior Matters in Custody Battles
  • The Paparazzi Are Not the Only Ones Watching Your Every Move
Source:  "Britney Spears: Why She Lost Visitation Rights, and What Her Case Teaches Us About Family Law" by Joanna Grossman, published at FindLaw.  Thanks also to John E. Harding for his post about this article at his California Divorce Blawg.

Visitation When Your Former Spouse Has A Live-In Girlfriend

Question:  I have been divorced for several years.  My Divorce Decree states that neither party can have the persons of the opposite sex spend the night when the children are present.  My ex-husband now wants to move in with his girlfriend.  If he moves in with her, do I still have to send my children for visitation or can I withhold visitation until they get married?

Answer:  The old adage "two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind.  If his girlfriend is there overnight when the children are there, he clearly is violating the Order and subject to being held in contempt of court.  However, if you refuse to send the kids and deny his visitation, you would be violating the Order as well and could possibly subject yourself to being held in contempt.  Your best course of action is to remind him about the prohibition on having overnight guests of the opposite sex and to immediately file a contempt action if he violates the Order.

Judges Expect Attorneys to Act Reasonably and Civilly Too

As I posted yesterday, judges want parties to act reasonably in their Family Court cases.  However, judges also want attorneys to do the same.  As discussed in my post today at the South Carolina Personal Injury Law blog, some judges have made it clear that they will not tolerate uncivil or unreasonable conduct from attorneys appearing before them.

For instance, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin, Texas issued an Order in 2004 in which he said that he felt like he is supervising kindergarten, because the lawyers involved in a civil suit in his court were acting like they never learned how to get along with others.  Judge Sparks' Order expressed his "disgust" at the lawyers' conduct, and said "The Court simply wants to scream to these lawyers, 'Get a life' or 'Do you have any other cases?' or 'When is the last time you registered for anger management classes?'"

Fortunately, while there are exceptions, the vast marjority of attorneys in South Carolina are civil to one another and do abide by the rules, both in word and in sprit.  I detest working with attorneys who do not, and I make every effort to avoid having them involved in my cases whenever possible. 

Those cases in which the parties and attorneys work in good faith toward a fair and equitable resolution are the ones that tend to (a) settle amicably, (b) get resolved sooner rather than later, (c) tend to be less expensive, and (d) give the parties the best chance to have a working relationship with each other after the case is concluded.

You can read more about the outrageous conduct of the attorneys in the Texas case as well as Judge Sparks' full opinion by reading my post, "Judge Condemns Attorneys for Outrageous Behavior" at my South Carolina Personal Injury Law blog.

How NOT to Behave in Court

The SC Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court's decision to hold a party in contempt of court for (a) making an obscene finger gesture to his attorney after the hearing concluded and (b) using profanity directed at the judge.  While most people would certainly not act as outrageously as the man in this case, it serves as a good reminder that parties should always be on their best behavior in Court.

In this case, the party apparently "flipped off” the attorney and then told the judge “f**k you, you bastard.”  Even after being held in contempt and sentenced to serve a year in jail for his contemptous actions, the party was still not finished.  On his way out of the courtroom, he apparently fought with the deputies, only to be brought back in to be chastised by the judge.   For his antics, the judge sentenced him to two, six-month sentences for contempt, to be served consecutively consecutively to each other, for a total of one year in jail.

The Court of Appeals held that all courts have the inherent power to punish for contempt to preserve order and maintain decorum in judicial proceedings.  Contemptuous conduct in the presence of the court is direct contempt, and South Carolina courts have taken an expansive view of the “presence” and “court” requirements to encompass all elements of the judicial system, not just the mere physical presence of the judge or courtroom.  No warning of possible contempt is necessary.

In his appeal, the party argued that his sentence should be vacated because he was entitled to a jury trial.  The United States Supreme Court has held that petty crimes can generally be tried without a jury trial, but serious crimes require a jury trial if the accused requests one.  The distinction between a "petty" and "serious" crime is generally determined by the maximum punishment assigned by the legislature.  Crimes with punishments of six months or less are presumably “petty,” while crimes with punishments greater than six months are presumably “serious.”

In this case, the Court of Appeals noted that the two consecutive six-month sentences are the equivalent of a one-year sentence, which would normally entitle a defendant to a jury trial if he or she requested one.  However, the party in this case never requested a jury trial, and he never objected to the imposition of the contempt sentences without a jury trial.  For those reasons, the appellate court found that this issue was not preserved for appellate review, and it affirmed the trial court's sentences for contempt.

You can read the full opinion in Rhoad v. State by clicking HERE.

Recent Case Discusses Contempt of Court Issues

The S.C. Court of Appeals recently affirmed a Family Court Order which awarded the wife alimony and attorney’s fees and found the husband in contempt of court.  The husband had failed to comply with the family court’s orders concerning the distribution of personal property, payment of wife’s equitable share of the marital home, harassment, and communication with wife about the children’s issues.  The Court of Appeals found that there was ample evidence to support the family court’s contempt findings on all four issues.  Also, it held that the family court had erred by referencing a sidebar conference in its final and modified final order, but noted that the erroneous mention of the sidebar did not amount to reversible error.  You can read the full text of Davis v. Davis by clicking HERE.