South Carolina Family Law Blog : Spartanburg Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Stevens-MacPhail Law Firm : South Carolina Family Law Serving Columbia, Charleston, Greenville, Hilton Head Island

A local candidate for County Council finds himself the target of public accusations of breaking up another man's marriage.  The husband claims that the politician had an affair with his wife, and he has been driving a truck around town with a large placard that says "__ WHO IS RUNNING FOR COUNTY COUNCIL DIST. 1 HAD AN ADULTEROUS AFFAIR WITH MY WIFE __."  (Note:  I am omitting the  names of those involved for this post, but they can be found in the article specified in the link below.)

The politician claims that he was only helping a longtime friend who was in an abusive relationship.  He and the wife both deny that their relationship was sexual in nature.  However, the husband was granted a divorce from the wife on the ground of adultery last November, and a private investigator reported seeing the wife and the politician at his home, a restaurant, and a hotel in a nearby town.  Further, the investigator claims that he saw the wife and the politician kissing.

I previously posted a discussion of how nasty divorces can become when they involve a public figure.  This case is a peek into the deep hurt that a spouse can feel when he believes (rightly or wrongly) that his spouse has cheated on him and how tough it is to let those feelings go, even after divorce.  I have found that people get over these feelings at varying rates, and unfortunately some never do.

In many cases, clients want "revenge" against their spouse and/or the paramour.  I caution my clients against such conduct, and I urge them to consider the short term "good feeling" that they might get from such conduct and to weigh that against its long term consequences.  Once they do so, they see that it is simply not worth it to seek such revenge. 

For instance, what if the parties in this news story have children?  What if the husband causes the politician to lose the election, but he is still not satisfied?  Where will it all end?  I would venture to guess that it will end up back in court -- unfortunately that could be any combination of family court, civil court, or criminal court.

You can read much more about this situation in "Spartanburg County Council Candidate Denies Affair Claims" by Robert W. Dalton, published in the Spartanburg Herald Journal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lawyers Weekly USA recently published an excellent article on parental alienation syndrome (PAS).  "Parental Alienation: The Latest Weapon in Nasty Divorces" takes an inside look at the various aspects of PAS from the perspectives of those involved in the legal system.  The article features interviews with psychologist Richard Gardner and several divorce attorneys: Steve Pradell of Anchorage, Alaska; Susan Gallagher of Minneapolis, Minnesota; Michael R. Walsh of Orlando, Florida; Patrick O'Reilly of Buffalo, New York; and me, Ben Stevens.

Some of the quotes from me in this article are:

• Although parental alienation has become a common weapon in custody cases around the country, proving it can be a tall order.  "It's like everything else in a custody case - it all comes down to what you can prove at trial. A lot of bad things happen, but they're very difficult to prove," said Ben Stevens of Stevens MacPhail in Spartanburg, S.C.
• But the heart of any parental alienation case is the expert testimony, according to Stevens.  "Take the child to a mental health professional and let him do testing," he suggested. "Then you've got an expert witness to come and say, 'In my expert opinion, this is what's going on.'"
• Third-party witnesses can also be a powerful weapon in court.  "Try to line up witnesses that would have had the opportunity to see [the parent] interact with the child. Teachers, scout leaders, dance teachers, karate teachers - people who see them during times when parents let their guard down and can say, 'I've never seen Dad say anything bad about Mom or Mom say anything bad about Dad,'" Stevens suggested.
• "I encourage my clients to act reasonably, assume anything they do or say could be shown to the judge - or better yet, that the judge is standing there watching," said Stevens. "I don't know if that's great advice or I've just had good clients, but I haven't had many alienation claims alleged against my clients."
• Stevens is also careful to take cases he believes in strongly.  "It's not worth it to me to deal with clients who are acting deliberately," he said. "If they're going to do that to their child's parent, I'm going to have a problem with them at some point."

The other attorneys interviewed in the article make interesting points, and some even disagree with  me on certain issues.  I strongly suggest that you read this article and consider all of the points raised by the various contributors.  You can read the full text of the article by clicking HERE.

Source:  "Parental Alienation: The Latest Weapon in Nasty Divorces" by Amy Johnson Conner, published at Lawyers Weekly USA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that an investment banker will receive $9.7 million after his ex-wife destroyed his career and reputation with a damaging letter sent to 200 people, including potential employees, colleagues, charities and friends. 

The letters alleged that he boasted of bribing judges, made plans to have her killed, and duped his employers out of money with a lucrative investment scam.  It also detailed allegations from the couple's divorce.

The woman's letter sent the banker's career "into a nose-dive" when he found himself demoted (from his $1.5 million a year position) and later, struggling to find a job at all.  The man claims to this day that he cannot explain why his ex-wife distributed the letter.

The ex-wife's attorney argued in his closing statements that she had endured "emotional torture" in the marriage and that sending the letters "was the only way to protect" herself from her ex-husband's threats.  The ex-husband has maintained that he had no contact with her since they divorced.

You can get more information about this story by clicking HERE.

Source:  "'Lies' cost ex-wife $9.7 mil." by Rummana Hussain and Steve Patterson, published in the Chicago Sun-Times.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)

The American Bar Association's Commission on Domestic Violence has published two useful resources:

• For Clients: Domestic Violence Safety Plan: Safety Tips for You and Your Family. This downloadable document includes practical tips for protecting your children and yourself at home, at work, at Court, and elsewhere.
• For Attorneys: Tool for Attorneys to Screen for Domestic Violence. This resource explains to attorneys the importance of identifying victims of domestic violence and gives insight into how to discuss these sensitive issues with their clients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

I came across an interesting analysis and discussion of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Time to Defund Feminist Pork -- the Hate-Men Law by Phyllis Schlafly. The VAWA debate has given rise to strong emotions on both sides of this issue, and Ms. Schlafly's position can be summarized in her statement that it is "time to stop VAWA from spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children." This article is an interesting read, and I will post on the other side of this debate in the near future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)

I never cease to be amazed by the terrible, hurtful things that people say to each other. For instance, I had a client several years ago whose ex-wife sent a card to him from his young children on Father's Day that said Happy "Sperm Donor's" Day. Needless to say, when we introduced that card as an exhibit in our custody case against her, the Court was less than amused. Fortunately, at least in that instance, all's well that ends well, as my client obtained custody of his children in that case. However, I am sure that every Father's Day he cannot help but remember those hurtful words.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)

Domestic violence is "a great evil and an offense against human dignity," said President Bush in a Proclamation declaring October to be National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Over the last decade, awareness of domestic violence has risen dramatically, and there are now many programs available to assist the victims and attempt to prevent future instances. I share the President's goal of working toward a society that "respects the life and dignity of every person."

In South Carolina, victims of domestic violence can file a Petition for Order for Protection to seek assistance from the Court. There are also several statewide agencies available to help victims of domestic violence, including South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, South Carolina Victim Assistance Network , and The South Carolina Centers for Equal Justice.

A complete South Carolina County-by-County listing of local domestic violence resources, including addresses and telephone numbers, is available by clicking the link below.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

The U.S. Supreme Court held earlier this week that police cannot be sued for the manner in which they enforce restraining orders. In the 7-2 decision, the Court found that the wife did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of an order against her estranged husband.

The woman, a resident of Colorado, claimed that local police did not do enough to prevent her husband from killing her three young daughters. She claimed that she was entitled to bring the action under the 14th Amendment and also under a Colorado law that provides that officers use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "The creation of a personal entitlement to something as vague and novel as enforcement of restraining orders cannot 'simply go without saying.' We conclude that Colorado has not created such an entitlement."

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 04-278, June 30, 2005.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments