One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring

By JACQUELINE MROZ

Cynthia Daily and her partner used a sperm donor to conceive a baby seven years ago, and they hoped that one day their son would get to know some of his half siblings — an extended family of sorts for modern times.

So Ms. Daily searched a Web-based registry for other children fathered by the same donor and helped to create an online group to track them. Over the years, she watched the number of children in her son’s group grow.

And grow.

Today there are 150 children, all conceived with sperm from one donor, in this group of half siblings, and more are on the way. “It’s wild when we see them all together — they all look alike,” said Ms. Daily, 48, a social worker in the Washington area who sometimes vacations with other families in her son’s group.

As more women choose to have babies on their own, and the number of children born through artificial insemination increases, outsize groups of donor siblings are starting to appear. While Ms. Daily’s group is among the largest, many others comprising 50 or more half siblings are cropping up on Web sites and in chat groups, where sperm donors are tagged with unique identifying numbers.

Now, there is growing concern among parents, donors and medical experts about potential negative consequences of having so many children fathered by the same donors, including the possibility that genes for rare diseases could be spread more widely through the population. Some experts are even calling attention to the increased odds of accidental incest between half sisters and half brothers, who often live close to one another.

“My daughter knows her donor’s number for this very reason,” said the mother of a teenager conceived via sperm donation in California who asked that her name be withheld to protect her daughter’s privacy. “She’s been in school with numerous kids who were born through donors. She’s had crushes on boys who are donor children. It’s become part of sex education” for her.

Critics say that fertility clinics and sperm banks are earning huge profits by allowing too many children to be conceived with sperm from popular donors, and that families should be given more information on the health of donors and the children conceived with their sperm. They are also calling for legal limits on the number of children conceived using the same donor’s sperm and a re-examination of the anonymity that cloaks many donors.

“We have more rules that go into place when you buy a used car than when you buy sperm,” said Debora L. Spar, president of Barnard College and author of “The Baby Business: How Money, Science and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception.” “It’s very clear that the dealer can’t sell you a lemon, and there’s information about the history of the car. There are no such rules in the fertility industry right now.”

Although other countries, including Britain, France and Sweden, limit how many children a sperm donor can father, there is no such limit in the United States. There are only guidelines issued by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a professional group that recommends restricting conceptions by individual donors to 25 births per population of 800,000.

No one knows how many children are born in this country each year using sperm donors. Some estimates put the number at 30,000 to 60,000, perhaps more. Mothers of donor children are asked to report a child’s birth to the sperm bank voluntarily, but just 20 to 40 percent of them do so, said Wendy Kramer, founder of the Donor Sibling Registry.

Because of this dearth of records, many families turn to the registry’s Web site, donorsiblingregistry.com, for information about a child’s half brothers or half sisters.

Ms. Kramer, who had her son, Ryan, through a sperm donor, started the registry in 2000 to help connect so-called donor families. On the Web site, parents can register the birth of a child and find half siblings by looking up a number assigned to a sperm donor. Many parents, she said, are shocked to learn just how many half siblings a child has.

“They think their daughter may have a few siblings,” Ms. Kramer said, “but then they go on our site and find out their daughter actually has 18 brothers and sisters. They’re freaked out. I’m amazed that these groups keep growing and growing.”

Ms. Kramer said that some sperm banks in the United States have treated donor families unethically and that it is time to consider new legislation.

“Just as it’s happened in many other countries around the world,” Ms. Kramer said, “we need to publicly ask the questions ‘What is in the best interests of the child to be born?’ and ‘Is it fair to bring a child into the world who will have no access to knowing about one half of their genetics, medical history and ancestry?’

“These sperm banks are keeping donors anonymous, making women babies and making a lot of money. But nowhere in that formula is doing what’s right for the donor families.”

Many of those questions were debated in Britain shortly after the birth there, in 1978, of Louise Brown, the first baby born using in vitro fertilization. In 1982, the British government appointed a committee, led by Mary Warnock, a well-known English philosopher, to look into the issues surrounding reproductive health.

The groundbreaking Warnock Report contained a list of recommendations, including regulation of the sale of human sperm and embryos and strict limits on how many children a donor could father (10 per donor). The regulations have become a model for industry practices in other countries.

“It is quite unpredictable what the ultimate effect on the gene pool of a society might be if donors were permitted to donate as many times as they chose,” Baroness Warnock wrote recently in an e-mail.

Without limits, the same donor could theoretically produce hundreds of related children. And it is even possible that accidental incest could occur among hundreds of half siblings, said Naomi R. Cahn, a law professor at George Washington University and the author of “Test Tube Families: Why the Fertility Markets Need Legal Regulation.”

Sperm donors, too, are becoming concerned. “When I asked specifically how many children might result, I was told nobody knows for sure but that five would be a safe estimate,” said a sperm donor in Texas who asked that his name be withheld because of privacy concerns. “I was told that it would be very rare for a donor to have more than 10 children.”

He later discovered in the Donor Sibling Registry that some donors had dozens of children listed. “It was all about whatever they could get away with,” he said of the sperm bank to which he donated. “It is unfair and reprehensible to the donor families, donors and donor children.”

Ms. Kramer, the registry’s founder, said that one sperm donor on her site learned that he had 70 children. He now keeps track of them all on an Excel spreadsheet. “Every once in a while he gets a new kid or twins,” she said. “It’s overwhelming, and not what he signed up for. He was promised low numbers of children.”

The fertility industry has long resisted regulation, but the explosion of related half siblings may change that. Dr. Robert G. Brzyski, chairman of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine ethics committee, had been skeptical that there could be donors with more than 100 children. But now, he said, it is time to take another look at donor limits.

“In the past, when decisions were made about how many children should be attributed to a donor, it was based on estimates of the risk of unintended consanguinity between brothers and sisters who could meet and marry,” Dr. Brzyski said. “I think those models were very limited in their vision when they were created. Now I think there needs to be a reassessment of the criteria and the policies regarding the appropriate number of offspring.”

Because there is so much secrecy surrounding sperm and egg donations, Ms. Kramer said, it has been difficult for families of children born via sperm donation to step forward with their concerns. Some heterosexual couples never tell a child that he or she is the product of a sperm donation.

Ms. Daily, the Washington social worker, said that other parents in her son’s group had been secretive because of fears that their children would be stigmatized. She and other donor parents are coming forward, she said, because they “need to start advocating for some regulation.”

Experts are not certain what it means to a child to discover that he or she is but one of 50 children — or even more. “Experts don’t talk about this when they counsel people dealing with infertility,” Ms. Kramer said. “How do you make connections with so many siblings? What does family mean to these children?”

****

For more information on sperm donors and paternity rights, see our blog entry at http://divorcefamilylaw.blogspot.com/search?q=sperm+donor

One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring

One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring, By JACQUELINE MROZ

One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring , Cynthia Daily and her partner used a sperm donor to conceive a baby seven years ago, and they hoped that one day their son would get to know some of his half siblings — an extended family of sorts for modern times.

One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring ,So Ms. Daily searched a Web-based registry for other children fathered by the same donor and helped to create an online group to track them. Over the years, she watched the number of children in her son’s group grow. 

Today there are 150 children, all conceived with sperm from one donor, in this group of half siblings, and more are on the way. “It’s wild when we see them all together — they all look alike,” said Ms. Daily, 48, a social worker in the Washington area who sometimes vacations with other families in her son’s group.
As more women choose to have babies on their own, and the number of children born through artificial insemination increases, outsize groups of donor siblings are starting to appear. While Ms. Daily’s group is among the largest, many others comprising 50 or more half siblings are cropping up on Web sites and in chat groups, where sperm donors are tagged with unique identifying numbers.
Now, there is growing concern among parents, donors and medical experts about potential negative consequences of having so many children fathered by the same donors, including the possibility that genes for rare diseases could be spread more widely through the population. Some experts are even calling attention to the increased odds of accidental incest between half sisters and half brothers, who often live close to one another.
“My daughter knows her donor’s number for this very reason,” said the mother of a teenager conceived via sperm donation in California who asked that her name be withheld to protect her daughter’s privacy. “She’s been in school with numerous kids who were born through donors. She’s had crushes on boys who are donor children. It’s become part of sex education” for her.
Critics say that fertility clinics and sperm banks are earning huge profits by allowing too many children to be conceived with sperm from popular donors, and that families should be given more information on the health of donors and the children conceived with their sperm. They are also calling for legal limits on the number of children conceived using the same donor’s sperm and a re-examination of the anonymity that cloaks many donors.
“We have more rules that go into place when you buy a used car than when you buy sperm,” said Debora L. Spar, president of Barnard College and author of “The Baby Business: How Money, Science and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception.” “It’s very clear that the dealer can’t sell you a lemon, and there’s information about the history of the car. There are no such rules in the fertility industry right now.”
Although other countries, including Britain, France and Sweden, limit how many children a sperm donor can father, there is no such limit in the United States. There are only guidelines issued by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a professional group that recommends restricting conceptions by individual donors to 25 births per population of 800,000.
No one knows how many children are born in this country each year using sperm donors. Some estimates put the number at 30,000 to 60,000, perhaps more. Mothers of donor children are asked to report a child’s birth to the sperm bank voluntarily, but just 20 to 40 percent of them do so, said Wendy Kramer, founder of the Donor Sibling Registry.
Because of this dearth of records, many families turn to the registry’s Web site, donorsiblingregistry.com, for information about a child’s half brothers or half sisters.
Ms. Kramer, who had her son, Ryan, through a sperm donor, started the registry in 2000 to help connect so-called donor families. On the Web site, parents can register the birth of a child and find half siblings by looking up a number assigned to a sperm donor. Many parents, she said, are shocked to learn just how many half siblings a child has.
“They think their daughter may have a few siblings,” Ms. Kramer said, “but then they go on our site and find out their daughter actually has 18 brothers and sisters. They’re freaked out. I’m amazed that these groups keep growing and growing.”
Ms. Kramer said that some sperm banks in the United States have treated donor families unethically and that it is time to consider new legislation.
“Just as it’s happened in many other countries around the world,” Ms. Kramer said, “we need to publicly ask the questions ‘What is in the best interests of the child to be born?’ and ‘Is it fair to bring a child into the world who will have no access to knowing about one half of their genetics, medical history and ancestry?’
“These sperm banks are keeping donors anonymous, making women babies and making a lot of money. But nowhere in that formula is doing what’s right for the donor families.”
Many of those questions were debated in Britain shortly after the birth there, in 1978, of Louise Brown, the first baby born using in vitro fertilization. In 1982, the British government appointed a committee, led by Mary Warnock, a well-known English philosopher, to look into the issues surrounding reproductive health.
The groundbreaking Warnock Report contained a list of recommendations, including regulation of the sale of human sperm and embryos and strict limits on how many children a donor could father (10 per donor). The regulations have become a model for industry practices in other countries.
“It is quite unpredictable what the ultimate effect on the gene pool of a society might be if donors were permitted to donate as many times as they chose,” Baroness Warnock wrote recently in an e-mail.
Without limits, the same donor could theoretically produce hundreds of related children. And it is even possible that accidental incest could occur among hundreds of half siblings, said Naomi R. Cahn, a law professor at George Washington University and the author of “Test Tube Families: Why the Fertility Markets Need Legal Regulation.”
Sperm donors, too, are becoming concerned. “When I asked specifically how many children might result, I was told nobody knows for sure but that five would be a safe estimate,” said a sperm donor in Texas who asked that his name be withheld because of privacy concerns. “I was told that it would be very rare for a donor to have more than 10 children.”
He later discovered in the Donor Sibling Registry that some donors had dozens of children listed. “It was all about whatever they could get away with,” he said of the sperm bank to which he donated. “It is unfair and reprehensible to the donor families, donors and donor children.”
Ms. Kramer, the registry’s founder, said that one sperm donor on her site learned that he had 70 children. He now keeps track of them all on an Excel spreadsheet. “Every once in a while he gets a new kid or twins,” she said. “It’s overwhelming, and not what he signed up for. He was promised low numbers of children.”
The fertility industry has long resisted regulation, but the explosion of related half siblings may change that. Dr. Robert G. Brzyski, chairman of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine ethics committee, had been skeptical that there could be donors with more than 100 children. But now, he said, it is time to take another look at donor limits.
“In the past, when decisions were made about how many children should be attributed to a donor, it was based on estimates of the risk of unintended consanguinity between brothers and sisters who could meet and marry,” Dr. Brzyski said. “I think those models were very limited in their vision when they were created. Now I think there needs to be a reassessment of the criteria and the policies regarding the appropriate number of offspring.”
Because there is so much secrecy surrounding sperm and egg donations, Ms. Kramer said, it has been difficult for families of children born via sperm donation to step forward with their concerns. Some heterosexual couples never tell a child that he or she is the product of a sperm donation.
Ms. Daily, the Washington social worker, said that other parents in her son’s group had been secretive because of fears that their children would be stigmatized. She and other donor parents are coming forward, she said, because they “need to start advocating for some regulation.”
Experts are not certain what it means to a child to discover that he or she is but one of 50 children — or even more. “Experts don’t talk about this when they counsel people dealing with infertility,” Ms. Kramer said. “How do you make connections with so many siblings? What does family mean to these children?”
****
For more information on sperm donors and paternity rights, see our blog entry at http://divorcefamilylaw.blogspot.com/search?q=sperm+donor

Why Buy the Cow...

More Unwed Parents Live Together, Report Finds

By SABRINA TAVERNISE

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans who have children and live together without marrying has increased twelvefold since 1970, according to a report released Tuesday. The report states that children now are more likely to have unmarried parents than divorced ones.

The report was published by the National Marriage Project, an initiative at the University of Virginia, and the Institute for American Values, two partisan groups that advocate for strengthening the institution of marriage. The report argues that the rise of cohabitation is a growing risk for children, and that their lives are less stable in such families.

The report cites data from the Census Bureau as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and includes work from 18 researchers who study family issues.

According to the National Survey of Family Growth, part of the Centers for Disease Control, 42 percent of children have lived with cohabiting parents by age 12, far more than the 24 percent whose parents have divorced.

The numbers also suggest a correlation with class. Americans with only a high school diploma are far more likely to cohabit than are college graduates, according to the report.

“There’s a two-family model emerging in American life,” said W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project and an associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. “The educated and affluent enjoy relatively strong, stable families. Everyone else is more likely to be consigned to unstable, unworkable ones.”

Cohabiting parents, Mr. Wilcox said, are more than twice as likely to break up as parents who are married.

The increase in unmarried couples cohabitating and having children swept poor communities beginning in the late 1960s, Mr. Wilcox said, citing data from the National Survey of Family Growth, and now has moved into working class and lower-middle-class families.

Out-of-wedlock births among white women with a high school diploma rose more than sixfold in recent decades, the report said, jumping to 34 percent in the late 2000s, from 5 percent in 1982. In contrast, the rate for white college graduates stayed flat at about 2 percent.

While births to white women in cohabiting relationships rose by about two-thirds from the early 1990s to the mid-2000s, the proportion jumped by about half for black women and nearly doubled for Hispanic women, though that increase was affected by a large influx of immigrants, said Sheela Kennedy, a research associate at the Minnesota Population Center, which conducts demographic studies and whose work was cited in the new report.

“There’s growing evidence that families that would be unstable anyway are just skipping marriage,” Ms. Kennedy said.

The report cited studies in the Journal of Marriage and Family, and in Sociology of Education, asserting that children in cohabiting families tend to perform worse in school and be less psychologically healthy than those whose parents are married.

It also cited a 2010 report on child abuse by the federal Department of Health and Human Services that found that children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rates of harm — 6.8 per 1,000 children — while children living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the house had the highest incidence, at 57.2 per 1,000 children.

Husband Files for Divorce, Wife Cuts Off His Penis

HUSBAND FILES DIVORCE; WIFE CUTS OFF HIS PENIS

By DENISSE SALAZAR / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER



GARDEN GROVE – A woman is behind bars after police say she poisoned her husband, cut off his penis and threw it in the garbage disposal because he "deserved it."

At about 9 p.m. Monday, officers went to a condominium in the 1400 block of Flower Street after a woman called 911 and reported a medical emergency, Garden Grove police Lt. Jeff Nightengale said.

The woman, Catherine Kieu Becker, met officers at the door and told them her husband was in the bedroom, Nightengale said. Becker also told officers that he "deserved it," he said.

Officers found a 51-year-old man tied to the bed and bleeding profusely from his groin, he said. The man, who has not been identified, underwent emergency surgery at UCI Medical Center in Orange and was listed in serious condition.

Becker, 48, is accused of using an unknown poison or drug in her husband's food to make him sleepy, Nightengale said. She then tied him to the bed and, as he woke up, she cut off his penis with a 10-inch kitchen knife, Nightengale said.

"He woke up right before she cut off his penis," he said.

She tossed the penis in the garbage disposal and turned it on, Nightengale said, adding that pieces of penis were recovered and taken to UCI.

The victim told detectives that he believed there was something wrong with the food Becker prepared for him, Nightengale said, adding that detectives took the food to be tested.

The couple married on Dec. 29, 2009. The victim filed for divorce in May, citing "irreconcilable differences," according to court records. The couple have no children.

Nightengale said there is no record in Garden Grove of domestic violence between the couple.

Becker was arrested on suspicion of aggravated mayhem, false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, administering a drug with intent to commit a felony, poisoning and spousal abuse, Nightengale said. She is being held at the Orange County Jail in lieu of $1 million bail.

"We have not been able to interview him and she is not talking," Nightengale said. "The motive is unknown other than the divorce proceedings."

The investigation is ongoing.

Contact the writer: 714-704-3709 or desalazar@ocregister.com

Bifurcations

BIFURCATIONS IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS

by Veronica Blangy

Sometimes parties in dissolution action want to bifurcate their case and seek a judgment on certain issues. California policy encourages parties in a dissolution action to bifurcate trial whenever it might expedite settlement or simplify the determination of other contested issues. See Marriage of Wolfe, supra, 173 CA3d at 893–894, 219 CR at 340; Marriage of Macfarlane & Lang (1992) 8 CA4th 247, 257, 10 CR2d 157, 163–164.

Generally, the courts will bifurcate a dissolution action for one of the following reasons:

1) Status- only
The court may sever and grant an early and separate trial on the issue of dissolution of marriage status (“status only” judgment), expressly reserving jurisdiction for later determination of all other pending issues (including division of the community estate). Family Code § 2337(a) & (f); see Marriage of Wolfe (1985) 173 CA3d 889, 894, 219 CR 337, 340 (citing text); Marriage of Bergman (1985) 168 CA3d 742, 755, 214 CR 661, 669. A bifurcated proceeding is particularly appropriate where the parties want their marriage terminated as soon as legally possible (e.g., so they will be free to remarry) but substantial time will be required to resolve complex property, support and/or custody issues. The bifurcation allows a judgment of dissolution to be entered (“status only” judgment), reserving jurisdiction to resolve the contested issues thereafter (see Fam.C. § 2337(f)—judgment granting status only dissolution “shall expressly reserve jurisdiction for later determination of all other pending issues”).

2) Bifurcation of issues for separate trial
On a noticed motion of a party, the parties’ stipulation, or the court’s own motion, the court may bifurcate any one or more issues to be tried separately before other issues are tried. CRC 5.175(a).

3) Determination of “pivotal issues”.
Bifurcation is also recommended in “pivotal issue” cases—i.e., where resolution of the bifurcated issue(s) is likely to simplify the determination of, or lead to settlement of, other issues in the case. CRC 5.175(c); Marriage of Wolfe, supra, 173 CA3d at 894, 219 CR at 340–341; Marriage of Macfarlane & Lang, supra, 8 CA4th at 257, 10 CR2d at 163.
For instance, where the central dispute focuses on a particular asset (such as business goodwill), an immediate (bifurcated) trial resolving the focal dispute may then prompt a settlement of the balance of the case, eliminating the need for a protracted trial of other issues.
Specifically, CRC 5.175(c) offers these examples of issues that may, in some cases, be appropriate to try separately in advance:
• The validity of a postnuptial or premarital agreement. (The outcome of this issue may be dispositive of all other property issues in the case.)
• The date of separation. (Because accurate identification of the date of separation can be dispositive of critical property characterization and valuation issues, yet is often intensely fact-driven and hotly contested, separation date disputes are particularly suitable for an early separate trial.)
• The date to use for valuation of assets.
• Whether one or more assets are separate or community property. See Marriage of Lafkas (2007) 153 CA4th 1429, 1432, 64 CR3d 100, 101 (whether H’s interest in partnership established before marriage, but that was the subject of a new partnership agreement executed during marriage, was H’s SP or partially CP).
• How to apportion the increase in value of a business.
• The existence or value of business or professional goodwill; or the value of a major asset.

There are many reasons to seek a bifurcation, however, the majority of the time, parties seeks a bifurcation to obtain a “status only” judgment. In a status only judgment, the parties will be classified as divorced, meaning back to single status, however, the remaining issues are reserved in the case. The tough part is that the court can impose various conditions on the grant of a “status only” bifurcation so as to protect the other spouse’s entitlement to certain benefits that attach only to marital status.

Parties seeking to bifurcate their dissolution case must obtain the bifurcation through a noticed motion. Preliminary declarations of disclosure with completed schedule of assets and debts, Fam.C. § 2104, must be served along with the § 2337 bifurcation motion.

Status only judgment are favored by public policy because it furthers the legislative intent that marriage dissolution not be postponed simply because issues relating to property, support, custody or attorney fees are not ready for decision. Marriage of Fink (1976) 54 CA3d 357, 363–364, 126 CR 626, 630] As such, the propriety of a “status only” bifurcation is deemed to be an issue of law. Gionis v. Super.Ct. (Gionis) (1988) 202 CA3d 786, 790, 248 CR 741, 744.

The moving party need only present “slight evidence” in support of a “status only“ bifurcation request: i.e., generally, the supporting declaration need simply allege reconciliation is not possible; that, for reasons stated, it would be in the parties’ best interests to dissolve the marriage without delay (e.g., so as not to complicate characterization of postseparation acquisitions, so as to free the parties to remarry at the earliest possible date, so as to alleviate “emotional strain and pressure” and help facilitate settlement on reserved issues, etc.); and that the other issues (support, custody, property division, etc.) would require a lengthy trial. Gionis v. Super.Ct. (Gionis), supra, 202 CA3d at 788–790, 248 CR at 743–744.
In contrast, the opposing party’s evidentiary burden to defeat a “status only” bifurcation motion is far heavier. Since denial of the motion would contravene public policy, the opposing party must present “compelling reasons” in opposition—i.e., a showing of some actual prejudice that would result. Procedural objections are not themselves “compelling reasons” (indeed, procedural defects may be cured by amending the motion). Gionis v. Super.Ct. (Gionis), supra, 202 CA3d at 789–790, 248 CR at 743–744—trial court erred in denying H’s bifurcation motion on ground that he failed to make compelling showing of need where W, in opposition, showed no prejudice.

Because of the statutory conditions on “status only” bifurcations, Family Code amendments postdating Gionis, supra, implicitly raise the possibility that the moving party’s burden may now be far more onerous, and in some cases perhaps nearly impossible to meet. This is because of a vast array of financial conditions that the court may impose on the granting of a “status only” bifurcation motion and entry of a “status only” dissolution judgment Fam.C. § 2337(c) & (d)).


COURT’S POWER
A judgment of dissolution effectively terminates a vast body of rights and benefits attaching to marital or domestic partnership status. Courts are therefore empowered to impose various conditions on the granting of a “status only” bifurcation motion and entry of a “status only” dissolution judgment that will protect the other party against losses that would result from such adverse consequences. Fam.C. § 2337(c) & (d).

In the event of the moving party’s death, whatever § 2337 conditions are imposed by the court will also bind his or her estate; and “shall be enforceable” against any assets (or proceeds thereof) as to which the § 2337 obligations would have been enforceable before the moving party’s death. Fam.C. § 2337(c) & (g).
The potential status only bifurcation conditions are extensive and have significant economic impact; they may cost the moving party a lot of money up front before the community estate is fully divided by a final judgment. It is therefore important that counsel for both sides (whether making or opposing the status only bifurcation motion) be thoroughly conversant with Fam.C. § 2337. In particular, it is imperative that counsel for the moving party discuss the potential § 2337 conditions with the client and advise him or her (both orally and in writing) of their economic impact. A party considering making a § 2337 bifurcation motion may ultimately conclude the financial exposure is simply too steep and that, on balance, it would be best to forego the early termination of marital/domestic partnership status.

The court “may impose” upon the moving party any of the following conditions on granting the status only bifurcation motion (Fam.C. § 2337(c)):
(1) Tax liability indemnification: That the moving party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any taxes, reassessments, interest and penalties payable by the other party in connection with division of the community estate that would not have been payable if the parties were still married when the division was made. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(1).
(2) Continued health care coverage and indemnification: Until judgment is entered on all remaining issues and becomes final, that the moving party maintain all existing health and medical insurance coverage for the other party and any minor children as named dependents, so long as the moving party is eligible to do so. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(2).
Further, if at any time during this period the moving party is not eligible to maintain that coverage, he or she shall, at his or her sole expense, provide and maintain health and medical insurance coverage that is comparable to the existing coverage to the extent it is available; and, to the extent it is not available, the moving party “shall be responsible to pay, and shall demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction the ability to pay” for the other party’s and their minor children’s health and medical care to the extent that care would have been covered by the existing insurance coverage but for the dissolution of marital status, “and shall otherwise indemnify and hold the other party harmless” from any adverse consequences resulting from the loss or reduction of the existing coverage. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(2) (emphasis added).
For purposes of § 2337(c)(2), “health and medical insurance coverage” includes any coverage for which the parties are eligible under any group or individual health or other medical plan, fund, policy or program. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(2); see FL–347, item 5.b.
(3) Indemnification re probate homestead and family allowance: Until judgment is entered on all remaining issues and becomes final, that the moving party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any adverse consequences to the other party if the bifurcation causes the other party to lose (i) the right to a probate homestead in the residence in which the other party resides when the status only bifurcation is granted, and/or (ii) the right to a surviving spouse probate family allowance. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(3) & (4).
(4) Indemnification re retirement benefits: Until judgment is entered on all remaining issues and has become final, that the moving party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any adverse consequences to the other party if the bifurcation causes the other party to lose rights with respect to any retirement, survivor or deferred compensation benefits under any plan, fund or arrangement, or to any elections or options associated therewith, to the extent the other party would have been entitled thereto as the moving party’s surviving spouse. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(5).
(5) Indemnification re social security benefits: That the moving party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any adverse consequences if the bifurcation causes the other party to lose rights to social security benefits or elections to the extent the other party would have been entitled thereto as the moving party’s surviving spouse. Fam.C. § 2337 (c)(6).
(6) Maintaining other party as beneficiary of nonprobate transfer: That the court enter an order (as authorized by Prob.C. § 5600(b)(3)) requiring the moving party to maintain a beneficiary designation for a nonprobate transfer, as described in Prob.C. § 5000, for the other party for up to one-half of or, upon a showing of good cause, all of a nonprobate transfer asset until judgment is entered with respect to the community ownership of the asset and until the other party’s interest therein has been distributed to him or her. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(7)(A). Absent a showing of good cause, the above condition does not apply to:
(7) Assignment/transfer of CP interest in IRA: That one-half or, upon a showing of good cause, all of the community interest in any IRA, by or for the benefit of the party, be assigned and transferred to the other party pursuant to IRC § 408(d)(6), in order to preserve the party’s ability to defer distribution of the IRA upon the other party’s death. Fam.C. § 2337(c)(8) (also stating, “[t]his paragraph does not limit the power granted pursuant to subdivision (g)”.
(8) Security interest: Upon a showing that circumstances exist that would place a “substantial burden” on enforcement of either party’s CP rights or that would eliminate the surviving party’s ability to enforce his or her CP rights if the other party died before the division and distribution or compliance with any court-ordered payment of any CP interest therein—including, but not limited to, situations in which federal preemption applies to a party’s asset, or purchase by a BFP has occurred—the court “may order a specific security interest designed to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that a postmortem enforcement proceeding would be ineffective or unduly burdensome to the surviving party.” Fam.C. § 2337(c)(9) (emphasis added).
The security interest orders may include, but are not limited to:
—if a retirement plan is not subject to an enforceable order for the payment of spousal survivor benefits to the other party, an interim order requiring the moving party to pay or cause to be paid, and to post adequate security for the payment of, any survivor benefit that would have been payable to the other party on the moving party’s death but for entry of the status only dissolution judgment, pending entry of judgment on all remaining issues (Fam.C. § 2337(c) (9)(E)).
(9) Miscellaneous. “Any other condition the court determines is just and equitable.” Fam.C. § 2337(c)(10).


JOINDERS REQUIRED
Court’s usually require certain conditions to be implemented on entry of “status only” dissolution judgment, such as a Joinder of retirement/pension plan where the moving party’s retirement or pension plan “shall be joined” as a party to the dissolution proceeding unless joinder is “precluded or made unnecessary” by ERISA (29 USC § 1001 et seq.) “or any other applicable law.” Fam.C. § 2337(d)(1).

If a plan is not covered by ERISA, such as Federal government plans, the court may require an interim order. “An interim order preserving the nonemployee party’s right to retirement plan benefits, including survivor and death benefits.”

MILITARY/ FEDERAL SPECIAL AREAS WHEN REQUESTING BIFURCATION
When there is a federal government plan involved such as military retirement or federal employees, commonly known as FERS, the plan falls under the federal preemption and makes the request of a bifurcation trickier. It is no longer strictly governed by the California state laws.
Special problems may arise for former spouses in a bifurcated dissolution proceeding. When a judgment of dissolution is obtained before the property division, the now-single employee spouse might retire before the court issues a QDRO and elect to take a life annuity consistent with ERISA; the former nonemployee spouse cannot prevent this election, insisting instead on a joint and survivor annuity, because no longer married to the employee and not yet having the protection of a QDRO. In effect then, the former spouse’s property rights could be “conclusively determined” by the trial court’s decision to bifurcate its judgment.

There is no federal question jurisdiction over community property division of military retirement pay. State courts are bound to follow procedures under the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA, 10 USC § 1408) for enforcing support and property division orders against military “disposable retired or retainer pay.” But those procedures do not create independent “federal question” jurisdiction over the division of marital rights in military retirement pay. Steel v. United States (9th Cir. 1987) 813 F2d 1545, 1548; Marriage of Mansell (1989) 217 CA3d 219, 228–229, 265 CR 227, 231–232, cert.den. (1990) 498 US 806—USFSPA preemption requires state courts to defer to federal law in characterizing military pay but does not withhold state court subject matter jurisdiction; see also Marriage of Babauta (1998) 66 CA4th 784, 787–788, 78 CR2d 281, 282–283—state court jurisdiction to divide military voluntary separation incentive pay not preempted.
To fill this gap, the trial court is empowered to subject the granting of a “status only” bifurcation and entry of “status only” dissolution judgment to various conditions designed to ensure the nonemployee spouse’s right to pension benefits, elections and/or survivor benefits will not be forfeited or prejudiced by the early termination of marital status before those rights can be adjudicated. Fam.C. § 2337(c) (5) & (d). The optimum way to protect the nonemployee spouse is to secure an interim QDRO re survivor benefits as a condition to entry of a status only dissolution judgment. Fam.C. § 2337(d)(2) (B).
Federal employee benefits—limited federal preemption
State community property law claims against federal employee deferred compensation benefits are preempted by federal law only to the extent conflicting community property law would do “major damage” to “clear and substantial” federal interests. Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (1979) 439 US 572, 581, 99 S.Ct. 802, 808; see also Marriage of Schofield (1998) 62 CA4th 131, 135, 73 CR2d 1, 3—“California courts may apply community property principles to federally created benefits so long as the result does not frustrate the objectives of the federal legislation” (internal quotes and citation omitted).
Extensive federal law has eradicated most “wholesale” preemption of community property rights in federal employee benefits.
Military retirement pay—Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act: Effective February 1, 1983, the historical preemption of state law community property treatment of military retirement pay (McCarty v. McCarty (1981) 453 US 210, 232–235, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 2741–2742) was completely nullified.
Pursuant to the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA, 10 USC § 1408), state courts are fully empowered to divide military retirement pay as community property; and state court domestic relations community property division and support orders are fully enforceable against the military. Marriage of Smith (2007) 148 CA4th 1115, 1120, 56 CR3d 341, 344.
The USFSPA completely eradicates “all vestiges” of McCarty preemption retroactive to the date McCarty was decided (6/26/81) and applies to all cases not final as of the Act’s 2/1/83 effective date ... without regard to whether the pension rights accrued before or after June 26, 1981. Casas v. Thompson (1986) 42 C3d 131, 140, 228 CR 33, 38—noting USFSPA’s “express intent to erase McCarty’s impact on all cases ... ”; Aloy v. Mash (1985) 38 C3d 413, 421, 212 CR 162, 167—“no case within our memory has received less retroactive application than McCarty.” Unless the court reserved jurisdiction, the USFSPA expressly prohibits reopening pre-McCarty (pre-June 25, 1981) final judgments in order to divide unadjudicated military retirement benefits. 10 USC § 1408(c) (1); Marriage of Curtis (1992) 7 CA4th 1, 14, 9 CR2d 145, 153; see also Marriage of Olsen (1994) 24 CA4th 1702, 1705–1707, 30 CR2d 306, 307–309.

Retirement pay is affected—state court jurisdiction reaches only 50% of “disposable retired pay”: Although the USFSPA grants state courts the power to divide military retirement pay, its language is still preemptive regarding the limits of state court jurisdiction. State court authority to treat military retirement pay as community property extends only to the military member’s “disposable retired pay” as defined by the Act. 10 USC § 1408(c)(1); Mansell v. Mansell (1989) 490 US 581, 588–589, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 2028–2029; Marriage of Smith (2007) 148 CA4th 1115, 1120, 56 CR3d 341, 344. Further, of the “disposable retired pay” subject to the court’s jurisdiction, only a maximum of 50% can be ordered payable for support and a property division. (The court’s order cannot exceed the 50% limit even with the member’s consent.) 10 USC § 1408(e)(1).

The Dangers of Family Law

Grim reminders of the dangers of family law

by Karen Sloan



At 9:20 a.m. on June 2, Carey Hal Dyess walked into the converted single-story house that served as Jerrold Shelley's law office in Yuma, Ariz.

Dyess, 73, instructed an office administrator to move out of the way and then shot and killed the 62-year-old lawyer, who had been in the process of packing up his office and retiring.

The attack wasn't random. Shelley had represented Dyess' ex-wife in a bitter divorce in 2006. He was one of five victims of a rampage that lasted six hours and ended only when Dyess turned the gun on himself.

Family law attorneys reacted to the news of Shelley's death with sadness, but not surprise. At least five family law attorneys have been killed or violently attacked by clients' ex-spouses since February 2010, and the recent deaths have highlighted the safety risks they face. In addition to Shelley:

• Redmond Coyle, 61, was shot and killed outside his office in Pickens, S.C., on Feb. 3, 2010, in front of his wife and child. His killer was Jerry Crenshaw, the ex-husband of a woman Coyle had represented in divorce proceedings. After shooting Coyle, Crenshaw killed himself.

• Terri Melcher on June 11, 2010, was stabbed nearly 30 times in her law office outside Minneapolis by the ex-husband of a woman she represented in a child custody case. Melcher was able to persuade her attacker to stop the assault and survived. The attacker, Sheikh Nyane, turned himself in to police.

• Judith Soley, 65, was shot and killed on Feb. 16 alongside her client at a restaurant near Fresno, Calif., while on court recess in the client's divorce. The assailant was the client's estranged husband, who later killed himself.

• Criminal defense attorney Emmett Corrigan, 30, was shot and killed in the parking lot of a Walgreens outside Boise, Idaho, on March 11 — one day after he had filed divorce proceedings on behalf of the attacker's wife, who was one of his employees.

It's difficult to gauge whether these incidents are on the rise because major legal organizations, including the American Bar Association, don't track statistics on crimes committed against attorneys because of their work. But family law is seen as a riskier practice than most, because people in the midst of divorce or facing the loss of their children tend to be highly emotional and may direct their anger at their estranged spouse's lawyer.

"There's a saying that in criminal court, you have bad people at their best," said Texas Supreme Court Judge Debra Lehrmann, who spent more than 20 years as a family court judge. "In family law, you get good people at their worst. In criminal court, dangerous people are in handcuffs. In family court, you don't have any idea who is dangerous."

Family court judges helped push for improved courthouse security measures after numerous shootings during the past two decades, many of them perpetrated by participants in family law cases, Lehrmann said. But metal detectors and security guards in courthouses can do little to protect attorneys in their homes and offices.

'EVERYONE HAS A STORY'
"It's not uncommon," said Linda Lea Viken, a family law practitioner in Rapid City, S.D., and the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "I've talked to women lawyers who have had guns pulled on them. I've talked to a lot of lawyers who were threatened. It seems like everyone has a story."

Viken has had her mailbox smashed and a golf ball sent through her office window; she suspects that both incidents were instigated by estranged husbands of clients. The only time she felt truly frightened for her safety, however, was when a man against whom she had obtained a protection order for a client followed her home from her office one night two years ago.

"We have a security system at our home now," she said, but many family law attorneys are solo practitioners or work in small offices and don't have the budget for elaborate security measures.

Todd Scott, vice president of risk management and member services for Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co., began looking in 2010 for safety advice that he could pass on to his attorney clients and was surprised to find few formal resources. "I would go to these attorney panels and seminars, and almost everywhere I spoke, there was a local story about someone getting attacked or killed, and family law is at the top of the list," Scott said. "There are some blind spots in our profession, and I think this issue of safety is one of them."

Viken agreed that colleagues rarely discuss safety openly. "There's a concern among attorneys that they don't want to give anyone ideas about doing things and create copycats," she said. "And for some people, it's embarrassing when they are threatened or harassed. They think, 'How did I let this happen?' I guess it's not something we talk about, but maybe it should be."

Scott plans to fill that void with an online seminar in July titled "Safety and Security in the Law Office." He suspects that lawyer attacks have become more frequent in recent years as more attorneys have hung out their shingle as a result of the hiring slowdown at large firms.

SECURITY TRAINING
Security consultant Jonathan Lusher has visited law firms with virtually no security beyond a receptionist, he said. He recommends that receptionists receive security training and have a plan in the event that a problem arises. Access to law offices beyond the reception area should be restricted, possibly through a buzzer system, Lusher suggested. Adding impact-resistant glass is another smart move for law offices, and attorneys should communicate with colleagues about their schedules and who is expected in the office, he said.

In Canada, the Ontario Bar Association formed a task force on lawyer safety in 2003 and later issued a personal security handbook with numerous recommendations, including that attorneys meet with potentially volatile clients in an open space or in a conference room with windows if the matter does not involve personal or privacy issues. The handbook also recommends brushing up on visual clues that someone might act out, such as clenching a fist or jaw and flushing of the face.

One way to reduce the likelihood of violence would be to make family law less adversarial, Lehrmann said. The legal community has been moving toward more collaborative approaches, she said.

Last year, the ABA launched its Fam­ilies Matter initiative, which encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution in family disputes. "The idea is to reduce the negative impact that the process can have on a family," she said. "The process itself can make a situation more dangerous, so it's best if you can defuse things before they ever get to that level."

Even the way that lawyers draft letters and court filings can set the tone for how their adversaries view them, Viken said. She always takes pains to preface any allegations recorded in documents with, "My client advised me that…".

"Family lawyers have to choose their words carefully," Viken said. "People in a divorce situation are not in their right minds. They are ratcheted up and they can strike out. The worst thing a lawyer can do is buy into that anger. I try to keep a calm attitude with my clients and keep them involved and informed. You can engender hatred and anger in how you handle a case."

Returning phone calls in a timely manner is also key, since people who feel they are being ignored may grow angrier over time and lash out, she said. It's also a smart idea to have a code word that will alert colleagues to emergencies. "Sometimes there is no way to tell how scary a former spouse of a client really is," Scott said. "And some lawyers just don't think anything like this will ever happen to them."

Karen Sloan can be contacted at ksloan@alm.com.

Man Dies from Spousal Abuse

SPOUSAL ABUSED LEADING TO MURDER: MAN PUSHED OUT OF WINDOW AND FALLS TO HIS DEATH

Josh Hilberling, a 6-foot, 5-inch, 220-pound former football player, died after he plunged 17 stories from his Oklahoma apartment building, an alleged victim of spousal abuse. Tulsa police say Hilberling, 23, was pushed out of his 25th floor apartment window at the University Club Tower on Tuesday by his wife, Amber Michelle Hilberling, 19, who is being charged with
first-degree murder. "We taught him to never hit a woman, but what we didn't think to teach him was to get away," his mother, Jeanne Hilberling, told ABC's affiliate KTUL. "We just will never forget him. He's one of a kind." "Anybody that knows Josh is going to miss that smile, but no one more than his proud military parents who wanted the world for son," she said. The couple had been married only a year, according to his parents, but just last month their son went to
Domestic Violence Intervention Services looking for help. It had been hard, they said, for him to admit he was a victim. They said Josh, who was in the Air Force, didn't leave because Amber was eight months pregnant with their first child.

"Most of the time you have a homicide similar to this and typically the woman is the victim," said Officer Jason Willingham, spokesman for the Tulsa Police. "I don't recall any situation that is similar in recent history, for sure." But Amber Hilberling's lawyer said that she is the victim of domestic violence. "This is a tragedy for everyone involved and what it wasn't --was a crime," Jason Corns told local television station KRMZ. Police received a call Tuesday afternoon from
witnesses who reported a suicide at the apartment tower, according to Willingham. Hilberling had fallen from the 25th floor to an eighth- floor parking garage. When paramedics arrived, police questioned witnesses and those who knew the couple, determining that Josh had been "pushed out the window, breaking the window and causing his death," said Willingham. "It was a heck of a fall." At first Amber Hilberling was arrested on second-degree murder, but later police changed it to first-degree when they looked at the evidence. "It tipped the scale," he said. So far, no charges have been filed, according to Susan Witt of the Tulsa District Attorney's office.
"Tulsa police are still investigating," said Witt. "When their investigation is complete, reports will be forwarded to the district attorney's office for review and a decision about charges."

Willingham said the couple had a history of domestic violence and there had been protective orders "on both sides." Tulsa police said that investigators found a protective order that that Josh Hilberling requested in May because he said he wife hit him on the head with a lamp and he
needed 21 stitches. The order was dismissed when the couple did not show up in court. "I can say we have seen absolutely no criminal evidence of wrong doing by Mrs. Hilberling," said Amber Hilberling's lawyer Corns, who said Josh was the aggressor.

An estimated 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a 2000 National Violence Against Women Survey. About 37 percent of all domestic abuse victims are men, according to Denver clinical psychologist Jeanne King, who is author of "Abused Men." She co-founded the education advocacy group, Partners in Prevention.

Battered Men Don't Report Crimes

"They are silenced because men don't speak about it," she said. "It's two-fold. One is the shame – it's greater for men than women. There are also less resources available to men…Try to think about where a center is for abused men and you scratch your head."

Researchers began looking at husband battering cases in the 1970s. One study a Boston University described scenarios where women struck out at their husbands for just talking loudly.

Others said that after being in the house with children who would "get on my nerves" all day long, they got mad and hit their spouses. One woman said she became violent just because her husband was "such a bore."

"I was trying to wake him up, you know," she was quoted as saying in the study. " He was such a rotten lover anyway. So I'd yell at him and bit him to stir him up."

Other studies have shown that women are more apt to throw things or kick their husbands. Violence is also associated with sexism, lack of self-control and mental illness.

As for Amber Hilberling, she was released from jail Thursday on a $250,000 bond and will appear back in Tulsa County Court on June 15.

She is required to wear an ankle monitor and surrender any passport she owns while the murder investigation continues.

As the Hilberling family plans a private funeral service, they are broken-hearted over their son's violent death.

"I want people to remember who Josh was, not how he died," said his mother. "I want them to remember the kind compassionate friend who would do anything for anybody."

Josh Hilberling's father told ABC that the day his son died, he had been trying to leave the relationship for good.

"That's the only thing people need to know is that when you're trying to leave, it's the most dangerous time," said Jeanne Hilberling.

"You bet," said psychologist King. "Abuse is fundamentally about control and violence will escalate when a person feels they have lost control. There is no greater sense of loss than to see the victim walk out the door."

To find help for male spousal abuse, go to Partners in Prevention.

Mother loses custody of her children - because she has breast cancer

Mother loses custody of her children - because she has breast cancer
By Daily Mail Reporter


Last updated at 7:05 PM on 9th May 2011

A woman with terminal breast cancer says she has lost custody of her children because doctors do not know how long she will live.


A judge ruled that 37-year-old Alaina Giordano, from Durham, North Carolina, must give up both her children to her estranged husband after she was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer.

The decision comes after a bitter legal battle that has included allegations of cheating and other domestic problems.

Mrs Giordano said she is ‘devastated’ and that her children are what gives her strength.

The mother-of-two was first diagnosed with cancer in 2007, but her condition has worsened as it has spread on her bones.

After their marriage fell apart, her husband Kane Snyder, 37, sought to gain full custody of their children Sofia, 11, and Bud, 5.

He asked the judge that the children be moved to live with him in Chicago, where he is working as a leadership associate at Sears.

Durham County Family Court judge Nancy Gordon ruled that Mr Snyder should get the children after a psychiatrist recommended that they should live with him because of the ‘deteriorating condition of the mother’s health’.

The ruling also noted that Mrs Giordano is not currently employed. She had been working as a freelance writer and editor.

‘On April 25, we went in to get the ruling, it was pretty shocking,’ said Mrs Giordano.

‘Anybody who knows me knows my children are my life,’ she told ABC News.

‘They are what give me strength and part of the reason I’m doing so well.’

On her campaign blog, she claimed: 'Because I have a cancer diagnosis, I have spent the last sixteen months in court defending myself from the attacks of my abusive husband who filed a lawsuit against me in Durham County, NC asking for full, permanent custody of our two children using the argument that I have a cancer diagnosis.

'He then chose to move to the Chicago area to take a job at Sears Holdings, Inc. leaving our children in my sole physical custody since August 2010.'

'How does a woman with no kids and who has never been married become a judge in family court?' she wrote on her blog.

'From some of the things that she wrote in the order, it is clear that she has no insight into motherhood, marriage or an intimate partner relationship.

'This judge is trying to use theory to make decisions upon which she has no practical experience. This is very dangerous.

'A mother would know better than to rip happy, well-adjusted children from their mother who has been their primary caregiver since conception and send them to a father who was a weekend dad at best.

Every child deserves better than a judge with no parenting experience.'

The ruling states that Mrs Giordano must hand over her children to her estranged husband on June 17.

Custody-Prompted Double-Murder

Man charged in execution-style murders of ex-wife and her father

Orange County prosecutors allege that he waited to shoot them at his Costa Mesa home just hours after losing custody of the couple's 7-year-old daughter, who was sent out for ice cream with his current wife.

By Lauren Williams and Robert J. Lopez, Los Angeles Times

May 6, 2011

A Costa Mesa man has been charged with the execution-style murders of his ex-wife and her father after allegedly waiting to kill them at his home just hours after she was awarded sole custody of their 7-year-old daughter.

The slayings shocked neighbors in the quiet residential neighborhood not far from South Coast Plaza, where prosecutors allege the gunman chased his victims into the street Tuesday evening as he reloaded his weapon and continued to fire as they lay bleeding on the ground.

Robert Lehmann, 36, was charged Wednesday with two counts of special circumstances murder with sentencing enhancements for using a weapon, lying in wait and committing multiple murders, according to the Orange County district attorney's office. He is scheduled to be arraigned June 24.

His ex-wife, Emily Ford, 32, who worked as a preschool aide at a nearby school, had arrived at Lehmann's home on Santa Clara Circle to pick up the child with her father, Russell Ford, 62. The mother had left her 3-month-old son, who is not Lehmann's child, in a car seat inside her vehicle.

Earlier in the day, Emily Ford had been awarded sole custody and sole decision-making powers regarding the education of her daughter after Lehmann failed to appear at a custody trial, according to records filed in Orange County Superior Court.

Lehmann was angry about the custody order and, before his ex-wife arrived, sent the daughter and his current wife out to buy an ice cream, prosecutors said. As he opened the door, he allegedly began shooting at Emily Ford and her father. They ran into the street, with Lehmann following them.

"Lehmann is accused of pursuing them outside and continuing to shoot," Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas said in a statement. "As Emily Ford and Russell Ford lay bleeding on the ground, Lehman is accused of reloading his firearm and executing the victims by shooting them repeatedly in the back and back of the head."

Shots streaked past the vehicle containing Emily Ford's baby and struck cars across the street, where parents had parked to pick up their children at a day-care center. No other injuries were reported.

Afterward, police cordoned off parts of Lehmann's modest, single-story house with yellow crime scene tape. A thin trail of blood had dried and was crusted on the path that led to the well-manicured lawn.

A brown truck parked in the driveway had the license plate "Dady ♥ AJ."

Marco Antonio Arroyo, who lives two homes away, said the family always seemed very happy.

Lehmann's daughter often played outside the home, Arroyo said, adding that her father was always very affectionate with her.

"I would have never imagined," Arroyo said. "Never! I never saw anything contrary. They always seemed happy."

The girl is a special-needs student who attends Sonora Elementary School in Costa Mesa, officials said.

Emily Ford was a special-education preschool instructional aide who worked with autistic children at Paularino Elementary School in Costa Mesa. She also waited tables part-time at Morton's steakhouse in Santa Ana, court records show.

Colleagues at the school described Ford as engaging and well liked by the staff.

"She was a wonderful, nice lady who always had a smile on her face," said Principal Stacy Lynne de Boom-Howard. "She was very happy with where her life was. She was in a very happy relationship."

Russell Ford was an educator with the Santa Ana Unified School District from 1978 to 2010.

Court records show that the custody battle began amicably when the couple separated in 2004 after 10 months of marriage. But tensions surfaced when Emily Ford wanted a divorce and was set to remarry in 2009, according to court documents filed by her attorney.

Lehmann worked for Hewlett-Packard Co. as a "solution architect," according to court papers, and grossed more than $13,000 a month.

In 2009, Ford alleged in the court filings, Lehmann threatened to stall the divorce unless she reached an agreement with him outside of court on custody and support issues.

The records show that Lehmann questioned Ford's parenting skills, saying that their daughter had gotten scratches while on the school playground,

In the end, the court sided with Ford and ordered her to pick up the daughter from Lehmann's house at 6 p.m. Tuesday — the same time she was killed.

lauren.williams@latimes.com

robert.lopez@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Unemployment Down; Divorce Filings Up

DIVORCE FILINGS GET A BOOST FROM THE ECONOMY

By LYNEKA LITTLE
April 28, 2011








A recovering economy has provided a boost for, of all people, divorce attorneys. After the great recession, more and more couples are seeking to finalize divorces after months of hesitation.

"It's been driven primarily by finances," says John Slowiaczek, the vice president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "In Nebraska, where there is low unemployment, our practice was very healthy last year. Now we are finding we have a lot [more clients]."

From January to April 2011, Slowiaczek says his firm, Lieben, Whitted, Houghton, Slowiaczek, and Cavanagh, saw an increase of 25 percent over the same period last year.

"When the market was down it was a great time to file," says Slowiaczek. As the market began to pick up, more and and more clients are wishing they filed last year to decrease the size of settlements."

The recession created difficulties for couples on both financial and emotional levels, Linda Lea Viken, the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, told ABC News.

Couples may have "assets that have gone down in value, they may have a home that is underwater, and the business value has gone down, making it very risky for one side or the other to get a divorce during a financial downturn," says Viken.

Viken says some couples may have had doubts or insecurities about divorcing because they worried about paying the bills, which were once divided in half, on their own.

In 2009, 57 percent of the attorneys in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported a decrease in divorce filings. The academy includes 1,600 attorneys.

"Forced to weigh damaged marriages against tight budgets and uncertain financial outlooks, many spouses seem more willing to try and wait out the recessionary storm," said Gary Nickelson, the president of the academy at the time.

Now there has been a turnaround.

"I'm seeing an increase in divorce filings and business," says Lewis Kapner, a lawyer in West Palm Beach, Florida. "With the recession there was a big slowdown. There's definitely an increase in the last few months."

But Kapner says he is unable to define the reason behind the recent traffic. "We've always had people that were money-short and they still would seek some sort of relief in terms of their marital problems."

With an improving economy,the surge in divorces means clients must take precautions to avoid losing out when a couple's assets are divided.

"There are a lot of things that you have to really be careful about in this kind of economy if you're moving forward," with a divorce, says Viken. "You have to be very sensitive to what's happening in the market so things don't come back to bite them."

Some couples are still stuck, though.

Gaye Markham, who lives near San Francisco, has a cautionary tale. In December, her husband said he no longer loved her. Soon after, he lost his job -- and could not afford to move out.

"We had to cash in his IRA and use his unemployment to live on now," says Markham. "There is no way we can have two households and pay."

Markham and her ex-husband-to-be have been forced to divide up their home. She now sleeps in the guest room and the two share meals together. They have four children; the youngest, a senior in high school, is caught in the middle.

Markham, who once worked in accounting, says she has applied for 120 to 150 jobs, but only received two invitations for interviews.

"I know that I want to be responsible for myself so not only am I interviewing to help the financial situation right now," says Markham, "I want to have a home my children can come home to and I want to help with their college expenses."

Split Ends: What Happens When the Rich Divorce

$plit ends By LINDA STASI Last Updated: 11:37 AM, March 29, 2011 Posted: 11:11 PM, March 28, 2011

The most shocking thing about tonight's quite interesting CNBC documentary, "Divorce Wars," is the discovery that for insanely greedy newly-rich people, a bad divorce will cost them even more than their out-of-control, million-dollar-plus weddings!

Correspondent Melissa Francis takes a look at some of the most repulsively fascinating -- and expensive -- divorces of recent times including the divorce of the guy who brought us PayPal, Elon Musk. According to divorce-attorney-to-the-rich Raoul Felder, now that we're in the age of no-fault community property splits, divorces are no longer about which spouses cheat -- but about how spouses try to cheat each other out of the shared assets. Take the Musks, for example. He and his future wife, Justine, met when they were in college. Shortly thereafter, they moved in together into a terrible college apartment with two roommates and three dogs. They got married after he struck it rich, and he had her sign a post-nup agreement. Eight years and five kids later, they split and then all hell broke loose. He was worth billions, and she had agreed to a $750,000 post-nup pay out. Fair? Wrong? Incredibly greedy? How much does one guy need?

Then, there's the infamous case of Margaret Spenlinhauer, the Connecticut housewife and mother of scores of kids whose very rich husband immediately seemed to suddenly be not very wealthy after they split up. It took 18 -- yes, 18 -- years for her to personally find the money he'd hidden. And his deception amounted to fraud -- a criminal offense. Another rich guy's wife snooped in his computer, opened his journal and discovered that he considered her an unfit mother. What did she do? Loaded up his computer with kiddie porn and then took it to her attorney. Millions of dollars and a federal investigation later revealed that she had loaded it all up during one week -- when he was out of town -- and then erased the memory so it couldn't be traced back to her. The result? It was so dastardly a deed that she even lost custody of her own kids.

But, seriously, what kind of idiot keeps a journal on his computer? A psycho, that's who.

As Felder says, "If you go into a marriage without a pre-nup, you don't need a lawyer, you need a psychiatrist."

Parental Rights of a Paralyzed Mother - Judge to Rule

LOS ANGELES — Even though Abbie Dorn was paralyzed giving birth to triplets, her parents say that doesn't mean she should be denied the right to hold her children and watch as they grow up — even though she can't eat, speak or move.

The parents have gone to court in an effort to persuade a judge that their daughter not only wants motherhood, but has a constitutional right to it as well. Her condition doesn't mean she loves her children any less than any other mother would love hers, they say.

But allowing three preschoolers to spend lengthy periods of time with a woman who can only lay motionless will traumatize them, argues their father, Dan Dorn. He has been raising the two boys and a girl as a single parent since the day he brought them home from the hospital nearly five years ago. He wants things to remain that way.

After hearing closing arguments from both sides Thursday, Superior Court Judge Frederick C. Shaller is expected to decide whether Dan Dorn must agree to grant his ex-wife regular visitation rights.

Ultimately, Shaller's ruling will likely only resolve the matter temporarily. A parental rights lawsuit brought by Abbie Dorn's parents, Paul and Susan Cohen of South Carolina, is expected to take place later.

The tragic events that led all parties to Shaller's courtroom this week began on what should have been the happiest day of Abbie Dorn's life. That was June 20, 2006, when she left for the hospital to give birth to her sons Reuvi and Yossi and their sister Esti.

The first two births took place without incident, but as a doctor was delivering Yossi he accidentally nicked Dorn's uterus. Before doctors could stop the bleeding, her heart had stopped, a defibrillator they used malfunctioned and her brain was deprived of oxygen.

A year later her husband, believing she would never recover, divorced her and is raising their children at his Los Angeles home. Her parents, meanwhile, took her to their Myrtle Beach, S.C., home where they are caring for her. As the conservators of her estate, they also manage her malpractice settlement of nearly $8 million.

They want her ex-husband to bring the children there for regular visits.

Until a four-day visit last December, Dan Dorn had not done so. His ex-wife's parents say that was the first chance she had to hold her children since the day they were born.

Both sides agreed in court last week that the visit went well and the children would like to see their mother again.

But their father wants to limit their interaction to avoid traumatizing them. He noted that his ex-wife can't speak and he believes she isn't aware of her surroundings.

Abbie Dorn's mother disagrees. She says her daughter expresses her emotions when she smiles or cries and that she communicates with others by blinking her eyes. One long blink means yes. No response to a question means no.

When a Los Angeles Times reporter visited her last year and asked if she wanted to see her children, Dorn responded with a long, firm blink.

The Times reported that neurologist Dr. Angela Hays, who examined Abbie Dorn, testified that she can perceive sounds and images. "She does perform an eye blink maneuver to attempt to signal yes or no answers," Hays said, although "it was difficult for me to get her to do that reliably."

Dwayne Wade Wins Custody Battle

MIAMI — When the Miami Heat ended practice Sunday, Dwyane Wade went home to his sons.

That will be a regular event going forward.

Ending a long and often-vengeful fight, a Chicago court has awarded Wade sole "care, custody and control" of his two sons. The boys arrived in Miami on Friday, shortly after the ruling was filed, and Wade told The Associated Press that "a huge weight is off my back."

"My life changed in a huge way," Wade told the AP. "Mentally, I've been preparing for it for over a year now. To me, it's bigger than that. For me, it shows a lot of people that you need to fight to be in your kids' lives sometimes. You fight until you can't fight any more. That's all I was trying to be, a father in his kids' lives."

Wade did not immediately announce the decision after receiving word Friday, trying to make sure that his sons fully understood what it meant first. Teammates, informed of the ruling in a locker room meeting on Saturday after Miami's victory over the Memphis Grizzlies, gave him a rousing ovation.

Wade had one of his finest all-around efforts of the season Saturday: 28 points, nine assists, five rebounds and five blocked shots.

It may not have been a coincidence.

"I heard the best news I could possibly hear," Wade said. "So I was like, 'I'm going to go out there and play free and enjoy it.'"

Wade's divorce was granted last June, after a lengthy separation. The financial portion of the divorce remains unsettled.

The boys' mother, Siohvaughn Wade, will have what the court described as "regular parenting time" on alternating weekends in Miami, as well as several other times during the year, including Mother's Day. Dwyane Wade has also repeatedly said that he wants his sons to have healthy relationships with their mother.

Still, the 102-page ruling had some sharp words for Wade's ex-wife.

"This court finds that (Siohvaughn Wade) has embarked on an unstoppable and relentless pattern of conduct for over two years to alienate the children from their father, and lacks either the ability or the willingness to facilitate, let alone encourage, a close and continuing relationship between them," read a portion of the ruling entered by Judge Renee G. Goldfarb.

Wade's attorney, James Pritikin, said the custody trial "was one of the longest ever in Cook County history."

Wade filed the motion asking for sole custody nearly a year ago, though the legal tussle has gone on considerably longer.

He and his ex-wife separated in August 2007 and it took Wade years to get the divorce, a process that was slowed by his ex-wife often changing attorneys. He also sued Siohvaughn Wade for defamation after she made unfounded allegations against him in 2009 – claims she eventually withdrew.

More claims against Dwyane Wade followed during the custody case, including that he was abusive to his children. The court found them all to be baseless.

"The court agreed the best home is with Mr. Wade and that he is also willing to foster a relationship with the children's mother," Pritikin said. "I know he will continue to be a phenomenal parent."

The court acknowledged that Wade's schedule as a professional athlete is "demanding," given the rigors of training camp, preseason, an 82-game regular season and then the playoffs.

"Is every day the same? No. Is it consistent? No," Goldfarb's ruling read. "But, to posit that (Dwyane Wade) does not have the time to be a primary parent is incorrect. He has the time if he makes the time."

Wade said all the measures are in place for as smooth a transition for his sons as possible. A school for the boys has been selected, and a plan for child-care was presented to the court, which found it acceptable.

"We had to have that, nanny care, everything already booked and planned out," Wade said. "That's the easy part."

The court ruling also had some other interesting items, including Siohvaughn Wade's contention that Dwyane Wade could have found employment in Chicago, where she has lived with the boys.

Wade met with the Chicago Bulls twice last summer when he was a free agent, but according to the ruling, Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf never met with Wade, nor did the team ever present the 2006 NBA finals MVP with a contract offer.

The ruling also states that Wade is on the U.S. roster for the 2012 London Olympics. Wade played with the U.S. team at the Athens Games in 2004 and the Beijing Games in 2008, but has not yet said publicly if he definitively plans to play at the London Games.

Wade told the AP that the waiting for the ruling has been difficult, and expressed again Sunday a desire for his ex-wife to "play a healthy role" in the boys' lives.

"I'm not going to say, 'OK, I won,'" Wade said. "I think them living here, being here, it's a great opportunity for them and I'm looking forward to it for them, to grow up with me and us learning together, how to be father-son. So I'm excited."

The 7-year itch is now the 3-year glitch

3 Year Glitch?









LONDON (Reuters) – The "three-year glitch" has replaced the "seven-year itch" as the tipping point where couples start to take each other for granted, according to a new survey.

Weight gain, stinginess, toe-nail clippings on the bathroom floor and snoring are a few of the passion-killers that have led to a swifter decline in relationships in the fast-paced 21st century, said the study commissioned by Warner Brothers to promote the release of comedy film "Hall Pass" in UK cinemas.

The survey of 2,000 British adults in steady relationships pinpointed the 36-month mark as the time when relationship stress levels peak and points to a new trend of "pink passes" and "solo" holidays away from partners and spouses that many Britons resort to in order to keep romance alive.

"Longer working hours combined with money worries are clearly taking their toll on modern relationships and we are seeing an increasing trend for solo holidays and weekends away from marriages and relationships in order to revive the romantic spark," said pollster Judi James who oversaw the survey.

The poll compared feedback from those in short-term relationships (defined as less than three years) and people who were married or in longer-term partnerships.

The findings showed that 67 percent of all of those surveyed said that small irritations which are seemingly harmless and often endearing during the first flushes of love often expand into major irritations around 36 months.

More than half of the Brits surveyed (52 percent) who were in younger relationships said they enjoyed sexual relations at least three times a week, compared to just 16 percent of those in relationships older than three years.

This suggests that as we get older together, romance gives way to day to day practicalities, supported by the fact that 55 percent of busy people in longer-term relationships admit that they now have to "schedule" their romantic time.

The report also said that those in the first flush of love can look forward to an average of three compliments a week from their partners - a figure which falls to an average of a single weekly compliment at the three-year high tide mark.

The prognosis gets worse the longer we stay in relationships, three in 10 of those surveyed that have been in a relationship for five years or more said that they never receive any compliments from their partners.

The findings also showed that more than three quarters (76 percent) of all people surveyed responded that "individual space was important" within a relationship and pointed to a rise of individual activities.

A third (34%) of those who have been seeing their partners for longer than three years have at least two evenings a month defined as a "pass" or a "ticket" where it is accepted that they can pursue their own interests and 58 percent of the same sample group enjoy regular holidays without their partners.

The top 10 everyday niggles and passion-killers:

1. Weight gain/lack of exercise, 13 percent;

2. Money & Spend thriftiness, 11 percent;

3. Anti-social working hours, 10 percent;

4. Hygiene issues (personal cleanliness), 9 percent;

5. In-Laws/extended family - too much/too little, 9 percent;

6. Lack of romance (sex, treats etc.), 8 percent;

7. Alcohol - drinking too much, 7 percent;

8. Snoring & anti social bedtime habits, 6 percent;

9. Lapsed fashion-Same old underwear/clothes, 4 percent;

10. Bathroom habits - Stray nail cuttings etc., 4 percent.

==

Japan and Child Abductions

How Did Japan Become a Haven for Child Abductions?
By Lucy Birmingham / Tokyo



UPDATED: 03/07/2011



Like any loving father, Christopher Savoie just wanted to do the best thing for his two kids. In August 2009, his Japanese ex-wife broke U.S. law and abducted their children from his home in Tennessee, moving them to Japan. But when Savoie went to get them weeks later, he was arrested. It didn't matter that he had legal custody in both countries; that she had violated a U.S. court order or that there was a U.S. warrant issued for her arrest. Nor did the fact that Savoie was a naturalized Japanese citizen and fluent in Japanese make a difference. After 18 days in jail, Savoie returned to the U.S. empty handed and broken hearted. A year and half has now passed, and he is still unable to see his son and daughter, now 10 and 8.

Despite all this, Savoie's ex-wife is beyond the reach of international law. Japan has not signed the Hague Convention on the Prevention of Child Abduction, an international accord adopted by 84 nations and aimed at returning abducted children back to the country from which they were taken. Along with an increasing number of international marriages and divorces, child abductions to Japan - the only G7 nation that has not signed the treaty - have been on the rise. In 2009, the State Department ranked Japan at the top of its list in reported abductions from the U.S. among non-signatory nations. "It is our understanding that no U.S. citizen child abducted to Japan has been returned to the United States," says Paul Fitzgerald, a U.S. Embassy official in Tokyo. The issue could tarnish U.S.-Japan relations; as Assistant Sec. of State Kurt Campbell told reporters during a trip to Tokyo in February, "The situation has to be resolved in order to ensure that the U.S.-Japan relations continue on such a positive course."

Japan's antiquated domestic family law complicates matters. In a Japanese divorce, child custody is awarded to only one parent - typically the mother. Visitation can be negotiated but there is no legal enforcement and agreements are often broken. In Japan, it's not unusual for the non-custodial parent to lose contact with their child, and domestic abductions, when they do occur, are often ignored by the police as a family matter. It's a devastating scenario for a growing number of fathers residing in Japan - both Japanese and foreign - who have few legal rights to see their children. "Clearly, the best legal scenario is for the children is to be here in the U.S. where each parent would be guaranteed visitation," writes Savoie by email.

International pressure for Japan to make a change has been mounting. Over the past year, several ambassadors from embassies in Tokyo have met with high-level government officials to urge Japan to sign the convention. A Japanese government panel was set up in January to study the pros and cons, but opposition remains firm at most levels. Japanese lawmakers are worried the Hague Convention does not properly take into account past cases of domestic abuse in demanding a child's repatriation, or a child's own right to choose where they live. "This is why Switzerland tried to amend the treaty, even though it is a signatory," explains Kensuke Ohnuki, a Tokyo attorney who has represented several women who have abducted children from foreign countries to Japan. "They failed. So instead, they made their own new law which enables the Swiss court to refuse the return of a child when it's against the child's will."

On Feb. 22, the Japan Bar Association issued similar Hague recommendations to the government, including a guarantee in domestic law that children not be returned to their country of residence if they had been subjected to abuse or violence. Left-behind parents, including Christopher Savoie, have said the recommendations are draconian and anti-joint custody, in part because abuse is both difficult to prove and is commonly cited as one of the main reasons for abduction.

One of Ohnuki's clients, who uses the alias Keiko, says she left the U.S. with her child because she discovered her husband was abusing their son. "There were no obvious physical marks so it would have been impossible to prove in court," Keiko explains tearfully. After consulting a therapist and an attorney in the U.S., she feared getting sole custody as a Japanese citizen would be nearly impossible. "When we were in Japan, my son told me he feels safe, far away from his father... I didn't really want to leave the U.S. I had a good job and many friends. But I wanted to do what was best for my son." Keiko is now one of about 50 members of the Safety Network for Guardians and Children, a support group for women who have abducted their children to Japan from various countries.

Finding a internationally recognized legal resolution to cases like Keiko's will not be easy. But in the meantime, Japanese mothers living abroad who have no intention of removing their children from their families are also beginning to be affected by the problem. Jeremy Morley, a U.S. attorney specializing in Japanese child abductions says that foreign courts are "increasingly ordering Japanese mothers living overseas not to take their children to Japan even for a family visit because of Japan's status as a renowned haven for international child abduction."

A winning diplomatic strategy will need teeth to make a difference for everyone involved. "The mantra now is 'Japan sign the Hague', but that's not enough," U.S. Rep. Chris Smith said during a recent trip to Tokyo. The Republican New Jersey congressman, who is also the chairman of a subcommittee overseeing human rights issues, is pushing for a bill that would establish an Office of International Child Abductions within the U.S. State Department to handle cases like these and discuss sanctions against uncooperative nations. "I don't know what the answer is," says Keiko. "But we need to find a solution that's in the best interest of the child."



Photo: Yoshikazu Tsuno / AFP / Getty Images