The Murdoch Divorce, Cosmo Kramer and Matrimonial Foresight

That’s already old news: Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp, has served his third wife, Wendi Murdoch, with divorce papers; one cannot but wonder if the mogul’s amazing appetite for matrimonies will sustain itself. What’s news is that Wendy has hired a new lawyer, which is a sign of groß, groß gunfight coming, according to Peter Lattman and Amy Chozick from the New York Times.

Why a mess when harmony could prevail? The answer is lack of foresight, tells divorce lawyer Paul Talbert from Donohoe Talbert, in the Times article. Even the most ‘sophisticated’ couple like the Murdochs cannot foresee all problems along the way. The Murdochs have signed tons of prenuptial and postnuptial (I confess I did not even know the word before reading the article) agreements, yet they left the Fifth Avenue Penthouse and a yacht in the dark; sophistication is in the details.

Talbert’s revelation turns the world of common folks like me upside down. I have been nurtured with Seinfeld reruns for years and in one of them, Kramer advices George, who wants – wealthy- Susan to break up with him, to ask her for a “prenup.” Kramer’s point: George’s display of foresight, while unbridled enthusiasm and confidence are expected, will seem like misplaced caution to Susan and be a turn-off.

Who is right, Talbert or Kramer? Here is a clue drawn from a totally unscientific poll of my own. On the one hand, my divorced friends from France had relatively easy divorces. On the other side of the Atlantic however, my divorced friends from New York City  (me included) had bloody ones.  In both cases wealth is not part of the picture, all right.  But why the difference?  Are the frogs more foresighted? No way. My answer: litigious divorce laws in New York State. For instance, the no-fault divorce was only introduced in New York State laws in 2010. Litigious divorce laws beg for the need of lawyers to walk you through them, and lawyers are not in the business of making a divorce less litigious.

That’s why I side with Kramer, with relief. And I venture something that will sound outrageously unsophisticated to Paul Talbert, from Donohoe Talbert: sound foresight in matrimonial affairs in New York State should minimize lawyer costs. That might mean refraining from marriage.

After all, lawyers fees must make a big deal of New York State GDP and as most people know – and more and more economists do too- GDP is a poor indicator of happiness.

Read Full Post »

About Terminations of Parental Rights

One never touches the bottom of family laws’ insanity.

The Four Hundred Blows (Truffaut)

I just came across a website titled “Child Custody and Termination of Parental Rights.” I thought termination of parental rights was the predicament of folks like me, who don’t see their kids after a lengthy trial in family court that deprived them of their parental rights. Wrong. Termination of parental rights is part of Adoption and Safe Families Act, passed by Congress in 1997. It is supposed to be about facilitating adoption and providing children with the fundamental right of a safe home. The natural parents  loosing their parental rights (the civil dead)  have their ties with their kids severed for ever.  They do not pay child support any more.

What are the benefits of this law?  To make custody battles even more litigious, if it was possible, and hit particularly poor and handicapped parents. Also to open new business opportunities for the booming family industry, which like Elaine (in Seinfeld) “will be  there… for you.”

I am a non-custodial parent from New York State that lost his parental rights in family court. Yet I pay child support, ergo I am not a civil dead. That does not cheer me up.

Read Full Post »