Reform Family Courts

 Compiling all of the information on this blog was an arduous process. There were many times I wanted to stop because I thought because it just brought back the most terrifying moments of my life. This post isn't exactly on that level of displeasure to write, but since I am going to be writing about a story related to reality TV, I want to get it over with as soon as possible and then go read something very intellectually dense to regenerate my brain cells.  I am normally loathe to discuss anything related to reality TV, except perhaps for the fact that I suspect there is a lot of scripting and little actual "reality" involved in it. However, the Taylor Frankie Paul custody case provides a good example of why psychological evaluations are necessary in contested custody cases. From what I have been able to ascertain (by dragging myself over to read the celebrity articles in the LA Times and People), the facts of the case are as follows: Taylor Frankie Paul and Dakota Morte...

I recently finished reading the book The Prisoner in His Palace by Will Bardenwerper about the imprisonment and execution of Saddam Hussein, but also his time as dictator of Iraq. Most of the reviews and descriptions don't really adequately represent the book. It's many things: complex, nuanced, and factual, but I think what it is mostly is a psychological portrait of a traumatized malignant narcissist and the people around him. You might be thinking that people like Saddam Hussein are one in a million, or maybe one in a billion and none of us will ever encounter anyone who is remotely like him and that it has little to do with anything related to custody and divorce proceedings. And I am certain that family courts would like to believe that as well. But there are important parallels between the trial of Saddam Hussein and many contested custody cases and it would be wise to examine and understand those parallels. Saddam turned his trial into a circus with frequent rants about...

 By and large, there is no requirement that a parent receiving child support provide any proof that the money is being used for the children. One divorce attorney in California states this on his website : "  In California, custodial parents are not required to give an accounting of how child support money is spent  to  the parent who pays the support." I suppose this seems like a good idea on the face of it. What parent would use child support money on themselves? I suppose the assumption underlying this is that no parent could possibly be that selfish. Courts might also believe that it's not worth fighting over how the money is spent. Dad is mad about sending child support to Mom and complains that she used child support money to buy birthday presents and the courts want to make sure that Mom isn't getting harassed by Dad about the birthday presents. Either way, the only way to view the fact that there is no oversight required for child support is that courts are a...