The Child Support Champ and the Lawyers' Wage Gap

“Judges, as a class, display, in the matter of arranging alimony, that reckless generosity which is found only in men who are giving away someone else's cash.” P.G. Wodehouse aka Sir Pelham Grenville
“You never know how short a month is until you pay alimony.” John Barrymore
“There are much easier things in life than finding a good man. Nailing Jell-O to a tree, for instance.” Anonymous

Ah, Spring. When a young man’s fancy certainly does not turn towards thoughts of child support, although it should. Case in point, Travis Henry, winner of the CSSA Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award for 2009. If you’ve never heard of this guy, join the club. However, he is a very good football player, being an all pro NFL running back and signing a $25 million contract in 2007. He celebrated his exoneration on a failed marijuana drug test by smoking marijuana and getting suspended again, so you know he has a sense of humor. Although only thirty years old, he has fathered nine children by nine different women and he is obligated to pay over $170,000 per year in child support for his offspring. Recently he was jailed in Florida for failing to pay over $16,000 for one of these cherubs, and apparently Mr. Henry is now broke. He did tell the New York Times shortly before he was jailed, “I love all my kids.” Amen. He now has Shawn Kemp (seven children by six women) and Derrick Thomas (seven by five) beat by a landslide. Nice job, big guy. But compare Mr. Henry with David Bean who was made to pay lifetime maintenance of at least $150,000 and child support for one child of $85,000 per year on $1 million in yearly income, considerably less than Mr. Henry’s yearly take as a running back. That’s just fine in the Third Department. Bean v. Bean, setting the Gold Standard for the CSSA cap at $500,000 of combined income. One wonders what kind of numbers Mr. Henry would put up in the Third Department had one of the moms wandered into the jurisdiction.
By the way, did you get your latest issue of the Journal of the American Psychosomatic Society? No? There’s a nifty study there by a psychologist named Nancy Henry (no relation to Travis) and some others at the University of Utah that concludes that women are far more likely than men to have damage to their health in strained marriages. The study included people who had been married twenty years and found that both men and women claimed to be depressed in bad marriages, but only women showed negative physiological signs. One of the leading researchers concluded, “It's a little premature to say they would lower their risk of heart disease if they improved the tone and quality of their marriages - or dumped their husbands.” Geez, I could have told them that, but this is Reason Number 12,394 for the Empire State to pass no fault divorce if you ask me. But no one is asking.
And speaking of divorce reform, did you get the news of the two imbeciles in the West Virginia Legislature named John Ellum and Robert Schadler? They want to make it impossible to get maintenance (alimony) if you commit adultery. As Mr. Ellum said, “It has always bothered me that you can almost be rewarded in a way for cheating on your spouse.” You and you alone, John Bob, or is it Bob John?
Before we get to the latest from My Favorite Appellate Division, there was an interesting study of the “wage gap” between men and women based on the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey for 2007. Suffice it to say men earn more than women for the same job, but we all know that. However, the “wage gap” is 22% among lawyers, with women earning about $71,500 and men earning about $91,600 per year. So, ladies, not only do we earn more than you, but apparently we make you sick in bad marriages. Time to rethink things here?
So, we all know that an attorney is supposed to sign a pleading, and this goes for Family Court Petitions. If you don’t believe me, take a gander at 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. So if the attorney doesn’t sign, is the petition to be dismissed? Of course not, but the Third Department had to reverse a Family Court judge who did just that in Green v. Tierney. Finally, a victory for resolution on the merits over technicality.
Are you entitled to paralegal fees in Family or Supreme Court? Of course not as the statues only refer to “counsel fee” applications. Sure, §8602(b) of the CPLR allows the recovery for paralegal fees in actions against the state, but Family Court Act §438, §536, §842(f) and Domestic Relations Law §237 make no mention of paralegal or other such fees. Therefore, one might conclude that since the legislature allowed such fees in one kind of action, but not in domestic relations matters, they never intended a recovery for paralegal fees in Family Court or Matrimonial Actions. Makes sense to me, but not to the Second Department, who recently held that a court can award paralegal fees in Family Court in the court’s discretion, although denied in this instance. Hubbard v. Clay. Makes you wonder.
Speaking of wondering, the Second Department gave us a doozy at the end of February in deciding that the standard for finding a violation of an Order of Protection under Article 8 of the Family Court Act is beyond a reasonable doubt! Rubackin v. Rubackin. They frankly acknowledged that this is contrary to their own prior decisions as well as the decisions of the other Appellate Divisions including our Favorite App Div. The language of this decision seems to imply that this might also be the standard in support violation matters as potential incarceration is the lynchpin for the standard, citing the 1911 Supreme Court case of the great labor activist Samuel Gompers v. Buck’s Stove and Range Co. Sounds like the Second Department is dying to grant leave to the Court of Appeals on this one. We’ll see.
Finally a few words on the Appellate Division, Third. I know that we have about a 30% chance of a reversal or modification in matrimonial appeals and obviously significantly less in criminal and prisoner appeals. But ladies and gentlemen, a day with 29 affirmances and one measly reversal, which occurred on March 5, 2009? Man, the stars must have been aligned on that day.
The Gov’nor finally appointed three new appellate justices last month, but many newspaper articles only commented on the skin color or sexual orientation of the jurists. Whatever happened to the judicial qualifications? Doesn’t that mean anything anymore to the hoi polloi? Is skin color or sexual orientation the only relevant issues anymore when it comes to judicial selection? Makes me wonder if I were ever appointed to anything, the headlines the next day would probably be, “Delusional, Demented, Narcissistic Blue Jay Fan wing nut appointed by the Gov.” Guilty as charged.