Our Fiscally Responsible Judiciary and Mississippi Affections

“He wants a no-fault divorce, whereas I would prefer to have the bastard crucified.” J.B. Handlesman
“I'd marry again if I found a man who had fifteen million dollars, would sign over half to me, and guarantee that he'd be dead within a year.” Bette Davis
“Every time that I have ever tried to help a woman out, I have been incarcerated." Jose “The Chemist” Canseco
So a group of people at the University of Arizona study 6.5 million people and conclude (drum roll please) that divorced people have a 23% greater chance of early death than married folks. Called “Divorce and Death A Meta-Analysis and Research Agenda for Clinical, Social, and Health Psychology”, they conclude that if you can get to age 65 before you divorce, then you have a better chance at beating these odds. But it ain’t worth it, is it? I’m just glad I’m not Kim Kardashian’s life insurance agent.
In other news of the strange, two lovebirds named Chuck and Chrissy became adulterers and then Chrissy jettisoned her hubby Ervin to marry Chuck. After 11 years, Chuck became the lover of Melissa and then divorced Chrissy on irreconcilable differences grounds. Got that? Well, then Chrissy sued Melissa for alienation of affection and the jury delivered a verdict of $87,500 plus $500 punitive damages. So, we now know the value of affections, at least in Mississippi, as the mid level Court of Appeals just affirmed in Simmons v. Strickland. And you thought no fault really meant no fault. However, don’t try this at home kiddies as New York eliminated causes of action for alienation of affection and seduction in 1935. Too bad.
Closer to home, our beloved Third Department took a rather strict constructionist view of Family Court pleadings when it upheld the summary dismissal of a violation petition for lack of specificity among other reasons. The parties had an order that, like many orders, codifies an agreement to micromanage the parenting of children. Here, the parties agreed that neither parent could smoke in the presence of the children, nor allow another to do so, and they agreed to properly supervise the children, whatever that means. Dad filed a violation petition alleging that Mom allowed one of the cherubs to smoke and be violent towards others. Join the club Dad. In any event, the petition was tossed by the Family Court before trial and the Third Department affirmed, saying that the petition lacked proper notice of dates and times and, by the way, you need to plead “how the mother's alleged failings ‘defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced’ his rights, as required to sustain a civil contempt finding.” So, be careful how you plead these things as the Third Department has little patience for conclusory pleadings, even in Family Court.
Speaking of micromanagement, in an evolving trend of making courts be all things to all people, the Second Department has just followed the Third Department in determining where a child goes to school. Way back when, the Court of Appeals wrote, “The court cannot regulate by its processes the internal affairs of the home. Dispute between parents when it does not involve anything immoral or harmful to the welfare of the child is beyond the reach of the law. The vast majority of matters concerning the upbringing of children must be left to the conscience, patience, and self-restraint of father and mother. No end of difficulties would arise should judges try to tell parents how to bring up their children.” Well the difficulties are arising, as the court system shifts from dispensing justice to shepherding the unwashed of New York through virtually any issue. What did you expect after all with the “problem solving courts” and the unlimited scope of OCA’s 16 or so initiatives? In any event, the Third Department last April upheld a decision that only determined where a child was to go to school. In a four day trial, a Family Court in Suffolk County determined a child’s school district and the Second Department recently affirmed in Grant v. Grant. I can’t wait for the first appellate decision to determine whether a child eats Cheerios or Frosted Flakes for breakfast. We all know that parents who dislike one another will litigate virtually anything, but is that any reason for our courts to buy into that nonsense? I guess so, but for me the Court of Appeals had it right over seventy years ago.
In case you missed it, the Office of Court Administration published its budget request for 2012-2013. It has pared down its descriptions from last year’s 509 pages to a paltry 183 pages, and the cost for us is a mere $3.5 billion. This tome is a marvel of obfuscation. To save us all those ugly descriptions from last year, we get a request for “Judiciary Wide Maintenance Undistributed” for $12.5 million more than last year. Why not? An extra $6.4 million for Appellate Auxiliary Operations. Sure. Our state has plenty of jing, doesn’t it? Besides, they eliminated the $7 million (of the $16 million already spent) they were going to seek for the sleeping quarters for the five out of town Court of Appeals judges for a few days a year on Pine Street in Albany. Just to remind us, they listed only this item with a strikethrough, as though they thought of it at the last second. We’ll just have to make do, I guess. By way of example, the Texas Judicial Budget for 2012-2013 is a tad over $2 billion, and they service 4.5 million more people than we do. Florida with about 500,000 fewer people runs things on $437 million. Eleven years ago in 2000-2001, the budget request was only $1.28 billion. The most galling thing about this, of course, is the response of OCA. Rather than cut the burgeoning bureaucracy that creates forms, bungles initiatives, tortures judges’ staffs and compiles statistics that no one cares about, the only thing that makes sense to the bean counters is to close courthouses at 4:30 p.m. and to swamp our judges with reporting requirements when they have better things to do like moving litigants through the system to a resolution of disputes. The last I looked, that was the Prime Directive. The Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge promulgated in 1972 read, “The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities.” So there.
Finally, good news to all our lap dance friends. The Court of Appeals has granted leave to appeal that nefarious decision of the Third Department this year declaring lap dances subject to sales taxation. Keep those amicus briefs coming. ‘Tis the season. Feliz Navidad, y’all.