Singer, Adele, has filed for divorce from her husband, Simon Konecki. She plans to co-parent their son, Angelo, age 6. This is a major child custody issue that is the forefront of their divorce.
The singer, who filed for divorce from her estranged husband in Los Angeles, cited irreconcilable differences as the reason for the split.
Spousal support, as well as the separation of their assets and properties, will be determined in mediation, according to the documents. Support can be long term financial concern for parties during a long term marriage so hopefully that part of the divorce can be settled during the mediation process
According to several media outlets, it is believed that she and Konecki did not sign a Prenuptial Agreement prior to the marriage. This could mean any property acquired by the parties during the marriage will be divided through community property laws. One of the benefits of signing a Prenuptial Agreement prior to getting married is to protect your separate property assets. Another benefit is that if you plan to be married for a long time, you have the ability to set limitations on how much spousal support or alimony will be paid out depending on the length of the marriage. Usually people that have been successful will have a prenuptial agreement written prior to the marriage to ensure her long term royalties do not become split among the parties. Even so Adele could have attempted to draft a post nuptial agreement is she so wished to protected what she had made thus far from her lucrative career and protect all the royalties that she made and would make in the future.
According to California law, in the event of a divorce, in a marriage of ten years or less, the recipient of spousal support is entitled to spousal support for one-half of the length of the marriage. So, for instance, if a couple marries and divorces after 8 years of marriage, the recipient of spousal support will only be entitled to spousal support for a period of only 4 years.
Another interesting issue that has come up in Adele’s divorce filing is that she chose to file for divorce in California. Adele also is a British citizen so going back to England to file a divorce would not be out of the question. She could make things really difficult with custody issues as well by dividing the child between the two countries. However she did not do this. Apparently, the former couple own property in California and Konecki’s business is based out of California. This brings up residency issues. You cannot simply file a divorce petition based on the fact that you own property in that State. In order to obtain residence in California, you must have been a resident of the state for at least 6 months and in the county where you intend to for for at least 3 months. I believe Adele lives somewhere in Beverly Hills so if that is the case, she could file her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in California and in Los Angeles County provided she meets the residency requirements.
The Singer Beck and his wife of 14 years have decided to call it quits and get divorced after a 14 year marriage. The pop star decided it was over after Valentines day this year and gave her the news. Beck is a practicing Scientologist so it adds a twist as to how the two children will be raised post split up. In child custody cases religion can be a major source of conflict on raising the children. This might create a high conflict child custody dispute. The two children are eleven years old and 14 years old. Becks wife is Marissi Ribissi who is the brother of Giovanni Ribissi.
In addition, Beck is actively involved in movie projects which could effect the division of divorce property for the two exes. Movie project residuals will cause a dispute among Hollywood A listers when they get divorced. Earlier this week, Beck released a song called “Super Cool” for the soundtrack of “The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part.”
Beck has won seven Grammy’s in his career, including Album of the Year in 2015 for “Morning Phase.” He won two at this year’s awards: Best Alternative Music Album and Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical.
In June, Kentucky will become the first state to require a presumption of equally shared parenting in child-custody cases even when one or more parents is opposed. While it’s common for states to prefer joint custody when both parents are amenable, Kentucky’s presumption will apply even without divorcing parents on board. This is a major breakthrough in developing a parenting plan that is often difficult and expensive to come by in family law Courts in California and across the United States.
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin signed the measure in April, declaring that judges must presume “that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child” in almost all divorce cases. Last year, Kentucky required the same presumption for temporary child-custody cases while divorce is pending. Again, for a state to implement such a broad and powerful message to family law courts across America and Kentucky is quite outstanding. Custody is often so tumultuous to fight in court that to add a presumption of 50/50 without any fighting in court is really setting a different type of family law custody standard now.
Exceptions exist for situations “involving an incident of domestic violence within the preceding three years” or where “there has been a domestic violence order entered” or being entered. Obviously when there is violence the joint custody presumption must be sidelined in order to keep the child safe from any potential violence or abuse.
Dennis Quaid is divorced again and this time he has to divide much more than he did with his prior famous wife Meghan Ryan . This new wife is no famous nor did she have the income that his prior famous wife had. Apparently there is as lot of property and children to divide and since he is the bread winner he will have to fork up way more money to her than she to him. When you are a movie star you make movies and wives or husbands that are married or famous celebrity movie stars can make a very good investment for their future.
A movie is like putting money way in the bank for the celebrities and their exes. Because movies have something called residuals. Residuals pay out into the future and are determined by how well the movie does in future years. So if a party was married for a number of years to their movie star spouse and then divorce they can claim residuals for the movies that were made during the life of the marriage. Its pretty cool I would say. So Kimberly Quaid will be receiving a portion of Dennis Quaid’s residuals for her entire life as long as the movie that was made during her marriage makes money down the road.
As many of you remember Dennis Quaid had a pair of twins boys who are 10 years old. The boys were the subject of lawsuit against Cedar Sinai Hospital when they were born because the hospital accidentally gave them Heparin and they almost died. Apparently the couple will share joint custody of the boys. There are two types of custody the family court recognizes. Legal custody is where both parents will decide the best schools and medical care for the child. physical custody is how the time share will be distributed. Dennis Quaid is said to have gotten 25% of the timeshare and Kimberly Quaid got 75%.
In the modern day and age of the internet and facebook, instagram, twitter and all other sorts of social media outlets people have fallen into the trap of airing their dirty laundry during their divorce to the public to view and offer ill fated advice. Do not trust the 3rd party input from social media. Do not rely on a layman opinion regarding your divorce or family law matter that may negatively impact you during the divorce proceedings. If you have spent the time and resources to hire a family law attorney and then head to facebook or other social media to share your intimate experiences about your divorce or all other issues regarding your dissolution of marriage then you are asking for a lot of trouble.
Studies have shown that leaking personal information to the public seeking affirmation of your personal business during a divorce can lead you down a very troubling and damaging road that cannot be undone. Airing dirty laundry should be done to a friend on the phone but not to the public where the divorcing parties have access to your personal business that might not be so flattering to you during the divorce proceedings. Do not undermine your lawyers efforts to effectively fight for your rights to spousal support, child support, child custody and property division as well as any custody issues you are vigorously fighting for by posting pictures of you out partying or drinking alcohol. And do not post provoking pictures of your new boyfriend or girlfriend when you are trying to fight for your credibility in Family Law Court.
Julia Rodgers, founder of Holistic Divorce, states “Couples should keep divorce-related issues away from the public. Doing this gives them the power to control the narrative and solidifies their case. In this age where comparison and blame-shifting is rife, couples are tempted to tell the world who’s at fault. However, doing this helps nobody.” This statement is very true. Using social media to play the blame game and cast blame at the other spouse during the divorce only will in the end hurt you from achieving what you want to succeed from doing. That is to walk away from the divorce without losing all your assets and keep your personal life in tact.
In the recent case of Dennis O v Stephanie O. the Alaskan Superior Court heard the case of Dennis O who claimed that because his ex wife had an attorney during their child custody hearing his due process rights and self incrimination rights were violated. Dennis alleged that his wife was able to afford an attorney. He argued that because of his indigence that he should be appointed an attorney. He alleged that prior Alaskan decisions had awarded counsel to parties who were indigent. He further argued that because the ex wife alleged potentially criminal allegations against him he should be appointed free counsel.
On appeal the Alaskan appellate Court noted that in prior Alaskan cases involving child custody the courts had appointed indigent counsel for the parties because the parents were facing termination of parental rights not just a custody dispute. The appellate court further added that Due Process is a result of notice and a failure to be heard. They compared the termination of parental rights to a custody dispute and stated that when a parent has the chance to lose their parental rights they face a much more egregious outcome if they are not appointed counsel. In a normal custody proceeding although contentious and involves high emotions there is at no time the potential to lose your rights to your child.
The Alaskan Court further added that although fairness is a key issue that the Due Process rights of the Constitution adhere to when appointing a lawyer to a family setting not all cases fall into that parameter where appointment is necessary. The Family law courts have many avenues for a litigant who represents themselves to avail themselves of. There are self help centers and alternative dispute centers for the parties. In addition, the Court can appoint a Guardian Ad litum, an attorney for the minor child and can order a child custody investigation.
Interestingly immigration issues creep into the family areas of practice. I am a member of the family law section of a Bar section and had a serious debate with other list mates on whether as lawyers our family law approach to life maybe is not our only calling as a lawyer. Maybe I have been sought after for a greater cause and a much more fulfilling venture in my legal career that really has very little to do with the practice of family law, I thought. It can be further argued that we as lawyers are constiutionally bound by the great parchment and have a greater calling to deal with other worldly issues of human suffering rather than family law topics. The big question arises, are we as lawyers MANDATED to fight for social injustice despite our prior emphasis on areas of the practice of law we have done for so many years. To be socially mandated by the constitution you must have had a definite epiphany in you life which ultimately drive you away from your regular practice of law and drive you to another spectrum that mandates you to fight for the rights of immigrants although legally here in the United States but have been denied entry based on the county they came from.
Is this social injustice? Is this unfair and unreasonable restraint on lawfully admitted immigrants? and ultimately are these the muslim terrorists we are trying to find and not allow entry? There are many philosophical questions which i must analyze and determine whether the constitution calls for people like me to make a socially conscious attempt to practice immigration law and leave my comfort zone to save other peoples lives and bring them back to Familys. Because ultimately that is what is going on here . Familys are being torn apart by arbitrary executive orders that do nothing by polarize the people living in those countries from their loved ones. Is that a Family Law issue. An executive order enacted by the Executive Branch allegedly to protect the United States while at the same time dividing family up because these people came from countrys that are not our own. My family law instincts tell me that something doesnt sit right with me. When the Executive order seems more a arbitrary statement upon a type of faith I realized that it is not inclusive as this is what we expect from our President of the United States not an order that divides and terrorizes people from other countries arbitrarily.
I have concluded that yes This Presidential Executive Order is a Family law order in that it seeks to divide familys and I am a lawyer who tries to unify familys and make them share their live together. Of Course I should fight for Justice and these people caught in the crossfires of the Trump administration and his racist approach to solving what he thinks is our safety. Who knows if it will work? I know this people need me and they need my help. Who am I to judge the level of need another human being has toward another. Everyone under Gods eyes is created equal. And dont you forget it.
Another celebrity divorce in Hollywood. This time it involves actors Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman. Rumors are swirling that they couple are divorcing because Perlman could no longer stand DeVito’s womanizing. Reports state that the couple have not been happy in “over ten years.”
The couple have been married for over thirty years, which is a long-term marriage in California, and they have three children together.
From an Orange County divorce lawyer’s perspective, DeVito will likely be paying a hefty amount of spousal support or alimony to his soon to be ex-wife. In California, the courts will retain jurisdiction over spousal support.
Less than two years after marrying Sean Covel, Alexa Vega,has filed for divorce. She cited irreconcilable differences as the reason for the filing. Covel is 36 years old while Vega is only 23.
TMZ is reporting that the two separated back on March 5. They have no minor children together.
From an Orange County divorce lawyer’s perspective, since these two do not have children, they do not have to deal with issues of child custody or child support.
After announcing their separation months ago, David Arquette has finally filed the Petition for dissolution of marriage from Courteney Cox Arquette. In the court documents filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Arquette is requesting joint legal and joint physical custody of the parties’ daughter, Coco. He is also requesting that property rights be determined.
From an Orange County divorce lawyer’s perspective, interestingly, there is no mention on how he would like relief for child support or spousal support. Additionally, according to the petition, the parties were married for a long term marriage of 12 years, 6 months so if Arquette would to request spousal support from Cox, he would be entitled to same indefinitely unless of course, they agreed to a different amount, time period or waive it completely.
Most likely the big issue here is how the couple will share joint physical custody of their daughter, Coco.