Very few people have had as much affect on Family Law jurisprudence in California as Judith Wallerstein. She will definitely leave very large shoes to fill.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Taken from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/10/the-last-days-of-mary-richardson-kennedy.html
Newsweek recently published an article citing formerly sealed documents from the Bobby Kennedy, Jr. v. Mary Kennedy custody battle. Apparently it revealed concerns that Mary Kennedy may have suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).
This article caught my attention because of my involvement in so many difficult high conflict custody battles where BPD was involved. These cases are extraordinarily difficult. A person with BPD suffers greatly and simply hasn’t the ability to understand the effect that one’s behavior can have on family members and, of particular concern, on children.
I have represented both persons suffering from BPD and those attempting to divorce a person with BPD. These cases are usually extremely conflictual and difficult to navigate. Although I have developed a skill set that enables me to manage such cases in as good a way as possible, it gives me a front row seat to some very sad and destructive circumstances. I would even say that I am one of the very few family law attorneys brave enough to take on such a case.
I feel for the Kennedy family and also feel for Ms. Kennedy. I hope that her celebrity and tragedy that resulted from her struggles will serve to shine a spotlight on the issue so that more of us can be better equipped to help those suffering from BPD.
Here is the link to the Newsweek article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/10/the-last-days-of-mary-richardson-kennedy.html
Other celebrities rumored to suffer from BPD include:
(Note, I am not attempting to confirm that these individuals indeed have or had BPD. I am only noting the rumors.)
Perhaps the most famous and tragic story of a person with BPD in a family law context was the case involving Betty Broderick and the murder of her former husband, San Diego attorney Dan Broderick, and his new wife, Linda. (See http://cmm.lefora.com/2009/02/15/dan-and-linda-kolkena-broderick-betty-broderick-an/)
For more information about borderline personality disorder and its effect on family law cases, visit http://www.highconflictinstitute.com/.
Note about the author:
Attorney Shawn Weber is especially equipped to work in high-conflict custody cases. He coaches clients on how to communicate with the other parent in a low-conflict way. His goal is always to lower the temperature during disputes and shield the children from the conflict. However, if necessary, he can provide legal protection when a custody battle becomes heated.
For a free telephone consulation, call Mr. Weber at 858-345-1616 or visit his website at http://www.bravewebermack.com/Family-Law-Overview/Child-Custody.shtml
Watch my friend and colleague, Hildy Fentin, Esq. on Fox News San Diego talking about Collaborative Divorce and Divorce Mediation. http://www.fox5sandiego.com/videogallery/68438067/News/Ask-the-Shrinks:-Divorce
Judith Wallerstein does an excellent job pointing out in this article on Huffington Post some of the important obstacles facing children of divorce. In my legal practice, I often observe that children have to grow up too quickly. They often become “parentified” in their relationships with their siblings and often even their parents. I think it is essential that divorcing parents do everything they can to shield their children from their conflict and to just let their children be kids.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
California Family Code section 3041.5 provides a mechanism for drug and alcohol testing for parents involved in custody disputes. Testing can be ordered if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a parent uses illegal drugs or alcohol habitually or continually.
It doesn’t end there, however. The tested party is entitled to a hearing to challenge any drug results. So, a positive test, in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds for a ruling to limit or terminate custody rights. However, it can be a huge factor in evidence.
Interestingly, only certain tests are allowed thanks to a case known as Deborah M. v. Superior Court (Daryl W.) (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1181. In Deborah M., the court held that because Family Code section 3041.5 requires drug testing to conform to federal drug testing procedures and standards, only urine testing is allowed.
While a 5 panel urine drug test can indicate whether drugs have been used recently, the preferred test, the hair follicle test, cannot be ordered by the court unless the parties agree. Hair follicle testing is more reliable than urine testing because the evidence of substances remains for as long as the hair follicle exists, whereas in urine testing the substances pass out of the system in 24 hours. . It is then that professional help might be sought and with the help of service providers (such as Countrywide Testing) in this specialized field, proper results can be achieved. More often than not, the tests conducted tend to give accurate results and the same lays a significant effect on the outcome of various hearings. However, as with all methods, there can still be faults with hair drug testing. Regardless, the Court has made it clear that the code’s requirement of conformity to the federal standard of urine testing is what will be allowed. Of course, parties can agree to a more stringent standard.
If a client of mine is worried about the other parent’s alcohol or drug use, but there is not enough evidence to get a drug test ordered or there is a concern that unrine testing will be insufficient, I often recommend that the client try to get an order for a mutual prohibition of alcohol or illegal drug usage in the presence of the child.
If there is a past history of addiction, the Court will often require attendance with a sponser at Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. Whenever I represent a party with a history of addiction, no matter how slight that history may be, I often recommend and even insist that the client attend AA or NA as a protective measure in the case. I have never seen a Judge punish a party for going to meetings.
I have also had cases in the past where there is concern that a client is abusing prescribed pain medication such as Oxycontin. In such case, it is a good idea for the non-using parent to insist that there be controls in place to ensure that the other parent doesn’t abuse his or her medication. For instance, there should be a pain management contract regulating the use of controlled substances. I have also had success in getting orders for mass spectometry and liquid chromotography testing, which does a more thorough examination of a urine sample using laser technology. Not only does it give a qualititative result (i.e., relating to the presence of a substance) but also gives a quantitative result (i.e., how much of a given substance is present). This is helpful because the test itself is a simple urine sample type test, so it is no more invasive than any other urine test, but the data is so much more useful. It is especially helpful in determining whether a pain management patient is compliant with his contract or if he is overusing a particular medication or is mixing the medication with alcohol. Although I have been successful in getting orders for such a test, I have seen no caselaw to test whether it meets the standard set out in Deborah M.
