When I saw this alert on my phone last night from WLTX…
AP: Ex-wife of Fmr. Gov. Mark Sanford says he trespassed at her home.
… I supposed it meant she claimed he had sinned at her house. And I thought, well, that would have been a new low. I also thought, I don’t want to know that. The more common, property-related interpretation of “trespass” only occurred to me a moment later. Chalk it up to my being Catholic.
Here’s the relevant part of Bruce Smith’s story:
The complaint says Jenny Sanford confronted the former governor leaving her Sullivans Island home on Feb. 3 by a rear door, using his cell phone for a flashlight. Her attorney filed the complaint the next day.
The couple’s 2010 divorce settlement says neither may enter the other’s home without permission. Mark Sanford lives about a 20-minute drive away from Sullivans Island in downtown Charleston.
Jenny Sanford said the complaint, and the timing of the hearing, has nothing to do with her husband’s attempt to rebuild his political career by winning the congressional seat he held for three terms in the 1990s.
The complaint was filed in February and a family court judge last month set the May 9 hearing date where Sanford will have to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating the couple’s divorce settlement.
The mobile phone flashlight app of course is the most evocative detail. Sort of makes me picture one of those cartoon burglars with the little black mask and striped shirt (why do burglars always wear those striped shirts in cartoons? where did that convention come from?).
Except no one’s alleging burglary. This is in family court, not a criminal court.
I fully believe that Jenny did not leak this to damage her husband’s chances. But it’s likely to have that effect anyway. From the beginning of this process, it has occurred to me that Jenny Sanford has the power to make or break this candidacy, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Something like this resonates.
Related Posts
Probably the most politically salient fact in all this is that, since the hearing in this doesn’t occur until two days after the vote, Sanford has zero chance to clear this up and defuse it before the election.
Of course, I guess you could look at it the other way — it postpones any further repercussions from the allegation until after the election.
Depends on what kind of legs this thing has over the next couple of weeks.
Does it really matter? Don’t folks already know enough about Sanford to decide whether his personal life should disqualify him? I just can’t imagine a voter that is looking at this race and leaning towards Mark Sanford then reading about this incident and suddenly deciding “this incident calls into question his personal ethics therefore I will vote for Ms. Colbert-Busch”. What kind of logic would one use to reach such a conclusion?
While I have never been a fan of Mark Sanford, I think you might be giving too much credit to Jenny Sanford in this instance.
She didn’t call the police – or they won’t touch it. It is in Family Court, not Criminal Court. That means that it falls in the messy, never neverland of divorce allegations.
Since the Family Court punted until post election (or was asked to do so by one of the parties), the only place resolve this is in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately.
This isn’t politics. It is a family. It’s just gross. And sad.
Is Mark Sanford mentally ill? What about boundaries doesn’t he get. This wasn’t his house, she has moved to a new house it is HER house. He should be under the care of a competent psychiatrist. Jenny should have a carry permit. I feel very sorry for their children.
Even of she lived in the former marital residence, if the court says it’s hers, it isn’t his.
This doesn’t sound like it is about property, Kathryn. At it’s worst, it is about control and retribution. At best, it is about dysfunctional people parenting, and having a very hard time of it due to the impediments to that each of them has thrown up.
Kids make nothing clear cut in divorce; especially in bad ones. Parents need to see that these games are senseless. But they don’t, and they aren’t encouraged by others to realize that the only way to get through is to get along. I don’t see any respect in any angle of this story.
“dysfuntional people?” Excuse me, only ONE of them has repeatedly violated a court order.
Oh, yeah, I would characterize Jenny Sanford as dysfunctional as well; given her public pronouncements and interviews. I understand she has every right to hate him, but she takes it beyond where life ought to go. Do you disagree?
Going to have to agree with Kathryn here. As a lawyer who practices domestic law, going into your ex-spouse’s residence while they are not there is a no-no. I’ll bet you that their divorce decree states that each shall have “exclusive use and possession” of their respective residence.
Violating a family court order is like violating any other court order – you can be held in contempt of court. Which is why it’s pending in family court, not general sessions (criminal court). The family court will be enforcing its own order, and my experience with Judges is that they jealously guard their orders. If you willfully violate an order, you do so at your own peril.
Unless there were some extremely extenuating circumstances that we’re not aware of yet, Mark Sanford is likely going to be found in contempt of a family court order and be sanctioned accordingly, probably made to pay a fine and Jenny’s attorney’s fees.
Mark: This isn’t a game. Court orders are serious, and they aren’t to be violated. I see too many people get hurt in confrontations that started because one person went over to the other person’s house.
Also, the order very likely IS clear cut on this issue.
I am seriously running out of ABBA songs for Mark Sanford.
Two interesting things: he must have a smartphone to be able use it as flashlight, which means he isn’t quite as cheap as we think,
But, he claims he was watching the Super Bowl with his son, because, we can surmise, he doesn’t have a TV at his house?
But not QUITE out of ABBA songs:
No more carefree laughter
Silence ever after
Walking through my Jenny’s house
Tears in my eyes
Here is where the story ends
This is goodbye
Knowing Maria, knowing you (a-ha)
There is nothing we can do
Knowing Maria, knowing you (a-ha)
We just have to face it
This time we’re through
Breaking up is never easy, I know
But I have to go
Knowing Maria, knowing you
It’s the best I can do
I think a little forgiveness is in order here:
Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Amen
AMEN
If Jenny wasn’t home, and the 14 year old son was in “lawful possession” of the real property in question at the time, and invited Mark over to watch the ballgame, thereby extending permission to enter, would it still be tresspassing?
Never been divorced- but the court usually lays out specific times when parents can visit their kids – at least that’s the way it works for everyone that I know who is divorced.
I don’t think “but my child wanted me to come over” is an acceptable excuse. If so, visit rights would be violated all the time.
Dude, YES.
He’s been ORDERED by a court not to come on her property without HER permission. He knows this.
There is something seriously wrong with this man.
If Family Court is going to be used for this sort of junk, the least the court could do is force them both to take it to mediation – with a psychologist, not an attorney.
Silence, can you imagine what she would have alledged had he taken the 14 year old out of the empty house to watch the game? Kidnapping? I’m not condoning his behavior here, but for sure nobody is in possession of the whole truth.
Mark, their case is closed. The order is written, signed, and done. All that’s left is enforcement until someone brings a modification action.
And that, Bryan, is why lawyers have no business in these situations. The law is a framework to guide our actions. That works great with international treaties, governmental action, business law, civic rules and laws, etc. It even works with divisions of assets in divorces. But it absolutely, positively and completely fails with regard to parent child relationships. Family law fails when we are talking about family needs. That’s the bottom line. A static, divorce agreement is fine when people don’t have kids; when they do, such hard lines are worse than counter-productive, they are detrimental to the entire, constantly evolving and aging family.
Lawyers like rules because they hate dealing with the messes. Unfortunately, the messes where often created (or at least facilitated) by attorney interjection into what are admittedly dysfunctional family dynamics. The answer doesn’t lie in bright lines, it lies in helping parents be good parents and collaborators – that is what kids’ need. Neither attorneys nor “the law” are any good at that.
Lawyers also like rules because the more rules, the more money they make interpreting them.
What remedy would you suggest for a woman whose ex husband repeatedly enters her house without her permission?
KC,
I would suggest she talk with a therapist about the issues that are clearly interfering with her ability to accept her ex as a full partner in raising their children. I am, of course, assuming that this is not about Sanford actually “trespassing” on her property – as in if/when it has nothing to do with their children.
Healthy people are accommodating, show grace and goodwill, and forget the small stuff. They put their chidren before their problems. Rule of thumb: Happy marriages put the spousal relationship first; healthy divorces put the children first. People seem to have a hard time seeing that, in my opinion.
“The law is a framework to guide our actions.” -future law-breaker Mark
Actually, no. We’re dealing with a Court Order, specifically ordering him to not do certain things. One of those things is to stay out of her house. He chose to disregard a Court Order.
Family law isn’t perfect, but no area of the law is perfect. Constitutional law isn’t perfect. Take a look at our 1st Amendment jurisprudence. It’s a messy landscape of cases.
As a practicing family law attorney, I can tell you that Family Court is not the place you go to “solve” your family issues. However, the Court isn’t there to do that. It’s there to pick up the pieces and make the best of a bad situation. It’s certainly no bed of roses.
“Lawyers like rules because they hate dealing with the messes. Unfortunately, the messes where often created (or at least facilitated) by attorney interjection into what are admittedly dysfunctional family dynamics.” – Future Law-Breaker Mark
SIgh. All lawyers do is deal with “messes” – other people’s messes. The law is “messy”. It’s not science. If we liked order, we’d be engineers.
“The answer doesn’t lie in bright lines, it lies in helping parents be good parents and collaborators – that is what kids’ need. Neither attorneys nor “the law” are any good at that.”
It’s not a lawyer’s job to make you a good parent. It’s also not the Judge’s job. That’s not in our job description. That’s the parent’s job. They need to take some personal responsibility for their lives and stop blaming others for their bad decisions.
You know, Bryan, there isn’t a reason in the world I should respond to you if you are going to call me future law-breaker Mark.
Doesn’t matter. The Court order trumps it.
Much ado about a personal situation. He wasn’t robbing the place, he was with his son. How awful!
Just using the courts to exact small doses of revenge for his bad behavior. Hell hath no fury, eh?
Doesn’t matter. Do any of you live in the real world?
Divorces are tough for a reason- because they typically bring out the worst in two people.
When a divorce takes place and is final- there is a court order on visitation. You can’t violate the court order “just because you feel like it.” If you violate the court order, you are going to end up in front of a judge.
As someone who has had 2 friends go through bitter divorces in the last 2 years, there is a reason a court lays out a visit schedule. It’s a very serious matter. It’s not “visit when you feel like it” kind of stuff.
Mark and Doug, you are letting Sanford off way too easily. Doug, aren’t you the law and order guy when it comes to immigration? The court specifically ordered both parties to refrain from entering the others homes except under certain, specific conditions. Sanford violated that. He broke the law, period. No he didn’t kill someone but he DID break the law. Clearly he has a problem with the law. But as I said earlier I don’t see how this changes the dynamics of the congressional race. If you were going to vote for him before this incident you will make excuses for this now, just as Doug and Mark are doing.
Yes, bud, illegal immigration = ignoring a court order to see your son. Same thing.
Which laws have you broken, bud?
He attempted to contact Jenny to get permission to see his son. She was not available (or did she choose not to answer?) He probably called his son and said “do you want me to come over to watch the game with you?” Son says yes, Sanford goes. I can envision all sorts of scenarios that don’t make Sanford look like anything worse than a typical father. What if the son called Sanford and said “Mom’s gone, please come over… I won’t tell her you were here?” What’s he supposed to say, “Uh, no, son.. that would violate court order 1232-3.5” This isn’t about laws its about lawyers.
What’s he supposed to say, “Uh, no, son.. that would violate court order 1232-3.5″
Actually, that’s exactly what you do.
A 14 year old son needs a father figure… I’m guessing the son is probably madder at his mother than his father in this case.
Yes he does. The children are always the innocent ones in a divorce. Maybe Sanford should have thought about that before he broke up his marriage.
Bryan, are you sure it was Mark’s fault? I’m guessing being married to Jenny is no picnic.
Hey, look, we agree.
” I can envision all sorts of scenarios that don’t make Sanford look like anything worse than a typical father.” Doug
Except all those scenarios involve the man willfully disobeying a court order. Is that something typical father’s do? Are we to believe that the only option he had to watch the game with his son was to sneak into Jenny’s home knowing he was breaking the court order? I find that hard to believe.
Bud,
We are talking about family court. If it were a violation of the law, it would have been a police issue (like domestic vjolence or child abuse). What this is most likely is yet another case of two people making myopic choices with a theme of retribution laid on thick. Notice that I never defended his actions. He may have real boundary issues, clearly he has issues… My point was that Jenny was clearly wrong to bring such frivilous, counterproductive and famy splintering junk before the court.
I don’t even want to know the whole dynamic; I just want them to resolve their disagreements quietly and personally. This is about TWO parents needing to act like adults. Now there is just a pissed off 14 year old who is caught in the middle of garbage he shouldn’t have to deal with.
So I guess Court Orders are just meaningless, huh? The Court ordered him not to do something. He did it anyway. Should we just throw the whole Court Order in the trash? Or should we wait for someone to get hurt?
Your last sentence is a non sequitur..
Exactly, Bryan. The Court does not grant these lightly, and in today’s paper there is a discussion about the number of women killed by domestic partners in Richland County. If Mark had been violent towards Jenny, y’all would all be on about law enforcement incompetence!
But he wasn’t.. and there is no evidence of any violence…
It’s amazing how people will take their hatred of Mark Sanford’s politics and blow up a very trivial personal situation with his ex-wife into something else.
It was a father going to watch a football game with his son. Trivial.
It would be more interesting to find out who leaked the sealed court documents. That’s a far bigger “crime”. Maybe it was someone from the Colbert-Busch campaign (since we are playing the “let’s blow things out of proportion” game).
Red herring, Kathryn. I do not believe that anyone has ever even hinted at the possibility of domestic violence with the Sanford’s, although I am sure that Jenny probably went off the rails after his press conferences after his return from his hiking trip.
Domestic violence is very serious. It is not acceptable. Murdering a significant other is simply unfathomable.
But that’s not what we are discussing here. We are talking about how the stupid little stuff gets blown out of proportion and the poor choices people make when things fall apart – and the hothouse environment that divorce litigation fosters to extend and magnify these issues of loss and control and retribution/redemption.
“Mark and Doug, you are letting Sanford off way too easily”
Agreed. I’m a little astonished at how lightly Sanford Republicans treat a clear cut case of trespass.
Why do Ms. Sanford’s property rights not count for these guys? What if it were her, creeping in his house? Would Mark still be blaming both parties?
KC,
I think I have specifically said that I don’t think much of Mark Sanford as a politician. Or as a person. But you will forgive me if I say that nothing that we, the uninvolved public, know about this situation could lead anyone to call it a “clear cut case of trespass.”
As to if it “were her creeping in his house” I would say the same thing; if he leaves a child home alone for some extended period of time I see no reason why she should not respectfully spend time with one of their offspring, even at the child’s “other” home.
How could anyone not blame both parties here, from what little we know? I’m sure the kids do…
It’s a clear cut case of constructive, civil contempt of court.
You would know, right? Being in possession of all the facts and all…
Mark has not publicly said anything to purge the contempt charge. He admits to being there without her permission. Done.
Mark,
They are divorced and there are rules that matter. I feel sure there were rules set up to allow for him to spend time with his son also. We don’t know all the information, but it sure seems like we know enough to know he chose to ignore those rules. Kids do need responsible parents. Wouldn’t the responsible parent thing to do here be to be an active and engaged parent while also abiding by the rules laid out by the court. Yea, it sucks that they are limited by those rules, but it sucks that he screwed up their marriage. His having to abide by these rules are his consequence for his choices. Abiding by the rules doesn’t prevent him from also being a good dad. But that’s just another choice he has to make.
Scout,
Look, I don’t want to be Mark Sanford’s apologist on this blog. While I try to be respectful of most everyone’s comments here, I’ve found yours to be particularly incisive on many topics, so…
Honestly, I can’t quibble with most of what you said. Except I would say this: You wrote “his having to abide by these rules are the consequence for his choices.” Fine, I would guess that he got hit hard for his infidelity on the economics of their divorce. But to extend that retribution to impacting the parent/child relationship? That doesn’t sound healthy for the kids or for either parent. Not to me, anyway. If a child was asking him not to be around, that would be different. That would be a real issue for me. Otherwise, I will maintain that static divorce decrees are incapable of responding to the evolving needs of aging children. I really don’t want to weigh in on the specifics of this particular Super Bowl evening. But in general? I think kids’ deserve more love and less strife. If that is awkward or uncomfortable for either parent, then that just may be their price for having failed as a spouse – though there can be no one-way streets on this.
Thanks Mark,
I appreciate that. I usually appreciate your comments too.
I concede that I don’t have kids and I’ve not been divorced, so maybe I’m missing something. I do care very much about kids though. I generally in most things am going to be on the side of the kids. I certainly don’t want kids penalized purposefully for their parents’ actions. It happens enough incidentally – I see it at school and that is enough. So I’m certainly not arguing in favor of plans that hurt kids.
I get that you are arguing that maintaining the parent-child relationship should be paramount. I very much respect and even agree with that position. I guess what I don’t understand is why you seem to be suggesting that Sanford couldn’t do that and still also respect the court order.
In fact, I do feel like I’m missing something. I’ve read the article and Sanford’s statement. Sanford says things like he explained “the situation that had arisen.” I read comments here that suggest the son called him (do we know this?). Other commenters say things like ‘he needed to be there for his son.’ Was the son having a crisis that I missed? Sanford’s statement suggests to me that he (Sanford) initiated it because he “thought his son should not watch the super bowl alone.” Just wanting to watch the super bowl with your son doesn’t seem like a crisis to me. And the super bowl schedule is well publicized in advance and could have probably been planned for in a way that didn’t break the order. But maybe I really have missed part of the story.
So if I am missing something, I apologize, but from what I understand the facts to be, his actions look like a lack of creativity/ pre-planning, and a blatant disregard for the court order.
I totally take your word for it that family court and divorce are hard on families and kids. But this incident seems to be more a case of Sanford’s self important bad judgement than any hardship brought on specifically by family court – I just don’t see that connection, but like I said I could be missing something.
But given that it looks to me like a case of bad judgement on Sanford’s part, it seemed odd that you seemed to be defending his actions, since we do often agree.
I hope that makes sense.
Scout,
As I said, I really don’t want to be Mark Sanford’s apologist. I really don’t. We have been using his case as the basis for these conversations about this blog entry. As you may have noticed, people have referred generally to their own situation if divorced but haven’t used themselves as examples of specifics. That’s hard to do; there is another party to those situations – another side to every coin as it were. So that isn’t particularly helpful for people looking for concrete examples and situations (hence the stand-in Sanford’s). Then there are other commenters who say “I know someone who…”, and well they might. But that is either talking about something you really don’t know the full story of, or the cover to distort “the truth” to tell a story as one wishes to convey it. Also problematic. Then there are those who say the law is the law and it must be followed! I think all readers of this blog are probably the kind of people who go out of their way to adhere to the law, this is a pretty consciencious group of commenters I’ve found. I don’t think that is what we are discussing though. We seem to be talking more about what should be. A legitimate question is in what ways does our current family court system support families and in what ways does it fail them? Another legitimate question is how and why do divorcing or divorced parents use the court as a bludgeon with regard to the children of their union, and then also why does it either appear or is in fact the case that the other (or also, too, the same) parent cannot or will not follow the divorce decree?
I have taken the position that the basic problem with a divorce decree that involves children is that it is written in the most contentious point in a divorce with the counsel of attorneys who have a vested interest in promoting the adversarial stand-off. I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that the parts of a divorce decree which involve children should be written in the same static form as the division of assets, etc. Children grow, circumstances change, life evolves for the kids and for the ex-spouses. Fixing their lives at the peak point of contention only makes sense from the standpoint of continuing the forced reality of further litigation.
I have asked some successfully divorced people about clauses I know are in my decree and I asked them how they handled those restrictions. Uniformally, they just laughed and said we don’t worry about that legal stuff, we just make it work. So what we have is a system where the reasonable people are the lawbreakers. Does that seem right? Some on this blog would argue that the specificity of the decrees are written, not for the low conflict people, but for those who can’t get along. That makes sense from a certain vantage – if one ignores that the reality is that the highly contentious people now have an antagonistic battlefield to fight over (unless that is the machievellian fee generating plan of the lawyers). Who thinks that promoting parental warfare over children is a good idea? No one when it is presented that way.
We need in Family Court a different model that treats parents and children differently than ex-spouses and recognizes that very real difference. We need to revise our thinking about how families interact as divorced entities tied forever by the bonds of parenthood. We have had the experience of millions of people now, and have seen generations of kids growing up saying that what they got was not what they needed. I have heard attorneys say repeatedly that what we have is finely tuned and the best system there can be. I would reject that viewpoint, as I believe those who have experienced it as well would. The system meets the needs of attorneys. Family Court does not meet the needs of families – or specifically of the children.
I’m not ever content with things just wallowing along. That’s just me; I believe in creative destruction and renewal. This is an area that needs a lot more thought and a lot less strife. If we can cut down on the manufactured strife, that would be a huge step forward for kids.
Doug, if Mrs. Sanford was bent on using the courts for revenge she wouldn’t have given him a chance February. No, the court order is simple, and he should be held in contempt. Repeatedly popping up in anyone’s home without their consent amounts to harassment in my book.
As Doug alluded, Sanford says he was there watching the Super Bowl with one of his sons.
Meanwhile, more relevantly to the rest of us, the national Republican party now says they won’t help Sanford win this race…
Doesn’t matter. He could have been there repairing a leaking roof in a hurricane. He can’t be there unless it’s within the time period he’s agreed to. That’s the way court orders work regardless of what Mark and Doug say.
Quite honestly=- Mark and Doug really couldn’t possibly be more wrong in this discussion.
There is a reason a visit schedule is set up – agreed to by both parties- and ordered by a judge. It’s not a feel good thing for anyone- but it is a court order. Mark can’t violate that because his son wants to see him. That’s why divorces are hell.
And so you advocate perpetuating the hell?
Please explain to me why the interests of the child are not of concern to you – because that was my preliminary read and I’m not sure you really meant that. Barry, you seem kind of impassioned about this (I can get that way, too, on the topic); please explain your perspective on this to keep things clear.
I advocate sticking to the order of the court- not what Mark wants to do when he wants to do it.
Yes, I am passionate about this. I know too many friends that have went through this mess and I know how it works. I have a friend now whose husband doesn’t return their kids at agreed upon(court agreed upon) times- because ” he feels like keeping them longer.” She has almost lost her job over the issue several times because she had to wait on him to return them- and he wouldn’t show up for hours. It’s created a mess for her.
“Bests interests of the child” is a relative term in tough divorce cases. The best thing a parent can do in such deals is to abide by what they have agree to abide by – the court order. Doing anything less only confuses the situation – and ultimately hurts the kids more so than spending a little extra time with them helps.
If every parent in a divorce does what they think iis “best for the child” you have a screwed up system and the kids are only hurt.
Mark violating his agreement only hurts the kids. Getting a few hours to watch a ball game may have seemed fine at the moment- but it’s a terrible idea- and Mark Sanford knows that because when you violate the agreement- you cause more problems.
If he wants to change the order and see his sons more often- or when he wants- go back to court and try to amend the original order so things are laid out plain for everyone. There is no situation where “doing what I want” is good for the kids in these situations.
Where was Jenny, and why had she abandoned the kids? Maybe Mark’s not the bad guy here, just looking out for his son’s welfare while Jenny was out getting her swerve on and twerking, or whatnot.
She probably did what most other parents do in situations like that- have someone stay over with her kids.
As the father of 3, I’ve often called close family friends or grandma to cover over and stay while I have had to be out of town.
It’s really not unusual. Routine stuff for most families.
Doug, all I can say is you’re just a rank hypocrit on the law and order issue. Trespassing is a violation of the law, period. End of story. This one is easy. The family court order very specifically said neither party was to be on the others property without permission. Why defend what was a clear violation of the order and hence the law? Sanford is nothing but a petty criminal. But then again that’s nothing new.
Ok ,bud, you got me. My level of concern over a divorced father going to see his son to watch the Super Bowl should match your outrage over illegal immigrants entering the country, failing to pay taxes, assuming false identities, driving without insurance, etc. They are the same thing.
Wait, you don’t care about the illegal immigrant issue??? You think all those crimes are trivial. – so who’s the hypocrite?
What, Mark doesn’t have a TV?
No, I would assume Jenny would be even more vindictive if Mark had taken his son out of the house.
If it was in contravention of the court order, sure. I am certain that unless Mark has been determined to be a danger to his children, he gets plenty of visitation. He knew that the Super Bowl was going to be on, why didn’t he make arrangements ahead of time to watch with his son?
You do not just show up at your ex-spouse’s house when there is a court order telling you not to. This is serious stuff.
You know, Kathryn, your question makes me wonder. Is the reason he went over to Jenny’s house to see his son because Jenny also put in their decree that he could not have the kids around his paramour – who was at his place?
I’m not condoning anyone’s behavior, but I would question whether their situation is not so completely toxic that none of them can find an avenue to peacefully coexist and instead they end up stepping on one land mine after another – intentionally, stupidly or simply because these are all around and unavoidable to the mother, father and children? That might explain why they all looked so stricken at his primary win celebration – had he invited his sons (a bad idea anyway I would think) and then they all realized Maria had shown up as well? If that’s the case, is that what really has Jenny all wound up about everything? Is it really that he came to her house to watch tv with their son (and possibly that Mark had that evening asked his son about campaigning with him); or is it the optics of the humiliation and rage that she feels about the ways that he has publically displayed his family? It would be very hard not to agree with her about that.
I thought that, too.
He could have gone to a friend’s house with the kid. A hotel, though that would cost money.
The problem with divorce is no matter whose fault it is, the kids get the shaft. Sometimes an absent parent will become more present, though. I had a workaholic friend whose divorce I helped him with. He did not want the divorce, but he admits that he now spends far more attentive time with his children than he ever did when he was married to their mother.
Rationalizing his breaking of a court order isn’t helping your case.
Confusing it with other topics or trying to compare it to other issues is illogical.
He broke the court order. Just because you don’t consider it serious doesn’t mean anything. It’s a court order, one he very well knew about, and violated. He can’t pick and choose which court orders to abide by or break. That’s not the way divorce cases work.
That’s just a word game Doug. I can play too.
On the one hand we have an industrious young man who is trying to feed his family by risking his life to ply his trade as a roofer by seeking work in a foreign country that is a great need of his particular job skills. Having never committed a crime this young man only wants a better life for himself and his family yet is denied by a draconian set of rules that make it impossible for him to work.
On the other hand we have a selfish former governor who seeks office as a means of furthering his ego and impressing his Latin lover. This man has a history of deserting his wife, sons and state in a shocking display of arrogance that was likely illegal but because of the good ole boy brand of politics in South Carolina he was given a pass. But this abandonment of his political office was preceded by an unseemly and illegal act of bringing defecating swine into the capital building which is supposed to be a chamber devoted to the people’s business to be conducted in an orderly and dignified manner. And now we have yet another example of this wayward politician seeking to circumvent the law by willfully violating a court order that expressely mandates that he must not visit the residence without permission from his ex-wife. That makes at least 3 strikes and should be more than enough to disqualify him in the minds of the voters. Apparently it was enough for the NRCC.
What would make this the ultimate in poetic justice is if Sanford wins the race but is ultimately convicted of treaspassing and sentenced to prison. But I guess that would just be too much to ask. But you never know, Mark Sanford is the tea party give that just keeps on giving.
Guys, let’s deep-six the “hypocrite” talk. Let’s be civil.
Brad, I think you mean “hypocrit” talk.
Seriously, bud… you think America is in short supply of roofers? or is it that employers are looking for cheap labor that they don’t have to pay benefits and taxes for?
Okay, so let’s say illegally entering a country is the same as going to your ex-wife’s house to watch a football game with your teenage son against a court order. That’s what you are saying, right? So are both people wrong or both people right? Do you want the laws enforced to prosecute both to the fullest extent as the law requires? Or are you selective in your enforcement ideas based on whether a person is a Republican or Mexican?
How about we deport the illegal immigrant and punish Sanford fully for his crime? Fair deal? I’ll accept that. Sanford will probably get a warning from the judge. That’s about right.
In an earlier post, Brad made the point that when certain people (Brooks and Dionne; Graham and McCain) agree on things, that’s an indicator of sorts for him.
In the Sanford trespassing issue, Kathryn and I agreement. Since she and I don’t usually agree on much, I think that’s somewhat telling. Maybe we can have a term for that.
Just throwing that out there.
Even bud and I occassionally agree. Just not about this.
You’re both lawyers. Maybe that has something to do with it? For the rest of us, we don’t get caught up in the legalities of a family court situation. It’s about whether the “crime” is worthy of tarring and feathering Mark Sanford.
Was Bill Clinton more or less of a cad than Mark Sanford? Luckily, Hillary didn’t bar him from seeing Chelsea except under strict legal provisions.
bud’s a lawyer? I thought he was some retired DOT employee.
You dismiss legalities here, but when it comes to immigrants….
Like I told bud, if you are okay with prosecuting all illegals to the full extent of the law, I will accept doing the same to Mark Sanford. What is the punishment that Sanford can expect? Go ahead and throw the book at him. And then we’ll start deporting illegal immigrants with the same fury!
Agreed?
We do not have nearly enough information to assess the likely penalty for Sanford’s trespass. He clearly had plenty of other options,unlike the immigrants….
I see. The only options available are illegal entry, identity theft, tax evasion, and insurance avoidance. Other than that it’s equivalent to Sanford’s crime.
Mark Sanford “tarred and feathered” himself- many, many times – taking out breaking a court order this year.
And you may be onto something.
If two thoughtful people disagree usually, but agree on something that is also close to their areas of acknowledged expertise, it’s an indicator.
Maybe neither of you is exactly right, but the answer is likely to be in that general vicinity.
Bud and I agree 100% on the Iraq War. So that’s settled as well.
And legalizing drugs and eliminating blue laws. Let’s do both of those and move on.
Intelligent people use indicators like that. This offends a lot of people, and they mistake it for intellectual laziness, but that’s not what it is. It actually indicates perceptiveness.
If, in the process of studying and thinking about lots of complicated issues, you notice that on certain things, certain people arrive at conclusions similar to the ones you arrive at, you’re going to start seeing those people’s positions on related issues as a good sign. If you haven’t had time to fully study the issue yourself, but know they have, then their position is an indicator that that’s a direction you might want to consider.
Deliberative bodies work this way when they work as they should. In a diverse legislative body, for instance, some people are going to be more knowledgeable about certain issues, while others are more knowledgeable about other issues. So you learn, as a member of that body, to rely on the advice of people you’ve come to trust when they tell you something about an issue. This is how support is assembled quickly on an issue, through such trusting relationships. If you know someone knows you and also trust that person not to lead you astray, then their word on an issue will have an impact on the way you lean on that issue. It won’t be the only factor; it might not even be the deciding factor. But it plays a role in the process, particularly in the early stages.
This, by the way, is the way a complex society works. You rely on the people who make your car, trusting that it won’t blow up when you turn the key, but will start reliably and take you where you drive it. You rely on your grocer and your pharmacist not to poison you. It doesn’t mean you’ll enjoy the food or get 100 percent benefit from the drug, but you trust that person’s expertise and good will.
Similar dynamics come into play in the marketplace of ideas.
What we have to do, though, is not go overboard with it. Political parties are an example of that good dynamic gone bad, when individuals completely surrender their thinking to a group. A good rule of thumb is this — if a group is big enough to win elections, it’s too big to have your trust on issues, because it isn’t discriminating. Decide whom you trust one individual at a time, and constantly test your trust of those individuals; don’t just picking Brand X and stick with it.
Here’s the facts as I understand them:
1) Mark Sanford isn’t supposed to go to Jenny Sanford’s residential real estate without permission due to the divorce settlement.
2) Jenny goes out for the evening, leaving Master Bolton Sanford (aged 14) in charge of the house while she was gone.
3) By leaving Bolton in charge, Jenny had conveyed lawful and actual possession of the real property in question to the 14 year old.
4) Bolton, being in possession of the real property, communicated with his father, Mark, and at some point Mark was invited over to watch the “Super Bowl” football game. This constitutes an express “invitation to the property”. If the invitation was not expressed, by opening the door and allowing Mark entry to the premises, Bolton did imply invitation.
5) At some point after said invitation, Mark did attempt to contact Jenny via cellular telephone to confirm her approval of the invitation. He was unable to get in touch with her to gain approval or denial. Being unable to contact Jenny, Mark did rely on Bolton’s invitation to watch a portion of the “Super Bowl”.
6) Mark was later spotted by Jenny while in the act of leaving said property.
7) Bolton, being in lawful possession of the home during Jenny’s absence, is legally allowed to invite ANYONE he wants over to the house to watch the ballgame. This includes Mark Sanford, Connor’s school friends, and the 1976 Cincinnati Reds. In his mother’s absence, his possession of the property allowed him to make the invitation, a standard right of tenancy.
8) The fact that Bolton is a minor does not alter the fact that he was left in possession of the home. By leaving Bolton in lawful possession of the property, Jenny’s decision making authority for inviting guests onto the premises was temporarily transferred to Bolton, until such time as she returned to reestablish physical possession.
9) If Jenny did not trust Connor’s judgment, she had an obligation to hire a babysitter, leaving a more responsible party in possession of said real estate, not 14 year old Bolton.
10) Mark Sanford didn’t do anything wrong and next time Jenny should spring for a babysitter.
I guess we know you aren’t a lawyer…..
…and never will be. But what part did I get wrong?
You didn’t charge us $300 for reading it.
Points 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The whims of 14 year old children do not trump Court Orders.
So if I leave my son Joel home by himeself and he invites a lady of loose morals, let’s call her Lana, over to the house, is she trespassing?
Joel just has to say “WTF?”
It depends. Does Lana look like this?
Not sure if serious.
I’m not a lawyer – but I’d say this reasoning breaks down at the point at which the responsible adult who knows a court order is in place decides that an invitation from a 14 year old is valid, in spite of the court order which explicitly states otherwise.
Brad,
It also depends upon why we turn to certain people as informed and knowledgeable sources.
You say that since Bryan and Kathryn have agreed on this topic that that is of notable merit. I would agree, as attorneys (and one with a divorce practice) I think we would all defer to their knowledge of the law as far more expert than any of ours. But there is another side to the situation. What we have been discussing is the family dynamic angle of this – the human story. I believe anyone who has been married and/or had children (and I hate to say better yet experienced a divorce) also has a valid, knowledgeable viewpoint on this. Let’s face it; no one outside of the Sanford’s, their attorneys, and their judge is in any real position to have actual insight into what this specific situation is about, legally – or about what their degree does and does not permit, allow or condone. But humanisticly a far wider range of people bring valid viewpoints to the table.
I am not an attorney. I am a father. And an ex-husband. And I have gathered far, far more experience with SC family courts (personally and quasi-professionally) than I would ever wish on my worst enemy. In fact, I could say with a high degree of certainty, seven years on, that I will never remarry specifically because of my experiences with the destruction that family court can bring.
I can fully respect the opinions of people who appear to have been aided by the courts, it sounded yesterday as though KC was one of those, but my sympathies lie with those who have found that at a certain point the law simply fails families. People have to be responsible for themselves, their actions and their offspring. Courts can force that when people won’t do so; but the court system can also be counter-productive when people are making efforts to do what is right. It sounds as though this situation with the Sanford’s is exactly the sort of perpetuation of the strife that attorneys do not want to take responsibility for. There are not any easy answers here, as in life. But the more confrontational the system forces things to be, the less beneficial the outcome. Families are not third-party disputes. Families are units. Families are based on love. I don’t think our antagonistic legal system has really found a good way to appreciate and protect that difference.
I also think the Sanford’s are both being incredibly oblivious to the pain that they are (must be) inflicting upon their children.
I think Brad has blocked every single post I’ve made today.
No. I’m just now getting to them…
Sure, Mark, Family Court is a sucky option, but what do you do when one or both parties refuse to grow up? We know, at least, that Mark Sanford has been a scofflaw many times. We do not know what Jenny has done, other than avail herself of the courts. Sometimes you just have to do that. Maybe she didn’t this time, or maybe she did. We simply do not have enough information to judge.
How hard is it, though, to not go on your ex’s property? We know he has seen the boys recently, since they were at his victory celebration. If Jenny had not been abiding by the visitation order, he could have availed himself of legal remedies (actually equitable ones). He does not have the right to go on her property, and his story about how he had to tell her in person by cellphone flashlight is laughable.
Unless you think the rules don’t apply to you…..
I’d want to see my sons every day. And twice on Super Bowl Sunday. And I think they’d want the same thing. And I’m guessing it may be the same in the Sanford family. I’d say it would be in the family’s best interest for Jenny to ENCOURAGE Mark to see his sons as much as possible… even in her home. The best situation would be one where the kids get constant affirmation that what ever issues their parents have, it has nothing to do with them. Especially in this case where there isn’t a shred of evidence of any physical abuse.
Doug,
That is how people think before they get run through the family court system. That’s how they want to think afterward, too, I bet, but most people are left too scarred to recover – let alone be the best parent possible for their child. Divorce is a system that encourages me-first thinking and rewards those who focus their energies on manipulating the system. It pays zero attention to structuring post-divorce functional family dynamics that have the best opportunity to focus first on the children. As you have heard here, the decree (Court Order) is far more precious to the system than the children. And that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
When you get a divorce- cheat on your wife- you don’t get to see your kids every day in most cases.
That’s because – through that process- the other party typically gets treated like HELL – and doesn’t give a darn if you want to see your kids every day or not.
That’s why court’s get to say when you will see your children- and when they will see you. That’s the way it works- for everyone. Mark Sanford isn’t exempt from those rules.
Those are a strange set of perceived laws ya got there, Barry. Really, punish the children directly for the sins of their parent?
Your sentiment may be reflective of how a”wronged” spouse may feel, but it flies in the face of the ideal of what is in the best interest of the child.
No one is talking about the “ideal.” This is divorce 101 when kids are involved.
When someone does what Mark did, the “best interests” of the kids gets put in the hands of a judge. Mark is responsible for that. He knew the deal. He’s relatively smart.
Attorneys never put anything in an order that hasn’t been agreed to by their client or ordered by the judge.
The Family Court judges I dealt with, as a Guardian ad Litem in custody disputes, were, to a one, very concerned with the well being of the children. Some had different ideas than I did, but all were very concerned. The law, in fact, explicitly puts the best interest of the child paramount.
Mistakes happen, and bad lawyers happen, and crazy litigants happen (bing bing bing), and often I saw only one really bad party and another who had been stupid/pathological/well-intentioned enough to marry this person and procreate with this person.
The Family Court is not called upon to adjudicate successful partnerships. If the parties can agree to a reasonable settlement, the Court will approve it. The judges know a lot more and have seen a lot more than the litigants give them credit for. They, and experienced family lawyers, know how bad things can get and try to craft the best outcome for parties who are unable to do so for themselves.
I clearly missed being issued my rose-colored glasses…
I see ways in which the system could be realistically better. I also see other, more empathetic and admittedly less “clean” ways, that the process of divorce could be handled in a less confrontational and acrimonious approach.
No, I do not believe the best interests of the children are placed first; I did not see that personally or as a GAL. What I saw was a system of inertia and expedience – a very patronizing system. That may work for some sectors of the populace, but it is hardly appropriate across the board.
I have never been a litigant in a divorce case, nor do I have children. I don’t have a dog in these fights, but from the many I saw, the court tried to figure out what was best for the children. GAL quality varies widely, and a lot of lawyers overly zealously represent their clients, or fail to manage their clients. That is the system we have, though. I also saw and did a lot of mediation, but quit because it seemed to simply echo the realities outside the room. The powerful and ably represented did well, the weak, not so much.
The Court only judges based on what is put before it. If the parties are dishonest, intentionally or not, the results are less than ideal. GIGO. Kids whose parents cannot work things out are hurt, and I have yet to hear of any solution better than what we have.
Everyone sees ways the process of divorce could be handled better.
But unfortunately, reality- and people that often hate each other don’t often agree on what is “best” or care what you or me, or anyone else thinks about what is fair, realistic, or good for their kids.
Imagine if Mark and Jenny had spent as much time and money on couple’s, family counseling and personal therapists as they had and will continue to spend on lawyers. Probably would have been better for the family as a whole in the long run.
I totally get Jenny’s desire to punish Mark. He deserves it. He was an idiot and a coward when it came to Ms. Chapur. I’m sure it does not feel good for Jenny to see Mark and Chapur together. But whatever anger that results from that should not be used with the kids as pawns. She’s better off without him. Move on and determine how to provide the least destructive environment for the kids as possible.
“Imagine if Mark and Jenny had spent as much time and money on couple’s, family counseling and personal therapists ”
YOu can’t force that- and with the couples I have known- the women begged their husbands to go to counseling- and they weren’t interested.
A friend of mine actually told her husband to pick any counselor- and she’d go with him. He refused. They went through a 3 year- tough a hell -divorce – with young kids involved.
IF he sat foot on her property now when it wasn’t time for his visit, she’d call the police – and she should after what he put her through.
The Sanfords reportedly did spend time in counseling, but Mark reportedly was dishonest during it, continuing to see Chapur, and it takes two to tango in counseling as much as on the Appalachian Trail. We do not know the full extent of what Jenny has put up with. Maybe not much, but maybe a lot. We do not know what the boys want or what would be good for them.
In a divorce, the parties have to divide up the assets, and the time with children. It is generally not easy. It is very hard when one or more is not operating in good faith.
A lack of attention in individual or marital counseling is clearly a stat that ought to be a piece of the divorce background. But there is no weight put to who is being serious and who is just playing games. And that would really be something that would be useful for the court to know… As is, the players just try to guess, and often get played.
It is a broad jump, however, to conclude that because one party isn’t serious about the process, that the other necessarily is. I think that’s where Jenny Sanford has hid out; under the cover of his moral terpitude.
That’s another guess on your part.
We know Mark Sanford cheated. We know what he tried to do. Trying to equate their moral failings is pointless. It only forces you to assume on Jenny’s part. No assumption is necessary on Mark’s part.
Barry,
All of my opinions are my own and have no weight or bearing beyond the expression of an idea for this discussion. This is a blog about ideas, and the free and open thinking about issues. That’s why everyone who reads these blog entries does so – we hear different viewpoints and we like to engage in a wide range of ideas, thoughts, meanderings and misstatements with other people who also like to think about a wide range of topics.
If you want me to say Mark Sanford is one bad dude; fine, Mark Sanford is one bad dude. But we are really just using him as an example to explore the various facets of a very difficult situation – divorce with children for people who are not physical threats to one another. It seems like we all have a wide range of interesting thoughts on this. We aren’t talking about the law per se, because the law is the law.
You can go here if you want to read all about what the SC Code of Laws has to say on every piece of legislation that is in force in the state. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/statmast.php
But if you just want to jaw about thinking openly about issues, this is a pretty good place to do that.
marriage counseling… now there’s something that sounds useful and more than likely a good time for all.
Instead of replying more, I’m just going to give Kathryn my proxy on this thread.
Uh, thanks.
We don’t know the whole picture or even most of it. We do know that Mark violated a court order. A simple black-and-white issue. He has not claimed to have permission or that he wasn’t there. He claims that he had a valid reason. I do not think the Court will see it that way.
I suspect most voters will simply use their pre-existing filters to judge this, and most Sanford voters will still be Sanford voters.
I think most people are pretty certain that there are no such things as black and white issues in divorces – and certainly not simple ones. Not with regard to kids anyway.
Well, yes, there are. Most divorce orders have very specific black-and-white rules, such as pay x on y date, see the children alternate weekends, one specified midweek day, x holidays, and will even specify the exact times and places.
Of course there are plenty of gray areas and the parties should grow up as the children do and work it out. Most do.
Actually- court orders in divorces are very, very black and white. They are very specific- and there is great effort to explain the terms before the final order is issued.
If nothing else, both parties completely understand the orders of the court when a divorce is final.
After all of the legalese back and forth, wouldn’t it be a simple matter to resolve if Jenny had simply asked their son if he had asked Mark to watch the Super Bowl with him? If he did, then why did Jenny take it to the next level by informing her attorney who apparently informed the family court judge who in turn, issued a contempt order against Mark unless it was her intent and understanding of the ramifications of the actions of both parties? I agree with Mark and Doug on this one. Jenny could have let it go if she wanted to and her attorney could have called Mark’s attorney and let them work it out to reach a solution.
I am not a Sanford fan either but it is difficult for me to believe Jenny’s actions were anything but personally and politically motivated. Lest we forget, it was Jenny who guided Mark’s political career and she understands better than most what can break a candidate, especially 3 weeks before the election. Jenny has all but guaranteed Busch will win and at the same time, has most likely ended Sanford’s political ambitions at any level. If Sanford can pull this one out, it will truly be a miracle.
Bart,
Jenny Sanford has alleged Contempt of Court on Mark Sanford’s part. A Family Court judge has not yet weighed in on that claim. At this point, it is just her statement (and his rebuttal). Contempt is when a judge actually agrees that a party has clearly violated the Court Order.
As you said, releasing this info now is just dirty politics. I would prefer not to see Mark Sanford win, but I believe that he ought to have the chance to run on his record – the whole tawdry thing. Unsubstantiated allegations aren’t part of that.
My mistake. Just didn’t follow the story in its entirety. This circus needs to fold its tent and leave town, i.e., South Carolina, and give the citizens of this state some respite from the Sanford Saga.
Your clarification proves what both of us believe, Jenny knew exactly what she was doing and timed it perfectly. Sanford has the sensitivity of a stump but as you say, he should be left to run on his record for what its worth.
She likely didn’t “let it go” because this was not Mark’s first time ignoring a court order.
Ignoring a court order isn’t as simple as you are suggesting. If one party “ignores” the other party violating a court order, that party may lose their rights with regards to the original order.
YOu folks sound almost idealistic in this – like you don’t know how things work in these cases. Wow.
Sorry Barry,
I do know how things work in cases like this one. We also know how things work in the political arena as well. Jenny could have accepted Sanford’s explanation by asking their son and if their son confirmed it, then there was no reason to take action. Unless Jenny constantly allowed Sanford to ignore the court order, then a one time event like the one she complained about wouldn’t have swayed a judge or the courts to deny Jenny her rights with regards to the original order.
She has no obligation or responsibility to accept anything Mark says on face value. She has bad experiences doing that.
” if their son confirmed it, then there was no reason to take action.”
Why is it ok for Sanford to have violated the order if the son confirms his version of events? Is there some clause in the court order that says – as long as the kids agree – party X can bend the rules at will?
Seriously y’all – if the child was suicidal, if the child was really having some sort of emotional crisis and needed a parent with the Mom out of town – it would be a lot easier to entertain the idea of extenuating circumstances here.
But those are not the facts as we know them.
In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, responsible parties should act within the parameters set up for them. We must assume that Sanford has appropriate provided for avenues to spend time with his children and that he did not have to violate the court order in order to spend time with them in the absence of a crisis.
Is this not the situation as far as we know?
He was watching the game at a party at Chad Prosser’s, with his son, but the kid wanted to go home, where it was quieter, according to Sanford. Again, why not either go to Mark’s house or get a room, or accept that the kid will have to choose an option that does not include dad at mom’s house?
Assuming Mark’s version is truthful.
The kid didn’t want to stay at the party. Maybe he would have been fine alone.
I’m with Mark the welfare of the children is often lost in family court. It’s a messy business with no easy solutions. But we should at least start with the proposition that court orders should be obeyed. Mark Sanford should pay at the very least a political price for violating the agreement.
Violation of the law is violation of the law. Agreed. Now, please explain why Gary Studds who admitted to having an affair with an underage page years ago was given a pass in the form of censure in the House but when he went home, he was given two standing ovations by his constituents. This is just an example of the hypocrisy that is so prevalent in politics. At the same time, a Republican was found to be engaging in sex with an underage page but he was defeated in the next election, Studds was re-elected 6 more times.
I could care less about the political affiliation but I do care about a level playing field. You and your liberal friends will find any reason you can to excuse the illegal actions of a fellow liberal or Democrat but will bring down “hellfire and damnation” on a conservative or Republican for doing the same thing.
This latest problem with Sanford would not be particularly concerning if it was the first instance of his flaunting authority. But this is a part of a pattern that the voters should not ignore and it is a legitimate campaign issue. Frankly there is plenty about Sanford’s political philosophy to vote against him regardless of his personal failures. And that is what is so very puzzling. Why, with all the baggage Sanford was saddled with, did the primary voters select him as their standard bearer?
Flouting authority. He flaunted his girlfriend.
I stand corrected.
Can you blame the guy? Look what he had prior to this relationship? That’s like going around flaunting a Casio watch then getting a Rolex.
“Frankly there is plenty about Sanford’s political philosophy to vote against him regardless of his personal failures.”…bud
And that is the entire point. Sally Jenrette had every reason in the world to hate her ex-husband and trash him at every turn. Yet, in a conversation with her before his fall from grace, she refused to do so and if anything, paid him high compliments on his devotion to the constituents in his district.
It is to Busch’s credit that she refuses to talk about Sanford’s personal life in the campaign. That alone will get her more votes than the constant trashing of the man.
Well, this dead horse has no flesh left on the bones – time to move on to another subject and beat it to death.
So, who’s head is going to explode when Mark gets elected?
Mark,
A lot of lawyers write flexibility into the order for down the road. Most will fairly cheaply document any changes both parties agree to and get the judge to quickly sign off. Well-drafted orders/agreements, especially where the parties are basically sane, can account for a lot without modification.
What exactly do you think the courts should be doing differently?
Kathryn,
Since you asked, I guess this would be my modest proposal.
We should have what is basically a divorce Child’s Bill of Rights. This should be a standard custody and visitation agreement adopted by the court. It should be based upon one over-riding principle: The best interests of the Child should come first. This would specifically mean that each parent is given equal standing – and responsibility – as an equal co-parent of the child. Furthermore, it would be an expansive boilerplate document which includes the “best practices” in the determination of the SC Bar. It would include concise language spelling out all of the typical situations which arise, but would also include all the other types of situations which have been seen in SC Family Court (or elsewhere) and might reasonably be considered as a repeatable possibility. It would address things such as cohabitation, remarriage, care by family members, relocation of a parent in state / and out of state (and out of the country), conviction of crimes relevant to the child, incapacitation, etc, etc. There would be limited options for tailoring this documents to specific family issues. Basically, the idea would be that a comprehensive, fair, coherent and flexible agreement could later be challenged by a divorced party; but only if they show good cause why it is not sufficient to them. Judges would also then be better able to restrain one of the parties from attempting to enforce the language in a manipulative or one-sided way.
You may say, well, good attorneys draft such decrees all the time – but you would be wrong (for reasons having to do with the divorcing parents as much as being an issue of competence BETWEEN the attorneys involved). Furthermore, I am arguing for a different perspective entirely. I would advocate that the Child’s Bill of Rights be written not from the perspective of the divorcing spouses, but from the perspective of the child and what that child will need through the age of majority. Now, divorce is a civil litigation and it is grounded in property law. There is hardly anything close to family law in divorce; children are viewed under the law both as chattel and also as avenues of negotiation / litigation during the divorce. I believe that children actually deserve greater standing with the court than either parent. Children should not be chattel in the dissolution of a marriage.
The first constructive step toward divorce should be execution of this document by the divorcing parties. This should occur before the separation agreement. The document should have a preamble and it could go something like this:
“I/We are your child/Children. I/We are the victims of your discord. I/We have a critical need to have you both as active, engaged participants in My/Our lives. This is My/Our agreement for you which lays out My/Our needs during your divorce and for all the years thereafter.
The demise of your marriage is not My/Our fault, it is because of you Mother and you Father. It does not matter to Me/Us who filed for divorce, who feels hurt or betrayed, who may have hurt or betrayed, or any other problems arising from or between you, My/Our parents. I/We will consider each of you equally responsible for your divorce and the dissolution of our family. I/We expect you Mother and you Father to recognize that parents are imperfect and that one or both of you may have engaged in actions that undermined the ability of our family to continue under one roof and under your marriage; and you will not use Me/We as pawns, nor to further retribution, nor as sources of conflict, nor of any other problem or issue not related to My/Our own specific behavior and actions. By executing this Agreement, you both shall recognize, promote and encourage furtherance of My/Our needs and acknowledge that your divorce agreement shall not infringe or restrict this Child Custody & Visitation Agreement.”
You may say that it is impractical to have joint and equal custody. And it may not be. But that should be the starting position of family court, and one parent should have to prove why the other should not receive such standing (and, of course, this would not be in effect if either parent had been convicted of child neglect or endangerment, etc.). Then, I would say that if one party is not living up to their responsibilities under this child-based custody agreement, then the other party may have the option of petitioning the court for modification. Or, the Bar could have a fall-back document in cases where both sides agree upfront that a more one-sided agreement is more appropriate for them. That to me seems far preferable to the current arrangement when the children are treated as bargaining chips during the divorce – when tempers are hottest and posturing takes precedence over care. And what happens now is all that gamesmanship between the divorcing parties (and more than ably abetted by the attorneys) is turned into the bitterness, resentment, and discord that plagues the family’s interactions ever after. To me, removing children from the field of divorce litigation is a self evidently obvious avenue to take to promote more harmonious, child-focused divorces.
While attorneys seem to deny it, what we have now is a system which encourages the divorcing parties to treat the children as chips (even when they don’t have an acrimonious divorce). This has negative implications, both during and after the divorce. It is the thing that wounds parents the most – probably because there is a lot of self-loathing about what becomes brinksmanship exhibits of their failures as parents – so it seems like the parties are then left in a never-ending cycle.
I have read a number of comments just in this blog thread that directly reference this idea that (using Mark Sanford as an example) he got what he deserved for his bad marital behavior and he should not therefore have equal access as a parent to their children. I am sorry. I simply cannot stomach that connection. It doesn’t exist. Children are not pawns. If one party feels the need to get back at the other, let them fight it out over property. We should not continue a system which does not promote the welfare of the children as its highest priority. We need a Family Court system which is a guardian of children’s rights/needs before it is a venue for divorce litigation.
High conflict divorces will always continue. It’s inevitable. But there is absolutely no reason that we as a society should continue to tolerate a process that places the parents before the children. One way of lowering the conflict is to not operate through a system which is guaranteed to increase the level of conflict and resentment as we now do. It just appears self-evident.
You won’t believe me, but there is a standard set-up and a presumption of joint custody, etc. I like your language, but where one or more parties has, um, issues, is that going to make a difference? When one party is manipulative, perhaps because of BPD, say, the kids and anything else the other party holds dear are just chips to be used to get what the manipulator wants. Personality disordered people are very hard to spot in the short run, and very good at getting what they want. Not much can be done about this that I can see. A quality GAL could possibly spot this, but I don’t know how to make sure one is appointed. There is training for GALs, but quality varies, as does perceptiveness, and the cost can be very high ( not that I ever saw any of those high fees.) I was lucky to get $2,000 for a month or more’s worth of unpleasant work. Very unpleasant work.
Kathryn,
It is not my experience that the Family Court places the best interests of the child above or outside of the litigious conflict of the divorcing parents. It is certainly not my experience that divorce attorneys view things in that light. Children are chattel, and pawns in the SC court system with regard to divorces.
It is a very serious structural flaw. It should be in the interest of the State to correct this.
At the same time, I can understand that high-conflict divorces will always make up then most challenging, and trying cases. But I believe all divorces, and certainly with respect to the kids in general, would benefit from a more child-centered approach to dissolving a marriage.
The law explicitly says children first. I saw judges do it. Of course, the squeaky wheel gets attention and in messy divorces, things get messy.
There is tons of case law affirming that the children come first. You have to appeal the trial decision to get there, though, and you or your ex have to be rich or crazy to do that.
Divorce sucks for kids, unless there is abuse in the home. There isn’t much that can be done about that. Even in agreeable divorces, the parents aren’t living with the kids as before. It sucks. You can try to make up for it, but….
And if one or more parents has, um, issues, that sucks double! Those poor kids!
Mark,
I completely agree with everything you say here. I may be one of the ones you are referring to when you say: “I have read a number of comments just in this blog thread that directly reference this idea that (using Mark Sanford as an example) he got what he deserved for his bad marital behavior and he should not therefore have equal access as a parent to their children.”
I just want to clarify – I do agree with you that he shouldn’t be penalized with less access to the children. I meant that the result of his actions necessitate an agreement and I do think it is important to abide by the agreement once worked out. But I’m assuming or hoping that the agreement does provide for equal access to the children. My quibble was not that he shouldn’t have access, but assuming he did have access, yet didn’t abide by the parameters laid out for him.
Or are you saying that you think both parents should have equal access all the time – should have the freedom to show up unannounced any time, like Sanford did? While I can respect this as a philosophical ideal, I see lots of logistical issues dealing with such a system in real life. Perhaps the resulting difficulties are just what people who have taken on the responsibility of having a child should have to deal with?
I find myself cynically thinking that parents who have the maturity to act responsibly towards their children and put their children’s needs first in the divorce arrangements like you describe here might also be more likely to not be the ones who end up divorced. But that probably isn’t totally fair. I understand that things happen and people change.
No, Scout, what you are saying is not cynical; it is the sad truth. But that’s why I am saying that it is important that the Family Court pay more than lip service to the idea that a child’s best interest is paramount and not simply be another forum, and excellerant, for litigation and strife between the parents.
And, no, I’m not talking about manufacturing additional conflict, nor am I suggesting that individuals right to privacy should be over-ridden. I am however, articulating a position which goes more like this: The child has the right to a healthy parent-child relationship with each parent and the child should be able to expect, and the court should therefore demand, that priority should be placed with the idea that the child has a right to have two healthy, positive home environments. Does this mean that a parent may enter the other parents home with the child? I would say perhaps, within limited parameters. What is most important is the child’s comfort, not the parents. Personally, I hated stepping foot in the house that was no longer mine; and I remain nothing but uncomfortable in my ex’s new home. I guess I really cannot stress enough that the more parents try to follow a divorce decree to the letter, the less success they will likely have in avoiding conflict – or at least that is what I have seen with people I know.
And I have seen, across many cases, that the more the parties follow the letter of the order, especially at first, the better. The kids know what to expect, and people who could not get along don’t have to work anything out. They just abide by the rules.
Of course, if one party refuses to, well, then you aren’t abiding by the agreement!