Thursday, May 04, 2006

Family Law

My family law professor has no practice exams available for his test tomorrow. Luckily, an episode of Maury Povich is on today that I was able to practice my custody law knowledge on. This epidode featured Georgetta, a single mother, who was returning to Maury for the 12th time to determine who the father of her children are.

Here is the fact pattern and my analysis.

Georgetta comes out to the crowd booing her. She wags her finger at them and says, “You don’t know me. I do what I want.” Several male audience members scowl and wave as though to shoo her away.


Georgetta is, in fact, right. Without a showing of evidence to the contrary she has a presumptive right to custody until we can identify the father who might challenge her claim.

Earl, one of the prospective fathers, denies parentage and declares Georgetta to be a “hood rat”.

Experts are often heard by a judge but rarely considered heavily. In considering custody, Georgetta’s financial condition, “hood,” may be weighed, but her moral behavior, “rat” is irrelevant unless it effects the child.

Maury announces that the DNA test proves that Earl is not the father. Earl pumps his fist in the air and says of the results, “That’s what I’m talking about.” Georgetta runs offstage crying.

With neither a biological basis nor intent to be a father, Earl has no claims for custody. Evidence of Georgetta’s hysterics, if found unreasonable under the circumstances, may show that her custody claim is not in the best interests of the child. That claim is only relevant, of course, if a valid competing paternal claim is proven on next week’s show.