For a reason I won't go into here [ask me in private], today my memory flashed back to the California Appellate Court case of In re Marriage of Abrams, from 2003.
The case discusses settlement abuses in Family Law cases. In particular, a man was sanctioned for using improper tactics in making an offer to his ex-wife. The tactic? He offered to trade a child custody issue for a valuable piece of personal property that had been awarded to his wife in the divorce years earlier and end child support if she remarried, among other things. Although the offer contained other one-sided provisions, these were the two on which the court of appeal focused.
Long after the parties divorced, Mrs. Noble wanted to move away with the parties' minor child - that usually requires a court order, after hearings, reports and investigations. Her ex-husband decided this was his time to get even over china and silverware that his wife had been awarded when they divorced, and get other advantages - the house wares had been a gift to them during the marriage. He made a overwhelmingly disproportionate offer to his wife, including an agreement she could move with the child, if she gave him the property and some other concessions.
While the court discussed the one-sided offer, it focused on two things he included that had nothing to do with custody: A provision that his child support would end if his ex-wife remarried, and that he would get the china and silverware. Citing Family Code Section 271, which provides for sanctions for misconduct, the court stated:
We fail to see how father reasonably thought that mother's impending remarriage should relieve him of his responsibility for supporting his own children, or how his desire to obtain the china and silverware had anything to do with the custody issue at hand. Accordingly, the court's determination that the settlement offer was overreaching and therefore violated the policy in favor of settlement is supported by ample evidence.
In the end, the matter was sent back to the trial judge to review the original decision in light of the court's opinion, but its dissatisfaction with the husband was clear.
