“Ever since I was born, Daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine. And I just wanted to say I love him so much,”  – Paris Katherine Jackson, ll year old daughter of Michael Jackson.

Get ready for the custody fight now for Paris and her two brothers, Prince Michael, 12, and Prince Michael II, seven, also known as “Blanket”.

The children are in the temporary custody of Katherine Jackson, Michael’s mother, who is 79 years old, as requested in Michael’s Will.

However, Debbie Rowe, the biological mother of the two oldest children, says she intends to seek custody of all three children.  She gave up her parental rights to the children in her divorce from Michael Jackson in 2003, in which she received $8.5 million dollars as a settlement.  Jakson’s Will left nothing to Rowe, but if she does get custody, she would be guardian of the children’s inheritance while they are minors.

“By the time a man realizes that maybe his father was right, he usually has a son who thinks he’s wrong.”

Charles Wadsworth

Eathan is a divorced father of two boys who is thinking outside of the box when it comes to alternating holidays.  He says in his blog that he tried the every other year for holidays and it’s no fun.  There are travel arrangements, scheduling conflicts and plans that don’t work.  You have to coordinate the weeks events around the dreadful kid-swap.

So, Eathan says, he decided to let his boys stay with their mom for the holidays.  “They get to spend the day with grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins.  They get to eat Grandma’s stuffing and pies.  They can take their time and relax.  Problem solved.”

Then Eathan takes his sons on other holidays and special vacations.  He went to Disney World one year and took them on a father/son camping trip. “ Both of those trips are still talked about every year.  They are burned in their memory.  The one thing they can’t remember is Thanksgiving at Grandma’s last year.  It’s just a normal event, but the trips with dad are memorable.”

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. – Wickipedia.com

Maybe it is the stress of the holidays, but I’ve received two ad hominems this week, one against me and one against a client of mine, from opposing counsel who ought to know better.

The first accuses me of asserting a right without any legal basis and the writer says “as I have come to see your conduct, it does not surprise me.”

The second says “Frankly, it is puzzling that [your client] would fight for custody in light of his apparent disinterest in taking parental responsibility.”

Now you have to be fairly thick-skinned to be a divorce lawyer, and litigation is pretty rough and tumble in the heat of battle, so I don’t lose a lot of sleep over things like this.  But there is a Code of Civility in both jurisdictions where I practice, that says lawyers should treat opposing counsel and opposing parties with respect and courtesy.

Both of these ad hominems are unnecessary attempts to say “Shame on you.”  If anything they are counterproductive because they only cause the recipient to dig in their heels and redouble their efforts to prove them wrong.  So think twice before you hit the send button, reread your letter, and make sure it contains only those matters which move the case forward.

And for those who celebrate Christmas, remember that Santa is watching.