Involuntary Abortion

Hi there,

A really shocking guardianship case was overturned by the Appeals Court last week.  This kind of sad family problem can come up in divorce cases more frequently than in the general population  because parents with disabled children are statistically more likely to divorce.  My very able colleagues, Lisa Cukier and Tiffany Howard, kindly agreed to write a post for me on it.  Read below and be amazed at what the courts can do...

A recent Appeals Court decision has the community buzzing about what laws are in place to protect a disabled adult’s right to make fundamental decisions for herself and under what circumstances a Court may override those decisions.

As described in this Boston Globe article, “Mary Moe” is a thirty-two year old pregnant woman who suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.  This pregnancy is Moe’s third, with one prior pregnancy having ended in abortion and another having produced a son who is in the custody of Moe’s parents.  Despite conclusive medical evidence to the contrary, Moe has denied her current pregnancy and refused obstetric care.  The Department of Mental Health (“DMH”) filed a Guardianship Petition seeking the appointment of Moe’s parents to act on her behalf for purposes of consenting to an abortion.  It was clear that Moe lacked mental capacity to either refuse or give informed consent to an abortion.

Continue Reading...
Tags:

Terrific Thoughts on Lawyering

Hi there,

I should have put up a post on Martin Luther King Day, but I didn't.  Then this morning Tax Girl had a truly wonderful post about being a lawyer, and Dr. King.  I am simply linking to this because it epitomizes for me (and I am sure for many of us) what being a lawyer is about, both good and bad.

Best,

Nancy

Divorce Valuation Rules Reaffirmed

Hi there,

Today the Massachusetts Appeals Court (the second highest court in the state) overturned a divorce judgment in the Caveney case dealing with valuation of interests in closely held businesses.  In the process they clarified the standard to be used for divorce purposes in valuations.

Before the Bernier case in 2007, valuations of closely held businesses applied "Fair Market Value," which is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller.  The experts would then apply discounts which reduced the value, first for lack of marketability.  If the business interest was a minority interest, they would apply a discount for lack of control.  These two discounts can and did make an enormous difference in the values applied.  Post Bernier, most experts use (or at least discuss) using "Fair Value," which generally means no discounts for marketability or lack of control.

In Bernier, the divorcing couple owned supermarkets on Martha's Vineyard.  These markets were not for sale.  The judge -- a very capable judge (disclaimer here, she once was a partner of mine) -- not unreasonably applied discounts.  The wife appealed and the Appeals Court held that the discounts should not be applied.  The Bernier decision had been read more narrowly; this decision eliminates that argument.  This case, and in circumstances where a sale of the asset is not contemplated, makes it clear that Fair Value is the standard to be applied.

Best,

Nancy