602-548-3400
Contact Our Firm:   480-813-4800
623-561-8200
 

 

NBA’s Steve Nash in AZ Child Relocation Dispute with Ex-Wife

Posted by jane.
17 June 2013

NBA Star Challenges Child Relocation to California

NBA’s Steve Nash is challenging his ex-wife’s petition to relocate their three children to California so they can be closer to their father.

Child Relocation Contract in ArizonaIn the 2004-05 season, Nash was named MVP when playing for the Phoenix Suns. But his most recent trip to Maricopa County Superior Court isn’t related to the NBA, at least not directly. It’s what his former spouse, Alejandra Amarilla Menrath, wants to do with his kids that’s drawing him back to the Valley of the Sun.

Nash’s Arizona Divorce

Married in 2005, there was a strain on their relationship long before the divorce petition was filed in Phoenix. A day after his son Matteo’s birth in November 2010, Nash mentioned publicly that he and Menrath had already separated and were pursuing a divorce. In addition to their son, Nash and Menrath have 8-year-old twin daughters, Lola and Bella.

Late in 2011, the couple’s Arizona divorce was finalized. As part of their divorce settlement, they agreed Nash would not be obligated to pay child support. In this case, the absence of child support orders does not mean the pro athlete isn’t providing for his children.

Less than a year after the divorce, Nash announced in July 2012 he was joining the Los Angeles Lakers. After this season, he has two more years under his Lakers contract. The athlete resides at a Manhattan Beach, CA, rental. His permanent residence is still a home in Paradise Valley, AZ.

AZ Relocation of a Minor Child Under Custody Orders

Menrath petitioned the Maricopa County family court to permit her to relocate the couple’s three children to California which, of course, is where their father is living and working.

To relocate the children 100 miles from their current residence or out of state requires a court order, which is why there was a relocation trial in this case. A.R.S. § 25-408. Maybe she wants the children to be closer to their father. Maybe she wants to relocate so she can seek child support orders from the California family court. In either instance, Nash doesn’t want his children moved.

Currently, Nash pays for his children’s private school and is responsible for their health-care insurance (through his employer). By all accounts, the children are doing fine right where they are. Menrath resides in Paradise Valley; Nash’s parents live in Scottsdale part of the year and get to see their grandchildren often.

Menrath already made arrangements for the older children to attend private school in California (to the tune of $25,000 per year for each daughter). Nash would like his kids to attend public school if the Arizona court approves the move.

Ex-Wife Doesn’t Get Child Support Now, But Might in CA

If allowed to relocate the children outside Arizona, Menrath may petition the California family court later to order child support from Nash. He certainly shouldn’t be short of funds.

Steve Nash will continue with the Lakers through the final two years of his contract. He’s a great player and has a handsome contract. This season’s earnings are $8.9 million. Next season, that figure will increase to $9.3 million, followed by $9.7 million in the final season.

Resource:

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/20130529steve-nash-court-hearing-child-support.html

 

Posted in Child Custody | Leave a comment-->

Arizona’s ‘Duckstein’ Case and Undoing Default Divorce Decrees

Posted by jane.
12 June 2013

An Arizona default divorce decree can follow on the heels of consensus between the spouses. It can also be the detrimental consequence of defective service of process on the respondent party. When the default decree results in complete surprise, the respondent may appeal in an attempt to: (a) timely vacate the default decree, or (b) seek to void the decree.

Divorce in Duckstein caseIn a recent Arizona divorce, the husband filed an appeal after the court issued a default divorce decree. Clearly, he wasn’t happy with the results and sought to vacate or void the final decree. Duckstein v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227, 282 P3d 428 (Ariz.App. 2012).

A Little Background:  Default Decrees in Arizona Divorce

What is an Arizona default divorce decree? When there is no responsive pleading to the initial petition for divorce following service on the other party, then the petitioning spouse may file an application for a default divorce decree. The presumption being that if there was an objection to the divorce or to related matters of child custody, parenting time, child support, and so on, then the other spouse would have responded in the time allowed by law.

A default divorce can be the result of agreement between the spouses. Quite often in Arizona, a default divorce results from full agreement between the spouses on every legal issue raised. In those cases, before the petitioning spouse files for divorce the couple works through all the details (such as the division of marital property, child custody and parenting time, and the need for any spousal maintenance). These agreements become, essentially, the petitioner’s objectives and requests for court orders.

When the divorce papers are served on the other party, he or she simply does not respond. Having waited the requisite period with no responsive pleading filed, the petitioning spouse then moves forward with a request for default hearing and decree of divorce.

In our next post, we’ll discuss the results of husband’s appeal in Duckstein v. Wolf (2012) along with the:

● Procedural mistakes made by wife in the divorce; and

● Husband’s failure to timely seek to vacate the default decree.

If you are hoping for a simple default decree in your divorce, be sure to continue reading Part 2 about this unusual Arizona case.

Resource:

http://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/2012/1-ca-cv-11-0534-0.html

 

Posted in Divorce | Tagged , , | Leave a comment-->

2 Ways to Choose Who Gets Marital Property in AZ Divorce Cases

Posted by Scott David Stewart.
07 June 2013

2 Ways to Choose Who Gets Marital Property in AZ Divorce Cases

There is one common thread in all Arizona divorces; the spouses’ marital property will be divided between them. The difficulty is in deciding who should get which community asset. We don’t want to follow Mario Puzo’s mafia advice in The Godfather and “make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

Couple dividing property in AZ divorceInstead, negotiating a property settlement takes concerted effort and patience. When divorce negotiations are at their end, yet disputes over marital assets remain, then those items are subject to division by the court. The divorce decree will make the judge’s property division final.

So “are we gonna’ do this the easy way, or are we gonna’ do this the hard way?”

If the parties decide to divide their marital assets the easy way and maintain control instead of turning disposition over to the family law judge, then a few techniques for making decisions can be very useful.

For marriages of long duration or those in which the spouses acquired substantial assets, the parties may use a few simple games of chance to make a final call on who gets what.

Method 1 – We List, You Divide, I Choose

 

In the first method, both spouses collaborate to list all of their community assets. Then one spouse divides that main list into two smaller lists – A and B.  The other spouse chooses which list he or she wants, A or B. This method is intended to keep both lists equal and balanced. If the lists are unequal in desirability, then the spouse who divided the property is likely to get the short end of the stick when the other spouse chooses the better deal.

Method 2 – Simple Games of Chance

 

Drawing straws, flipping coins, rock-paper-scissors, drawing high (or low) card, and other games of chance are sometimes used in the property settlement game. The winner of a coin toss, for example, can get first pick of similarly valued assets. Assuming both spouses desire the same item and it cannot be divided, such as a valuable painting, the winner who draws high card two-out-of-three times gets to keep the art (with the losing spouse entitled to half the equity in the form of other assets).

Most parties will reach agreement on some basic division of their marital property right away, but there are often lingering issues that need to be resolved. Who will get the marital home? Which spouse gets the collectibles? Who gets to choose first?

Using simple methods like these can sometimes keep the settlement process going (the easy way) while avoiding judicial intervention (the hard way).

Resource:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/business/01real.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Posted in Property Division | Tagged , , | Leave a comment-->

4 Reasons Why Arizonans Should Be Cautious on Facebook – #4

Posted by Scott David Stewart.
03 June 2013

4 Reasons to be Careful: Facebook During Your Case, #4

In our previous discussions, we’ve talked about the impact of social media evidence on cases in the Arizona family law court. But there is another issue that also warrants caution when posting to Facebook, YouTube, Bebo, Twitter, and other websites.

Reason #4: Posting to Social Media Can Undermine the Marriage.

woman exercising caution on FacebookHow can posting to social media websites undermine the marriage? By design, Facebook does everything it can to reconnect people with those in their past. High school sweethearts start communicating online, chatting about how their lives didn’t turn out the way they had hoped. How miserable they are in their current marriage. Or how they never should have broken up when they went away to college.

Then there are those who meet each other for the first time through common interests. People meet people in a virtual world and, sometimes, that online relationship evolves into personal encounters. There are the online dating websites devoted to helping individuals find interesting new people for the purpose of romance. Social media posting can lead to relationship problems in any marriage; the evidence is sometimes referred to as “digital lipstick.”

Here are a few reasons why caution is the better part of online valor:

● Flirting:  Many people enjoy flirting online, and not with a spouse. Online flirting, as innocuous as it may seem in the beginning, can lead a person to daily chatting and to taking the next step – stepping out – in a very short period of time. In other words, it’s just too easy.

● Fiction:  Some people will use Match.com or similar online dating service to create a fictional persona. Needless to say, claiming to be single (when married) and childless (when raising three children) can really cause problems at home.

● Emoticons:  Even posts using seemingly harmless little emoticons can really upset a spouse who catches on. Using emoticons for romantic emphasis only adds insult to injury.

● Suspicion:  When online chats lead to clandestine restaurant meetings or embarrassing photographs of marital indiscretions posted online, deceived spouses really hit the roof. The trust that serves as the foundation of a marriage is eroded. When the erosion is irreparable, a divorce may follow.

Dr. Steven Kimmons, Ph.D., Loyola University Medical Center, stated that as a clinical psychologist and marriage counselor he is “coming across it more and more. One spouse connects online with someone they knew from school. The person is emotionally available and they start communicating through Facebook.”

And that spells Trouble with a capital ‘T’.

Was Facebook evidence used in your divorce or child custody case?

Resource:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148480/Facebook-photos-restaurant-check-ins-THIRD-married-couples-change-status-divorced.html

Posted in Child Support | Tagged , , | Leave a comment-->

Arizona Judge Rules Against Divorce for Pregnant Man

Posted by Scott David Stewart.
02 June 2013

Arizona Judge Rules Against Divorce for Pregnant Man

In our previous post – No AZ Divorce for Transsexual Claimant in Same-Sex Marriage – we provided some important details leading up to the Maricopa County judge’s denial of Thomas Beatie’s request for a divorce.

divorce papers filed by pregnant manIn a recent interview with TMZ, an angry Mr. Beatie (previously known as Ms. Lagondino) insists that this is now a battle between Arizona and all transgender people, saying “[t]his is not Beatie vs. Beatie. This is the State of Arizona versus transgender people, human reproductive rights, and fairness under the law.” (Visit http://definenormal.com/PregnantMan/Home.html for Thomas’ perspective on life, marriage, and more.)

Was There a Lawful Marriage in the First Place?

If Thomas was a transsexual male at the time of the marriage, then at least an argument could be made that the Hawaii marriage was valid as between a man and a woman and, arguably, an Arizona divorce could be granted. Was Thomas a man at the time of the marriage? If the answer is No, then the Hawaii marriage would be void from the beginning.

The Arizona court ruled that Thomas did not carry the burden of proving that he was a transsexual man at the time of the 2003 Hawaii marriage to Nancy. Consequently, there was insufficient proof that the marriage was between a man and a woman. And same-sex marriages are not recognized in Hawaii or in Arizona.

The Maricopa County Superior Court’s Decision.

If the Hawaii marriage is void, then no divorce is possible because there is no marriage contract to dissolve. A judge in Arizona lacks jurisdiction to issue orders terminating a void marriage, or to order spousal maintenance when there is no spouse, or to divide marital property when there was no community. The Maricopa County judge could, and did, exercise jurisdiction over the children, ordering shared legal decision-making custody and requiring Thomas pay $240 per month in child support.

The judge stated that the “decision here is not based on the conclusion that this case involves a same-sex marriage merely because one of the parties is a transsexual male, but instead, the decision is compelled by the fact that the parties failed to prove that [Thomas] was a transsexual male when they were issued their [Hawaii] marriage license.”

Thomas seems sincere in his belief that he is not a woman, self-identifying as a man. “I’m standing (up) for my identity and my ability to have biological children. It doesn’t make me any less of a man… I’m a man, I’m a husband and a father.”  Nancy Beatie was happy with the court’s decision regarding the children, but was disappointed with the ruling on the divorce (she will not receive spousal maintenance or a share of community property because the Hawaii marriage was void).

Sexual identity by state-of-mind or biological fact? How many physical changes need occur before one is transformed into a member of the opposite sex? Does a double mastectomy turn a woman into a man? Would it make a difference if the woman also had a hysterectomy? When does a woman stop being a woman?

Resource:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-transgender-arizonabre93202g-20130402,0,3299669.story

 

Posted in Divorce | Tagged , , | Leave a comment-->

4 Reasons to be Careful: Facebook During Your Case #3

Posted by Scott David Stewart.
27 May 2013

4 Reasons to be Careful: Facebook During Your Case #3

Arizona parents involved in a child custody matter should be doubly careful about what they decide to share about themselves on Facebook and on other social media websites.

Man being cautious on FacebookFrankly, it really doesn’t matter if the divorce or family law case is yet to be filed, is currently pending, or child custody has already been decided. Any online social commentary can result in the court’s revisiting legal decision-making custody and parenting time if the other parent requests a custody modification.

Reason #3: Don’t Post Evidence that Shows You’re Not a Good Parent.

Arizona divorce attorneys know all too well that people post all kinds of information that can get them into hot water later on. Once the details are out there in cyberspace, wiping the slate clean is extremely difficult if not impossible to accomplish.

Anyone seeking child custody or parenting time should know that posting images, videos, and running commentary to any social media website can be disastrous to your family law case. It all depends upon the content of the post.

Here are a few examples of what not to do when custody and parenting time are an issue in the case:

● Irresponsible:  The parent is observed partying with the babysitter, revealing poor decision-making abilities.

● Poor Supervision:  Images are posted online showing the parent drinking and smoking while caring for the children, revealing poor parenting skills and lack of supervision.

● Negligent:  The parent is observed serving alcohol to minors, revealing questionable behavior and poor decision-making. (For an example of a teenager’s tweets about drinking with “my mama,” take a look at http://socialmediablawg.blogs.law.pace.edu/2013/03/28/illinois-appellate-court-rules-teens-twitter-posts-not-relevant-in-child-custody-hearings/)

● Emotional Problem:  The parent insists that anger management counseling is unnecessary because he or she doesn’t have a problem, then posts violent or threatening messages on Facebook revealing the opposite is true.

● Not Parenting:  The parent is caught spending parenting time playing video games such as World of Warcraft  for hours at a time, revealing a failure to properly supervise the children.

● Substance Abuse:   The parent vociferously denies pot-smoking or alcohol-drinking but pictures on Facebook exhibit the parent doing both, revealing substance abuse issues.

● Parental Alienation:  The parent denies any acts that might alienate the other parent from the child, but routinely posts disparaging commentary aimed at the other parent.

Don’t fall into the trap of believing that once legal decision-making custody and parenting time is decided, you’re free to say all the nasty things you’ve been wanting to say about your ex. Big mistake! If your child shouldn’t see it, don’t post it. And always be mindful that what you post could end up as evidence against you in family court sometime in the future.

For Reason #4 as to why Arizona spouses should be cautious about posting personal information on Facebook, read our next article in the series.

Posted in Child Support | Tagged , , | Leave a comment-->

4 Reasons Why Arizonans Should Be Cautious on Facebook – #2

Posted by Scott David Stewart.
15 May 2013

4 Reasons to be Careful: Facebook During Your Case #2

Man considering risks of using social media during family law caseIn our previous post on the four reasons why Arizona spouses should be very cautious about posting to social media websites (particularly Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter), we talked about repercussions in child support cases wherein the parent is noncompliant, but is shown with sufficient financial resources to make the payments.

Today, we’ll cover the second reason for showing restraint with Facebook and social media.

Reason #2:  Divorce and Facebook Do Not Mix.

Always be mindful that Facebook may be a valuable source of relevant evidence that is admissible in any Arizona divorce. As with all evidence in family court, information can be persuasive in a positive way or it can be persuasive in a damaging way.

Knowing that images, discussions, and comments posted to social media websites can be used against you in your divorce, always stop and think before you post. What can online evidence be used to prove? For example:

● Cheater:  Messages from a spouse to or about a lover, revealing an adulterous relationship.

● Waste:  Pictures of the spouse gambling, partying, or spending money on an extramarital affair, revealing marital waste. (Spending community funds on activities that undermine the marriage.)

● Liar:  Social media evidence contradicts other statements made by the spouse, diminishing credibility and revealing a lack of veracity.

● Secrets:  Pictures of a spouse with property that was not disclosed in the divorce, revealing hidden assets.

● Finances:  Images of a spouse with luxury items and living an extravagant lifestyle, revealing ability to pay spousal maintenance.

● Friending:  Restricting your posts to a few “friends” doesn’t ensure that news won’t get out to your spouse’s attorney, revealing who your friends really are.

Furthermore, sharing information online about the divorce could also result in sharing details with the other spouse, revealing divorce strategy. Be prudent and refrain from commenting about a pending divorce, the other party, the attorneys, or the judge.

In fact, in a recent highly contested Georgia divorce with minor children, communications between the spouses spilled recklessly into their social networking sites. The family court judge ordered the spouses to cease communicating with each other via Facebook. Despite the husband’s appeal on First Amendment free speech grounds, the judge’s order was upheld.

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleCT.jsp?id=1202593936203&Panel_Facebook_offlimits_in_divorce&slreturn=20130307145633

For Reason #3 on why Arizona parents should exercise caution when posting information to social media, be sure to read the next article in this four-part series.

Resource:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/02/5-rules-for-social-media-use-during-divorce.html

 

Posted in Child Support | Leave a comment-->

4 Reasons to be Careful: Facebook During Your Case #1

Posted by Scott David Stewart.
12 May 2013

4 Reasons to be Careful: Facebook During Your Case #1

If you are an Arizona parent, then you need to know the four reasons why you should be very cautious about what you post to Facebook and to every other social media website.

Here’s the first reason why discretion is best:

Reason #1:  Mr. Robinson’s Excellent Example of What Not to Do.

Man wonders how to be cautious on Facebook Christopher Robinson of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, did everything he could to make it easy for his ex, the mother of his three-year-old, to gather Facebook evidence showing he had the resources to pay his child support obligation.

The 23-year-old Robinson posted a picture of himself with bottles of liquor and a pile of real cash. Presumably his cash. This father’s need to be seen with money may have led to his undoing. Someone, perhaps a family member or friend of the mother, shared the Facebook information with the district attorney. Shortly thereafter, a court order defeated Mr. Robinson’s Facebook privacy settings.

Kent Lovern, Milwaukee County’s Chief Deputy DA, said what most prosecutors are thinking about the wonders of Facebook as a repository of information:  “It’s a great investigative tool for us because it gives us a glimpse into [the] real lives that our targets may be living.” What is law enforcement looking for with delinquent child support cases?

When someone claims to not have the resources to pay child support (hard times and all), and subsequently posts a picture of themselves online with liquor and lots of cash, that Facebook evidence can lead to charges of intentional non-payment of child support.

The Milwaukee prosecutor’s target, Robinson, is a deadbeat dad who failed to pay child support for three years. He had been ordered to pay $150 per month ($5 dollars a day), a minimal amount given the cash he was pictured rolling around on in his Facebook post. Robinson has been charged with felony failure to support his child.

Felony failure to pay child support isn’t unique to Wisconsin. In Arizona, willful non-payment of child support can result in felony charges as well (“[A]ny parent of a minor child who knowingly fails to furnish reasonable support for the parent’s child is guilty of a class 6 felony.” A.R.S. §25-511.)

For Reason #2 as to why Arizona spouses should be very cautious about posting to social media websites like Facebook, read our next article in this series.

Resource:  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/03/facebook-money-pics-bust-dad-for-allegedly-dodging-child-support/

Posted in Child Support | Tagged , , | Leave a comment-->

International Child Abduction: Chafin v. Chafin

Posted by Scott David Stewart.
30 April 2013

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after Chafin

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided the international child custody case of Chafin v. Chafin which involved a U.S. citizen dad, a Scottish mother, and the Hague Convention.

We brought this case to your attention last September in Father Appeals U.S. v. Scotland Child Custody to Supremes. On February 19, 2013, the High Court decided the case in favor of the father, a U.S. Army Sergeant.

Supreme Court Decision

Court Decides on Chafin v Chafin Child Abduction CaseThe father in this case, Jeffrey Chafin, married a Scottish national named Lynne Hales in 2006 while he was overseas. Their only child, daughter Eris, was born in 2007. When the father was deployed to Afghanistan, mother and daughter left for Scotland where they remained for years.

In 2010, with the father stationed in Alabama, the mother traveled to him with the child on a temporary visa. Shortly thereafter, the father filed for divorce and child custody in Alabama. The mother was deported to Scotland in February 2011. Her daughter, however, remained in the U.S. with her dad.

In May 2011, the mother filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the Hague Convention and International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) – she asked that her daughter be returned to Scotland. The District Court determined that the child’s country of habitual residence was Scotland, not the U.S., and granted return of the child to her mother.

With both child and mother in Scotland (where the mother was granted interim child custody and a preliminary injunction against the father) the Army sergeant appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In February 2012, his appeal was dismissed as moot because the child was already in Scotland. According to the appellate court, once the child has been returned to a foreign country the U.S. court is powerless to grant further relief.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with the appellate court’s decision and reversed it. A district court’s order to return the child to Scotland pursuant to the Hague Convention did not render the father’s appeal of that order moot simply because the deed was already done.

The parties’ case was not moot because:

● There remains a live case or controversy between the parents about where their child should be raised. That the child has been returned to Scotland neither ends the dispute nor renders it a mere hypothetical question.

● U.S. courts retain personal jurisdiction over the mother and may order her to take certain actions or face sanctions for noncompliance even though she is outside the U.S. Arguably, the mother may ultimately reject our court’s orders. Arguably, Scotland may choose to ignore our court’s orders. Both possibilities render enforcement of the U.S. court’s demands an uncertainty. But these argue the merits of the case and do not render the father’s appeal moot. He may still seek reversal of the district court’s decision and an order for the re-return of his daughter from Scotland.

The High Court’s holding was in keeping with at least two Hague Convention purposes:  First, the need to return children to their country of habitual residence as quickly as possible. Second, the need to prevent parents from fleeing one country’s jurisdiction for a more favorable forum elsewhere.

Resource:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1347_m648.pdf

Posted in Child Custody | Tagged , , | Leave a comment-->

Paternity Suit Against Michael Jordan for Child Born in 1996

Posted by Scott David Stewart.
28 April 2013

Paternity Suit Against Michael Jordan for Child Born in 1996

A paternity suit against Michael Jordan will be determined by a judge.A surprise paternity action has been filed against Michael Jordan in a Georgia county court. As with Arizona, if DNA testing proves he is the child’s biological father, Jordan will have new responsibilities in addition to those he’ll assume in April when he marries fiancé Yvette Prieto.

The Jordans’ Troubled Marriage, Reconciliation, Amicable Divorce

Juanita Vanoy married Michael Jordan (now 50) in 1989. Not more than six years into the marriage, the pro-athlete became romantically involved with a “Ms. Smith” who became pregnant in 1995.

In January 2002, Vanoy and Jordan had a pending divorce action, but like many couples, they decided to give their marriage another chance and reconciled. Four years later, unable to resolve their marital differences, dissolution papers were again filed with a final divorce decree issued in late December 2006. The divorce was said to be amicable and Vanoy is managing the $168 million she received in the settlement.

2013 Paternity Action

Her full name is Pamela Y. Smith and in 1996 she gave birth to a son – Grant “Taj” Pierce Jay Reynolds – who is now 16 years old. On February 6, 2013, Smith filed her paternity establishment lawsuit in Fulton County, Georgia, claiming Jordan is Taj’s biological father and DNA testing will prove it. In her pleadings, the 44-year-old Smith asks for child support, shared medical-dental-hospital expenses for her son, primary custody, and a legal name change for her child to “Jordan.”

There have been reports that Taj was the motivating force behind his mother’s paternity action against the former NBA shooting guard. The lawsuit could be more about having a father play a greater role in a son’s life than about collecting child support. (Although addressing the issue of child support will follow any establishment of paternity.) If Jordan is Taj’s biological father, then His Airness will have child custody rights as well as an obligation to support his minor son.

Apparently Smith and Jordan have remained on reasonably good terms over the years. But Taj is a teenager now; he’s mature enough to think for himself and express his desires – he doesn’t want to keep his alleged celebrity dad a secret any longer. On Christmas Day 2012, Taj posted a YouTube video claiming to be “Taj Jordan (Michael Jordan’s Secret Son).” According to April Love (Smith’s publicist), once the news was out on YouTube, “Pamela had no choice but to support her son and his desire to forge a relationship with his father.”

2003 Failed Paternity Test, No Child Support or Custody

This isn’t the first time Air Jordan has been at the center of a paternity action. In 1991, Karla Knafel also had a romantic relationship with the married basketball star.

When Knafel became pregnant, she sued Jordan claiming he promised to pay her $5 million to keep their relationship and her pregnancy a secret, but that he only paid up $250,000. Knafel’s paternity action against Jordan fell apart in 2003 when the DNA test proved that he was not her child’s biological father. In July 2006, she also lost her $5 million claim against Jordan in a Cook County, Illinois, court.

Source:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2013/03/01/michael-jordan-atlanta-paternity-suit/1958215/

Posted in Child Support | Tagged , , | Leave a comment-->