Complicated Child Custody Issues with Wealthy and Famous Parents
Family courts are not in the news every day. But now and again, parents of minor children are wealthy, famous, or both, causing the rulings of a family court judge to garner headlines.
Elon Musk, the triple divorcee parent of an unknown number of children [14 by some estimates, 19 by others], is a good case study. The outspoken pronatalist has made it clear he considers it his civic duty, if not his duty to humanity itself, to spread his seed both far and wide to populate the world with smart folk like him. So it should not be surprising that his progeny have themselves spawned child custody proceedings with some lessons of their own.
Musk v Boucher
One recent example involves Musk's young son "X". You live in a cave if you missed Musk recently parading around the Oval Office with his five year old son on his shoulders. Cute, most of us perhaps thought.
But all the "look at me; I'm a fantastic Dad" grandstanding was performed in apparent violation of Musk's parenting agreement with X's mother, Claire Boucher. According to a recent Sunday NYT front-page story, Boucher shared concerns about her children's overall safety within the glare of maximium media exposure and the sleep deprivation that goes along with such frequent travel.
Family courts are normally open to the public. The fair operation of our courts depend on local, state, and federal proceedings being open and reaspmably accessible. In the case of Musk's children with Boucher, however, the proceedings and court file are closed.
Musk filed in Austin, Texas; Boucher filed in Los Angeles, California. Jurisdiction and venue of the custody case ended up in Austin, Texas where State District Judge Catherine Mauzy approved the custody arrangement of the famous couple's children last August, then promptly sealed the court files. Here is a link to an earlier post profiling this couple and the custody and parenting concerns that arise with rich and famous parents.
The Times article hinted that the custody agreement between Musk and Boucher contained a provision prohibiting either parent from exercising their parenting time in an overtly public manner. For such persons, security is obviously a paramount concern. For example, photos of Musk appearing in the family court in Austin depict him flanked by his private security phaylanx. [See Luigi Mangione and Thomas Matthew Crooks.]
From social media posts, journalists have gleaned that Musk and Boucher -a celebrity in her own right- share a "week-on-week-off" parenting schedule. Normally, such court orders are public and not under seal.
Here in Michigan, for example, our experience has been that family court judges are generally opposed to sealing a file. Sealing a file cuts against the grain of public court proceedings.
The applicable court rule in Michigan states the general rule that a court may not enter an order that seals court records unless all of the following conditions are established:
(a) a party has filed a written motion that identifies the specific interest to be protected,
(b) the court has made a finding of good cause, in writing or on the record, which specifies the grounds for the order, and
(c) there is no less restrictive means to adequately and effectively protect the specific interest asserted.
When a family court is asksed to seal of file in Michigan, the court must consider the interests of the parties, including the safety of a potential victim of domestic violence, and the interests of the public in having full access to the court file.
In the case of Musk and Boucher, the safety concerns are understandible. But then why did Musk grandstand with his child to the extent that he did? Could be a testament to the distorting powers of fame.
One of the suspected custody problems involves Musk's suspected favortism of X, who he has kept at various points of the young lad's life for days, weeks, and months at a time, often without notice to Ms. Boucher. Consequently, the family courts became involved.
In our family law practice, unilateral parenting actions that involve a child's whereabouts for days or weeks on end without notice is a proverbial "red flag" that gets the court's attention that something may be wrong. Safety concerns aside, such junkets are often not in the child's best interests.
St. Clair v Musk
In the case of his son with Boucher, Musk was proud to show the world images of his young son at his side as he conquered the universe. Another more recent example of wealthy parents behaving badly also involves the pronatalist Musk, but takes the opposing tack relative to exposing his parenting conduct to the public.
In this case, Ashley St. Clair, a conservative "influencer" claims that she gave birth to Musk's most recent offspring. Ms. St. Clair has publicly disclosed that Musk offered her fifteen million dollars plus support of $100,000 per month unitl their child, Romulus, reached his 21st birthday. Enticing, to say the least.
Nevertheless, the offer was rejected, prompting St. Clair to file a paternity in New York City. Apparently, since Musk was not present at the birth, paternity needs to be established.
In Michigan, paternity is established several ways. An affidavit of parentage establishes the identify of the legal father; this document is usually presented to the man present at the birth that is identified as the father and is willing to acknowledge this fact with a notarized signature. If the woman giving birth is married, her husband is presumed to be the legal father.
In the New York case, Musk filed an emergency motion to enjoin St. Clair from discussing the details of the case. According to press reports, the stated grounds for the emergency relief is the safety and security of the boy; apparently, Elon knows best. While St. Clair has opposed the motion, the Manhattan family court has not ruled on the matter yet. Again, while the rest of family court litigants have out lives play out in public documents, not so with the rich and famous.
Compare the disparate parental conduct with the two children. Musk cavorts around the While House, media in tow, with his older son X, in apparent violation of a binding child custody agreement or court order designed to protect the child from over exposure and for safety concerns. Then, Musk files paperwork in a Manhattan family court citing safety concerns to protect his putative son Romulus.
Wealthy and powerful people, like the rest of us, can be dysfunctional and difficult; perhaps more so. As a result, they may not make the best partners or parents. Wealthy and powerful people that wind up in family court do not like being told how to parent by a family court judge.
We Can Help
If you are in a disintegrating relationship with minor children and need help divorcing or otherwise separating from the other parent of your children, give us a call to schedule a free consultation. We can advise you about your legal options within family court so that you can regain some stability.
Post #306