Patti's Comments: I think this case would be treated differently if she was independently wealthy and not on governmental assistance to begin with.
Excerpt from The Probate Lawyer Blog: (click for entire article)
It's the Octomom vs. celebrity attorney Gloria Allred! Battling in the California Court of Appeals over the rights of a stranger to intercede to protect children whom he's never met, just because they're on TV. Well, and because there are 8 babies, plus 6 other kids, and a mom with no husband and no job.
While Octomom Nadya Suleman has captured the interest of the nation for the mind-blowing number of children she's given birth to in the last few years, her court case has peaked the interest of guardianship attorneys across the country. Why? Because it addresses a unique question: To what lengths should the law allow court intervention to protect children . . . should a complete stranger be able to haul a parent into court?
A few months after Suleman gave birth to her now famous (or infamous) octuplets in January, 2009, a self-proclaimed champion of celebrity children filed a guardianship proceeding seeking to protect the kids. He asked for an independent guardian to be appointed to oversee the children's finances. He wanted to make sure they received their fair share of any profits Suleman earns from reality shows and other money from footage and photographs of the family that redefines the phrase "Eight Is Enough!".
Paul Petersen, represented by celebrity California attorney Gloria Allred, filed the legal proceeding under California's law allowing even non-family members to seek protection for the estates of children. Specifically, the law permits a guardianship filing by "a relative or other person on behalf of the minor" to protect the financial interests of the kids.
So what does "other person on behalf of the minor" (or in this case, eight little minors) mean? Does this include a total stranger, who's never met the kids? We're not talking about a government employee whose job it is to protect kids. This is just a guy who feels like be helpful . . . or nosy (depending on whom you ask).
The first court that heard the case sided with Petersen and ruled that he could challenge Suleman's fitness to manage her kids' money. The judge denied Suleman's request to dismiss the case and instead appointed a guardian at litem to investigate and report back to the court.
Suleman filed an appeal. Her attorneys argued to the Court of Appeals that a stranger shouldn't be permitted to bring a legal proceeding like this one. Octomom's legal counsel also argued that it was especially improper when the stranger had no evidence of wrongdoing, but instead relied on TV reports and internet articles.
The California Court of Appeals agreed with Suleman, in a published opinion released a few days ago. You can read the opinion by downloading it here: Download Suleman Ct of Appeals Opinion.
Recent Comments