Monday, July 2, 2012

My newest new obsession

I'll admit it. I'm a little obsessed. With the TomKat thing. I mean, come on. Aren't you? At least a little bit? It was such a bizarre marriage that made no sense. And it started with the implosion of one of the world's biggest movie stars. And then there was that crazy culty-religious aspect of it. And I kept watching for Pacey to show up and cure Joey of her childhood crush... Oh, wait. (I did always prefer Pacey, btw. Cheered when he and Joey hooked up, even if it hurt Dawson.)

I've always been a little more interested in cults than most people, so I've looked into Scientology a bit before. I've previously read the big New Yorker article about Paul Haggis' departure. I was familiar with the Sea Org stuff and the church's control of every member's money and the Lisa McPherson story. But I've gone a bit overboard in the past few days reading stuff at the Village Voice (which has done a series of articles about Scientology). Then there's TMZ and E!Online and Radaronline. And now my new favorite website, a gossip compendium if you will, Celebitchy.

Naturally, the lawyer nerd in me is coming out when it comes to considering the divorce issues. Ooh, she filed in New York. What does that mean? The one semester I took of family law 12 years ago isn't really doing me a lot of good right now. I suspect she's ok filing in New York, especially since I have a hard time imagining that her big, high-powered divorce attorneys would let her file somewhere she can't actually file.

I don't know (or don't remember) much about how religion can play into custodial disputes. I'm pretty well-versed in some First Amendment issues re: religion, but I don't know what courts really do when the fight between the two parents is which religion will win out. There are potential 1st Amend issues if a court overtly says, "Your religion is kooky, so you lose legal custody of your kid." But there has to be some leeway for considering potential harm to a child. And you've got to believe that if Tom and Katie really can't get along making a judge think that granting sole legal custody really is the best way to go, Tom's kooky religion has to make him look like the less appealing choice.

One thing I have seen is lots of speculation that Tom isn't really Suri's biological child followed by the idea that that will give Katie the upper hand in a custody battle. Or even that she can cut Tom out on that basis. This, I definitely remember from family law. At this point in Suri's life, it matters not one bit if Tom is her biological father. He is her legal father (barring some other thing we don't know). He can't get cut out of custody and visitation. And he can't get out of paying child support.

So, yeah, this what I have been spending my time on the past few days. 'Cause I'm awesome.

1 comment:

BellsforStacy said...

I'm more the conspiracy theorist on this one.

6-7 years ago, Tom Cruise's career was tanking and he was seen as a kook. Katie Holmes had just been in Batman Begins and was hot hot hot. He stalks her, propositions her. Begs her to hang out with him. Then they come up with a plan to where something something something they get married right around the time his new movie is coming out (MI4) and he gets all this publicity and yeah for them. But she, being skeptical, has an agreement that they only stay married for 5 years. And I sort of think it's possible that Suri isn't Tom's. But I think he agreed to let her have sole custody. So if she gets it ... that'll be why.

If it's not all that, if it's normal normal but scientology wackos stalking her kid is why she's opting out ... than it would make sense why she asked folks to photograph the wierd men watching her house today? last night? because she'll use it for the judge.

Blog Designed by : NW Designs