Hollywood has been stunned by the sudden split of one its golden couples, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.  It was announced in September that the couple is divorcing after a lengthy and high profile relationship spanning more than ten years.   They share six children together – 3 of whom are adopted – and they have a vast estate that includes a Chateau in the South of France with a working winery.  However, unlike many high profile splits, it is not the asset division that has become the biggest source of contention in this saga, but rather custody and visitation rights over their six children.

In a twist that would rival any Hollywood script, it was revealed shortly after Jolie’s divorce filing that the L.A. Department of Child and Family Services (“DCFS”) was investigating Pitt for becoming physically confrontational with the couple’s oldest son Maddox on an international flight aboard a private plane.  As a result, it has been widely reported that Pitt’s initial reintroduction and visitation with his children has been supervised by a third party based on temporary recommendation from DCFS.

Supervised visits are generally imposed by Courts in Georgia when there is a potential risk of an unsafe and/or unhealthy environment for the children involved.    This tool is also used when an investigation is being made into allegations of abuse or inappropriate behavior.  Until the investigation is complete and a determination can be made regarding the validity of the allegations, a judge may impose supervised visitation out of an abundance of caution.  This ensures the protection of the children if the allegations are later validated, but also ensures continuing contact between the children and that particular parent.  This is likely what is occurring in Pitt’s case, as it has been reported that all parties are awaiting the results of the DFCS investigation before moving forward with a more permanent visitation schedule.

Supervised visitation services in Georgia generally come at a steep price.  They generally run at about $50 per hour, plus an added fee for the supervisor to prepare a written report at the conclusion of the visit.  In addition to the cost, both parents must fill out forms in advance of the visits and follow-strict guidelines during the visit. However, despite the cost and strict guidelines, supervision services often place a particular emphasis on keeping the visits as natural as possible for the child.  The following provides more detailed information for supervised visitation services offered in Georgia and other states:  http://www.svnetwork.net/.  Thankfully for Pitt, he can easily afford any cost associated with supervised visits with his children, though the affordability probably doesn’t ease the sting of the negative stigma.

The marriage of Johnny Depp to Amber Heard is coming to a bitter and very public end.  The Pirates of the Caribbean star reportedly first met the lesser known actress on the set of their movie “The Rum Diary” in 2009.  The pair married in 2015, and Heard filed for divorce just 15 short months later.  Less than a week after filing her divorce petition,  Heard personally appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court, along with her attorney, and filed a request for a temporary restraining Order against Depp for the purpose of protecting her safety.

Heard alleged in her Restraining Order Petition that Depp threw her cellphone at her, pulled her hair, hit her repeatedly, and grabbed her face.  Heard’s further testified that she “endured excessive emotional, verbal and physical abuse from Johnny, which has included angry, hostile, humiliating and threatening assaults to [her] whenever [she] questioned his authority or disagreed with him.” To support her assertions, Heard’s attorney submitted photographs of bruising on Heard’s face, alleged to be caused by Depp.

After reviewing the allegations of her Petition,  Judge Carl H. Moor granted Heard’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order against Depp, though he rejected Heard’s request that Depp attend a year’s worth of anger management classes and that the protective order extend to her Yorkshire terrier.  Judge Moor scheduled a follow-up court date for June 17, at which point Depp will have the opportunity to appear and defend himself, which can include calling any witnesses he has available to disprove Heard’s allegations.

The process for a Protective Order in California is very similar to the Protective Order process for victims in Georgia.  In Georgia, a person who has been the victim of violence or the threat of violence may file a Petition for an Emergency Protective Order in the Superior Court of the County where the Defendant resides.  The alleged abuser would not be given notice of this hearing in Georgia due to the emergency nature of the issue.  As was the case in Heard’s California hearing, if a Georgia court believes the allegations present a potential risk to the accuser’s safety, it will grant an Emergency Protective Order to the accuser and schedule follow-up hearing to allow the accused to present his/her side of the case.  If the Court finds in favor of the accuser at the follow-up hearing, the Court will extend the emergency Protective Order for a longer period of time, typically at least twelve months, and prohibit contact of any kind between the parties.

Unfortunately for Depp, the upcoming Protective Order hearing on June 17 isn’t the only challenge he faces in his looming divorce battle.  Heard has also requested that the Court grant her an award of $50,000 per month in support.  This request remains outstanding, and is being made despite the brevity of the marriage and the fact that the couple have no children together.  Courts in Georgia have the authority to award temporary and permanent alimony in divorce cases, although this is done on a case by case basis with the Court considering several different factors, such as the standard of living established during the marriage, the length of the marriage, the age and condition of the parties, the financial resources of each party, and the time necessary for the parties to gain employment.   Regardless of whether the Court grants Heard’s alimony request, it’s safe to say that this is shaping up to be one expensive celebrity divorce case.

Although many may not know Frances Bean Cobain, her late father Kurt Cobain emerged as a household name after his band, Nirvana, became the poster children for the grunge movement in the 1990s.  Following his tragic death in 1994, the bulk of his estate, which is rumored to be in excess of $400 million, was left to his only daughter, Frances Bean, who was only 20 months old at the time.   Now 23 years old, Frances Bean has just filed for divorce from her husband of less than two years, citing irreconcilable differences.  In her initial petition, she clarifies that she intends to preserve her inheritance from her father’s estate and believes that her spouse should not be entitled to any of it.  Perhaps in an effort to ensure that her husband does not make a play at this asset, Cobain’s divorce petition hints that she is willing to pay him spousal support despite the brevity of the union.

In Georgia, the law is relatively clear that inheritance that one spouse receives from a parent or third party either prior to or during the marriage is characterized as “separate property” and is not considered marital property subject to equitable division in a divorce case.  Likewise, property brought into the marriage by one spouse that was generated by or acquired by that spouse prior to marriage is “premarital property” and is also not subject to equitable division in a divorce.

Things become less clear, however, when one party either receives an inheritance, or owns an asset from prior to the marriage, and then either comingles those separate or premarital funds in an account with other marital funds, or invests the separate or premarital funds in an asset that is jointly titled.  Georgia used to recognize the “source of funds” rule, which allowed for the return of a separate or premarital portion of an asset so long as the party seeking preservation of that asset could clearly trace the pre-marital or separate funds.  However, in 2005, the Georgia Supreme Court made a substantial change to the manner in which Georgia viewed separate or pre-marital funds that had been comingled or jointly titled.   In Lerch v. Lerch, 278 Ga. 885 (2005), the Court ruled that when a spouse places a premarital or separate asset into an investment that includes the name of the other spouse, that act manifests an intent to gift that separate or premarital asset to the marriage.   So unless there is some definitive evidence of a contrary intent (such as a Last Will & Treatment or a Post-Nuptial Agreement), it is now far more difficult to convince a court to classify any portion of a jointly titled asset as separate or premarital property.

In Cobain’s case, her inheritance falls under both categories because she not only inherited the funds from her father’s estate, making it a separate asset, but she also acquired the funds prior to the marriage, making it pre-marital asset as well.  If this case were being litigated in Georgia, the issue of her inheritance would hinge on how she titled that inheritance during her brief marriage.  Hopefully for Cobain’s sake, she was careful to do this since it appears she neglected to have a Pre-Nuptial Agreement signed.