Simpson Wins Custody of His Son, Daughter

O.J. Simpson on Friday was awarded full custody of his two young children from his marriage to Nicole Brown Simpson, ending a bitter legal battle with his former in-laws, Louis and Juditha Brown.

The judge’s decision to send Sydney, 11, and Justin, 8, to their father’s Brentwood home had been expected in legal circles because the law generally favors parents in such disputes. The judge granted the Browns some visitation rights, to be worked out later.

Simpson, the Browns and their attorneys had spent an anxious day awaiting the news and did not learn of the ruling until shortly before it was made public at 4 p.m.

Simpson, who waited in Brentwood, issued the following statement: “We are all so very grateful to have the children home again where they want to be.

“We would like to thank Lou and Juditha Brown for doing the best they could during a very difficult time and fully expect them to continue as active grandparents.”

Simpson said that would be “the first and final statement” regarding his two younger children and asked that they be granted privacy to live as normal a life as possible.

In a statement to reporters on behalf of the Browns, attorney Natasha Roit said: “We love Sydney and Justin and pray for their safety and well-being as they return to their father.”

Roit said later that she has already requested a hearing for Jan. 10 to stay the judge’s ruling pending an appeal that the Browns intend to file.

A close friend and neighbor said Juditha Brown responded with measured calm to the news that her grandchildren would be returning to their father.

“She’s not bitter, but she’s crushed on so many levels,” said Judie Manto of Monarch Beach.

Brown expects to keep her grandchildren at the family’s Dana Point home through Christmas Eve, Manto said.

In an 11-page opinion issued from her Fullerton office, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock wrote that attorneys for the Browns had “failed to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence” that being in Simpson’s custody would be harmful to the children.

Wieben Stock also described the children’s affection for their father, writing that one of the youngsters had stated an “unequivocal desire” to live with Simpson, while the other had not stated a preference.

The Browns were granted temporary legal custody of the children shortly after Simpson’s June 1994 arrest in the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman.

Simpson was found not guilty of those charges in October 1995 and two months later filed a petition to regain custody of the children. But the Browns filed documents contesting any custody change, setting up the emotional legal battle that played out behind closed doors in Family Court in Orange.

The custody decision came as Simpson is embroiled in a wrongful-death lawsuit in Santa Monica. In that case, Nicole Brown Simpson’s estate and Goldman’s family are suing the former pro football star, alleging that he was responsible for the deaths of his ex-wife and Goldman.

Simpson had been expected to take the stand in that case Friday but did not appear because of the pending custody decision.

As jurors in the civil trial were released for their two-week Christmas break, Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki warned them not to be influenced by the outcome of the custody case.

“You are instructed that whatever happens in any other case involving Mr. Simpson or the children has nothing to do with this case,” he said. “You must not be influenced by whatever anybody says or whatever anybody does with regard to any other proceeding.”

The four-week custody trial was closed to the public, and all courtroom participants were silenced by a gag order imposed by the judge.

Wieben Stock did not allow as evidence any information about Nicole Brown Simpson’s murder, O.J. Simpson’s criminal trial or the ongoing civil trial.

During the custody case, the Browns’ attorneys Roit and Eric L. Lagin focused on allegations of domestic abuse involving Simpson and his ex-wife, sources close to the case said. Citing experts, Roit said during closing arguments that witnessing domestic abuse or its results is harmful for children.

But the judge wrote in her decision that “the children share a relationship with their father that appears to be strong, positive and healthy, with powerful psychological bonding.”

Roit took particular issue with that part of the ruling, saying she had presented “clear evidence that contradicted it.” She also said that parts of the judge’s decision indicating the two children do not fear their father are “incorrect and incomplete.”

*

In granting visitation rights to the Browns, the judge also cited an “intact stable, bonded, healthy relationship between the minors and their grandparents.”

The visitation is to include periodic weekend trips and some school holidays and vacations. The judge suggested that both sides meet and confer through a mutually trusted intermediary to come up with a specific plan.

Saul Gelbart, one of the Browns’ legal advisors for the custody case, said: “I think they did a tremendous job over the past 2 1/2 years raising the children and keeping them out of the limelight,” he said. “I fervently hope Mr. Simpson does a good job.”

For the duration of the case, Simpson and the Browns politely ignored all questions as they passed through hordes of reporters and photographers each day on their way to and from the Betty Lou Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange. Simpson often took the time to sign autographs.

The children themselves were never seen at court and never testified, sources close to the case said.

Legal experts and veterans of custody fights said that years of experience have shown them that, in matters of family law, judges have wide discretion in determining what is in the best interests of children. In California, custody laws generally favor parents.

Legal guardians such as grandparents must show more than that they would simply provide a better and more loving home than a parent would, said Sue Weiss, a Santa Monica lawyer and custody expert. They must show that returning children to their parent would case real, tangible harm.

Proving that detriment is a heavy burden,” said Joan Hollinger, a family law authority and visiting professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school.

Other experts said that some facets of the law might seem shocking to the uninitiated. A state appeals court, for example, has ruled that parents convicted of murder do not necessarily lose their right to custody of their children once they serve their prison time.

“Even if there is a finding [in the civil trial] that O.J. committed the murders, that doesn’t make this a slam-dunk case--’O.J., you lose, and Browns, you win,’ ” said Robert R. Walmsley, a Santa Ana lawyer specializing in custody and children’s rights.

“That’s not the way it works. Clearly a person in that position would have a real problem. It would demonstrate a problem with anger and a severe risk of harm to the children,” Walmsley said. “But that argument would still have to be made.”

Family law experts said that, in any event, Wieben Stock’s decision is not permanently binding. The Browns can come forward at any time to present new evidence that they believe proves the children would suffer in Simpson’s care.

That might happen if the Santa Monica jury holds Simpson liable in the deaths of his ex-wife and Goldman, experts said.

*

During an emotional TV appearance Friday night on “Larry King Live,” the Browns’ daughter Denise said that Sydney and Justin had been told tearfully by their grandmother of the court’s decision.

“It’s not going to be OK for these children,” Denise Brown said.

The Browns’ custody case was dealt a blow even before the trial began when Marjorie G. Fuller, an attorney appointed by the court to represent the interests of the children, made clear her opinion in July that the children should be allowed to live with their father.

Late in the trial, attorneys for the Browns were unsuccessful in their effort to have Fuller dismissed from the case. They contended that she had not been fair in her evaluation of the case. One of the Simpson children also wanted Fuller removed, sources said.

Denise Brown lashed out at Fuller during her TV appearance, often breaking into tears when discussing the attorney’s investigation and handling of the case.

Fuller said Friday that her investigation was thorough.

“I think it’s the right ruling,” she said. “I’m glad that the case is concluded, and I hope the people involved can put this controversy behind them for the sake of the kids.”

Some legal experts said the timing of Friday’s decision puzzled them and said the judge could have benefited by waiting for the jury verdict in Simpson’s wrongful-death trial.

“I certainly wonder what the advantage is in making a decision right now,” said a Los Angeles Superior Court judge who handles custody cases. “If you get back to what is in the best interests of the children, there doesn’t seem to be any need for a speedy decision, especially if there is already an order in place to give O.J. visitation now.”

Contributing to this report were Times staff writers Ann Conway, James Rainey, Richard Simon, Davan Maharaj and Stephanie Simon.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Excerpts From the Ruling

The following are excerpts from the 11-page opinion issued Friday by Orange County Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock giving O.J. Simpson custody of his two children:

*

“The court finds that . . . Lou and Juditha Brown have failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that custody of the minors by their father would be clearly detrimental to their well-being.”

*

“The children share a relationship with their father that appears to be strong, positive, and healthy with powerful psychological bonding. All experts who had the benefit of analyzing the children with all of their significant adults, came to the same conclusion. . . .”

*

“Much discussion at trial centered on the issue of whether Simpson fits the profile of a ‘batterer’ and whether he has character flaws likely to endanger the children’s physical or emotional well-being. . . . The court finds that the relationship [between O.J. and Nicole] reached a fearful crescendo on Jan. 1, 1989, when Simpson was arrested and charged with domestic violence. Although Simpson has admitted fault in the incident, resulting in injuries to Nicole, the court does not find his admissions to be entirely revealing.

“In this regard, the court finds to be true testimony concerning slapping incidents which occurred on at least three separate occasions in the mid-’80s leading up to the New Year’s 1989 incident. Other testimony of sightings of puffiness on Nicole’s face or bruises on occasions after 1989 is not sufficiently clear that the court can tie those observations to any domestic violence.”

*

“The court . . . agrees with the findings of the expert evaluators that there is not clinical or psychological evidence that Simpson ever emotionally or psychologically abused the children. . . .”

*

“As evidence of the children’s lack of fear of their father, at least one child has expressed an unequivocal preference to be returned to the immediate custody of father. The other child has declined to state a preference to the court-appointed psychologist, but has stated in positive tones, the strong bonds the child has with father’s neighborhood and the child’s friends.”

*

“The experts have agreed that strong peer relationships are a key factor in aiding a child recovering from losses. The children’s comfort level with their father is further revealed in their willingness to chide and tease him and even challenge him, without fear of inappropriate consequences.”

*

“It is in the children’s best interests to have continuing and meaningful periods of time with the Browns and the extended family connected with the children, including their aunts, cousins and neighborhood friends in Orange County. The court orders continuing visitation between the children and the Browns.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

How the Custody Case Unfolded

Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock’s ruling Friday awarding custody of O.J. Simpson’s younger children to the football Hall of Famer ended more than a year of legal wrangling over where Sydney, now 11, and Justin, 8, will live. A history of the case:

1994

June

* Simpson is arrested on suspicion of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman.

* Simpson’s children from his marriage to Nicole go to live with his former in-laws, Louis and Juditha Brown, in Dana Point.

July

* Simpson signs documents designating the Browns as the children’s temporary legal guardians until he is “able to resume his legal and physical custody . . . upon release from incarceration.”

1995

October

* Simpson found not guilty of murder charges. After the verdicts, Simpson’s elder son, Jason, reads a statement from his father saying, “My first obligation is to my young children, who will be raised in the way that Nicole and I had always planned.”

December

* Simpson requests that guardianship be reversed. The Browns, who believe Simpson killed their daughter, refuse.

1996

August

* Family Court Judge Jack K. Mandel presides over settlement conference in Orange, but the sides fail to reach agreement.

September

* Hearings begin under Family Court Commissioner Thomas H. Schulte.

* Simpson denied request to have children returned to him until permanent living

arrangements are decided.

* Guardianship powers of Louis Brown--executor of Nicole Brown’s estate, which filed civil lawsuit against Simpson seeking to have him held liable for her murder--suspended to prevent conflicts of interest.

October

* Eleanor A. Stegmeier and Saul Gelbart step aside as attorneys of record for the Browns because the family can no longer afford their fees.

* Los Angeles civil rights attorney Gloria Allred, acting as a family friend, makes a public appeal for donations for Browns’ legal fees.

* Citing scheduling conflicts, court officials transfer case from Schulte’s jurisdiction to that of Stock.

* Natasha Roit, an attorney working on the civil case against Simpson, agrees to take the Browns’ case for no fee.

November

* At pretrial hearing, parties fail to reach agreement, and Stock sets a trial date.

* Trial begins. Though legal precedent favors biological father Simpson, the Browns argue that allegations of domestic abuse make Simpson an unfit parent. They also claim the children would be harmed by leaving their home of more than two years.

* Simpson testifies.

* Los Angeles police officers testify about domestic abuse calls they answered involving Simpson.

December

* Browns request that Marjorie G. Fuller, attorney appointed by the court to represent the children, be dismissed. Sources say Fuller has argued that the children should be returned to Simpson. Fuller stays on the case.

* Nine days after trial ends, Stock awards custody to Simpson.

Source: Times reports; Researched by JEFF KASS / For The Times