Florida Divorce * Child Custody * Domestic Violence Law Lawyer | Boynton Beach

Here’s a tip worth repeating for people who divorce relatively early in life, when retirement seems far off and is often out of mind.

If you are the spouse who earned less income, you may be able to collect some more social security based on your ex’s greater earnings and social security benefits.

Specifically, you may be entitled to half of your ex’s benefits.

You may even be able to collect six months’ worth of your share of their benefits for six months retroactively.

And, if you outlive your ex, you may be entitled to collect their full benefit.

All provided you were married to your ex for at least ten years.

There are some additional options and twists to collecting social security based on your ex’s social security entitlement.

It is well worth checking to make sure that you request and receive from social security all that the law entitles you to.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal piece: Boosting Mom’s Social Security Payments – When a Divorce Pays Off

Divorce causes stress.

But divorce often is the result of stress as well. Including external stresses.

A report has recently come out ranking the largest fifty US metropolitan areas according to how stressful each is to live in.

The criteria that factor into the ranking include extent of:

1. divorce

2. unemployment

3. violent crime

4. property crime

5. suicides

6. alcohol consumption

7. mental health

8. sleep troubles

9. commute times and

10. cloudy days

Each of the stress-ranking criteria (including divorce rate but excluding number of cloudy days) would seem to be directly impacted by the recession and weakened state economy.

Despite Florida’s generally pleasant, sunny climate, our state’s larger urban areas, including West Palm Beach, occupy five of the ten most stressful positions among metropolitan areas in the US.

Of particular interest is that West Palm Beach’s divorce rate of 10.67% lies in the ninety-third percentile. Orlando has a 10.7% divorce rate, Jacksonville 12.3%, Tampa 12.3% and Miami 11. 5%.

Read more in this CNBC article: Most Stressful Cities.

Husband and Wife want to have a baby.

They resort to in vitro fertilization and freeze some of the embryos created for possible future use.

Husband’s and Wife’s marriage breaks down.

They are divorcing.

What happens to their frozen embryos?

Or, more precisely, which spouse gets to decide what happens to their frozen embryos?

To some extent, that depends on which state the couple live in. The case law, to the extent that there is state case law, goes every which way.

Prudence may suggest coming to an agreement on this issue before going down that road.

That may be done as part of a broader prenuptial agreement or postnuptial agreement.

Or it may be incorporated into an agreement with the in vitro fertility center.

The perfect solution? In theory, yes, but, in practice, maybe not so much, at least, depending upon where the interested parties live.

Because at least two states, New Jersey and Massachusetts, have reportedly cast such agreements aside in the face of one parent’s subsequent change of heart to no longer wanting to become a parent to a new baby.

Florida, on the other hand, not only recognizes agreements regarding frozen embryos but actually mandates that such agreements be made in advance (although this is not divorce-specific law but more a requirement of reproductive rights law).

It is worth noting, however, that, in the absence of such an agreement, Florida law explicitly recognizes the legal rights of both spouses over the embryos. A very good reason to make an agreement in advance and greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the uncertainty in the event of a later divorce.

But if the couple neglects to enter an agreement (or, presumably, if the agreement is ambiguous), it remains anyone’s guess what a court will decide to do with a couple’s frozen embryos.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal piece: In Divorce, Who Gets the Embryos?

Divorce and child custody can be particularly complex when the separating couple has a minor child with special needs.

For many divorcing and separating parents of special needs children, not only are they new to the law governing divorce and child custody, but also the complex patchwork quilt of state and federal laws that may impact their special needs child’s long-term financial and legal future, into their adulthood …

And the special measures, far beyond the Individual Education Plan (IEP) their child may have, that they, as parents of special needs children, may need to take to protect their special needs children’s long-term legal and financial interests, into their special needs adult life.

This means that these parents have a lot to learn, more than most divorcing and separating parents. And a lot to do.

As far as the divorce or separation itself, child support is, of course, part and parcel of it if there are minor children, and most divorcing and separating parents know that. But many divorcing and separating parents are fuzzy on the particulars of child support.

Many divorcing and separating parents in Florida know that the obligation to support a child generally ends at the age of eighteen, and that the amount of child support is based upon statutory guidelines. True enough.

But what they usually do not know is that, where divorcing and separating parents in Florida have a special needs child, there are a couple of special twists to child support law.

First, the obligation to support a child who is dependent, such as a special needs child, may extend beyond the child’s eighteenth or nineteenth birthday or completion of high school, indeed, indefinitely. The child’s dependency must be the result of physical or mental incapacities from childhood.

Second, the amount of the child support obligation for a special needs child may deviate from the amount provided for in the child support guidelines. A greater amount of support may be awarded based upon the intact family’s preexisting spending to meet the child’s special needs.

Where the divorcing or separating parents of a special needs child have not done any special needs planning for their special needs child, their divorce or separation doubles as an opportunity to learn about special needs planning for their special needs child and to undertake some measures for the protection of their special needs child’s long-term financial and legal interests, into their adult lives with special needs.

Care and treatment for a special needs child over their lifetime can be quite expensive. It is never too early in their special needs child’s life for their parents to :

1. agree on and jointly designate formally a guardian for their special needs child in the event that both parents should die or otherwise be unable to care for their special needs child

2. consider seeking out government benefits available to their special needs child

3. consider ensuring that no gifts or inheritances pass directly to their special needs child, which could jeopardize their special needs child’s access to government benefits, such as Medicaid

4. consider establishing a special needs trust for their special needs child, to provide for their special needs child’s supplemental needs into their adulthood, without jeopardizing any government benefits their special needs child may receive, such as Medicaid

Read more in this Chicago Tribune article: Caregiving? Take care to plan for long term

Getting married later in life is generally more complicated. Each spouse is more likely to have kids, assets, debts and health issues.

Accordingly, couples should reach agreement on the following matters before tying the knot:

1. how will expenses be shared / paid

2. which spouse will provide medical insurance, and how will it be paid for

3. to whom will each spouse leave their assets upon their death

4. should each spouse’s life / estate planning documents (wills, living trusts, powers of attorney, health care surrogates, etc.) be changed

5. should designations of beneficiaries of each spouse’s nonprobate assets (life insurance, IRAs, bank and brokerage accounts, etc.) be changed

6. should the couple enter a prenuptial agreement or prenup

7. should each spouse change their designations of beneficiaries of any other retirement, social security or pension benefits, and should the other spouse sign any necessary waivers of interest in such assets

8. has each spouse assessed the impact on their cash flow of loss of alimony and survivor’s benefits from previous spouses

The above considerations are not exhaustive but should serve as a springboard for discussion.

Read more in this Fairfield CT Minuteman News article: Financial planning for later-life marriages.

Spouses divorcing in South Florida often have preconceived notions about how long it may take for their divorce to go through. Or how long it will take for their “emergency” motion to be heard by the divorce court.

These notions usually bear no relation whatsoever to the reality prevailing in family court here in South Florida.

They are typically idealistic as to how courts operate routinely, let alone during periods of budget cuts and the like, which can exert a sudden, dramatic impact.

Divorcing couples in South Florida would probably be even more shocked by the current reality in divorce courts in Essex County, New Jersey, which is close to New York City.

Specifically, all divorce trials of contested divorce cases in the family courts have been suspended / stopped / canceled. Indefinitely.

With six judicial vacancies unfilled, there simply aren’t enough judges to hear all the divorce cases waiting to be heard.

Reportedly because the governor of New Jersey has held up appointments of judges.

Reportedly because the opposing political party has held up appointments of commissioners to local governmental bodies.

So, perhaps impatient divorcing couples in South Florida should take solace in the fact that they don’t live in Essex County, New Jersey. Where the situation could always be worse.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal piece: Want a Divorce in New Jersey? Get in Line

Everyone knows that arts and theater can be therapeutic.

And so, in keeping with the high spirits of the holiday season, the intellectually and emotionally adventurous may wish to take a fresh look at divorce (their own, or the institution) through Divorce Party: the Musical – The Hilarious Journey to Hell…and Back! Yes, you read that right.

The unlikely musical comedy will have its world premiere next week right here in Palm Beach county, Florida, at the Kravis Center in West Palm Beach.

The underlying theme of the show, which is nonetheless serious despite the humorous treatment, is divorce recovery and embracing starting over.

The play also broadcasts the message “Don’t get mad – get everything!” I’m just saying.

The website for Divorce Party: the Musical boasts bullet points of inspiration and advice in the readily digestible form of the Divorce Party Top Tens.

Read more

• at the Divorce Party: the Musical
  

• in DIVORCE PARTY THE MUSICAL The Hilarious Journey to Hell…and Back! MAKES WORLD PREMIERE AT THE KRAVIS CENTER THIS JANUARY
  

• at The Kravis Center
  

Iowa Husband and Wife are divorcing after nearly twenty years of marriage. They have three Children together.

Wife works part-time as a nurse and seeks alimony from Husband, a supervising mechanic.

Husband contends that Wife should work full-time to earn more money and receive benefits. Husband asks the court to reduce spousal support following a ten year period.

Wife has had multiple sclerosis since before the parties’ marriage. One of the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, a sometimes disabling disease, is extreme fatigue.

Wife maintains that she cannot work full-time because she requires a day off for rest after two days of work.

Wife’s medications to treat her multiple sclerosis will cost a whopping $4,300 per month if her coverage through Husband’s health insurance plan ends.

Husband earns five times Wife’s salary from his primary employment and his part-time work on the side.

At trial, the family court awards Wife $600 per month in permanent alimony. The divorce court further orders Husband to maintain Wife on his insurance as long as is permitted. The family court also awards Wife primary custody of their Children and awards Wife child support.

Both Husband and Wife appeal the family court’s rulings at trial.

On appeal, the intermediate level appellate court increases Wife’s award of permanent alimony to $700 per month, but reduces the award of child support. Otherwise, the court upholds the trial court’s rulings.

On appeal to Iowa’s highest court, the intermediate appellate court’s rulings are upheld.

Read more in this Iowa family court case.

Florida Husband and Wife are divorcing. Not amicably.

They have one Son, who is three years old. They are reportedly battling over custody and timesharing.

Husband arrives at Grandmother’s house to pick up Son for his visitation.

As Husband approaches Grandmother, Grandmother allegedly reveals a handgun and discharges three bullets into Husband.

Husband flees.

Grandmother calls the police … and reports that Husband drew a pistol and threatened her with it.

Grandmother files for a domestic violence restraining order of protection against Husband.

Husband later calls the police as well. But Husband’s account departs from Grandmother’s.

However there are two variations from the all too common “he said, she said” in divorce and domestic violence cases. First, the she is Husband’s mother-in-law, rather than his wife.

Second and more significantly, Husband captures the entire incident on an audio recorded by his cell phone’s video camera.

Grandmother is arrested for attempted murder and detained.

Read more in

1. this Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel article: Cheryl Hepner accused of shooting in-law Salvatore Miglino, of Boca Raton, sheriff’s office says

2. this Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel article: iPhone captures shooting in Tamarac, authorities say and

3. this Good Morning America ABC TV news article: Woman, 66, Shoots Estranged Son-in-Law Over Custody Dispute, Florida Police Say

New York Husband and Wife have seven Children together.

One of their Children reportedly arrives at school with one eye bloodshot.

This apparently precipitates a report of alleged child abuse to New York’s child welfare agency.

Children are removed from Husband and Wife’s home and taken into child protective custody.

And placed in foster care, reportedly in three separate foster homes. Nearly three years ago.

Along the way, an eighth child of Husband and Wife is born. She joins her siblings in foster care.

Husband and Wife claim to have complied with the Family Court’s juvenile dependency case plan with the expectation of being reunited with Children.

They maintain that they are good parents who provided a loving home. They are critical of the care provided by New York’s child welfare agency, citing the agency’s unnecessary medication of one Child for hyperactivity, inadequate security, Children’s complaints of insufficient food and appearance of bruises and cuts on Children.

But Husband and Wife assert that they got wind that their parental rights were going to be terminated and Children were going to be adopted.

Wife has a supervised visitation with Children at a foster care and supervised visitation facility.

Children walk out of the facility with Wife.

And Husband and Wife allegedly go on the run with Children.

For seven days. Until they are caught by law enforcement.

And Husband collapses and is hospitalized for several days.

Children are in good condition. Husband and Wife are arrested on charges of kidnapping Children.

Husband and Wife later plead guilty to interference with custody.

They serve sixty days of confinement and are also sentenced to three years of probation.

Children remain in foster care. Husband and Wife are barred from any contact with Children.

A hearing on visitation for Husband and Wife is forthcoming.

Read more in

• this NBC TV New York news article: Parents Who Abducted 8 Kids Speak of Life on the Run

• this UK Mail news article: The EIGHT children abducted by their parents from foster care are found safe and ‘in good condition’ by NYPD

• this New York Times article: Recalling Days on the Run With Abducted Children

As a matter of public policy, Florida is big on transparency. That’s why we have Sunshine Laws.

In general, our courtrooms are open. Even in family court.

Not so everywhere though.

New York law mandates that its family courts are open to public access. And in theory they are, going on fourteen years.

But, in practice, the reality is a bit different.

Common practices have been demonstrated to include:

• locked courtroom doors

• Do Not Enter and Stop signs on courtroom doors

• signs proclaiming that only people on official business may enter

• guards challenging those seeking entrance to courtrooms

• guards flat-out denying access to courtrooms

• a judge admonishing a reporter to report to a clerk to show his press pass, who in turn told the reporter … that he needed permission from the chief administrative judge to observe in the courtroom

• another judge characterizing family court proceedings as “confidential”

How hit or miss is open access to family courts in New York?

A reporter on a mission to find out was actually denied access to thirty-five courtrooms – out of forty.

Even after identifying himself as a member of the press.

Top representatives of New York’s courts apologized and vowed to do better.

Time will tell …

Read more in this New York Times article: New York Family Courts Say Keep Out, Despite Order.

Twenty-nine year old Australian Woman disabled by both cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis is committed to the legal guardianship of a child welfare Agency in her childhood.

At the time when Woman was taken into government care, her younger Sister was about 4 years old. Sister reportedly resisted the government action, and allegedly struck a child welfare worker.

Woman’s file today reflects that Sister, now twenty, has “anger management issues” … and, as a result, Sister is denied any meaningful contact with Woman, even though Sister keenly desires to have a relationship with Woman.

Sister has appealed to the welfare Agency that administers adult guardianship in Australia, but the Agency has refused to intervene in the situation.

And so Sister is limited to contacting Woman’s caregiver each week, in the hope of finding out how Woman is doing and securing eventual granting of her repeated requests for access to Woman.

Read more in this Adelaide [Australia] Now article: Let me help look after my disabled sister.

Mother has eight year old Son, who is an honor student actively engaged in his school community.

Son is overweight. Extremely.

Just under 220 pounds. Sixty of them gained in one year.

At least one doctor has characterized Son’s weight gain as “life threatening”.

Doctors have ruled out a medical reason for Son’s weight gain, concluding that it is “environmental”.

Ohio child welfare agency (Agency) intervenes due to Son’s sleep apnea.

Son is deemed to be at high risk of developing serious weight-related health conditions.

Son fails to lose weight after a year.

So … Agency removes Son from Mother’s care and places him in foster care.

Ohio juvenile dependency court rules that Mother has neglected Son’s medical care … because Son has not dropped any excess weight to speak of.

Mother and Son are granted one visit per week. For two hours.

An Ohio public defender reports that, by contrast, other Ohio parents have been allowed to keep custody of their children despite having serious drug abuse issues and having beaten their children.

Son has reportedly lost some weight in foster care. But his foster parents are reportedly struggling to keep up with Son’s medical care.

Mother is seeking to regain custody of Son.

Son is representative of the seventeen percent of American children who are obese.

The foster care system is already stretched thin serving children who are abandoned, abused and neglected as those terms are commonly understood.

While some in the medical community advocate placing children in foster care to combat extreme obesity, others reject such extreme measures based only on probability of children developing certain medical conditions, rather than actual diagnoses.

Proposals have been advanced to provide enhanced services to obese children and their families so that such obese children can remain in their homes. Arguably a more practical alternative from a societal perspective and a more palatable alternative from the families’ perspectives.

Read more in this Reuters article: 219-pound boy shows growing problem of extreme obesity and this Cleveland Plain Dealer piece: County places obese Cleveland Heights child in foster care.

Husband and Wife are divorcing. They have a Child.

They are using social media websites. And dating websites.

In the old days of social media, like last year, used to be your worst nightmare was your ex stumbling upon your indiscreet post that could hurt your divorce or child custody or child support or alimony case. That was then.

Now is now.

Husband happens to find some material online that he believes calls Wife’s parenting into question. Which spurs him to seek more of the same, from the presiding family court.

And the Connecticut family court obliges … and ups the “game”. Exponentially.

Specifically, the divorce court orders both divorcing spouses to submit to the family court – and to each other – all of their respective user ids and passwords on all social media websites they use and all of the dating websites that they use.

Meaning that, if it’s out there, it will surely be found.

Which may be why the Wife allegedly asks a friend to clean up after her and delete anything damaging left in her wake.

Only that backfires on the Wife … because the family court then enters an order enjoining or prohibiting either spouse from deleting any of their material from social media websites or dating websites.

Champions of individual privacy rights are sounding an alarm over this arguable invasion of both spouses’ privacy.

Interestingly though, the family court ruling reportedly violates the privacy policies and terms of use of several of the social media websites and dating websites involved.

This could potentially open up a can of worms. That could potentially result in consequences running the gamut from the websites in question closing both spouses’ respective accounts and banning them … to the websites in question formally intervening in the family court case to protect their users’ privacy rights and enforce their own privacy policies and terms of use.

One thing is for sure. We haven’t heard the last of these divorce court rulings.

Stay tuned …

Read more in this [Providence, RI / New Bedford, MA] NBC TV 10 news article: Divorcing couple ordered to provide Facebook passwords and this New York Daily News article: Divorcing couple ordered to hand over Facebook passwords

Husband and Wife have a Son. And then promptly divorce.

Husband moves far away and starts a new family.

Wife raises Son alone. Son has no contact with Husband.

When Son is just eighteen years old, Son has a heart attack while at high school.

Son suffers severe brain damage as a result of his heart attack and allegedly inadequate care while at the high school.

Wife sues the School District for negligence. Wife and School District settle, with School District agreeing to pay $34,000 per month into a Special Needs Trust for Son for twenty years.

Because Son’s recovery is sheltered in a Special Needs Trust, Son is able to receive substantial public health benefits to meet his special needs.

Son dies five years later. Leaving $8 million behind in his Special Needs Trust.

The Special Needs Trust passes to Son’s estate. Since Son does not have a will, under the applicable law, the Special Needs Trust passes fifty-fifty to Wife and Husband.

Wife allegedly plots to deny Husband his half interest in Son’s Special Needs Trust. She reportedly refuses to provide the law firm handling the Special Needs Trust with Husband’s contact information.

She drives from California to Husband’s workplace in Rhode Island and allegedly tricks Husband into signing a disclaimer or waiver of Husband’s interest in Son’s Special Needs Trust, telling Husband that the document is for Son’s burial.

When the first disclaimer document is determined to be possibly inadequate, Wife drives to Rhode Island again with another disclaimer or waiver for Husband to sign.

This time, Husband becomes suspicious and consults an attorney. And then seeks to set the original disclaimer aside. And Wife sues to enforce the original disclaimer.

At trial, the Court refuses to enforce the original disclaimer, due to Wife’s deception as to the nature of the document and insufficient identification in the document of precisely what it is that Husband is waiving.

On appeal, the appellate court affirms the award of half of the Special Needs Trust to Husband.

Even though Husband was never a part of Son’s life after his birth and was not involved in the litigation which resulted in Son’s recovery.

It is hardly surprising that an eighteen year old did not have a will.

Given the severity of Son’s injuries, however, it is surprising that greater attention was not paid to identification of Son’s actual caregivers and loved ones, and protection of their interests under Son’s Special Needs Trust.

Read more in this Academy of Special Needs Planners’ newsletter article: Mother Tries to Trick Her Ex-Husband Out of His Share of a Special Needs Trust and this National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys’ newsletter article: Attempt to Play Fast and Loose with SNT Remainder Fails (Cal. App.)

County in Kansas suffers budget cuts, which in turn leads to budget cuts to County prosecutor’s office.

As a result, the County prosecutor’s office proclaims that it will no longer prosecute municipal misdemeanors, leaving those to the City to prosecute.

The City asserts that it cannot afford to prosecute those cases either and that the City’s attorneys have no experience in prosecuting such crimes.

So, misdemeanor domestic battery everywhere within the County goes unpunished and undeterred … for a month now.

In fact, the City may actually decriminalize domestic violence to deprive itself of jurisdiction over such crimes, in the hope that the County’s jurisdiction will fill the vacuum.

So far, all domestic violence suspects arrested by city police in the last month have been released.

Read more in this Yahoo Lookout piece: Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds.

These days, many couples are searching for what they hope is an easier, cheaper approach to divorce (and resolution of other disputes too). Different practitioners each tout their own preferred methodology.

One such available methodology that gets less attention than some others is arbitration. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution option, in that it aims to avoid lengthy family court litigation (paper motions and multiple legal and/or evidentiary hearings) that culminates in a divorce court trial before a family court judge in a family court courtroom.

Compared to mediation, another alternative dispute resolution methodology, arbitration is still fairly trial-like. So what is arbitration, and why would someone consider using arbitration?

In a nutshell, arbitration is generally faster, more private, less expensive and less formal than conventional litigation.

An arbitrator, a privately engaged professional, often a former judge, presides over proceedings as an ultimate decision-maker, much like a judge. But in arbitration, the parties get to choose their arbitrator for themselves.

An arbitrator hears testimony and also considers other, nontestimonial evidence in arriving at an award, much like a judge.

Typically, an arbitrator’s decision in a binding arbitration is final (although there are certain narrow exceptions).

The arbitration process is generally leaner and more streamlined than typical family court proceedings. Most hearings before the ultimate hearing are eliminated, and development of evidence from the opponent and third parties is normally reduced. This saves parties money as well as time.

And the “main event” is not held in a public courtroom.

Of course, like almost anything else, arbitration can be misused and abused so as to erode its good features and advantages.

Arbitration has not gained great traction in Florida family law yet, but it is finding favor in Canada and other countries already.

Read more in this appellate opinion and this American Bar Association Litigation News Article: Protecting the Natural Cost Advantages of Arbitration

According to an article that appeared in the New York Times last month, certain Chinese provincial governments seize babies from their parents, who cannot afford their fines for violating restrictions on reproduction, and then they sell the seized babies on the black market, into adoption.

For American parents of adopted Chinese babies, such reports are a disturbing revelation. Fueling nagging questions about their children’s origins, and the circumstances leading to their adoption.

But the subject is largely taboo among adoptive parent communities, who have ample reason to fear that questions will only slam the door to adoption in the questioners’ faces.

Some sixty four thousand Chinese babies were adopted in the US from 1999 through 2010.

And, unlike several other countries, China has long been perceived as the most ethical adoption system, which is a source of adoptable babies, that can be found overseas.

Read more in this New York Times article: For Adoptive Parents, Questions Without Answers.

Louisiana Husband and Wife have a preschool-aged Daughter together.

Wife dies.

Wife’s parents, Grandparents, seek visitation and timesharing with Daughter.

Husband and Grandparents reach an agreement granting Grandparents substantial visitation with Daughter. The agreement recognizes that the timesharing schedule will have to be adjusted when Daughter begins school.

The agreement is adopted in a Louisiana family court order. The family court also approves of Husband and Daughter relocating to Mississippi.

After Husband and Daughter relocate, Husband registers the Louisiana family court order in Mississipi. This permits enforcement of the Louisiana family court order in the Mississippi family court.

Grandparents ask the Mississippi family court to hold Husband in contempt and enforce the Louisiana family court visitation and timesharing order.

Husband does not dispute his noncompliance with the Louisiana family court order.

He does, however, ask the Mississipi family court to modify the Louisiana family court order by dramatically reducing Grandparents’ visitation and timesharing with Daughter based upon her reaching school age and certain conduct by Grandparents that he objects to, such as allegedly not adhering strictly to Daughter’s special diet and calling Daughter by her first name instead of her middle name, which is the same as Wife’s.

The Mississippi family court changes Grandparents’ visitation and timesharing schedule, but does not reduce their visitation. In fact, the Mississippi family court increases their timesharing a bit.

Husband appeals as to the modification only, objecting that his due process rights were violated by a perceived rejection of his objections to Grandparents’ conduct and arguing that Grandparents did not ask for more visitation, so the family court does not have authority to award it.

On appeal, the Mississippi appellate court upholds the Mississippi family court’s modification and expansion of Grandparents’ visitation and timesharing schedule with Daughter, underscoring that the original Louisiana agreement and court order affording Grandparents visitation and timesharing were not challenged when made in Louisiana and are not subject to review on this appeal.

As for the changes made by the Mississippi family court, the appellate court finds that both parties asserted that Grandparents’ current timesharing schedule no longer works for them and Husband specifically sought modification of the schedule in his pleadings. Grandparents’ objections to the schedule was tantamount to a request by Grandparents for modification.

And the Mississippi family court found at trial that it was in Daughter’s best interests to increase timesharing with Grandparents, and that finding was within its discretion.

The appellate court also confirms that the Mississippi family court has jurisdiction to modify the Louisiana court order under Mississippi’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

Since neither Daughter, either of her parents or any one “acting as a parent” to Daughter still lives in Louisiana, and Daughter and Husband have been living in Mississippi for two years, Mississippi is now Daughter’s “home state”. Grandparents’ access rights do not bring them within the statutory definition of someone “acting as a parent”. Indeed, Husband has “sole legal custody” of Daughter.

As to Husband’s objections to certain specific conduct by Grandparents, the Mississippi family court instructed Grandparents in regard to those matters. Thereby accommodating Husband’s due process concerns and upholding his fundamental parental rights.

Read more in this Mississippi appellate opinion.

Oregon Mother has three month old Baby.

Mother reads the Old Testament and decides that she wants Baby to be circumcised.

But Mother fears Baby is too old for a doctor to agree to perform the circumcision.

So Mother watches YouTube videos on circumcision.

And decides to perform the circumcision on Baby herself.

Using a box-cutter.

Only Baby bleeds excessively and suffers great pain during the circumcision.

So Mother dials 911 for assistance.

Mother is arrested for harming Baby.

Mother pleads guilty to criminal mistreatment.

Mother is sentenced to five years’ probation…

And ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

The Court finds that she loves Baby and had no intent to hurt him.

Baby has since recovered and lives with his three siblings … in the child welfare system. Mother has supervised visits with Baby and his siblings.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Mom who used box-cutter to circumcise 3-month-old baby gets five years probation.

Just about everyone has either been divorced themselves or gone through it, vicariously, with a close friend or loved one.

That’s probably why just about everyone has an opinion on just about every aspect of divorce … and fancies themselves the expert to be giving you advice.

Regardless of whether the divorce they are familiar with occurred in the same state, subject to the same laws as yours, or of whether the circumstances of that case are even remotely similar to yours.

They all mean well, of course. But they generally just overwhelm you with input, breed confusion, anxiety and doubt, cost you extra legal fees for explanations of why your case or the applicable state law is different from their case and the law that applied to it and, worst of all, undermine your legal position and steer you into the proverbial doghouse with your judge.

(Take the example of one of my client’s buddy-advisors: “You don’t have to follow that court order. It’s unconstitutional. I saw that on the internet.” The it in question refers to child support. And the principled good buddy won’t be the one headed off to the pokey.)

In most cases, it’s really best not to discuss the details of your divorce with others. Not unless you want to see them in court … testifying under subpoena from your spouse – about the “private” information you leaked to them. Yeah. Oops.

And you don’t want to spill your guts on social media either. Those leaks don’t even require subpoenaing your buddy to testify.

If you can afford to hire divorce professionals, let them do their jobs for you. If you can’t, then do your best to learn and follow the rules and law yourself. Then rely on your own judgment. Don’t poll the universe about the specifics of your case.

And it’s not just women that get into trouble with this. In my experience, in general, men are just as prone as women to gossiping about their marriage and their divorce, and, in general, even more prone to leaking and polling.

Be the exception. In the end, you’ll be glad you were.

Read more in this Forbes piece: Warning: Don’t Let Friends, Family or Non-Divorce Professionals Give You Divorce Advice.

Kentucky Husband, who has been serving in the US army, and Wife have two Children together.

Husband and Wife divorce. Husband is ordered to pay child support.

Several years later, Wife seeks to modify child support.

Husband, representing himself, writes a letter to the Kentucky family court explaining that he has no attorney and asking the family court to accommodate his request that any hearings be coordinated so that he can attend by telephone, because he is out of state and has military obligations.

The family court coordinates a hearing and makes arrangements for Husband to participate by telephone. But, as so often happens, the docket gets backed up and Husband’s case is not actually heard until two hours later than was expected.

Husband is unable to participate then.

The family court proceeds without Husband, utilizing public records culled from the internet. The family court enters an order retroactive to the first of the month of the hearing.

Wife later files to have Husband held in contempt for not complying with the family court’s modified child support order.

Again, Husband, representing himself, faxes the court a motion to postpone the hearing Wife has scheduled. In his paperwork, he sometimes uses the word “stay”. Husband’s response to Wife’s papers states again that he is in the army and that he was ordered not to go to Kentucky, and explicitly invokes the Service Member’s Civil Relief Act.

Husband also sends a letter from his Commander and his Nurse Case Manager, both indicating that Husband is being treated for significant physical injuries, and is also receiving mental health services and should not have contact with Wife.

Husband also requests sanctions and a protective order against Wife and requests that his child support be reduced.

The family court ignores Husband’s efforts to invoke federal legal protections for service members, as well as Husband’s medical status and efforts to arrange counsel and telephonic participation in the proceedings. Even though Wife’s attorney does bring them to the attention of the family court.

The family court holds Husband in contempt and fines him for failing to comply with the recently modified child support order. Husband is found to be in arrears by approximately $400. The family court also orders Husband to pay Wife’s modest attorney’s fees.

Husband subsequently files to overturn the modified child support order and all the orders entered afterwards, based upon it. Repeatedly indicating that he is in the military and invoking protections under federal law.

The family court denies all of Husband’s requests to appear by phone but allows “reasonable time” for him to arrange to appear in person … or his requests for relief might be stricken or denied without his participation.

The family court then proceeds to deny Husband’s motions based upon his failure to set hearings and attend to press his motions.

Husband appeals.

On appeal, the appellate court overturns all of the child support modification, contempt and related orders entered. The family court failed to consider, as required by law, whether Husband’s inability to participate in the modification hearing would adversely affect his interests.

The Service Member’s Civil Relief Act is supposed to be construed liberally to protect service members called up to active duty to serve their country. Husband substantially complied with the Act.

The family court proceeded to the modification hearing without Husband, despite Husband’s efforts to appear, and denied his later requests to appear by phone or to obtain a continuance due to his service.

The appellate court remands for a new hearing on modification of child support, to be conducted in compliance with the Service Member’s Civil Relief Act.

Read more in this Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion.

Colorado Husband and Wife have been divorced for five years.

They have two Sons together.

Their Younger Son, now ten, has special needs and lives with Wife, a college professor and her second husband.

Their Older Son, now thirteen, lives with Husband.

A relatively unusual, but not unheard of, custody arrangement.

The Colorado family court orders Wife to create a private e-mail account for Younger Son and to get Younger Son a cell phone to use to communicate with Husband.

That was three months ago.

Wife allegedly has yet to comply with the divorce court’s order.

The family court holds Wife in contempt … and sentences Wife to ninety days in jail.

Wife is let out after four days.

Husband challenges Wife’s early release … and Wife is incarcerated for another day and a half.

Wife reportedly fears that her position has been placed in jeopardy by her confinement. She has reportedly mortgaged her home to fund hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in her divorce court case.

It is unclear why Wife did not comply with the family court order and risked being held in contempt and jailed.

Wife contends that she has encouraged communication between Younger Son and Husband, and that Son calls Husband weekly. She reportedly does not comprehend the divorce court’s harsh treatment of her.

Wife also contends that Husband denies her access to Older Son and will be pursuing that in family court.

Read more in

• this [UK] Daily Mail article: University professor jailed for failing to set up email account for her 10-year-old son

• this Denver ABC KMGH 7 News article: CSU Prof. Jailed 4 Days In Custody Battle

• this Denver ABC KMGH 7 News article: CSU Prof. Jailed Again In Child-Custody Battle.

Divorce used to be the enemy of the family cited by family values advocates. No longer.

Cohabitation has since overtaken divorce by a long shot.

Social scientists associated with the University of Virginia report that divorce has returned to dramatically lower pre-1970s levels.

But cohabitation has risen even more dramatically.

Forty percent of American children will now live in a home where at least one of their parents is cohabiting with another adult.

And cohabitating couples are 170% more likely to break up by the time children in the home reach twelve years of age than are married couples.

And those children are more likely than others to use drugs, suffer from depression, be delinquent and drop out of high school.

Those children are also three times more likely to be physically, emotionally or sexually abused than other children are.

Read more in this press release: Cohabitation, Not Divorce, is Now Linked to Rising Rates of Family Instability in America.

Louisiana Father and Mother have lived together for about ten years. The police have been summoned to their home on more than one occasion, and as recently as about a month ago.

They have a seven year old Son together who is disabled by cerebral palsy.

Mother reportedly leaves much of Son’s care to Father. Father reportedly resents having to care for Son, who is wheelchair bound and requires a feeding tube.

Mother goes out to attend to repairing her car.

Father allegedly murders Son by beheading him with a meat cleaver. Son’s head is left on the road which leads to the family’s home.

The rest of Son’s body is found in a trash bag nearby, the feet and one hand also severed.

Father is arrested for first degree murder and is confined. He faces the death penalty if convicted.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Jeremiah Lee Wright decapitated own 7-year-old disabled son; chopped up body to spite mom: cops

Desperate wannabe parents for whom traditional adoption does not work can become easy prey for people looking to take advantage of them.

Recently, one of them, a wealthy Socialite, shelled out $180,000 for a baby carried to term by a surrogate mother in the Ukraine.

Only to discover that her baby and many similar “designer babies” are full siblings.

Canadians lament that alimony, or spousal support, is “all over the map” and unpredictable in cases where the paying spouse has high earnings, over $350,000.

In the US, some would say that alimony is all over the map across the board, regardless of the paying spouse’s income.

Why?

In a nutshell, in the US, states do not have alimony guidelines, formulae or charts to guide (or constrain) court awards, as they do for child support.

That is really the long and short of why spousal support awards may be inconsistent and unpredictable.

As in Canada, settling alimony disputes via mediation maintains greater privacy and reduces risk.

Read more in this Canadian Lawyer article: All over the map.

Wisconsin Mother has Son while she is imprisoned.

Maternal Grandparents raise Son … until he is five years old.

When Son is three years old, Father files a family court case to establish legally that he is Son’s father and to win custody of Son.

Prior to trial in family court, Father and Grandparents come to a child custody and timesharing agreement granting Father custody, but also granting Grandparents substantial visitation with Son. That agreement is adopted into a visitation order by the family court.

Later, Father seeks to modify the agreed order with the intention of reducing Grandparents’ timesharing and visitation.

At trial on Father’s proposed modification, the family court does modify its previous order, but the court still awards Grandparents substantial visitation with Son, although less than previously agreed.

Father appeals, raising several technical arguments relative to a Wisconsin grandparents’ visitation statute and a landmark federal constitutional case.

On appeal, an intermediate level appeals court upholds the family court’s award of substantial school year visitation to Grandparents at trial, but reverses and remands for further proceedings as to nonschool year visitation, based upon ambiguity in Father’s court papers as to whether Father was seeking to modify visitation outside the school year at trial.

Read more in this Wisconsin family court opinion and this Kids Matters Inc article: Visitation Rights of Grandparents Reaffirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

Nebraska Mother has Son in 2001.

Mother’s gay Partner of twenty years was actively involved in choosing Mother’s sperm donor for Son’s birth, planning and financing the in vitro fertilization, and raising Son until their breakup in 2006.

Mother allowed Partner to visit with Son for a year and a half afterwards.

Then Mother allegedly cut off all contact with Partner – for two years now.

Nebraska does not recognize gay marriage or civil unions, nor allow adoptions by gays.

Partner files for visitation and timesharing.

Prior to trial, the Nebraska family court dismissed Partner’s case for visitation and timesharing. Partner appealed.

On appeal, Nebraska’s highest court held that Partner nonetheless may argue in family court that she is a legal parent based on her course of parental conduct toward Son. This principle of in loco parentis has long been applied to stepparents and grandparents.

This ruling is consistent with rulings in several similar cases in Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The Nebraska Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to take evidence in regard to Partner’s claims.

Read more in this Omaha World-Herald article: Ruling: Woman can seek custody.

Florida Mother and Father have a Toddler together.

Mother takes Toddler to a shopping center in a stroller on a weeknight.

Mother tells Toddler to stay put outside, while Mother goes to get Toddler a candy bar.

Mother allegedly enters a bar – and gets a cocktail.

Soon, it starts to rain outside.

Patrons of the bar call police about the Toddler left alone outside in the rain.

Mother is arrested.

At her first appearance in court, Mother tries to tell the presiding judge that she went to the bar to apply for a job.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Florida woman tells judge she was going to look for a job when she left baby outside a bar.