Choose: Bear Arms or Rock Foster Babies’ Cradles, But Not Both in Nevada

Nevada Husband and Wife have long term marriage. Life has been good to them.

Husband and Wife wish to adopt foster children into their family. There are many foster children in Nevada in need of loving homes.

Like many people in Nevada, Husband and Wife have gun permits – and own and keep guns in their home.

And because of that, current Nevada law prohibits Husband and Wife from adopting foster children.

A Nevada legislator has now proposed a change to Nevada law to allow people with legal gun permits and lawfully permitted guns to adopt foster children if they lock their guns up in a secure receptacle.

Nevada’s child welfare agency apparently opposes the measure, because foster children are reportedly more fragile than other children and might react badly in the presence of a gun.

Nevada’s current law does not preclude a couple who own lawfully permitted guns from raising their own biological children or from raising privately adopted children. Only foster children lose out on this pool of potential families otherwise ready, willing and able to take them in and raise them.

Read more in this Yahoo Parenting article: Gun Permits Keep Couple From Becoming Foster Parents .

Financial Mistakes in Divorce

A financial planner points out that the financial (and tax) warts in a divorce settlement may be quiescent until the passage of time and / or happening of certain events.

The article serves as a reminder of just some of the reasons that it may be worthwhile to have both a financial expert and a tax expert review any proposed settlement, in addition to your attorney. Each expert brings different knowledge, experience and perspective to a potential settlement.

Some common examples of financial / tax gotchas:

  1. Clinging to the marital home in all events, no matter the cost. While the emotions driving this decision are easy to understand, the math to justify the decision just may not compute right. By the time reason sets in, it may be too late to avoid / recoup losses / expenses.
  2. Impatience to “get it over with” trumps sound, prudent judgment. Example: Just walking away from clear legal entitlements. “I don’t need it.” Even when you – or you kids – do.
  3. Focusing on the upside and ignoring the downside. Transfers of assets to third parties often entail direct or indirect costs / expenses that may, at least to some degree, erode or offset the upside.
  4. Letting Negative Emotions Rule. There’s no way to instantly erase those feelings, especially where they were really earned. But letting them rule probably won’t really serve your best interests.
  5. Getting stuck on one tree and not seeing the whole forest that it is just one part of. You need the entire context to properly assess any component.

Read more in this USA Today article: 5 biggest divorce mistakes financially

Mother arrested for Drunk Driving with Babies in Car

Texas Mother has two Children, an infant and a toddler.

Mother allegedly drives on Interstate but, according to a witness, “all over the road”.

Fellow drivers apparently get Mother to pull her car over, and relieve her of her car keys.

And telephone police. And wave down officers at the scene.

Oh, the two Children are in back seat of the car with Mother while she is driving this way.

And the toddler is not secured in a proper car seat.

Upon their arrival, police observe Mother to be unkempt and soiled, and confused / disoriented geographically (40 miles off target and counting).

Police administer field sobriety tests and breath tests, and measure Mother’s blood alcohol level at 209.

Mother is arrested on charges of DWI with a child as a passenger, endangering a child and not having a child safety seat for the toddler.

Oh, it is later discovered that Child Protective Services had rescued the Children from Mother and the Children should not presently be in Mother’s “care”.

Read more in this KVUE-TV ABC news article: Police: Drunk driver had children in car .

Arkansas Legislator Adopts Girls out of Foster Care and Then Gives Them Away to Another Family … Where One is Raped

Husband and Wife adopt two Girls out of the state’s custody to add to their family, which includes three biological children, Boys.

The Girls allegedly proved to be aggressive toward the Boys and family pets, killing one of the latter, despite therapy.

The Girls’ therapist, psychiatrist and pediatrician all reportedly recommended removing the Girls from their home.

Husband and Wife eventually sought to return the Girls to the state’s custody but were reportedly told that the child welfare agency would have them prosecuted for child abandonment.

Ultimately, Husband and Wife “rehomed” the Girls, that is, gave them away to another couple. This is reportedly legal in the state of Arkansas, where Husband and Wife live.

But one of the Girls was reportedly sexually abused in the home where Husband and Wife transferred her.

The backstory.

Husband is a state legislator.

The child welfare agency and the Girls’ foster parents supposedly tried to discourage Husband and Wife from adopting these Girls due insufficient experience and the presence in the home of their Boys. Husband claimed that the child welfare agency minimized the Girls’ psychological issues.

Husband allegedly dismissed their warnings and exerted political influence to accomplish the adoption of the Girls.

The Girls’ foster parents and a respite care giver unequivocally denied that the Girls were aggressive toward people or pets.

Husband also indicated that Husband and Wife maintained a relationship with the Girls and that the head of the child welfare agency was personally aware that they had rehomed the Girls.

Husband also reportedly maintained that stipends from the child welfare agency were forwarded to the Girls’ new home.

Witnesses reported that Wife believed that the Girls were possessed by demons …


  1. this KATV 7 ABC TV news article: Harris accuses DHS of mishandling adoption crisis and
  2. this Arkansas Times piece: Foster family disputes key statements from Justin Harris .

UK Family Court Orders US Expats to Evenly Divide Marital Fortune Despite Postnuptial Agreement No Challenge Penalty Clause

Husband and Wife are both American born. Husband and Wife began cohabiting in 1992 and married in 1995.

But they moved abroad in 1998 and have lived overseas since, and in the UK since 2008. The couple relinquished their US citizenship years ago to save taxes.

Wife was a mother and homemaker and Husband the breadwinner during the marriage. Wife moved from state to state and from the US to Japan to the UK for Husband’s work.

Husband and Wife executed a postnuptial property settlement agreement in 2000. (A postnup is, in substance, a prenuptial agreement that is made during the marriage rather than before.)

In the postnup, Wife’s share of the couple’s assets was capped at less than half of the marital estate. But if Wife sought more, her entitlement shrank to just 5 million pounds … out of 150 million pounds.

Husband made no secret of the fact that he didn’t think Wife deserved “a penny”. That clearly didn’t help his cause.

The UK has not embraced premarital or postmarital property settlement agreements as readily as the US.

The British family court apparently viewed the agreement as unconscionable based upon the length of the couple’s marriage, the excessive penalty for challenge and its inherent disproportionality.

Interestingly, the British family court reportedly sent signals to the couple (really the Husband) encouraging reaching a fair agreement themselves and ending their very expensive and contentious court battle.

It is also worth noting that the couple’s postnup was made in Texas … at a time when they were living abroad.


  1. this UK Daily Mail news article: Tycoon ‘not willing to pay a penny’ in bitter divorce battle is ordered by judge to give his wife half of his £150million fortune and
  2. this Bloomberg Business news article: Ex-Lone Star Executive to Split Assets After Divorce Ruling .

Family Court Case Dramatically Impacted By Expert Who … Isn’t

Disturbing case out of Texas.

Father and Mother have Daughter. Father seeks shared custody of Daughter.

Family Court appoints Forensic Drug Testers (not the actual name) to perform a random drug test on Father.

Based on the test results, Father is characterized as and treated as though an alcohol and drug user.

The Family Court orders random weekly drug and alcohol testing on Father, and also orders Father to install a breathalyzer in Father’s car for a year.

The substance abuse issues and conditions deprive Father of shared custody of his Daughter.

Yet further drug testing by a different forensic testing service are uniformly negative.

Upon further investigation, it turns out that the court-appointed drug testing outfit is operated by someone who is not a toxicologist, did not graduate from college and is not actually a forensics expert.

Father sues the Forensic Drug Testers and the lab they work with.

Upon pretrial motion, the trial court dismisses the case against the testing companies on the grounds that they are protected from lawsuits by judicial immunity due to the court’s appointment … and that they merely administered the tests rather than interpreted the results.

The court-appointed alleged expert reportedly gave expert testimony in hundreds of cases, if not more.

It is difficult to imagine how his alleged lack of credentials never came to light.


  1. this Courthouse News Service article: Drug Expert Vaults Challenge to His Creds and
  2. this Cato Institute National Police Misconduct Reporting Project website article: Court’s Expert Now Called an ‘Imposter’ .

Federal Judge To Decide Whether State Judge Must Produce Records of Communications with Other State Judges Who Hear Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

Federal law provides special protections to Native American children who are involved in any type of family law cases, to preserve the American Indian heritage.

In South Dakota, certain Sioux Indian tribal nations are contending that, in cases where the State removes Native American children from American Indian homes on grounds of alleged abuse or neglect, State judges are denying American Indian parents the opportunity to present a meaningful defense, such as by cross-examining South Dakota’s child welfare agency workers, or offering proof of their own fitness to care for their children or evidence that they did provide appropriate care to their children.

Accordingly, those American Indian tribes are suing the state of South Dakota over such alleged violations of the US Indian Child Welfare Act.

The tribes’ and families’ ACLU attorney contends that all of the local judges follow the same procedures in child custody cases where abuse or neglect is alleged. The plaintiffs are seeking evidence as to the source of those procedures.

Accordingly, the tribes and certain family members are seeking records of a chief administrative judge’s communications with other judges regarding procedures in child custody cases alleging abuse or neglect.

But that chief administrative judge has refused to release any of the records requested, maintaining that they are confidential based on judicial privilege. The chief judge has also objected to inquiries as to whether he has even had any such conversations.

The chief administrative judge has an attorney too, and his attorney argues that, in order to carry out their responsibilities, judges must be free to communicate confidentially with each other and their staffs about the difficult issues that are involved in child abuse and neglect cases.

A federal judge is expected to rule by the end of the month on whether the chief administrative judge must release the records.

Read more in this [Sioux Falls, SD] Argus Leader news article: Judge delays ruling in Indian child welfare lawsuit

NJ Father Pursues Return of Son After Mother Allegedly Absconds With Him to Paraguay in Violation of NJ Court Order

NJ-Immigrant Husband and NJ-Immigrant Wife have Son in US. Husband and Wife separate the year after Son is born in 2005.

Husband and Wife are divorced in the family court of Paraguay in 2008. And the Paraguay family court reportedly awards Wife custody of Son.

Wife thereafter returns to the US in 2010, reportedly sometimes leaving Son with Husband. Wife moves around in the US.

Husband then files for custody of Son in the US, but the US courts will not hear his case because Paraguay already exercised jurisdiction over Son incident to Husband’s and Wife’s Paraguay divorce.

Wife reportedly abducts Son to her native Paraguay in 2013 … two days after a NJ family court orders Wife to surrender Son’s and Wife’s passports and Wife to appear in court 2 weeks later.

Husband appears to be looking to governmental authorities in the US to secure Son’s return.

It appears that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction leaves Paraguay’s previously exercised jurisdiction over Son in effect.

This case is unusually complex factually, making it that much more challenging for Husband.

Husband and Wife are reportedly negotiating over an amount of child support that may induce Wife to return with Son to the US.

Read more in this news article: N.J. dad fights to return son from Paraguay: ‘Imagine your son getting kidnapped’

Divorce Grounds of Epic Proportion

With no fault divorce, grounds, in the traditional sense, are all but passe.

But not every religious or legal framework for divorce everywhere works this way.

For example, Sharia law of divorce in Nigeria.

Wife sought a divorce just one week into her marriage.

At the time of consummation, Wife discovered that her physique could not accommodate Husband’s generous endowment without great pain.

And so her divorce petition set that forth as the grounds for her divorce request.

Apparently unimpressed, the Nigerian court, over the laughter of spectators in the courtroom, ordered the parties to attempt a reconciliation …



Mother Held in Contempt of Court for Delaying Son’s Circumcision For … Three Years

Father and Mother have Son together. Then separate when Son is a year old.

Father and Mother agree in a parenting plan filed with the court that Son will be circumcised.

Then Mother changes her mind. Mother reportedly drags their court case out.

The Family Court orders that Mother comply with their parenting agreement and sign the paperwork necessary for the circumcision to be performed.

Now Son is 4 years old and still has not undergone the circumcision as agreed by his parents and ordered by the Family Court.

Mother instead goes into hiding with Son to avoid the circumcision… after publicizing this sensitive, private matter in all the media.

And attracting political / social activists who are not unwilling to exploit Son and the situation to advance their cause.

And the Family Court finds Mother to be in contempt of court, and threatens to jail her.

Read more in this Yahoo News article via Associated Press: Jail looms for mom who fled with son to fight circumcision .