General legal information furnished as a service of Fort Lauderdale / West Palm Beach family law attorney Janet Langjahr
Custodial parents and employers of non-custodial parents alike should take note of Changes for Florida Child Support Enforcement, which go into effect tomorrow.
Support enforcement infrastructure has been streamlined and made more efficient via greater use of technology.
Medical child support is given greater emphasis, with penalties imposed on employers for failing to comply with medical child support notices.
Both measures should have a positive impact on support and care for children.
Should the non-custodial parent’s schedule for religious observance dictate the non-custodial parent’s visitation schedule? That’s the issue a Washington state father thought his visitation case hinged on.
But according to this article, the Washington appellate court saw things differently from the father and reversed the trial court to rule that the father could not have any full weekends with his daughter except during summer vacations.
Although there was evidence that the young girl’s preference was to join her mother in their common religious observance, one can’t help but wonder whether Washington law doesn’t give short shrift to the father’s visitation rights and the enduring importance of the permanent relationship between an involved father and his daughter (regardless of whether the girl was mature enough to appreciate it).
Is this an example of dads being treated like “second class parents”, as many father’s rights groups contend is the case in many states?
CNNMoney serves up some good common sense tips for handling financial matters in Protect your wallet in a divorce. Most of these tips are pretty good ideas throughout a healthy marriage.
Marriage is, in part, an economic / business partnership. Marriage partners should be as well-informed about the financial affairs of the marital partnership as business partners need to be about those of the business partnership.
If a partner is not forthcoming, whether because of misdeeds or control-itis, that is a warning sign of an unhealthy partnership, marital or otherwise. Knowing the finances beforehand is the very best way to ensure an equitable distribution of marital property.
The article also serves as a valuable reminder to update wills and trusts and insurance policies promptly after divorce. Too often, people put this off - until it is too late.
I have a different take from the author’s on the interesting article from Australia which appears below. Artificial intelligence (’AI’) is impressive (although it still has a way to go).
But more to the point, all software (even software that doesn’t claim to be AI) functions according to rules and formulas built into it. Unless and until the underlying process intended to be automated can be boiled down and captured in detailed, hard-and-fast rules and/or formulas, no software can do (or be expected to do) the job. Period.
That’s not the limitation or the fault of the computers or the software.
Rather, that’s because the underlying process the programmers are attempting to automate or computerize is more art than science, sometimes hinging, in the final analysis and in truth, on impressions and gut-feelings for the particular situation and people.
Because of the importance in many cases of that je ne sais quoi element, the artist-practitioners of the process (legislators and judges) haven’t yet been able (and probably never will be able) to nail the entire dissolution process down to tight, iron-clad rules and formulas that can be handed off to the programmers.
The large number of je ne sais quoi cases and the je ne sais quoi elements of many other cases is why human judges don’t have to worry about being replaced by computers, and why lawyers will not become ‘unnecessary’ or dispensable in the divorce process any time in the foreseeable future.
Family court is not tax court. Discretion and judgment are vital to doing the right thing for the ever-growing numbers of regular people drawn into the legal system to end, modify, regulate and get supervision of their family relationships (or aspects of them).
Lawyers and judges earn most of their keep working very hard in the trenches of je ne sais quoi-land:
In these cases especially, people need vigorous legal representation (not just advice) and a Solomon-wise judge. Neither AI or ordinary computer software is going to change that anytime soon, and probably never.
I’m an avid booster of technology - for those tasks for which it is well-suited. It’s not well-suited for the cases bulleted above.
(No, child custody should not be awarded to a parent simply because that parent wants it the most and allocates the most points to it. Any child-molesting parent out there would likely win custody with that approach. )
Legislators and judges have gotten extremely good at “scientificizing” much of child support calculations and property division and, in some jurisdictions, to a lesser extent, alimony calculations.
For those cases where disputes are confined within the black-and-white boundaries of such subject matter, the AI software described in the article may help amicable spouses visualize realistic alternative monetary outcomes and thus motivate and encourage them to reach a settlement, rapidly, easily and inexpensively.
As long as such software’s capabilities and limitations are fully understood by its users, the legal system should embrace its use in appropriate cases. That just may free up scarce legal system resources for the difficult cases where lawyers and judges are needed the most and contribute the most.
Divorce? Let the computer be the judge
By Adele Horin
September 21, 2005
She wants the cat and so does he. He wants the car and so does she. And they both want the kids.
After a marriage breaks down, couples can spend a fortune in legal fees wrangling over property and custody.
But a new computer program called Family Winner may short-circuit the court battles. Developed by Emilia Bellucci, a lecturer at Victoria University’s school of information systems, and John Zeleznikow, professor of information systems, the program requires a couple to prioritise their demands, assigning each a numeric value so that the sum is 100.
“Then the program distributes everything according to who wants it the most,” Professor Zeleznikow said.
The program is part of a package he hopes will be taken up by the 65 Family Relationship Centres being funded by the Federal Government.
With separating couples required to try to resolve disputes before filing with the Family Court, Professor Zeleznikow expects there will be a need for mediators and counsellors to deliver information quickly and cheaply. Computer programs that show the likely outcomes of court cases, or apply artificial intelligence and game theory to the allocation of possessions, may be part of the answer, he believes.
A second program called SplitUp, developed with Andrew Stranieri of the University of Ballarat, calculates the likely results of property settlements in Family Court proceedings, Professor Zeleznikow said.
The program had highlighted surprising results, he said, such as the importance judges assigned to the relative ages of the protagonists, and the lesser significance attached to the assets each brought into the marriage.
“I was surprised to see that if a woman with little work experience is, say, 10 years younger than her husband who is a professor on a good salary, the assets are likely to be divided reasonably equally, when you might expect the professor would need less,” Professor Zeleznikow said.
“Are these systems better than a good family lawyer? Absolutely not. But you will pay a lot of money and take some time to get advice from a good lawyer. And this could be available for everyone.”
For informational purposes only and not intended to infringe on Copyright © 2005 The Sydney Morning Herald
Everyone considering adopting children knows (or gets to know) the costs involved. Financial assistance may be harder to ferret out. This article helps.
The high cost of adoption: There’s Help Available From a Variety of Sources, Including Employers and Uncle Sam
By Kathy Kristof - Los Angeles Times
Suzzanne Ippel knows how expensive it can be to adopt a child. When she and her husband adopted a son and a daughter four years ago, they had to refinance their house to come up with the cash required to complete the process.
But luckily for them, there’s economic help available to adoptive parents from a variety of sources, including employers and the federal government.
For example, Ippel’s employer, Intuit, reimburses up to $3,500 of the expenses required to adopt each child and provides paid time off and immediate health coverage for the new family members.
For Ippel’s family, that benefit was worth $7,000 and a month of paid leave.
“It was a godsend,'’ said Ippel, a human resource manager based in Tucson. “When we finally sat down to figure it all out, the total cost was over $20,000 — and the costs didn’t quit when we got the kids home.'’
Intuit is among a growing number of big companies that provide adoption assistance that can be used in conjunction with federal tax breaks and, sometimes, state grants, to offset the often high cost of adoption.
Ippel and her husband also were able to claim federal tax credits that reimburse parents for qualified adoption expenses — which at the time of their adoptions was worth as much as $5,000 per child. All told, they eventually were reimbursed by Intuit and the federal government for $17,000 of their initial costs.
Roughly 100,000 parents adopt in the United States each year, spending as much as $40,000 in the process. Money to reimburse some of the costs is increasingly plentiful, although the source of the money and how much is available depends on the type of adoption, where the parents work and how much they earn.
COMPANY PROGRAMS: Adoption assistance programs for employees have become more common and more generous in recent years, according to annual surveys conducted by Hewitt Associates in Chicago.
Roughly 39 percent of the big companies Hewitt surveyed this year offered adoption assistance programs. That’s up from 36 percent last year and 31 percent in 2000. The average amount of cash assistance has also climbed from $3,100 five years ago to $3,879 in the most recent survey, according to Suzanne Zagata-Meraz, a Hewitt spokeswoman.
The appeal of these payments for employers is that, like pensions or health benefits, they are tax deductible for the company (and generally not taxable for the employee). The level of employer-provided assistance varies dramatically, however, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, which sponsors the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. Some companies offer simple information and referral programs, while others will provide cash grants of as much as $15,000.
FEDERAL TAX BREAKS: The federal government has been providing tax benefits to adopting parents since 1997. These benefits have become increasingly generous over the years, jumping from a maximum credit of $5,000 to $10,630 per child today.
With a standard adoption, the credits can be used simply to offset “qualified'’ expenses, which include legal bills, travel expenses, adoption fees, medical bills and all other payments necessary to complete a legal adoption, said Mark Luscombe, principal tax analyst with CCH, a tax service based in Riverwoods, Ill.
But with so-called “special needs'’ adoptions — involving children who are difficult to place due to age or disabilities, for example — the credits can be taken regardless of how much the parents spent to adopt. In other words, if the adoption of a child with special needs cost only $1, the new parents could still take the full $10,630 tax credit. The credit can’t be used to generate a tax refund, but it can be carried over into future years, said Cindy Hockenberry, tax information analyst with the National Association of Tax Professionals in Appleton, Wis.
So if a family owes just $5,000 in federal income tax in the year of an adoption, it can wipe out that year’s tax bill and use the remaining adoption credit to eliminate as much as $5,630 in income tax in the following year as well.
Adoption credits generally are taken in the year that the adoption is final. But if an adoption drags on — or fails — the credits can be used to offset adoption-related expenses in the year after the year the expenses are incurred, Luscombe said.
The one caveat: Families with more than $159,450 in adjusted gross income, including foreign-earned income, lose a portion of the credit. Families with adjusted gross income above $199,450 cannot claim the credit.
OTHER ASSISTANCE: Private adoptions can be costly, but those who go through the public social service system often pay little, if any, cash out of pocket, said Joey Nesler, psychotherapist with the Kinship Center in Santa Ana, which works with adopted children.
In fact, parents can often qualify for adoption assistance payments, as well as medical coverage. Adoption assistance payments, which can last until the child reaches age 18, vary widely depending on the child and the parent’s needs. For instance, California’s public adoption Web site (www.cakidsconnection.com) says that virtually all children adopted through the foster care system in California qualify for financial assistance.
For educational purposes only and not intended to infringe on © 2005 MercuryNews.com
After just four months of marriage, celebrity Renee Zellweger filed a now well-publicized petition for annulment. In the petition, she reportedly alleged fraud by husband Kenny Chesney. Since filing, Zellweger has been widely quoted as saying that the allegations were “simply legal language…and not a reflection of Kenny’s character”.
The case is interesting in two respects. First, it is one of those currently rare cases for annulment. Unlike divorce, which wraps up a marriage that has gone bad, annulment erases the marriage, as though it never happened in the first place.
For many reasons, people often prefer to annul their marriages rather than divorce. But annulments are typically much harder to get, requiring grounds - even in states which normally have “no fault” divorce.
Second, the fraud allegations cited may be intended to qualify this marriage for annulment. In Florida, fraudulent inducement of marriage is one of the handful of grounds for annulment. (But Florida has additional requirements as well.)
Although I am not expressing any opinion about the meaning of the quoted language in the first paragraph, some folks might be tempted to interpret that language as a virtual admission that the allegation is an empty one, made solely to satisfy a legal requirement.
Although it may be different in California, if a family court petition in Florida is not filed through an attorney, the person filing the petition must swear in writing to the truth of its contents. Even if that requirement doesn’t apply, unless the case is settled by mutual agreement, the person filing the petition in Florida will eventually have to testify in court as to the grounds - or no final judgment will be entered.
But this case is in Tinseltown. Where fiction rules.
Don’t try this at home.
According to the Seattle Post-Intellligencer, Washington state has a statute protecting sperm donors from child support claims. Despite that, the paper reports, not surprisingly, Supreme Court: Man must pay child support for in vitro children.
This case is just another illustration of how a court may not apply a statute according to its literal terms in a paper vacuum. Although the man in this case was a sperm donor, the facts demonstrate that he was also much more. The children here were conceived out of a long term affair and the man had very much played the part of the children’s father.
The court evidently felt that this man was not whom the legistlature intended to protect with the statute. And, therefore, didn’t protect him with the statute.
One component of the divorce process is equitable distribution or division of marital property. Before you can work out an equitable distribution of the property though, you have to know how much marital property there is, where it is and how much it is worth.
In some cases, this can pose a challenge, a time-consuming and expensive challenge. The difficulty is often compounded in many cases by a controlling spouse who kept the other spouse in the dark throughout the marriage or even went out of their way to mislead the other spouse about their financial affairs long before the word divorce first came up.
The problem in these cases is that once people embark on hiding (or collude to hide) assets, they have an ever-strengthening, self-preservation motive to cover up not only the assets but also their own misconduct in hiding them. That means you will almost certainly need a forensic accountant.
So for the innocent spouse the dilemma becomes: is there enough money hidden to justify the expense of the hunt to root it out?
The article below provides some tips about some of the more common asset-hiding tactics.
Searching for Hidden Assets in a New York Divorce
In New York as in any state, your spouse may attempt to hide assets from you at the time of divorce. Here are some tips on how to find property your spouse may be concealing from you when you divorce.
This list includes common ways in which a spouse may undervalue or disguise marital assets. Be advised, however, that you may have difficulty finding some items or getting the proof you need to show they exist. A forensic accountant or formal discovery procedure may help.
- Collusion with an employer to delay bonuses, stock options or raises until after the divorce. You might find this information by taking the deposition of your spouse’s boss or payroll supervisor, but more likely you’ll need a forensic accountant.
- Salary paid to a nonexistent employee. The checks will be voided after divorce. Again, you might find this information by taking the deposition of your spouse’s boss or payroll supervisor, but you’ll probably need a forensic accountant.
- Money paid from the business to someone close — such as a father, mother, girlfriend or boyfriend — for services never rendered. The money will no doubt be given back to your spouse after the divorce is final.
- A custodial account set up in the name of a child, using the child’s Social Security number.
- Delay in signing long-term business contracts until after the divorce. Although this may seem like smart planning, if the intent is to lower the value of the business, it is considered hiding assets.
- Skimming cash from a business he or she owns.
- Antiques, artwork, hobby equipment, gun collections and tools that are overlooked or undervalued. Look for lush furnishings, paintings or collector-level carpets at the office; income that is unreported on tax returns and financial statements.
- Debt repayment to a friend for a phony debt.
- Expenses paid for a girlfriend or boyfriend such as gifts, travel, rent or tuition for college or special classes.
- Investment in certificate “bearer” municipal bonds or Series EE Savings Bonds, which do not appear on account statements because they are not registered with the IRS. (The government is phasing out these bonds, realizing that it is losing a lot of money.)
- Cash kept in the form of traveler’s checks. You may be able to find these by tracing bank account deposits and withdrawals.
Get the Goods (on Paper) Before It Ends
If you suspect that your spouse may attempt to hide assets, it’s best to start investigating your household and business finances before initiating divorce proceedings. Make copies of important documents such as tax returns from the past several years, bank account statements, pay stubs and any other documents that reflect joint assets or debts. Keep copies of these documents outside the home if you’re still living with your spouse or partner. Also, as a precautionary measure, you might want to open a separate savings account in your name only. If your spouse hides assets, you may find yourself in need of a nest egg. Down the line, you may have to relinquish some of your savings to your spouse — after all, we’re not encouraging you to deal with a dishonest spouse by stooping to his or her level — but having a little extra cash on hand may ward off a crisis in the wake of your divorce.
For educational purposes only and not intended to infringe on ©2004, 2005 Richard Granat
“I need a ‘this-kind-of‘ lawyer. Is that what you are?”
All lawyers get calls like that.
Many areas of law go by a single, universally accepted name. For example, personal injury law is personal injury law. Immigration law is immigration law. Clients with these types of legal problems have an easy time figuring out can help them.
Some other areas of law may be known by a couple of different names. For example, labor law may go by the term employment law. Real estate law may be called property law. Wills law may be referred to as estate planning law. Clients with those types of legal problems have it a little bit tougher figuring out who can help them, but probably not too much so.
Then there is the area of law that I practice: helping people with legal problems involving people in a family relationship to them.
Lawyers in my practice area get calls like:
“I need a … uh … uh … lawyer. Let me explain the problem. … Can you help me with that?”
Considering how many people face legal problems with family members every single day, it may be surprising at first blush that clients with these types of problems often have a very tough time identifying what kind of lawyer to turn to for help.
But it shouldn’t be. First of all, my area of law goes by more names than most. Consider:
Secondly, the complexity doesn’t end with the nomenclature. The complex and varied legal problems that clients may have with family members may summon them to family court. And, not infrequently, also to domestic violence court. And sometimes also to juvenile court … criminal court … probate court … and / or civil court.
Regardless, all five names above refer to the same area of law that I practice. These practice areas are all the same roses, just by other names.
And we divorce/ matrimonial/ domestic relations/ family/ marital lawyers take to whatever courts we must to solve our clients legal problems involving people in a family relationship to them. And these different divisions of the courts are, for these clients’ purposes, also all the same roses, just by other names.
The name of the problem or practice area or court is just a superficial question of form. As clients instinctively know, what matters is the substance of the problem and whether the lawyer has the knowledge, experience and skills to solve it in whichever court it must be solved. Regardless of what other names the problem, area of law or court may be known by.
A child custody case that is potentially far-reaching is making its way through both the Virginia and Vermont courts - despite the fact that all of the states in this nation started passing laws back in the 1960s with the specific intention of stopping parallel cases in different states from proceeding to (potentially conflicting) final judgments about custody of the same child.
The facts extracted from the articles cited below:
The dispute is between two women who were engaged in a lesbian relationship which had been formalized in a Vermont civil union before the child in the case was born to one of them by means of artificial insemination. The couple lived with the baby in Virginia for a few months, until they relocated to Vermont. After living in Vermont for about a year, the adults’ relationship broke up and they filed suit in Vermont to dissolve their civil union and to determine parental rights over the child. The Vermont court granted primary custody of the child to the birth mother with visitation to her former partner, on a temporary basis, pending further hearing(s).
After that, the birth mother relocated back to Virginia with the child. Once there, the birth mother refused her former partner the visitation ordered by the Vermont court and filed a new suit to determine parental rights over the child - this time in Virginia. The Virginia court apparently disregarded the Vermont court case and proceeded to grant the birth mother sole custody of the child without awarding any visitation to her former partner.
The case is now on appeal in both Virginia and Vermont.
Needless to say, many people have strong opinions and feelings about whether the birth mother’s former partner should or should not ultimately win permanent visitation rights. Those opinions and feelings, however, leapfrog right past the only question that I believe, strictly speaking legally, is properly before any court of law now: which state should exercise jurisdiction in this child custody action?
Admittedly, this is not intuitive, but custody / visitation cases between parents living in different states have two distinct stages. The first stage is a determination solely as to which state has jurisdiction, jurisdiction to make decisions - in the second stage - on the merits. Consideration of who should / will ultimately win custody / visitation on the merits normally should not play any part in the determination of which state has jurisdiction.
That question is simply reserved for stage two, on another day - and possibly in another state.
So, in a somewhat oversimplified, bottom-line nutshell, under the laws of the various states, the merits of who will ultimately win the custody / visitation dispute should be tackled only by one state: the one state that will have jurisdiction. Everything else is extraneous - now.
But that doesn’t seem to be reflected in the media coverage. See articles below:
Thanks to South Carolina attorney and fellow blogger Ben Stevens for compiling and publishing on his blog a comprehensive list of links to US divorce and family law blogs.
The listing is a great resource for the many, many parties embroiled in divorce, custody, visitation, support and even domestic violence cases that may cross state lines.
“My spouse and I were married twenty-five years ago when we lived in another state. I found out later that our marriage was invalid. I want out of the ‘marriage’ now anyway. What do I do?”
Cases like this can be complicated, and the answer depends on the particular facts.
Why was the marriage invalid? Was the other spouse responsible? Did the other spouse know all along? When did the inquiring spouse find out about the invalidity? Did he or she take any action at that time? Are there children? Is there ‘marital property’? Does the inquiring ’spouse’ want anything beyond “getting out”?
Florida generally will not grant a divorce unless a couple was actually married.
What other states did the couple live in during the ‘marriage’? Perhaps they established a valid common law marriage under the laws of another state that they may have lived in previously.
Florida couples cannot establish common law marriages based on cohabitation here (since 1968). But Florida may recognize a valid common law marriage established under the laws of another state at the time that a couple lived there. If Florida recognizes a common law marriage entered in another state, Florida may grant a divorce.
But if divorce does not fit the facts of the case, depending on the reason that the ‘marriage’ was invalid, it is possible that the ‘marriage’ may be annulled. But, for several reasons, Florida courts disfavor annulment.
Annulment does not always fit the facts of the case just because divorce is not available though. In those cases, ending the bogus marriage may be as simple as walking away.
But in those cases, the inquiring ’spouse’ will have no right to division of ‘marital property’ and no potential right to alimony, as they may at the end of a marriage. Does that mean they walk away with nothing?
Not necessarily. Depending on the facts of the case, the ’spouse’ may be able to resort to other, substantially equivalent but less common legal strategies to get what they are entitled to.
ScienceDaily reports that Michigan is going “to try child support amnesty”. The program gives parents the chance to avoid all civil and criminal consequences of their delinquency by simply bringing their existing past due obligations current by the end of the year.
The reader may walk away from the article with the impression that the amnesty program is too harsh. At least until they read this piecefrom the Virginian-Pilot.
Florida has the largest population of senior citizens in the country, right? Actually, according to an article from the Contra Cost Times that distinction goes to California, not Florida.
The article highlights a too-largely forgotten category of domestic violence (as well as other types of abuse by strangers and relatives alike) : elder abuse.
Unfortunately, Florida also sees its share of elder abuse, both violent and hidden abuse.
With the aging of the population, more and more seniors are increasingly vulnerable to this form of abuse, both within and outside their own families.
For more Florida-specific information, visit the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. To report senior abuse in Florida, call 800-962-2873.
The presumption of a defendant’s innocence is guaranteed in criminal court by the US Constitution. And prosecutors must ultimately prove their case against the criminal defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
But not in family court. There, the most important rights to be protected are those of the children. At least in Florida, the court is supposed to act in the children’s best interests. And the burden of proof is much lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
But in the article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal below, it appears that a Nevada father’s rights in a family court child custody case were protected as though he were in criminal court - at the ultimate, tragic expense of his young son’s life.
August 31, 2005
NV Judge criticized after boy’s suicide
Glenn Puit
A 12-year-old boy who fatally shot himself in Henderson on Friday was the subject of a custody dispute in which a judge was repeatedly warned that the child was surrounded by loaded, unsecured guns, according to court records.
Syber Wells was found shot to death at his father’s Henderson home on Friday.
According to taped Family Court proceedings obtained by the Review-Journal, Judge Cheryl Moss was warned in April that Syber Wells and his two younger brothers, ages 10 and 8, were exposed to the unsecured firearms while in the custody of their father, Geoffrey Wells, 36.
The children’s mother, Maria Wells, said Tuesday she even videotaped the guns at her estranged husband’s home to prove to the judge that the children were in danger.
But when Geoffrey Wells maintained that the guns were secured and that the children were part of a military family trained in gun safety, Moss agreed to give Geoffrey and Maria Wells joint legal custody of the three children.
‘I don’t see a problem with the gun issues,’ Moss said. ‘As long as the kids are, I guess they’re trained as a military family, grow up like that, it’s kind of a unique situation.’
On Friday, Syber Wells was discovered dead at the home on Basic Street, Henderson police said. The child died from a gunshot wound to the head. Henderson police officer Todd Rasmussen declined to comment further, citing an ongoing investigation.
But Maria Wells said police told her they found unsecured firearms throughout her estranged husband’s house, and that her son committed suicide.
‘They told me they found guns everywhere,’ Maria Wells said.
Maria Wells went on to say that Moss should have never put the children in her estranged husband’s custody given the prior warnings about the weapons.
‘Every court hearing we had, we discussed it,’ Maria Wells said. ‘I had videotapes of guns laying around the house, and everyone seemed to ignore it.
‘She screwed up,’ Maria Wells said. ‘She didn’t address the issue.’
Moss did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said Moss is prevented by Nevada judicial cannons from discussing pending court cases.
Geoffrey Wells could not be reached because a phone to his home has been disconnected. His attorney, Gerard Bongiovanni, did not respond to a request for comment left at his office on Tuesday.
According to the videotaped court proceedings, Geoffrey and Maria Wells were involved in a heated custody dispute over the three children. The dispute included allegations of domestic violence on both sides and financial mismanagement.
Moss, in making her custody ruling in April, said she had no definitive proof of domestic violence by either parent.
‘I don’t have any arrests. I don’t have any drugs, alcohol,’ Moss said.
Moss also noted that she would continue to examine the custody status of the children as more reports from court appointed experts were received.
The judge also recognized that there was a great deal of acrimony between the parents of the children.
‘There’s really some bad blood,’ the judge said, adding Maria Wells’ family ‘really don’t like Geoff.’
During the same hearing, Maria Wells’ attorney, Randall Roske, told the judge that Geoffrey Wells’ gun collection was excessive, and the guns were unsecured.
‘The guy has an arsenal of guns. … He has been recklessly spending money to build up, I don’t know what,’ Roske said. ‘This guy thinks he’s going to be a survivalist in the middle of Henderson.
‘He’s got all these guns … like someone, some army is going to have a commando operation on his home,’ Roske said.
Roske said Tuesday he, too, believes the gun issue was not adequately addressed. ‘She brushed it aside,’ Roske said.
Maria Wells said her 10-year-old son was the one who found his brother’s body. She also said the children were home alone with no baby sitter, shortly before 7 a.m., at the time of the shooting.
‘They are traumatized,’ she said of her surviving sons. ‘They are going to counseling.’
Rasmussen said once the police investigation is complete, the case will be forwarded to the Clark County district attorney’s office for review to determine whether ‘anything criminal occurred.’
The criticism of Moss is just the latest for the judge.
Earlier this year, attorney Randy Rumph, who represents himself in a child custody case, alleged that Moss gives preferential treatment to lawyers who have donated to her campaigns, including his ex-wife’s lawyer. Two of Moss’ former law clerks, Lucien Cravens and Marvin Santamaria, signed affidavits supporting Rumph’s allegation of favoritism, but Moss has denied any wrongdoing.
‘Unhappy litigants will do or say anything, no matter how outrageous, to get press coverage as a means to manipulate the judicial system,’ Moss said when first asked about Rumph’s allegations.
In 2003, the Review-Journal detailed how a Las Vegas sailor, James Denson II, had lost custody of his 8-year-old daughter because of a ruling by Moss.
Moss made the decision after Denson did not show up in court for a hearing. What the judge did not know was that Denson had been deployed to Kuwait for operation Iraqi Freedom.
Moss recused herself from the case, and another judge ended up reversing her order.
For educational purposes only and not intended to infringe on Copyright 2005 DR Partners d/b Las Vegas Review-Journal Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada)
Newsweek is carrying an article with advice from a divorce financial analyst. The article shows some ways that investing in the services of a financial analyst may maximize the marital assets and, therefore, lead to more property ultimately being distributed to one or both spouses. A financial analyst may also help to optimize allocation of the spouses’ future income(s) among each other and their children.
In appropriate cases, good financial analysts can add tremendous value to the divorce process. The spouses would do well to remember, however, that some financial analysts tend to view support and property division in a purely mathematical way.
But the impact of divorce can’t be boiled down to a straightforward mathematical formula.
For example, remaining in the marital home may help maintain some stability, emotional security and continuity for minor children whose parents are divorcing. This value to the entire family cannot be captured by a financial formula.
Similarly, tax savings, while important, may not be the overriding objectives for one or both spouses. Touching on an example in the article, alimony and child support serve different purposes and do not continue for the same periods of time. In some cases, it could ultimately prove detrimental to attempt to characterize payments for one as payments for the other just to achieve better tax treatment.
The totality of divorce is a complex process for the spouses and the family. Wherever possible, spouses/parents should evaluate alternative divisions of property and future support issues with their attorneys in the larger contexts of the divorce and the family.
A Vermont case against a Florida mother appears to raise a novel question: is it unconstitutional to penalize for prolonged non-payment of child support a mother whose church reportedly prohibits paid third-party employment and apparently requires instead that church members perform goodworks for other church members on a full-time basis?
Although the mother is a Florida resident, the support orders and enforcement orders were entered in Vermont under Vermont law. But Florida and other states similarly allow for suspension of driver’s licenses as a penalty for non-payment of child support in appropriate cases. Florida, specifically allows for a qualified suspension permitting certain driving, including driving for income-producing or “church…purposes“, as may Vermont.
The church pays this mother a modest amount of money that may be variously characterized as income, housing allowance or a stipend. That money seems to be the only source that the state of Vermont seeks payment of past due child support from. The mother reportedly did not challenge the support orders at the time they were entered.
Unusual child support case goes before High Court
By John Zicconi Vermont Press Bureau September 5, 2005
MONTPELIER — The Vermont Supreme Court will decide whether a former Vermont woman can avoid paying child support because of her religious beliefs.
The Vermont Office of Child Support in 2003 received a court order allowing it to suspend the driver’s license of Joyce Stanzione, a former Vermont resident who has not paid child support since she separated from her husband in 1991.
Stanzione is a long-time member of the Twelve Tribes Messianic Community in Florida and is not allowed under church law to have an income, said Jean Swantko, her attorney.
Suspending Stanzione’s driver’s license because she has no income violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects religious freedom, said Swantko, who is also a member of the Twelve Tribes Community.
Stanzione appealed the lower court decision. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday.
“She cannot pay because of her faith,” Swantko wrote in a legal brief to the high court. “Suspending (her) right to drive is punishment for the free exercise of her religious beliefs.”
Twelve Tribes has some 25 settlements worldwide, including Island Pond, which was the site of a raid by the state of Vermont in 1984. State officials alleged the community was abusing its children, but a judge dismissed all charges for a lack of evidence.
Stanzione now lives in another state, Swantko said, but suspending her Vermont right to drive would also bar her from driving in Florida because states honor each other’s suspensions.
Losing her ability to drive would prevent Stanzione, 54, from doing church work, Swantko said.
“She drives every day for the work she does in the community,” Swantko said. “She shops for the elderly and drives them around.”
Stanzione was ordered in 1991 to pay $50 per week in child support when she and her husband divorced and he left the religious community to return to Vermont along with three of the couple’s five children, according to court papers.
She never contested the order but made no payments, court papers said.
The youngest of her children turned 18 in 1999, but three years later Stanzione was brought back into court and ordered to pay $4,800 to the state to make up for the welfare payments Vermont taxpayers supplied her children while they lived with their father.
Stanzione again made no payments, and in 2003 the Office of Child Support successfully moved to have her driver’s license suspended. The suspension, however, has been put on hold pending the Supreme Court appeal.
“It’s a fairness issue,” said Jeff Cohen, director of the Office of Child Support. “The taxpayers supported three kids for a long time. We are just asking for a reasonable amount of assistance.”
Cohen said the state is not trampling on Stanzione’s religious freedom by asking her to help support her own children.
“There are a lot of low-income people out there who make good efforts to support their kids,” Cohen said. “There is an element of public policy behind this. It sends a message that people have to take responsibility for their kids.”
The Office of Child Support suspends about 24 driver’s licenses each year, he said.
A child-support order says Stanzione receives an annual “pro-rata share” of the church community’s income. That came to about $5,000 in both 2000 and 2001.
Stanzione has income, which is why the state suspended her license, Cohen said.
“I don’t think there is any question she has the ability to pay,” Cohen said. “If she did not have the ability, we would write it off.”
Swantko said Stanzione does not receive income from the church.
Members receive money “for tax purposes and to spend on food and shelter,” Swantko said. “They don’t get to spend it on themselves.”
Swantko said it is unconstitutional for the state to punish Stanzione, a church community member since 1983, for not having a personal income when it is against her religious beliefs.
“You cannot suspend someone’s license unless the person has the ability to pay,” Swantko said. “The reason she does not have any money is because of her religious beliefs. They don’t want to face that.”
Contact John Zicconi at john.zicconi@timesargus.com
Reprinted for educational purposes only and not intended to infringe on © 2005 Times Argus
Florida (at least Palm Beach county and Broward county) possesses a massive legal machine and virtual army of professionals to process the saddest of cases: cases of abandonment, abuse and neglect of innocent children.
Despite that, the sobering article below from FloridaToday.com points out that Florida has one of the highest incidences of child abuse in the nation, about 100,000 incidents per year. (Florida also has a relatively high incidence of domestic violence in general.)
Florida’s latest strategy for tackling child abuse emphasizes preventative early intervention and education. Let’s hope it helps.
September 4, 2005
Stopping child abuse
New plan could help stem Florida’s epidemic neglect of its youngest citizens
A plan by the Florida Department of Children and Families to cut child abuse in the state in half by 2010 is the best news to come from the often criticized agency in many years.
The ambitious goal is direly needed, as Florida’s abuse and neglect rate is a dismal 31.5 per 1,000 children, higher than almost every other state in the nation.
To bring those abstract figures home, picture this:
More than 100,000 children in the Sunshine State are abused, neglected or abandoned each year. That’s the entire number of students enrolled in Brevard County public schools, plus another 25,000.
To combat the horrifying statistic, the DCF wants to forge closer connections among community, law enforcement, education, health and other agencies.
They in turn would work more comprehensively to prevent abuse, in part by expanding proven programs that support and strengthen the families of at-risk children.
Legislators started the new prevention plan rolling by mandating DCF to assess the needs of abused children statewide.
That was commendable. But now they must fulfill the tough part of the bargain — making sure the community-based care agencies that will actually implement the push have steady, adequate funding.
Strong abuse prevention programs will lessen the suffering of vulnerable children. But they’ll also reduce the long-term costs child abuse inflicts on society in education, health and crime problems, a wise investment.
For educational purposes only and without intent to infringe on Copyright © 2005 FLORIDA TODAY
Some people think that the law favors the first spouse to file for divorce. Ironically, just as many people believe the reverse.
Who’s right? In Florida, maybe none of them.
In most (but not all) situations, the law of divorce in Florida does not favor either the filer (called the petitioner) or the other spouse (called the respondent). Florida law does not attach “fault” or blame to either spouse for bringing about the end of the marriage, either legally or otherwise.
Having said that, there are often practical, tactical advantages to being the first to file. For one thing, the party who files first establishes the timeline for the case. The petitioner can choose a time that is convenient for the petitioner or, more likely, a time that is particularly inconvenient for the other spouse.
For another thing, the petitioner can secretly collect documentation and evidence for use in negotiations or trial, long before the other spouse is wise to the fact that a divorce is coming. The petitioner can also leisurely develop a legal strategy and build their case before the other spouse gets wind of their plans.
By contrast, when the other spouse is served out of the blue, he or she may be shell-shocked, unable to think straight or act effectively for a while. Yet the twenty days to respond is still ticking by while that spouse scrambles to get himself or herself together, line up an attorney and generally catch up.
So, while there may be advantages to being the petitioner in Florida divorce cases, for the most part, they are not dictated by Florida divorce law.
Unlike divorce law, however, Florida child custody law explicitly favors the parent who files for custody first in certain types of child custody cases (provided that other requirements are also met). But such cases are not the typical child custody case in the typical divorce scenario either.
In most Florida child custody cases in the context of divorce, the advantages of filing first are generally only practical and tactical, as in most Florida divorce cases.
We live in a very mobile society. Families today move hundreds and even thousands of miles all the time, with hardly a thought.
Until divorce. After divorce, the prospect of relocation becomes more complicated for a parent who has minor children.
But relocation is a fact of modern life, and both the Florida legislature and courts have addressed it. Under current Florida law, the primary residential parent does not have an unrestricted right to relocate with the children, but neither is there anything approaching an absolute bar to such relocation.
If divorced parents get into a dispute over a proposed relocation by the primary residential parent, a Florida court will settle the dispute by considering a number of factors. The most important consideration for the court is whether, all things considered, the relocation will be in the best interests of the children.
How does the court decide what is in the best interests of the children? By reviewing all the circumstances of the case.
For example, suppose
As hard as the court looks, the only reason it may be able to come up with to explain this move is the custodial parent’s unjustified desire to start a new life with the children’s father out of the picture. In a case like this, there is more than a chance that the court will determine that this relocation will not serve the best interests of the children.
But suppose instead that
Now, the residential parent will be able afford to move the children into a larger home in a better neighborhood, with top notch schools for the children and more cultural enrichment programs. The custodial parent will also be able to afford to pay transportation expenses for any visitation that the non-custodial parent might actually care to exercise. Further, the primary residential parent offers to pay for the non-residential parent’s long distance telephone service, high speed internet access and a web camera to facilitate meaningful contact with the children despite the distance.
The primary residential parent openly discusses the proposed move with the non-residential parent well in advance to work out an arrangement and then seeks permission from the court to move with the children. In a case like this, it would hardly be surprising if the court determines that this relocation will serve the best interests of the children.
While parents may think that they would prefer black and white rules of law to look to, in fact, such fixed, rigid rules usually don’t allow judges the flexibility they need to evaluate all the circumstances of the entire case (as in the hypothetical cases above) so as to reach a decision that will serve the best interests of the children. The best guidance in any particular case almost always comes from real court cases that have already been decided.
“I inherited a house from my parents before my marriage. I just got served with a divorce. My spouse is asking that my parents’ house be sold and that the proceeds be divided equally between us. My spouse isn’t entitled to one red cent from my parents’ house, right?”
It’s tempting to agree with the quote above, but it may be premature. In truth, there isn’t enough information to tell yet.
After some probing, the heir adds that the house has served as the marital residence throughout the marriage and that the other spouse’s claim is especially upsetting to the heir because the house has appreciated on the order of 100% during the marriage.
With that, it is indeed possible that the spouse will have some legal claim to the house. But it’s not yet time to stop probing. Additional facts may influence the final word here greatly.
For example, suppose the spouse was handy and did some work on the house? Perhaps the spouse renovated the kitchen and bathroom. Perhaps the spouse built on a room. Maybe the spouse even built an outdoor jacuzzi.
Further, it turns out that other homes in the area similar to the house in its pre-renovation state have only appreciated on the order of 25% percent rather than the 100% that this house has appreciated.
Under Florida law, it’s starting to sound like the spouse may have good reason to claim that at least a part of the house has become marital property and that, other things being relatively equal, the spouse is entitled to some portion of the value of the house.
(Parenthetically, if the heir had wanted to avoid the spouse having any possible claim on the house in the event of a divorce and had consulted a lawyer, the heir would have learned that several different options chosen at the outset could have completely protected the house. But the die are cast now.)
Still, that doesn’t mean that the house will have to be sold now. Or that the division of the house will have to be equal.
It just means that the spouse may be entitled to some portion of the house’s value at some point in time. The ultimate outcome in a case like this will depends on careful analysis of the couple’s assets and possibly non-financial dynamics of the marriage as well.
| Listen to Janet |