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

The TN Supreme Court recently handed down a decision affirming that the non-custodial parent must contribute to the support of minor children throughout their childhood, regardless of whether the custodial caregivers are the other parent or grandparents.

This particular case arose after the custodial parent, the mother, passed away while the children were minors. The children’s grandparents then became their legal guardians.

And the father concluded that he no longer was obliged to pay child support – because of the children’s mother’s death.

And the father pursued this position all the way to the state’s highest court.

He’s not the first non-custodial parent to have that point of view. I’ve had non-custodial parents consult me in regard to pressing the same argument.

Read more in this Tennessean article: Court sides with the kids.

Child brings suit to learn the identity of his biological father.

An adopted child?

No. And that’s what makes this case unusual.

After his parents’ divorce, the boy resided primarily with his legal father – the then-husband of the boy’s biological mother.

(In many states, including Florida, the man married to a birth mother is presumed to be the legal father of a baby.)

But, apparently, a recent DNA test proved that the boy’s legal father is not his biological father.

And now the boy wants his biological mother to disclose who his biological father is, supposedly out of concerns over his family health history.

And now a Michigan court must decide whether the boy has a right to compel the disclosure.

Read more in this Detroit News article: Mom, teen square off in paternity case.

The battle to preserve internet and blogging freedom is still raging, but the scales are tipping toward the lobbyist-rich large media companies that want to control the internet, and by whom and for what it is used.

The Save the Internet campaign has made it incredibly easy to see where your very own senators stand – if they have chosen to let their constituents know where they stand.

For example, Florida’s Senator Bill Nelson supports internet freedom – and, as a result, those of us who bring you much wanted information through our blogging.

The Florida Divorce Law Blog commends and supports Senator Nelson’s support of Net Neutrality.

By contrast, Florida’s Senator Mel Martinez has not taken a public stand on Net Neutrality.

It’s July 28th. Time is running out on Free Speech on, and Equal Access to the Internet.

Do you know where your Senators stand?

You have a right to know. If you want to, just visit the graphical Save the Internet Map of US Senators.

If you don’t like what you learn about your senators’ positions on Net Neutrality = Internet Freedom, you can sign a petition and/or write to your senator(s) to let your senator(s) know how you feel – without even leaving your computer.

If you are a Floridian and support Florida blogs like this one, consider contacting Senator Martinez and urging him to join Senator Nelson in non-partisan support of both Florida’s Internet Coast and internet freedom throughout the US, on behalf of his individual and small business constituents throughout Florida.

An immigrant who reportedly overstayed her visa was arrested here in Florida – the day before she and the father of her baby were to finalize an agreement on paternity, custody and child support for their baby.

The woman had allegedly been working to support her baby, using someone else’s social security number.

It turns out that the father’s attorney previously represented the immigration agent, who was instrumental in the mother’s arrest, in his own divorce.

And the father reportedly went around threatening the baby’s mother with deportation if she didn’t reconcile with him. In fact, the local police cited him for trespassing at the baby’s grandmother’s home, where he allegedly made the same threats of deportation.

The father is reportedly on probation for drug charges.

The woman’s attorneys believe that the common attorney link between the immigration agent and the baby’s father is more than coincidence, and may bear on the legality of the case against her and, therefore, her defense.

The judge in the case ordered the sheriff’s office to disclose the identity of law enforcement’s informant.

But the sheriff’s office flat out refuses to comply with the court’s order – and makes no bones about it.

Perhaps there is something to the defense’s suggestions that this woman, just one of many local immigrants allegedly improperly using another’s social security number to work, was singled out for unequal treatment under the law because of the child custody and support case, and the father’s attorney’s presumed access to the immigration agent who had reportedly been his client.

Read more in this Treasure Coast Palm article: Indian River County Sheriff’s Office refuses to identify informant.

In a California juvenile dependency case, the trial court ordered long-term foster care and continuing protective custody of a baby born in California.

The only problem was that the baby was reportedly removed from the state of California when he was two days old and has since lived in Georgia with his father for more than a year.

The California Court of Appeal reversed because, under the applicable uniform child custody jurisdiction acts, there was no valid basis for California to exercise child custody jurisdiction over the baby and therefore the trial court exceeded its power.

The appellate ruling was quite correct, because the baby’s life is and has been in Georgia and, if any rulings about the baby’s custody and care are needed, Georgia is clearly the place which can be best informed for making them.

Read more in this Los Angeles Metropolitan News article: Juvenile Court Judge Cannot Make Custody Order Regarding Missing Child—Court of Appeal.

A California “fill-in” judge allegedly more or less shooed an illegal alien, who was seeking a restraining order against her husband, out of his courtroom – for what he thought was her own good.

Although the judge reportedly wanted only to spare her from being deported, his concern was completely unnecessary.

First, federal law protects immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. Second, turning her over to immigration authorities was outside the province of the court.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the only reason that the woman’s legal status in this country came up on the courtroom record was because the judge delved into it with his questions – even though it was totally irrelevant to her application for an order of protection.

The judge’s misguided concerns over the woman’s right to stay in this country potentially placed her at risk of serious bodily harm.

Incidents like this underscore the importance of interdisciplinary training of judges in areas of law often overlapping with family and domestic violence law.

Read more in this LA Times article: Experts Criticize Judge’s Deportation Threat.

After four months in Cairo, a six year old boy’s mother reportedly returned with the boy to the US, upon discovering that a federal warrant had been issued for her arrest. The mother allegedly moved to take up with a man she had met over the internet.

Since their departure from the US, the father filed for divorce and custody. The father wants his son “to grow up in America”.

The boy is now in his father’s care, while the mother is released to her parents’ custody.

Read more in this Columbus Dispatch article: Father reunited with son after wife ends Cairo tryst.

Divorce has become so widespread and, in certain cases, complex, that there are now a wide array of professionals who concentrate on serving divorcing couples with different skill sets and from different vantage points.

One of the newest professional arrivals on the divorce scene is The Divorce Coach. A Memphis Commercial Appeal article, Divorce coach: A new profession helps people cut through the end zone of a long-term relationship, offers an introduction to the role and background of divorce coaches in some divorces.

Although the article focuses on divorce coaches who are psychologists, who aid their clients in transitioning back to single life, divorce coaches may have alternative experiences and play varying roles in certain divorces.

People who hold themselves out as divorce coaches may instead be social workers, financial analysts and planners, mediators, life coaches, ordinary people who have been divorced themselves – and even attorneys who are not representing either party as attorney, among other professional backgrounds.

And divorce coaching means many different things to different professionals. While some concentrate on developing their client’s coping and transitioning capabilities, others function more as expert advisors on selected aspects of the divorce process itself.

Since divorce coaching is still a new, evolving concept, anyone interested in hiring a divorce coach should clarify early on the type of assistance they are seeking and be sure to engage someone with the appropriate background and mindset to provide that type of assistance.

A Las Vegas, Nevada family court judge was recently in the news over his alleged involvement in questionable financial transactions with questionable people.

The theme of one article was that the judge must answer for that reported financial misconduct to the authorities and to the voters who elected him.

But a story within the story drew little attention. And that’s both sad and telling.

One particular article about the judge’s alleged foibles runs approximately 725 words.

Of those 725 words, barely 50 words were allocated to the judge’s “arrest on a domestic battery charge involving his live-in girlfriend” and the hearing on “whether to extend a temporary protective order in the battery case”.

The passing, nearly dismissive reference virtually implies that that judge need not be accountable for that reported domestic violence, that that alleged misconduct has no bearing on the judge’s fitness for his judicial office.

This although the judge presides over family court, where victims and innocent, captive bystanders to domestic violence desperately seek protection from the family court judge … in this instance, a judge who allegedly himself perpetrates domestic violence and, therefore, presumably identifies more with the victimizers than the victims.

Read the article in the Las Vegas Review Journal’s: Family Court judge’s role in failed real estate venture raises questions.

The story within the story is every bit as newsworthy and important as the featured story. Why isn’t it treated that way?

In most states, pets are viewed legally as property, to be equitably distributed in a divorce.

In practice, pets typically follow the children in a divorce.

But what about when the pets are the children, the only children?

Childless couples can be as attached to their “pet children” as couples with human children are to their children.

The law’s very different current view of pets can be powerful incentive to settle pet “custody” by mutual agreement, rather than incur the displeasure of a judge.

But change may be in the wind.

More and more divorcing couples do see what happens to the family pets as a custody / visitation issue.

And the Animal Legal Defense Fund is lending support to their cause.

In an 18 page friend of the court legal brief, the Fund makes it clear that pets do have preferences as to caretakers and the best interests of the pet deserve consideration.

And animal law, including animal rights law, is gaining recognition as a distinct branch of the law.

It’s likely only a matter of time before custody law catches up to pet owners’ (or pet parents’) perceptions.

Read more in this Hartford Courant article: It Can Be A Regular Dog Fight.

Illinois has improved its child support collections by a whopping 56% over the past 5 years. That’s undoubtedly an enormous help to Illinois’ custodial parents and children of divorce.

Ideally, other states would be able to learn something from Illinois’ successes.

So, how did Illinois achieve this enhanced collections?

• an upgraded customer service call center equipped with new computers
• a new website for employers to report new hires, to facilitate deducting support payments directly from wages
• more aggressive attachment of non-custodial parents’ bank accounts
• denial of US passports and
• last, but perhaps not least, a website featuring the names, addresses and photos of deadbeat parents who owe more than $5,000.

It would probably be enlightening to other states for Illinois to report a ranking of each tool or technique by its productivity in terms of dollar generation.

Read more in this Chicago Sun-Times article: State tops in improving child support collections.

As a former New Yorker who is licensed to practice law in New York (and New Jersey) as well as Florida, the dramatic difference between “no-fault divorce”, as practiced in Florida (and most of the US), and “fault grounded divorce”, as practiced in New York, really “hits home” with my practice.

An article in today’s New York Times about divorce, New York-style, just may prompt those facing divorce in Florida to breathe a sigh of relief that they are here.

While the cases detailed are extreme, there is no question that both the requirement of fault and the prominence of fault in all aspects of the divorce process does fan the flames and provoke heightened hostilities and nastiness in most cases.

On the other hand, fault is not completely eliminated from divorce in so-called “no fault” states, but it isn’t a required element to get a divorce. It may be a consideration in property division and alimony.

Ultimately though, it is the parties (and their attorneys), more than the applicable law, which determines how great a role fault and negative feelings will play in their divorces.

The linked article should probably be required reading for every party thinking about divorce.

The Salt Lake Tribune offers a worthwhile article on parental alienation “syndrome” and its application in the family courts.

All too often, a caring parent, simply trying to protect their child from an abusive or neglectful parent, is labelled as an alienator – just for telling the truth about what the other parent does.

This scenario parallels putting the victim on trial in a criminal rape case.

In order to convict in a criminal trial, the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is a purposely high burden of proof, to take away a presumed innocent individual’s liberty.

But when did that become the standard that must be met before there can be intervention to protect a defenseless, innocent child?

It didn’t. In family court, the mandate is to serve the best interests of children.

Just because the high burden of proof for a criminal conviction can’t be met, doesn’t mean that the accused didn’t do what he or she was accused of. It just means that we, as a society, have decided not to convict and impose criminal punishment in such a case.

In many cases, parental alienation “syndrome” works to shift the focus of the case to “parental rights”, at the expense of children’s rights. As a result, the children are punished along with the so-called alienating parent, much like throwing the baby out with the proverbial bath water.

Is that the side we as a society want to err on in custody and visitation cases? Particularly where there is a wide spectrum of alternative options available to protect both children’s rights and parents’ rights – unlike in criminal cases.

Read what 17 year old Tiffany Ann Carver has to say, whose mother finally got custody of her after a 13 year court battle, in this Salt Lake Tribune article: Abuse, or a ploy for custody?

In Ohio, they say they are always open to new techniques to aid collection of child support monies due.

Over the summer, one Ohio county is going to place fliers in the water and sewer bills mailed to customers. The fliers will feature the names and photos of three longstanding “deadbeat dads”.

Next will come an amnesty “carrot”.

Then will come the “stick” of criminal contempt and jail.

Read more in the Cincinnati Inquirer article: Fliers seek child-support cash and the Akron Beacon Journal article: County uses fliers to track down fathers owing child support.

After the divorce, sooner or later, one or more stepparents will probably arrive on the scene. The introduction of a stepparent into either of the post-divorce households can add a great deal of tension into the entire blended family universe.

Both parents know that. Divorce lawyers hear about that from divorced clients all the time.

But what about the person who re-marries a non-custodial parent whose children visit – or move in full-time?

The San Luis Obispo Tribune offers some good advice to stepparents in the article Stop feeling like a wicked step-parent.

The Fort Smith [AR] Times Record publishes a reminder that Many Abused Women [Are] Reluctant To Seek Help.

Statistics from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence suggest that only slightly more than half of domestic violence incidents from 1994-2000 were reported.

In addition to fear of retaliation, cultural taboos may deter victims from reporting abuse. Also, risks remembered from their country of origin may continue to haunt them, such as fear of hefty fees to police for making complaints, fear of deportation, fear of eviction. And certain religions reportedly teach that victims should quietly endure abuse.

But law enforcement in Ft. Smith sees a trend toward increased reporting of abuse, which they attribute to better training and education of police.

Another important factor, undoubtedly, are recent laws allowing the police to make arrests, even without the cooperation of the victim.

This parallels Florida’s policy of prosecuting domestic violence, even when the victim opposes it.

Following a custody jurisdiction battle waged by the child’s father, the Pretoria High Court in South Africa has reportedly ordered the return of a three year old boy to the US.

The boy was born in the US and lived in California until he was a year old, when his mother allegedly removed him under the pretext of a vacation with her family – and then repeatedly stalled bringing the boy home, before finally refusing.

The boy’s father said he had to sell his home and give up his job to pursue his legal case for his son.

Fortunately for the father, South Africa is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Otherwise, the case might have turned out very differently.

It is unclear whether the mother plans to return to the US and pursue custody here.

Read more in this IOL article: ‘My little boy is going back home’.

From Canada:

Canadian father earning $40,000 a year was paying child support of $200 per month. (That sounds like a very low support obligation based on that income, but that’s another post…)

Father won the lottery – to the tune of $3.2 million.

Father offered to increase child support paid to his ex, but they couldn’t agree on a number. So the issue went to court.

The court increased the father’s support obligation to $1,000 per month.

Two points worth noting.

First, the court calculated support based, in large part, on the interest projected to be generated by the father’s investment of his jackpot, not the principal.

Second, after his windfall, the father chose to quit his job. As a result, the court chose to impute the father’s recent salary to him, calculating the new support amount, in part, as though the father were still earning that salary.

Read more in this CBC news article: Lottery win means more child support for Saskatchewan family.

Come January, if you want a divorce, Louisiana may not be the best place to get it.

The state currently has a wait period of six months before any divorce there can be finalized.

Starting next year, the waiting period will increase to a full year – but only for couples who have minor children together.

There are, however, exceptions for cases where adultery, or sexual or other physical abuse is alleged.

This is a somewhat perplexing move for the recovering state. Perhaps the intention behind it is to promote reconciliation of parents of young children.

But, the good-intentions-road may take some unpleasant and undesirable detours to:

• nastier, more expensive divorces, fueled by false allegations designed to fall within the exceptions to the increased waiting period and
• the more disgruntled of the two spouses picking up and leaving the rest of the family, to establish residency in another state, where they can get their divorce sooner – such as Florida

Read more in this KLFY TV 10 news article: Some couples will have to wait longer for divorce.

In 2000, a woman arranged to put her unborn baby up for adoption.

The birth mother moved in with the adoptive family after the birth. And didn’t like what she saw in the adoptive home.

The family’s other children were reportedly home-schooled and lagging socially. Two special needs children allegedly appeared neglected.

The birth mother tried to back out of her termination of parental rights and the adoption.

Since then, the case has been litigated up and down the Utah courts.

And 5 years later, there is still no decision as to who will ultimately be the boy’s parent(s).

In the meantime though, the boy is placed with the would-be adoptive parents, and has not seen his birth mother for several years.

Read more in this Salt Lake Tribune article: Adoption custody battle for 5-year-old continues.

Sometimes, complex cases have to be oversimplified, to put the focus on the core that is of legal significance.

Other times, simple cases have to get made complicated, by a party looking to obscure and hide that core, behind a lot of irrelevant “stuff”. Unfortunately, sometimes that works.

Such a case was recently reported in the New Jersey Lawyer.

The parents were divorced in the Dominican Republic, where they had lived for several years. Both were represented by counsel there.

The mother and children remained in the Dominican Republic after the divorce, but the father returned to New Jersey.

When the children were with the father for summer visitation, the father filed for a modification of custody, seeking sole custody of the children.

Generally speaking, under the law of most (if not all) of the states in the US, once a state (or country) has exercised valid jurisdiction over a child, that state keeps jurisdiction. Period.

Of course, there can be changes of circumstances that will justify a change of jurisdiction. But none was alleged or applied in this particular case.

So the father reportedly made unsupported allegations of abuse and neglect by the mother, in an apparent attempt at obfuscation.

In response, the mother introduced a good deal of evidence to contradict those allegations. Further, a court appointed psychologist reportedly could not find any support for the allegations.

Good try, but case closed? Well, no.

The father also alleged that the mother was going to move the children to another country, Norway.

And, if and when that happened, then there would be no place that would have jurisdiction. So, his argument went, New Jersey should exercise jurisdiction based on those speculations.

But where things get really interesting is here. The New Jersey court ruled – quite correctly – that New Jersey did not have jurisdiction.

Yet, having so ruled, the NJ court, in effect, inexplicably proceeded to exercise jurisdiction, enjoin the removal of the children from New Jersey and order that the children’s passports be held by the father.

If you’re confused, you’re not alone. This case illustrates yet again that obfuscation really does work sometimes.

Fortunately, it was all straightened out on appeal, with the father’s case in New Jersey being dismissed.

If you’re up for some obfuscation, read more in this New Jersey Lawyer article: Custody plans issued abroad.