General legal information furnished as a service of Fort Lauderdale / West Palm Beach family law attorney Janet Langjahr
An adoption agency notified a biological father that his baby was going to be adopted.
That was how the biological father allegedly first learned of the child’s existence.
By that time, the baby was two months old and had been living since he was three days old with the family that planned to adopt him.
Upon learning of the boy, the father sought custody of his son.
But the New Mexico trial court terminated his parental rights on the grounds that he had abandoned the baby and his mother, freeing the baby up to be adopted.
On appeal, the ruling was reversed and the father’s parental rights restored.
The case was remanded for a custody determination, but appeals are on the way.
Read more in this Albuquerque Journal article: Birth Dad’s Lawsuit Could Alter N.M. Adoptions; Father Is Seeking Custody of Child.
The New Mexico ruling could have a chilling effect on adoption in the state, to the detriment of would-be adoptive parents and, at least arguably, children awaiting adoption.
But what about father’s rights, especially where the father allegedly did not even know about the child?
One measure that several states, including Florida, have taken to aid fathers in protecting their parental rights is the creation of a registry in which unmarried, potential fathers may log each partner with whom they have the potential to have fathered a child.
Timely registrants have rights to notice and to consent to any adoption of their child.
Failure to register before a termination of parental rights case is filed waives any rights the father may have had.
This approach balances all of the interests involved.
According to an American Bar Association article, the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 led to many poorly educated, low income men being on the hook for supporting children who were not really theirs.
The statute paved the way for states providing public assistance to mothers and their children to recover support from non-supporting fathers.
The article concludes that most alleged fathers lose their cases by default when they don’t appear, or from ignorance when they do appear.
The authors condemn the statute and propose that the federal government act to ensure that paternity be confirmed by DNA testing before support orders are entered.
The article does not appear to address defendant / respondent fathers who completely ignore child support proceedings against them - including orders to submit to DNA testing, and actual fathers who simply resent or don’t want to pay support for their children and will not play by the rules.
Read more in this Baltimore Sun opinion piece: Changes opened a paternity-fraud trap for men.
Florida has recently joined the ranks of states which have introduced a measure permitting non-fathers to disestablish or overturn mistaken paternity judgments previously validly entered.
This is a sharp departure from all other types of legal cases, where a judgment is final (except for an appeal), so long as the defendant / respondent had proper notice of the case against him and the resulting opportunity to defend against a judgment being entered.
Relief under this new Florida law is barred, however, where the father failed to comply during the original paternity proceedings with an order to submit to DNA testing.
A woman’s estranged husband hid a cell phone in her car’s dashboard. It wasn’t an ordinary cell phone for ordinary use though.
The cell phone was wired so that it would charge off her car’s battery. And turn on when the ignition was turned on.
The phone transmitted its location to a website where the husband could obtain it.
The phone also accepted incoming calls, so that the husband could hear what went on in the car.
When police arrested the husband in his home, they found keys to his wife’s new house locks, and printouts obtained from spyware planted on her computer.
This is the modern face of stalking and domestic abuse.
Read more in this Washington State HeraldNet article: As stalkers go high-tech, victims must keep up.
An upstate New York man has gone on a hunger strike as a matter of principle … He is protesting child support obligations.
The man allegedly owes $60,000 in back support.
The court was reportedly ready to give him probation - but he chose jail to attract publicity to his cause.
The man is on a feeding tube in the jail’s infirmary.
Read more in this Syracuse Post-Standard article, Inmate: I don’t recommend . . . this.
A court gave her father sole custody of her. Her mother then allegedly abducted her to Canada.
The now 7 year old girl is back in Pennsylvania - in foster care.
It seems that when her mother lost custody, she accused the girl’s father of sexually abusing her. Authorities here determined that the allegations were unfounded.
But when the mother was arrested, the child was placed in foster care in Canada. And once she was in foster care, the Canadian child protective services required assurances to release the child.
So the girl’s father consented to her going into foster care in Pennsylvania, so that she could be returned to the US.
The father awaits a hearing to obtain an order that will send his daughter home to him.
Read more in this Philadelphia Inquirer article: 7-year-old back in Montco.
I previously posted on South Florida Super-Sealing: Secret Dockets Filled with Hidden, Secret Cases.
Now the Miami Herald reports that an additional 300+ cases in neighboring Broward County have been identified which were not only sealed but also omitted from the public docket listing.
Many of the cases were said to be divorces and other lawsuits concerning politicians, judges, politicians and other powerful and influential people.
Again, no one can explain why the cases were off the docket. But they are reportedly back on the docket now.
Read more in this Miami Herald article: 300 more civil cases uncovered in Broward court.
A Philadelphia Weekly article, Family Feud, offers an in-depth, close-up look at a group of dads who are taking on moms and the legal system in the hopes of getting greater access to their kids.
A powerful piece for non-custodial parents who want greater timesharing. Well worth reading, even though Pennsylvania law is different from Florida’s.
Back in May, I posted regarding a Pregnant Woman Jailed for Abducting Children Abroad.
The children have now been returned to their father in Canada, in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
The father has reportedly maintained all along that the mother has turned the case into a media circus, exploiting their children and religious bias to try their case in the court of public opinion.
The mother, who remains in prison in Canada, is allegedly running for the Presidency in France.
Her current, common law husband is reportedly running for the office of Minister of Justice there.
“Together, [they] are writing a book critical of Gettliffe’s treatment in Canada, which they have tentatively titled In The Hell of the Canadian Prisons.”
There is no indication whether the criminal charges pending against them may impede their chances of winning at the polls.
Certainly, this is not the typical child custody case. Not even the typical international child kidnapping case.
Read more in this in-depth Vancouver Sun article: Father reconnecting with his children.
Pennsylvania has a non-profit association called Safe Child Custody Support Group.
The organization was reportedly founded in response to what it characterized as “dangerous and often bizarre rulings” in Monroe County, PA Family Courts.
The Group has scheduled a protest for September 2nd, which will be joined by a children’s civil rights organization, Heads Held High.
The founder of the child custody support association had this to say:
“This is a court, where psychologist recommendations are ignored. Where child molesters are allowed overnight visits and judges throw common sense out the window along with children’s welfare.”
Read more in this eMediaWire article: Group Protesting Court Rulings that Endanger Children.
A Lakeland, Florida woman took her now 18 year old daughter to doctors, labs and hospitals nearly 400 times over a 5 year period.
The same woman took her 17 month old baby to the doctor about 40 times since her birth.
This family is very unfortunate - but not in the way that one might leap to conclude.
All those medical visits and tests, some of them invasive, were reportedly absolutely unnecessary.
Now the mother has been arrested on charges of child abuse.
All three of the woman’s children have been placed with a family friend, with the mother allowed supervised visitation only.
Physicians speculate that the mother suffers from Munchausen by proxy, a condition that drives mothers to pursue attention by subjecting their children to unnecessary medical examinations.
In some instances (although not this one), the mothers actually do harm to their children to perpetuate the diagnosis and treatment process.
Oddly, the mother only did this with her two daughters and not with her son.
Read more in this Lakeland Ledger article: Munchausen: When Care Becomes Crime.
Some of the most challenging cases for parents and their attorneys are international kidnapping cases.
Unfortunately, it can take months and years to guide these cases through the court system. And ultimate success - getting your child back - is not guaranteed, even if you win a court order.
Some people give up on the legal system before they get that far. Some never bother trying it.
The Akron (OH) Beacon Journal publishes a chilling yet compelling series of articles about the “child recovery industry”, snatchback-ers.
This is not an endorsement of extra-legal methods of child retrieval. But the article is thought-provoking and eye-opening for parents who may someday face such a nightmarish situation.
Read the first article in the series: Seeking a lost daughter, one woman is introduced to the world of snatchbacks.
When a person is incapacitated or disabled, one or more guardians may be appointed to make various types of decisions for them. A guardian may be appointed for a minor child, a senior adult or a disabled or incapacitated person of any age.
Parents are the natural guardians of their minor children.
A guardian is supposed to serve the ward’s best interests - and/or do what the ward would have wanted if competent to decide.
But which course is correct in any particular situation?
Read more in this Orlando Sentinel article: Guardians’ roles scrutinized.
Although the article tends to concentrate on guardians for seniors, there are many guardians for minors.
The ultimate answer to the question may depend on the age and status of the ward.
For example, while a senior adult may be permitted to make certain choices, even bad and unhealthy ones, the same may not be authorized in the case of a minor child.
Parallels to the authorization of dual competing standards may be found in other areas of the law concerning minors and the disabled, incapacitated or incompetent.
After divorce, there are probably stepfamilies, one, maybe two. The addition of “steps” often instigates new problems, followed by new legal cases.
Some therapists concentrate on stepfamily issues. And one of the things that they say affects how well the stepfamily unit works internally is the house they live in.
This Detroit News article: Pointers on housing for your soon-to-be blended family offers some advice on choosing a home that will help the stepfamily blend well.
And if you think the article is helpful, you can find more in that vein at the Stepfamily Foundation.
Nearly a year ago, I posted about the Interstate Child Custody / Visitation Dispute by Lesbian “Second Mother”. Child custody rulings in both Vermont, where the homosexual couple and child had lived, and Virginia, where the birth mother moved the child after the civil union dissolved, were on appeal.
Now, the highest court in Vermont, the state in which a child custody case was first filed and a ruling first entered, has held that it has exclusive child custody jurisdiction of the child and that the Virginia courts proceeded in an improper exercise of jurisdiction.
This ruling seems perfectly sound under child custody jurisdiction statutes.
But the birth mother appears to be taking the position that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does not address jurisdiction at all, somehow deprives the Vermont courts of jurisdiction.
Now, interested parties are waiting to see whether Virginia yields jurisdiction or the jurisdictional dispute is referred to the US Supreme Court.
Read more in this Associated Press article: Court rules lesbian has joint custody of child and this WorldNetDaily article: Case challenging civil union laws likely headed to U.S. Supreme Court.
Here’s a local Palm Beach County case that powerfully illustrates why couples entering subsequent marriages may wish to enter prenups if they have children from previous marriages.
The subsequent marriage was quite lengthy and the couple amassed many millions in assets. The marriage fell apart and there was a vigorous dispute over the assets.
Before a property settlement agreement was finalized, the husband died in an accident.
The wife then contended that the divorce proceedings should be terminated - a position well supported by law.
The husband’s family contended that a temporary agreement should be made permanent.
Although permanent agreements often do turn out quite similarly to permanent agreements, it doesn’t have to happen that way. And temporary agreements are - by definition - temporary, that is, only intended to govern during the divorce case.
The trial court adopted the husband’s argument. The wife appealed and later passed away. But the appeals court just ruled in her favor.
So what happens to all those millions the husband made?
They will be inherited by the wife’s son from a previous marriage.
Even parents with more modest estates agonize over the prospect of their own children being similarly disinherited in favor of a subsequent spouse’s children from a previous marriage.
There’s a moral here: this “surprise” outcome could have been easily avoided with just a little premarital planning.
Read more in this Palm Beach Post article: Widow wins money battle posthumously.
The NY Court of Appeals recently upheld a putative father’s child support obligation even after a DNA test disproved paternity subsequent to the father’s child support obligation being determined. The mother reportedly lied to the father about paternity in the first place.
The NY court based its decision on the doctrine of paternity by estoppel. That principle places greater weight on the social or de facto parent-child relationship that clearly already existed between the child and the putative father than on the DNA test results.
More fundamentally, the NY court found that it was in the best interests of the child to uphold paternity.
Read more in this Rochester Daily Record article: Court of Appeals rules father figure still required to pay child support.
The above NY case is perfectly consistent with the law of many states, including Florida - until recently.
A new law in Florida permits a putative father to disestablish paternity by DNA testing and to terminate child support obligations (with certain exceptions, of course).
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that parental rights cannot be terminated solely because a parent cannot provide his or her child with a home, as court-ordered.
In the case before the court, the mother was unable to furnish her child with appropriate housing because she was in jail.
The lower courts found the mother unfit on that basis, terminated her parental rights and cut off all visitation with her son.
The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that TPR (termination of parental rights) cases should be decided on a case by case basis, according to the specific facts of the particular case. The ability to provide housing should not be the deciding factor with regard to a parent who is in jail.
A court should consider, among other things, the nature of the charges leading to the parent’s incarceration, the length of the prison term and the bond established between parent and child.
This case protects parents’ parental rights.
Arguably, at the expense of children’s rights. Some fear the holding will result in children being subjected to lengthier stays in foster care, without hope of adoption.
Florida Corrections Secretary recently pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks from the operator of commissaries in Florida prisons.
As part of the punishment for his crimes, the Corrections Secretary forfeited his pension and retirement benefits.
The Corrections Secretary was married to his wife throughout nearly his entire corrections career. They were just divorced.
As part of the property division in their divorce, the Corrections Secretary was awarded half of his pension and retirement benefits - the ones he forfeited when his crimes caught up with him.
Will the Corrections Secretary’s wife get to keep her share of the pension and other retirement benefits?
The argument on behalf of the state is that the wife’s benefits derive solely from her husband’s now-forfeited benefits.
The argument on behalf of the former wife is that she was an innocent spouse, who did not commit any crime or have any knowledge of her husband’s criminal activities.
The concept of the innocent spouse is borrowed from US tax law, grounded in principles of fairness and equity.
It appears that the appropriate family court orders for the wife to receive her benefits were already entered. Therefore, the burden will be on the state if it wishes to challenge her entitlement.
Read more in this St. Petersburg Times article: State, ex-wife want Crosby pension.
A Scottish court has upheld a Dutch court’s ruling, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, that a Scottish resident must return her two children to Holland, where their father lives.
The Inverness (Scotland) Courier article: Tug-of-love mother in battle with Dutch courts doesn’t specify how long the children have been living in Scotland (although the reader may infer approximately one year).
According to the article, the parents are in dispute over whether the mother ever told the father that she was permanently removing the children from Holland.
The article does report, however, that the mother moved to Holland a year or two before either child was born, and remained in Holland so that the couple’s two year old and four year old were both born in Holland - and lived only in Holland until their mother removed them.
The article doesn’t furnish any reason as to why the mother left Holland, having lived there on the apparent order of six years.
The mother plans to return to Holland with the children and pursue any legal challenges available there.
Custody of the children has not yet been determined, ony jurisdiction to decide custody.
| Listen to Janet |
See if the nonprofit Association against Hidden Family Abuse, Inc. can help you or someone you care about.