Florida Divorce * Child Custody * Domestic Violence Law Lawyer | Boca Raton

The Browns had been married for twenty-five years.

They enjoyed a very prosperous lifestyle, which went with their millions.

When in their seventies, they began their divorce.

It was a bitter divorce.

The tab for the legal maneuvers alone ran about $3 million.

Yet for all that trouble and expense, the Browns didn’t get their divorce.

Because Mr. Brown passed away … Then Mrs. Brown followed …

Before the divorce was finalized … So the case died with them.

Ironically, if their divorce had been more amicable, it would have been finalized before their deaths.

But it wasn’t.

So now their heirs and estates have taken up still more litigation.

An illustration of how not to conduct your divorce.

Read more in this Sify article: ‘Til death did they spar.

An editorial in Florida today highlights the sad story of how many children have languished far too long in foster care with no realistic prospect of either adoption or reunification with their biological family.

And how a recently adopted statute is shortening their stay there and freeing them up for adoption sooner.

In Brevard County, a local organization has displaced the Department of Children and Families in coordinating care of children in the system.

The group has also launched an ambitious new website to help match up kids in foster care with prospective adoptive parents, taking advantage of compelling, professionally taken photograph of the kids.

Read more in this Florida Today editorial, Our view: More homes needed.

Besides the obvious, the Thanksgiving holiday also kicked off this year’s annual Sixteen Days of Activism against Gender Violence.

Organized by the Center for Women’s Global Leadership at Rutgers University, the Sixteen Days are an international series of social and political events begun fifteen years ago.

The campaign’s mission is to target violence against women as a violation of fundamental international human rights.

One thousand seven hundred organizations across one hundred thirty nations participate.

Read more in the Family Violence Prevention Fund NewsFlash article: 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence and the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence at the Rutgers University Center for Women’s Global Leadership website.

Last July in Southwest Florida, a young couple allegedly left their 2 month old baby alone in their un-air-conditioned car while they shopped for over half an hour.

Had the baby died, the parents would have faced manslaughter charges or worse.

But, miraculously, the baby was alright.

As a result, the state elected to drop felony child neglect charges.

For the criminal case to have moved forward, the parents, at a minimum, would have to have understood that they were placing their baby at grave risk of harm, according to prosecutors.

According to authorities, that didn’t appear to be the case here. The mother reportedly forgot that the baby was in the car and the father thought that she was with friends. The couple were both found to be sober and to have a clean record.

And so the matter, as well as the baby, are relegated to the civil realm of the Department of Children and Family Services.

For DCF’s case, there need only be ignorance. For which their remedy is education.

Now, the parents are attending parenting classes at DCF’s direction.

Read more in this Sarasota Herald Tribune article: Proving child neglect isn’t easy.

New Zealand reportedly has a new law that affords children a large say in who should care for them – without regard to the age or maturity of the children.

The statute is not limited to situations where the children’s parents are embroiled in child custody disputes.

And so a 16 year old girl successfully petitioned a New Zealand court to live with her older sister – even though her mother was a perfectly fit parent.

‘The judge said the mother had been using her rights as a guardian to ensure, “no doubt for the very best of motives”, that the daughter complied with her wishes as the mother.‘

And a New Zealand appellate court held that a four year old’s wishes should have been given greater weight in a family dispute.

This is an enormous, questionable leap beyond conventional child emancipation and termination of parental rights laws in the US.

Only time will tell the social impact of the statute in New Zealand.

Read more in this New Zealand Sunday Star Times article: New Law Could Set Precedent.

A seven month old Las Vegas baby recently died as a result of an intentional blunt force trauma to his head, according to authorities.

His foster mother awaits trial for murder, but remains on house arrest.

Surprisingly, under the circumstances, the woman reportedly pleaded no contest to civil charges of abuse and neglect in connection with his death.

According to her attorney, that’s only because, as a result of the incident, she has been barred from any in-person contact with her own two young children, and has been required to move out of her own home while her mother and husband care for them.

The mother reportedly looks forward to the prospect of having face-to-face visits with her kids, albeit supervised visits.

The mother of two worked as a teacher for more than fifteen years and is said to have no criminal or similar history, despite having cared for thirteen other foster children.

Read more in this Las Vegas Review-Journal article: Suspect focused on getting her kids back.

A divorced woman brought a fraud claim against her former TV-writer ex-husband for allegedly hiding millions in assets at the time that they entered their divorce settlement.

She argued that she was pushed into accepting millions less than she should have received, because he “cried poverty”.

Yet then he reportedly turned around and bought a mansion on Central Park West.

The court found for her ex, because it ruled that she hadn’t proved her case.

Illustrating yet again that, in court, the difference between knowing and being able to prove is all the difference in the world.

Read more in this United Press International article: Claim ex-writer hid assets doesn’t fly.

A few days ago, ainesville, Florida had a bomb scare that emptied a three square block area.

What sent everyone scrambling was a black gadget found on the bottom of a woman’s car.

Only it turned out it wasn’t a bomb at all.

It was a global positioning system device …

Intended to track the car’s owner …

A wife in the middle of a divorce from the alleged installer of the gizmo.

Read more in this WABC TV New York article: Nasty divorce battle and nosy husband lead to bomb scare.

A Canadian woman awaits news of her two daughters, of whom she has sole custody.

Back in July, their father took them on vacation to visit his relatives in Australia – but they reportedly didn’t return on schedule.

Instead, their father, who has dual Lebanese-Australian citizenship, allegedly took them to Lebanon, in the midst of the war between Hezbollah and Israel.

Their mother is waiting for a hearing in Australia, to question the father’s relatives about their whereabouts.

The father reportedly wants sole custody of the girls and for them to live with him permanently in Australia.

Canada has issued international warrants and an extradition order.

But neither Australia or Lebanon will honor the extradition order. Under Lebanese law, there can be no such thing as parental kidnapping.

Although Australia is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Lebanon is not.

Read more in this Calgary Herald article: Mother fights to get abducted girls back and this Star Phoenix article: Children taken away to Lebanon by father.

An Orlando area attorney has obtained a domestic violence injunction against her husband – a judge.

For his part, the judge claims she is just looking for revenge because he filed for divorce.

Due to the potential conflicts of interest, judges outside the area have been dragged into the case. And a judicial ethics review board may draw more in before all is said and done.

The domestic violence injunction is not anticipated to affect the judge’s job in any way.

Ironically, this particular judge is well known for dishing out anti-divorce lectures to parties who come before him in his courtroom. In fact, he was involved in trying to pass legislation to make it more difficult for Floridians to get a divorce.

Read more in this WESH TV 2 article: Judge Who Discourages Divorce Embroiled In Bitter Divorce.

Although most of us aren’t actively aware of it, much of what we do on a personal computer leaves a digital trail that can be picked up by an expert.

Where someone wants to know what someone else has done and where someone else has been with their computer, there are so-called spyware and keylogger programs that can tell just about all.

Sometimes a spouse or parent thinks such digital evidence can help with, or even clinch their case. And, in many states, this is undoubtedly true.

But digging up the digital goods can backfire, because some or all types of digital spying may be illegal in certain states. If so, the digital dirt can’t be used in court – and may result in criminal charges against the “spy”.

Florida is one of the states that, for example, criminalizes the real-time interception of electronic communications, such as in internet chat or instant messaging.

Read more in this St. Louis KDSK TV article: You Got Nailed! How Cheaters Get Busted.

A former New York judge has reportedly accrued $200,000 in arrearages in child support and spousal support since garnishment of his wages ceased when he was thrown off the bench for misconduct.

His ex-wife is doing her best to support their three kids in their metropolitan NYC home on $9.45 per hour.

The ex-judge earned more than $135,000 a year during the marriage.

The deadbeat dad has since moved out-of-state and taken up working as a realtor.

It is unclear why Georgia support enforcement has not enforced New York’s support orders with garnishments of his commissions. It is also unclear whether the former judge has ever been held in contempt of court.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Ex-judge a real stiff.

A Toronto man is in jail for conspiracy to murder his ex-wife.

His motive: he reportedly didn’t want to pay child support or alimony.

Now his ex-wife is apparently looking to collect previously ordered, unpaid support.

The man allegedly has substantial savings from the sale of a house.

But he reportedly argued in court that he can’t pay support because he is in jail and unable to earn money.

The woman’s attorney had this to say about his argument:

“It’s like the child who kills the parents and then throws himself at the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan”.

Although the judge in the case reserved on his ruling, he did suggest that he expects to order a substantial lump sum award to the ex-wife.

Read more in this Reuters article: Man hopes jail means no support payments.

An Arkansas court terminated a mother’s parental rights to her three children – even though the State’s Department of Human Services recommended against it and the mother complied with all pertinent court orders, made a substantial effort to improve her parenting skills and was in fact making good progress.

In these types of cases, the goal is normally to provide services to get the parent(s) back on track so that the family can stay together, without the children being at risk.

But, in this case, according to the appellate court, the Department of Human Services and the children’s guardian ad litem did not take the case seriously enough and were ineffectual.

Accordingly, the appellate court reversed and reinstated the mother’s parental rights to her three children.

Read more in this Arkansas News Bureau article: Court restores woman’s parental rights.

A young mother, and a platonic friend who worked with her, were gunned down in front of her house – allegedly by her husband.

The abrubt end to their stormy marriage left their young children without a mother and with a father under arrest for murder.

The husband had reportedly previously been charged with aggravated assault with a weapon – but his wife dropped the charges that time.

The couple had been together for 10 years, playing out a destructive and tortured pattern all too common in relationships with abusers.

Perhaps the saddest part of the story is that the young mother had finally broken free of his hold and was about to start a promsing new career and a happy new life with their children.

The woman’s family hopes their tragedy will inspire other women enmeshed in abusive relationships to get out – before it’s too late for them too.

Read more in this El Paso Times article: Homicide ‘devastates’ woman’s family.

Couple lived in the Netherlands. Daughter born and raised there.

Father sometimes allegedly violent and Mother unhappy.

Mother’s mother becomes terminally ill.

Mother and daughter return to New Zealand, reportedly with Father’s permission.

Father maintains that it was agreed that Mother and Daughter were to remain in New Zealand only until Mother’s mother passed.

Mother maintains Father knew that the move was permanent.

After a few months, Father followed Mother and Daughter to New Zealand – but reportedly lived separately from them.

After about 6 months, Father was ordered to leave New Zealand as a result of a new domestic violence allegation (eventually dropped).

A trial court in New Zealand found that the Netherlands was Daughter’s habitual residence, and that she must be returned there for a custody determination.

On appeal, the decision was reversed under an exception, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, where the other parent and child left the former habitual residence to escape domestic violence.

Although the Court did not make such a ruling, arguably the child’s place of habitual residence changed after 6 months anyway.

Read more in this New Zealand Herald article: Court revokes order to send girl back to Netherlands.

When all is said and done, for some spouses, the absolute worst part of divorce is the prospect of property division, called equitable distribution in Florida.

And so it apparently was for a Long Island father and husband who had been married for 9 years but together with his wife for 20 years in total.

According to his wife, the man was abusive and controlling. In the end, his wife said, it was all about “greed and control” for him.

In an effort to avoid having to part with any of his assets, the man allegedly attempted to hire a paid hit man to murder his wife. He reportedly tried to schedule the “hit” for a time when their children would be out of the country with him.

Under arrest, the man now probably has different concerns, such as the possibility of 25 years behind bars.

And his wife says she lives with fear as her constant companion. And the stress of trying to protect their kids from the knowledge of what their father allegedly did.

Amazingly, the man’s sister tried to pick up one of their kids from school after the man’s arrest. She wasn’t successful.

The man’s lawyer now says the man later had a change of heart and tried to back out of the contract killing.

Before or after his arrest?

Read more in:

• this Newsday [Long Island] article: Wife in fear after husband charged with hiring hit man
• this New York Post article: I’M SCARED EVERY DAY BY ‘HIT PLOT’ HUBBY and
• New York City’s CBS TV News article: Attorney says accused tried to cancel planned LI `hit’

.

A (male) Utah editorialist (who also happens to be an MD) strongly endorses joint physical custody of minor children – also known as equal timesharing.

Of course, there are a lot of perfectly good reasons why one might advocate for equal timesharing.

But why did this particular editorialist do it?

For the most part, because, he contends, it would counter the impact of having to pay unfair amounts of child support, which he maintains, in substance, oppresses noncustodial parents, usually fathers.

That’s the primary reason cited in support of equal timesharing.

Secondarily, he argues, the prospect of equal timesharing would eliminate what he perceives as the economic incentive that he believes motivates most divorces, which, he reports, are initiated by women.

Thirdly, he remarks, joint legal custody actually results in enhanced collection of child support. “Believe it or not”.

Near to last, and apparently least, joint physical custody better reflects (whatever that means) modern family life, especially among Utah residents who may be disproportionately Mormon.

Read more, if desired, in this Deseret [UT] News article: Joint physical custody has many advantages.

Until recently, legal challenges to paternity which were not promptly filed were denied, in the best interests of the child in question.

A concerted hue and cry from father’s rights groups has diverted focus from the best interests of the child to the catchphrase paternity fraud.

As a result of the diversion, this year the Florida legislature passed a statute permitting alleged fathers to prove scientifically that they are not the biological fathers of their alleged children. Accordingly, they will be able to avoid any future child support legal obligations and just “drop” their alleged child.

It is projected that the statute might let about 30% of alleged fathers off the child support “hook”.

The lynchpin of establishing or disestablishing paternity is DNA testing, which is generally inexpensive and reliable.

The new statute does impose certain restrictions on its availability to support a paternity challenge, however.

1. The alleged father cannot have acknowledged paternity, signed the baby’s birth certificate, adopted the child or otherwise voluntarily assumed responsibility for child support for the child after discovering that they are not biologically related.
2. The alleged father cannot have previously blocked the true biological father from assuming parental responsibility.
3. The alleged father cannot have ignored previous notices or orders to take a DNA test in connection with legal proceedings concerning the child.
4. The alleged father must be current on his legally established child support obligations (unless truly unable).
5. The challenge must result from new evidence coming to light.

Read more in this Miami Herald article: Florida men get a break on false paternity.

In Ohio, when a custodial parent seeks child support from a non-custodial parent, the government collects evidence of parentage.

Evidence such as DNA test results, photos of the parents and child, current residence addresses of the parents and child, etc.

And the government produces the evidence to both the custodial and non-custodial parents.

An Ohio prison inmate reportedly received such a packet about his child and the custodial parent.

The inmate was incarcerated for allegedly raping the custodial parent, who was described as a “young girl” at the time of the incident in 2003.

The girl and her family are traumatized that the inmate came into possession of her current photo and residence address. Frightened, she reportedly moved.

Her family questions the logic of sending photos and addresses when DNA tests pretty much tell the whole story.

Now the girl’s family is filing suit against the county to instigate changes in its potentially dangerous procedures.

Read more in this Fox 19 Cincinnatti article: Rapist Gets Picture of Victim from County.

Marital (pre and post) agreements can help assure that each spouse’s legal obligations and expectations are met – even if the new couple remains together until one of them dies.

Many people sour on marital agreements don’t really grasp that – or the legal and emotional obligations that may have arisen out of a prior marriage and/or existing children.

When embarking on a second (or later) marriage, communication and analysis before the wedding about each party’s financial situation is even more important than in a first relationship.

These may spawn individual and/or joint action plans for couples to work on before the wedding.

Read more in this Portsmouth [NH] Herald article: ‘I do’ — again: Money does matter when remarrying.

An American woman lived in France with her husband and son for an extended period of time.

When the woman divorced her husband in France, she was awarded custody of their son, but she was enjoined from taking him out of France for an extended period of time such as would interfere with his father’s visitation.

Later, the mother moved with the boy to California.

The father brought suit to enforce the French order in a California court.

At trial, the court held that, if the mother did not timely return the boy to France, custody of the boy would be transferred to the father.

The mother appealed, arguing that the trial court’s order, which conditionally modifyied custody, violated the original custody order of the French court. Since the French court had continuing exclusive jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, the California court did not have jurisdiction or authority to modify the French custody order by ordering that the boy be returned to his father’s custody in France.

On appeal, the court reversed, agreeing with the mother. The court then ordered that the boy be returned back to his mother’s custody in California.

There was no report as to whether the father had taken any enforcement action in France, which retained jurisdiction over the boy.

Read more in this Metropolitan-News Enterprise article: C.A.: Courts May Not Modify Foreign Child Custody Order.

A widowed Ireland woman remarried and moved to the US with her children.

Her aging parents visited them in the US and took her youngest boy out to lunch.

When she returned after lunch to pick her boy up, they were nowhere to be found.

In an unusual move, her elderly parents allegedly abducted her boy to Ireland. That was two years ago.

Now they are wanted in Illinois for aggravated kidnapping, a charge carrying a penalty of up to 30 years in prison.

The boy’s mother reportedly doesn’t want her parents extradited and jailed.

The grandparents, relying on an old Irish order awarding them custody, previously started an application in the US for return of the child to Ireland under the Hague Convention. But the application was denied.

Communications between the two branches of the boy’s family have resumed.

Nonetheless, extradition proceedings in Ireland are expected to continue in this puzzling case.

Read more in this Irish Examiner article: Grandparents face 30 years in US jail.

Biological father pays woman to bear his child as surrogate mother.

Bio dad is reportedly sentenced to prison on unrelated criminal charges.

Bio mother informally “places” baby with a married couple for much of his two years of life.

Bio mom changes her mind and seeks return of child to her custody.

A Utah trial court ruled that the child’s ongoing caregivers could retain custody of the baby and deny visitation to his bio mom.

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the biological parents had superior rights to permanent custody of the boy.

The state’s high court held that the couple who had actually been raising the boy were “legal strangers” to him.

The court also held that access by the bio parents could only be blocked based on a finding of harm to the boy.

The supreme court remanded for a full-blown, custody determination, as though the custody dispute was merely between two typical biological parents.

Interestingly, however, the court expressed the hope that the bio parents would reach an agreement with the couple who had been caring for the baby, in a caring, stable home.

In light of the contractual arrangement between the boy’s biological parents and the arrangement (not entirely clear) between the bio mom and the couple who had been raising the boy, other states may well have arrived at a different outcome on the above facts.

Read more in this [Central UT] Daily Herald article: Utah Supreme Court rules couple must give up boy.