General legal information furnished as a service of Fort Lauderdale / West Palm Beach family law attorney Janet Langjahr
South Carolina Mother served with summons for child support. Past due child support.
Twelve years, to be precise. Children are long since grown.
But that doesn’t void the legal duty to pay.
The entire arrearage.
All 63 cents of it.
Or else.
According to a new computer system utilized by the South Carolina courts.
But the Mother says she discharged her entire obligation twelve years ago, and received a notification to prove it.
Hope she saved it. It can be difficult to prove to those computers that they’re wrong.
Read more in this USA Today article: S.C. court issues summons for old 63-cent child-support bill and this WLTX article: Sumter Court Said Woman Owed $0.63 in Child Support.
Wisconsin ex-husband, Father, is deployed in military. Father “assigns” his visitation time to his new wife, Stepmother.
Ex-Wife and Mother refuses to allow Stepmother to have Father’s full extended summer visitation period. But Stepmother is willing to allow Stepmother some visitation in Father’s absence.
Wisconsin actually has a statute allowing a court to grant “reasonable” visitation rights to a stepparent under the right circumstances.
Under that statute, the trial court awarded the Stepmother Father’s full extended summer visitation.
On appeal, the ruling was reversed because a fit custodial parent has a fundamental right to make decisions concerning his or her child, and custodial visitation rights are not transferrable. There was no showing of special circumstances entitling Stepmother to visitation rights under the statute.
This ruling is consistent with the line of grandparent visitation cases in various states since a landmark US Supreme Court case in 2000.
Put another way, timesharing is for the parent, not the stepparent (or grandparent). Nonetheless, disputes over children being left with stepparents during visitation are incredibly common.
Read more in this Wisconsin Law Journal case digest.
A Florida family court awards Wife $5,000 as a lump sum payment from Husband.
Husband is angry.
Husband knows he must comply with letter of order. But decides to play fast and loose with the spirit of the order, for maximum effect.
So Husband pays, in full - with wheel barrels full of pennies. 500,000 of them. Delivered to Wife’s attorney’s office.
It is legal tender. But …
Now Former Wife asks Court to hold Former Husband in contempt.
And the Court does, ruling that the Former Husband intended to harass Former Wife.
Read more in this Orlando Sentinel article: Frank rolls out the alimony barrel.
New couple move into (guest) house on Husband’s parent’s property. Couple adopt two pet dogs.
Four years later, Wife moves out and gets an apartment. Wife leaves pets with Husband, but visits them often.
Couple files for divorce. The family court orders Husband not to dispose of any marital property or the couple’s pets.
Somewhere along the way after that, the Husband asks his parents to take care of the dogs.
Then the Husband dies of a drug overdose. The Wife then requests that Husband’s parents turn the dogs over to Wife.
Husband’s parents refuse. Who should get the dogs?
A trial court inexplicably rules that Husband’s parents are entitled to keep the dogs. Wife appeals.
The appellate court reverses and orders Husband’s parents to relinquish the pets to Wife, finding that the prior court order prohibited Husband from giving the dogs to his parents.
But Husband’s parents still refuse to give up the dogs. They describe the appellate court’s ruling as irrelevant or moot.
Apparently the Wife and her in-laws have been parties to multiple litigations. One was recently settled and the settlement agreement reportedly contained some language that arguably put to rest all disputes between them before the appellate court issued its ruling.
Depending on the precise wording of the release clause of the settlement agreement, the Husband’s parents’ reasoning may be questionable.
But it’s probably not questionable that they will all be back in court again soon.
Read more in this Cleveland Plain Dealer article: Widow’s custody battle in divorce court goes to the dogs.
A Canadian couple just lost their sixth child to Child Protective Services.
They haven’t abandoned, abused or neglected any of their children.
They haven’t had the chance. Each child has been taken into protective custody shortly after birth.
It hasn’t been because the parents are in jail. Or drug addicts. Or alcoholics. Or abusers.
Or any of the other usual reasons.
It’s because they aren’t intelligent enough to raise children - maybe.
The Mother is borderline mentally retarded. They both had poor upbringings that left them facing serious challenges.
But it really isn’t clear that they are incapable of rearing the family they desperately want.
While one parenting evaluator gave them both a thumbs down, another thought that they could do it together, especially with in-home support services.
Services extended to many other parents who have an actual history of abandonment, abuse and/or neglect.
Yet this couple hasn’t been given a chance to parent - and barely a chance to have contact with the children taken from them.
Even though they’ve taken parenting classes, offered to share parenting with a third party that doesn’t share their challenges and have generally successfully challenged various allegations by the government.
Even a couple of judges seem to think they might be able to pull it off.
But the law, which applies to some one and one-half million Canadians, apparently doesn’t permit those judges to follow their instincts.
There’d probably be a lot fewer parents raising families if every parent who wanted to have a family had to undergo a parental capacity assessment.
There’d probably even be some very surprising assessment results.
One has to wonder about the disparate treatment that raises a de facto presumption that children should be taken from the mildly mentally handicapped at birth, but only removed from other parents after they have already actually abandoned, abused and/or neglected their children.
Read more in this Vancouver Sun article: Deemed not smart enough to be a parent.
Army colonel did not want to pay court-ordered child support beyond his small voluntary payments. How badly did he not want to pay additional child support?
Badly enough to allegedly engage in fraud in the paternity testing process, specifically, having someone else take the paternity test for him. For which he was recently convicted of “attempted theft by deception, solicitation to tampering with public records, solicitation to fabrication of evidence and being an accessory to obstruction of the administration of law”.
Apparently undeterred, the military man now seeks a reduction in his increased court-ordered support payments, because his income has been halved since he retired from active duty as a result of his convictions.
The applicable child support enforcement agency has indicated its intention to oppose any reduction in the officer’s child support.
A Colonel. In the US armed forces.
Read more in this Midstate [PA] News article: Convicted colonel tries to cut child support payments and this Central PA news article: Ex-colonel seeks cut in child support.
A Broward County judge entered a temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence against a South Florida Husband who allegedly entered his Wife’s home and searched the house she shared with their three sons, machete in hand, for a phantom boyfriend. The injunction was to protect both Wife and the children.
The injunction required the Husband to surrender any guns in his possession.
Still, a few days later, the Husband reportedly walked the parking lot in the apartment complex where he was staying with a relative, shooting a gun off at cars parked there.
Police shot and killed the Husband - before the date of the hearing to make the injunction permanent.
Read more in this Sun Sentinel article: Wife sought protection against man shot dead by Pembroke Pines police.
Young UK Mother has two babies, ages one and two years old, one from a previous relationship and one with her fiance, an Indian national.
Mother and kids move to remote area of India with now-husband. They are pursuing an “alternative lifestyle”.
Mother dies suddenly, apparently due to complications related to her asthma and, possibly, poor medical care. Foul play is not suspected.
Husband’s visa has expired. Husband and both children are stranded in India. Grandmother wishes Mother’s body to be returned to UK for burial.
Grandmother, who is legal guardian to elder baby, is advised not to go to India.
Grandmother fears children are not well either.
Husband is now quoted as saying “I want to stay in the UK but I won’t let my kids go on a plane on their own. I won’t let them leave without me.”
Unusual potential three-way international child custody dispute brewing over two babies now in India?
Hopefully not. India is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Read more in this UK Mail article: British bride who sought new life in India dies ‘of sore throat’ ten days after her wedding.
Delinquency in child support is a huge problem in this country. And in the UK too.
In the UK in 2005, there were 330,000 cases in arrears, to the extent of 3 billion UK pounds.
So the Brits came up with a hoped-for solution to stem the tide.
A new class in elementary school that will teach children to assume responsibility for supporting their own children. As well as the consequences of failing to do so - right down to the lengths of jail sentences they can expect for their delinquency.
At the same time, the UK’s support enforcement agency is lobbying for greater enforcement powers, such as the ability to confiscate passports and revoke driver’s licenses administratively, without judicial process.
This new class may do more than sex education to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies. Perhaps the US should follow suit …
Read more in this UK Times article: Boys will learn to be good dads at 11.
Minnesota Mother goes to Wisconsin and reports Father to police for having their five kids with him wrongfully.
Mother produces a 2005 court order awarding her custody of the children.
Police go to the Father’s home to investigate at about 11pm.
The children, all present, all appear to be fine. Some of them are asleep in bed.
The Father produces a custody order too, but his is from 1999.
The Mother is very agitated.
The police turn the children over to their Mother, who returns to Minnesota with them.
The next day, the police learn that the Mother’s more recent custody order is fraudulent.
The Mother is taken into police custody in short order and the children are temporarily taken into protective custody by Minnesota.
Most of the children are later returned to the Father’s custody.
The Mother will be extradited to Wisconsin to face charges of interference with custody.
Read more in this Appleton [WI] PostCrescent article: Woman jailed in custody dispute
Issue presented: absent abandonment, abuse or neglect of a child, should the state sit in judgment, second-guessing a parent’s decision as to what is in that parent’s child’s best interests?
Some recent Canadian court decisions:
“The case involved a separated father who had been granted custody of his 12-year-old daughter. He had refused to let her go on a school trip for chatting on websites he disapproved of, and because she had posted images of herself online which he deemed “inappropriate”.
“The girl objected, the lawyer appointed to represent her interests after the parents’ separation intervened, and the father was taken to court. The court found in favour of the girl on the basis that the punishment was too severe.”
I recently posted on another Canadian decision Canadian Children Taken Into Protective Custody To Save Them From … Parents’ Offensive Political Views striking a similar chord.
The editorialist criticizes an alarming trend toward “nationalisation” of children - and opposes it taking root in his country, Ireland, in the name of a proposed amendment to the Irish constitution characterized as “protecting children’s rights”.
Read more in this Irish Independent article: Parents the best judges of what’s good for a child.
In Mississippi:
Stepfather is convicted of allegedly abusing two year old Mississippi Baby, including biting him, and is sentenced to twenty years in prison.
Baby received medical treatment after the abuse, thanks only to Grandmother’s intervention - over Baby’s Mother’s objections.
Mother was concerned that Stepfather, her husband, would “get into trouble” for abusing Baby.
Mother pled guilty to the charge of accessory after the fact to child abuse, for failing to report Stepfather.
For her admitted crime, Mother is sentenced to one year of “house arrest” and four years of supervision by the Department of Corrections.
There is no indication that Baby was removed from Mother’s care for her failure to protect Baby.
In Florida:
Teenager is charged with sexual battery allegedly perpetrated on five year old Victim at a religously affiliated Florida daycare center. The Victim’s older brother was reportedly a witness to the molestation.
Adult Employee left Teenager and Victim alone together.
Employee is arrested for failing to report child abuse. Teenager and Victim’s brother both claimed to have told Employee about the sexual assault. But Employee denies knowledge of the assault.
Under Florida law, one is required to report child abuse by “a parent, legal custodian, caregiver or other person responsible for a child’s welfare“.
The prosecution ultimately drops the charges against Employee, because Teenager does not fall under the category of abusers that the statute is aimed at. Therefore, Employee is not legally required to report the abuse.
There is no indication that Employee is barred from working in child care.
So much for crimes arising out of failure to report child abuse ….
Read more in this Columbus [MI] Commercial Dispatch article: Mom sentenced for inaction after child’s abuse and in this Lakeland [FL] Ledger article: Caregiver Won’t Face Charges In Sex-Abuse Case.
When the marriage starts heading south, it’s time to start paying attention to the finances - especially for spouses who never paid attention before. With some spouses, the window of opportunity to prove the existence of assets and that they are marital will close rapidly.
So it may be important to act quickly. And it may be necessary to engage various experts, ranging from divorce financial investigators to forensic computer analysts.
The things to look at, preserve and copy may include joint and the other spouse’s:
Once you have your hands on them, study them, or have an expert do so.
Read more in this Olympian [WA] article: Spouse hiding assets? Learn how to protect yourself from secrets, lies.
New York Mother and her mother, Grandmother, battle for custody of Child. Father is not in the picture at the time.
Mother allegedly murders Grandmother. Mother is convicted of the killing and sentenced to twenty-five years to life.
During the criminal investigation, Father discovers he is Child’s Father. Father wins custody of Child.
Now, Mother seeks visitation with five year old Child at the prison where she is incarcerated.
Father opposes Child visiting Mother in jail.
A New York court will rule on the prison visitation next month.
Read more in this Newsday article: NY killer requests child visitation rights.
One Oklahoma county is testing a new approach to child support enforcement.
Separate the noncustodial parents who don’t want to pay from the noncustodial parents who do want to pay but can’t, because they don’t have a job.
For the noncustodial parents who fall into the second category, a Court Liaison works with local organizations to help them become employable, find and keep a job, in return for regular support payments. The Liaison also keeps tabs on the noncustodial parents.
The employers who hire the noncustodial parents receive a tax credit as well as an employee.
Read more in this Shawnee Sun article: New Program Aimed At Better Child Support.
UK Husband had been a forensic accountant. Just the type of expert professional who might have made his career “following the money” and testifying in divorce cases.
Only this time, the matter at hand wasn’t someone else’s divorce. It was his own Wife whose lawyer had written him a letter asking him to leave the marital home.
He was having an affair. But he didn’t want to leave the marital home or his children.
So he argued with Wife one evening about leaving the home. The argument escalated.
He reportedly banged her head against the floor and doorframe.
And then he allegedly grabbed several kitchen knives and began stabbing his Wife. In all, eighty-six times.
While he had a history of mental illness and offered that as a defense, there was no evidence to suggest that his mental illness was not well-managed at the time of the killing.
He was charged with murder and later convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for nineteen years.
Read more in this UK Telegraph article: Accountant stabbed wife 86 times over divorce.
Pennsylvania Father and Mother divorce. Father gets primary custody of Child, who is now five years old.
Mother takes her extended summer vacation time with Child. At the end of her visitation, Mother is supposed to drop Child off at paternal grandparents’ home in Ohio.
Five days after the scheduled drop-off date, no word from Mother or of Child. Father finds out Mother has taken leave of absence from her nursing job.
It is not believed that Child has a passport. A Pennsylvania Court issues a bench warrant for arrest of Mother for failing to return the Child.
Father is exploring other criminal remedies as well as obtaining civil orders for pickup of the child by law enforcement officers for return to the County where he resides.
Unfortunately, such an order won’t be very useful if the Mother and Child can’t be found.
Of course, Father can alert the State Department not to issue a passport for Child - if one hasn’t already been issued.
Read more in this Macomb [PA] Daily article: Man seeks return of his son.
Swedish scientists have isolated what has been dubbed The Divorce Gene.
Of course, the presence of the so-called Divorce Gene doesn’t guarantee that the person with the gene will get a divorce.
But there is a statistical correlation between the presence of the gene and the brain chemistry’s influence in weakening or countering bonding.
This discovery could potentially lead to a treatment that “cures” predisposition for divorce.
Failing that, it may lead to development of a test that could measure the extent of the gene-bearer’s predisposition for divorce.
So it may be possible to determine by genetic testing prior to marriage who may be at greater risk for marital difficulties and divorce.
Read more in this UK Telegraph article: ‘Divorce gene’ linked to relationship troubles.
Grandmother often took Grandchildren into her home to watch them and visit with them.
Grandmother had argument with oldest daughter and son-in-law in November of 2005.
Since then, Grandmother has been denied any contact with Grandchildren.
This is not the most common scenario under which grandparents lose access to grandchildren.
Generally, there is a divorce, or death of their child. Or the grandparent reported suspicions of child abuse or neglect to authorities.
Under the current state of the law in many states following US Supreme Court rulings whittling away grandparents’ visitation rights, a parent generally need not justify denial of contact with grandchildren.
But that doesn’t stop grandparents from trying to change the law. In North Carolina alone, there are hundreds of grandparents who have been torn from their grandchildren’s lives.
Sometimes the wedge carries over to block access with other grandchildren by other parents too.
Abandoned North Carolina grandparents have banded together in Grandchildren/Grandparents Rights of North Carolina. They are a support group and lobbyists rolled into one.
They are advocating for a law to allow grandparents to seek visitation in court.
Read more in this Lexington, NC Dispatch article: Woman fights for rights to visit grandchildren.
Gay male Manhattan couple adopt Baby together, using a surrogate mother.
Couple splits up before very long.
Court awards rotating joint physical custody.
Dad is awarded the weekends. Pop is awarded the weekdays.
Not satisfied, Dad allegedly procures a fake driver’s license - using Pop’s information.
Dad uses it to apply for a passport for Baby.
One visit, Dad asks Pop for a couple of extra days with Baby. Pop agrees.
Comes time for the return, Dad doesn’t show up at the agreed time. Or later.
Dad sends Pop an e-mail informing him that he has taken Baby to Israel - and will not be returning to the US.
New York cops call Dad on his cell phone. Dad freely admits his actions.
What gives? Simple.
Dad has studied the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In Dad’s legal opinion, under the Hague Convention, Dad may remain with Baby in Israel.
Dad further concludes that Israel will not extradite him for mere custodial interference.
Dad, in effect, acted as his own lawyer - and, at his own peril, misinterpreted the law.
Based on Dad’s conduct, the New York court revokes Dad’s visitation.
And, contrary to Dad’s legal opinion, the Israeli family court rules that it has no jurisdiction, under the Hague Convention or otherwise. It holds that New York has jurisdiction over Baby.
Meanwhile, Dad is charged with custodial interference in New York. Other charges may follow.
Unfortunately for Dad, conviction for custodial interference carries a sentence of up to four years’ imprisonment.
Dad really should have consulted with an attorney.
Read more in this NY Times article: Man Arrested in Abduction Misread Law, Official Says.
Minnesota judge goes through divorce. By the end, he owes his attorneys over $100,000.
Judge reportedly begins appointing attorney with his divorce law firm to mediate cases on his docket. Nineteen to be precise.
The judge had never appointed this attorney to mediate cases on his docket before his own divorce case. The lawyer reportedly was not qualified for one of the appointments.
The law firm cuts the judge’s divorce legal fees bill by $64,000. There are reportedly e-mails in which the judge proposes a discount for payment in a lump sum.
The judge also allegedly writes “[t]here is also a very substantial past, and future, benefit to you from significant business referrals we have made, in excess of the compromise we are asking for.” The appointed lawyer, indicating she is entertaining the proposal, replies “I certainly appreciate the mediation referrals you have sent my way and hope you continue to do so.”
The judge’s ex-wife reports the judge to the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards. The judge maintains that he did not make the appointments in exchange for the writedown.
He insists that the referrals of which he wrote were to friends going through divorces. Local law enforcement declines to prosecute the judge. No action has been taken against the attorney receiving the mediation appointments.
A hearing will be held to determine whether the judge engaged in conduct which warrants judicial discipline.
Read more in this [Minneapolis] Pioneer Press article: Dakota County / Judge denies divorce fee deal and this Rochester [MN] Post-Bulletin article: State board: Goodhue judge finagled discount on his divorce.
What are the odds?
In Anderson County, South Carolina one recent Saturday, police responded to the scene where a woman allegedly poured lighter fluid on her husband - because he criticized her for pawning some household items. The man declined to press charges.
In another incident in the same community on the same day, police responded to the scene where another woman allegedly struck her husband in the back with a stool. The man had “spanked” the family dog for relieving itself inside their home. This man declined to press charges as well.
One can’t help but wonder about the true reason that the husbands declined to press domestic battery charges against their wives.
And whether it is the same that so many women victims of domestic violence decline to press domestic assault charges against their husbands …
Read more in this Anderson [SC] Independent Mail article: Wives challenge home-based decisions of two Anderson County men
Florida Mother is disabled. Mother takes prescription drugs for pain from her disability.
Department of Children and Families removes Child, places her with maternal grandparents and establishes case plan for Mother to regain custody of Child.
The case plan requires Mother to obtain a medical evaluation from the University of Miami (U of M) ‘’to explore non-narcotic alternatives to her pain management.'’
U of M charges for such evaluations, so Mother applies for financial aid due to her indigency. Mother is wait-listed.
Because the U of M medical evaluation does not take place “timely” due to Mother’s inability to pay for it, the trial Court terminates the disabled Mother’s parental rights and awards permanent guardianship of Child to grandparents. Just as though Mother is indifferent to the case plan.
On appeal, the ruling is reversed and the Mother’s parental rights are reinstated. Reason: parental rights may not be terminated where it is impossible for parent to complete case plan through no fault of parent.
Read more in this Miami Herald article: Mom gets second chance at child’s custody.
A pilot program in Volusia County, Florida allows thirty-five children to remain home with their families instead of being removed as a result of abuse or neglect.
The new Family In-Home Recovery Support Team (FIRST) program concentrates on providing intensive in-home services to just seventeen families at this time.
Volusia is one of two Florida counties with especially high numbers of abuse reports and rates of removal. Volusia also experienced significant increases in removals last year despite a statewide campaign to reduce them.
Cases suitable for the FIRST program may involve domestic violence and substance abuse, but probably not sexual abuse or aggravated domestic violence. Homes posing the greatest risks to children are not appropriate for this new program.
The program works by teaming up a therapist with a social worker from a third party organization for several visits per week to daily visits to troubled homes for about four months.
An additional hoped-for benefit of the intensive in-home services program is that it may reduce burnout and turnover of caseworkers. It is thought that the constant stress of removing children from their homes is a prime reason for both.
Read more in this East Volusia News Journal article: New child services program puts families FIRST.
Georgia Husband and Wife prepare for second marriage each.
They make a prenuptial agreement. Wife waives claims to alimony, the marital home and other assets in the agreement.
Fast forward several years.
Divorce case begins. The Court awards temporary alimony to Wife and shared temporary possession of the marital home to both.
Although there is no prior history of violence in the marriage, the Court also orders Husband to turn his guns over to his father during the case. Perhaps an omen of things to come.
Next, the Court voids the prenuptial agreement. Husband not happy.
Finally, the Court orders mediation, a process by which spouses meet with a neutral third party in an effort to come to a settlement agreement.
Husband and Wife went to mediation one morning. They did not settle their case though.
The Husband called in to his job that he wouldn’t be at work that evening.
Just hours after the mediation, the Husband beat Wife to death with an aluminum baseball bat.
Afterwards, he fatally shot himself with a gun.
Husband reportedly confessed to Wife’s attorney and his own work supervisor.
No one anticipated this eruption of domestic violence - except perhaps the judge who ordered Husband’s guns removed from the home.
Among other things, this case demonstrates the potential danger of husband and wife living together in the marital home during a divorce.
If it is necessary, a Florida court (and courts in other states as well) can order that one of the spouses temporarily move out of the marital home until the end of the case.
Read more in this Athens [GA] Banner-Herald article: Couple’s legal fight ends in their deaths
| Listen to Janet |
See if the nonprofit Association against Hidden Family Abuse, Inc. can help you or someone you care about.