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

As we look forward to the dawn of a New Year, a glimpse of divorce and separation in Olde England of yesteryear is revealed.

The 1774 marital settlement agreement between Elizabeth Paine and early American patriot and revolutionary Thomas Paine was rediscovered some years ago – in a novel from the period stored in a shop cellar in the UK.

The marital settlement agreement is set to go on exhibit in the new year.

As part of the divorce settlement, the unemployed Paine received UK 45 pounds, which reportedly paid for his transportation to America.

Before it’s resurfacing, the document had last been seen in 1892.

There is speculation that the book belonged to Paine’s wife.

This may be an example of how divorce shaped a man’s and a nation’s destiny.

Read more in this [UK] Guardian news article: Historic Paine deed falls out of 18th century novel and this [UK] BBC news article: Historic separation deal on show.

It’s been a couple of years since the World’s First “Divorce Fair” was held in Vienna.

And now they’re working their way closer to home.

Next month, Nova Scotia, Canada will be hosting Canada’s First “Divorce Fair”, an event where those contemplating divorce can hear from legal, financial and psychological professionals serving people going through divorce.

The organizer of the Fair is a (currently nonpracticing) family law attorney from the UK, who now manages the Legal Information Society of Nova Scotia.

She reports that one-third of inquiries directed to the Society pertain just to divorce matters.

And that forty percent of Canadian marriages end with divorce.

The Society’s director believes that too many divorcing spouses are inadequately informed about divorce law though. She hopes that the Divorce Fair will help to make up for that. (Although she recommends that every divorcing spouse consult an attorney about his or her particular situation.)

The two day Fair is divided up based on gender, with the first day being oriented toward men’s concerns and the second day being oriented toward women’s concerns.

Needless to say, it wouldn’t do to have a husband and wife who have not discussed divorce with each other run into one another at a Divorce Fair.

Read more in this [Halifax, Novia Scotia, Canada] Chronicle Herald article: Breaking up is hard to do.

Unmarried Utah Mother gets pregnant by Father.

When Son is born, Father’s name is listed on birth certificate as Father.

But Father is in jail when Son is born, so Father doesn’t sign birth certificate.

So Father’s name is removed from Son’s birth certificate.

After about six months in Mother’s care, Son is taken into protective custody by child welfare agency.

Son eventually is placed with a foster family, with whom Son has remained for a couple of years.

Child welfare agency takes steps to terminate Mother’s parental rights.

Father files motion to intervene in that case.

Father fails to undergo a DNA test to prove that he is Son’s biological father before the scheduled trial over termination of Mother’s parental rights.

Then Mother agrees to give up her parental rights to Son.

Son is freed up for adoption under Utah law.

And Utah court concludes that Father lacks legal standing to assert parental rights to Son any longer.

Father maintains that no one ever advised him of the importance of signing Son’s birth certificate or proving his biological relationship to Son via DNA testing shortly after Son’s birth.

Father appeals trial court’s dismissal of his motion to intervene in the case against Mother over custody of Son.

Breaking new legal ground in Utah, the appellate court reverses, and grants Father a hearing to prove that he is Son’s biological father.

All Father wants is the right to obtain pictures of Son and e-mails about his development, which Son’s foster parents were apparently unwilling to agree to.

Read more in this [Salt Lake City] Deseret News article: Ruling offers new hope to unwed dads in Utah.

Father has toddler Daughter with Girlfriend.

Father has Other Daughter, also a toddler, with Other Girlfriend.

Daughter and Girlfriend can’t be accounted for.

Then Other Daughter and Other Girlfriend’s bodies are discovered. Shot.

Then, hours later, Daughter and Girlfriend’s bodies are discovered – in Father’s trunk.

A few days later, Father’s body is found, an apparent suicide.

Father has been involved in child support litigation with Girlfriend and Other Girlfriend.

Father has also been unemployed for several months.

Yet another woman had a domestic violence restraining order against Father at the time of his death. That order prohibited Father from having firearms in his possession.

But Father managed to overcome that restriction.

Read more in this Associated Press article: Wis. man linked to 4 slayings charged in 2 deaths and this Wisconsin State Journal article: Murder suspect Tyrone Adair found dead in Cottage Grove.

A couple of Vermont sociology professors have challenged the institution of marriage, questioning why gays are so anxious to attain it. Following are some of what they view as myths about marriage – and how they shoot them down.

• Marriage Builds Wealth. Then why are the poor least likely to marry? Marriage appeals to wealthier people in the first place.

• Marriage is Traditional. The nature of marriage has changed over the years. Marriages for love and romance are relatively new phenomena … succeeding marriage for material and social gain.

• Marriage Bolsters Health. Never-married singles are just as healthy as married couples. Divorced people are less healthy though.

• Married Couples are More Socially Fulfilled. Married couples are more likely to be isolated from friends and networks, pinning all their social demands on their partner.

In sum, the professors suggest that the truths they have exposed are the reaI reasons behind purposefully declining marriage rates.

Read more in this Dallas Morning News article: Essig and Owens: What if marriage is bad for us? and this Psychology Today post: Two Scholars Ask: What if Marriage Is Bad for Us?.

The case is in Ireland. But it rings with familiarity here in Florida.

Husband is a successful broker earning a substantial salary.

Wife is a housewife.

Couple break up. Husband moves out of the marital home.

Trial court orders Husband to pay Wife 137,500 Euros per year as alimony until Wife remarries or dies.

In an early hearing, Wife testifies that she is in a permanent relationship with a Boyfriend and that she is pregnant with Boyfriend’s child.

Wife later recants. And insists Husband can afford the ordered alimony payments.

Husband objects to having to pay alimony to Wife when Wife is now living with her Boyfriend and their common child.

There are indications that Boyfriend is relatively well off.

Wife is receiving a 700,000 Euro home as part of their divorce settlement.

Husband’s appeal is being considered by a British appellate court.

Read more in this Irish Independent article: Wealthy broker battles ex-wife over payout of €137,500 a year.

Few international parental child abductions have received as much media attention as this Boy’s abduction to Brazil by his Mother, but that didn’t help much.

His Father has been fighting to get him back home since 2004.

Even after Mother died in Brazil last year, the Brazilian courts still dragged their heels in returning Boy to his Father in the US – despite Brazil being a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Numerous politicians and celebrities have spoken out in support of Father and reached out to their counterparts and contacts in Brazil in the hopes of freeing the Boy.

But none of that helped either.

The President of this country finally called the President of Brazil … but it isn’t clear that that helped much either.

No, what reportedly finally did the trick was Congress holding up a trade deal worth almost $3 billion to Brazil.

And thanks to their astuteness, Father and Son are finally reunited and their flight touched down here in Florida a short time ago.

Read more in this Associated Press article: Boy, American dad arrive in US from Brazil.

A New York appellate case illustrates that courts, especially appellate courts, often do not think like ordinary people or, more particularly, share their sensibilities.

In that case, Father doesn’t pay his court-ordered child support (of $50 per month) for Baby, and Father argues and tussles with Mother at her home.

The trial court rules that Father’s behavior constitutes child neglect.

Many ordinary people would agree wholeheartedly.

But, on appeal to the intermediate level appellate court, the higher court reverses.

The appellate court explains that there is no evidence that Baby was harmed by Father’s failure to pay support, and no evidence that the disputes between Father and Mother harmed Baby in any way.

The appellate court does not condone Father’s conduct, of course, but it can’t say Father’s conduct amounted to neglect.

Don’t misunderstand, the Mother and/or Guardian and the child welfare agency do have other legal remedies against Father that they can pursue in court. But an action for neglect is not one of them.

Read more in this West Palm Beach Examiner article: NY state court rules that dad did not neglect child by failing to pay support & by fighting with mom.

Mexican Mother is awarded custody of Son by a Mexican court.

Wealthy French Father, accompanied by counsel, takes papers that look like official Mexican court papers before a Texas judge, representing that he has legal custody of Son.

The Mexican court papers were reportedly incomplete and misleading.

Apparently, neither Father’s counsel nor the court verified them.

Texas judge enters pick-up order for Son, with a hearing date scheduled for shortly afterwards.

Law enforcement officers pick up Son, who protests vigorously the entire time, to the effect that Father beats him.

Officers ignore Son’s words.

Mother tries to get Son back at airport.

Son refuses to accompany her – out of fear that Father will kill Mother.

Father absconds with Son.

Not for the first time, according to Mother.

Father and Son miss scheduled court date.

Texas court issues warrant for Father’s arrest on perjury and custodial interference.

That was two months ago.

Father allegedly abducted Son to France for two years, reportedly beating him and leaving him unsupervised and denying any contact at all with Mother.

Read more in this Fox News article: Worldwide Manhunt Under Way for Fugitive Father, Missing Son and this San Antonio Express News article: Dad accused of perjury, kidnapping.

Husband and Wife have been married for 22 years.

But that didn’t stop sixty-two year old Husband from marrying another woman who lives in the same rental complex.

Husband is charged with bigamy and identity theft and convicted of the charges.

Husband is sentenced only to eighteen months’ probation.

Husband’s “second wife” may have punished him worse than the law.

She is pursuing an annulment … and compensation for roughly $50,000 worth of jewelry that she alleges Husband took and sold for cash.

Although many unhappy spouses would prefer an annulment to a divorce, the above scenario is one of the few ways that a spouse can qualify for an annulment under Florida law.

Read more in this Associated Press article: Kan. man gets probation for bigamy, ID theft.

Happily married Husband and Wife have Son.

Son is born very prematurely and is plagued by related medical problems.

Son qualifies for free coverage because he is considered “disabled” by reason of his prematurity.

Son has expensive heart surgery and eye surgery.

Son has home nurses while Husband and Wife are at work.

Now, the state is reclassifying Son as no longer disabled.

As a result, Son will lose free medical coverage.

That would likely compromise Son’s medical care.

But there is one other way for Son to retain his free medical coverage:

If his family’s household income decreases due, for example, to a divorce.

So now Husband and Wife are contemplating divorcing … for their Son’s health and welfare.

They wouldn’t be the first Tennesee couple to divorce to hang onto free medical coverage for a child.

The state expects to save between $150 and $200 million by updating classifications of insureds who were disabled only temporarily.

Of course, some of those insureds may still qualify for free coverage by meeting the income qualifications for recipients.

But Husband and Wife don’t.

Read more in this [Nashville] WSMV-TV article: Couple To Divorce For Toddler’s Health Care.

Couple are married for thirty-three years. Wife, 61 years old, was a stay-at-home mother and then housewife.

Husband owns an investment company and a manufacturer of plastic parts for cars.

Husband earns about $4 million a year.

Couple own homes and timeshares throughout Canada and also right here in Florida.

Wife supervises maintenance of the couple’s properties.

Marriage breaks down. Spouses separate.

Husband gives Wife over $6 million in cash and investments.

Not bad but …

Wife’s disclosures show her monthly expenses as exceeding $115,000.

On considering Wife’s claim for alimony, a Toronto Canada court awards Wife $110,000 per month in alimony.

Better. This represents a record in Canada.

Read more in this UPI article: Record Canadian divorce settlement awarded.

Eleven year old Daughter is ill, finally unable to walk or talk.

Wisconsin Mother and Father, in accordance with their religion, pray for her.

They don’t take her to a doctor or hospital.

Daughter dies from complications of diabetes.

Mother and Father are convicted of second degree reckless homicide.

They are sentenced to thirty days’ confinement for six years and ten years’ probation.

They are also court-ordered to take their other two children to doctors for treatment if injured or ill, and to have periodic wellness checks for the children.

Is Mother’s and Father’s conduct protected religious conduct, or is it child abuse or neglect?

That may not have been clear enough under Wisconsin law.

And so some changes and clarifications are in the works.

Parents should be held to a standard of reasonableness in caring for their children’s health and welfare.

If parents fail to take reasonable measures to provide for their children’s health and welfare, the state can remove the children and intervene in their care… And may prosecute the parents.

The parents’ can tell their side of the story to the jury. But the jury decides how reasonable their actions are.

Read more in this New York Times article: Wisconsin Couple Sentenced in Death of Their Sick Child and this [Milwaukee] Journal Sentinel editorial: Bill would protect children, liberties.

Years after the capability came into being, having a child through a surrogate mother who carries the baby to term is still fraught with legal perils.

And the circumstances surrounding each baby are different.

Sometimes the surrogate mother is “merely” the carrier or vessel for a couple’s own biological child. (Mother can’t physically carry the child.)

Sometimes the surrogate mother is the carrier for the biological child of one member of the couple and a third party. (One of the couple is infertile.)

Sometimes the surrogate mother is the carrier for the biological child of neither member of the couple. (Both of the couple are infertile or gay parents.)

And the applicable law of a particular state may view each of these scenarios differently.

A surrogacy arrangement may involve the following players:

1. intended legal parent
2. intended legal co-parent
3. egg donor
4. sperm donor
5. fertility clinic
6. surrogate mother

That’s a lot of folks to coordinate and work with.

The most common legal breakdown in the process is that the surrogate mother decides she wants to keep “her” child, for any reason or for no reason.

All told, there are about seven hundred fifty babies born this way each year. That’s about half the number that couples try to arrange.

This “cottage industry” is something of a free-for-all, at least unless and until a court becomes involved.

For the most part, fertility doctors call all the shots.

Some states require the intended parents to go through a home study and legal adoption of the baby. Some also require some type of psychological screening of the intended legal parents.

Some other states are satisfied by the surrogacy contracts alone.

Still other states don’t recognize or enforce surrogacy contracts at all.

Some only recognize surrogacy where at least one intended legal parent is biologically related to the baby.

The incredible upshot is that, at times, babies who have two sets of “parents” who want them end up in foster care while the courts try to sort things out.

A model act has been proposed by the American Bar Association to address the issues in a consistent way.

Read more in this New York Times article: 21st-Century Babies – Building a Baby, With Few Ground Rules.

During divorce, couples fight over division / allocation of most any marital asset or liability.

Sometimes out of proportion to the value / amount of same.

Take the following North Dakota couple.

Wife had breast augmentation surgery during the marriage.

Husband’s financial affidavit (sometimes called financial disclosure or something along those lines) apparently identified the surgery as a $5,000 marital “asset”.

Husband contends that since that marital “asset” will be distributed to Wife, Husband should receive commensurate marital asset value as well.

The trial court disagreed with Husband and refused to do so.

But Husband felt strongly enough about the matter to appeal the issue to the state’s highest court.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could open up a real Pandora’s Box.

Read more in this Twin Cities [Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN] Pioneer Press article: ND high court mulls value of breast implants in divorce case.

Divorce is reportedly greatly frowned upon under Muslim law. But it is technically permitted and does happen…

With tremendous difficulty. Particularly for women.

In most Islamic countries, it is said that a woman seeking divorce forfeits all marital property, plus the customary dowery paid for the marriage.

A woman living in Egypt states it took most of her three years of marriage to get out of the marriage. After she was divorced, her employer reportedly told her “it would be better if I did not move around where there were men in the office”.

As a result of her experiences, that woman became a divorce activist on behalf of women.

First, she published a blog advising how to obtain a divorce and offering support and interaction.

Then she founded Divorcees Radio, an internet radio station providing divorced women with information and lobbying for the interests of divorced women and women seeking divorces.

To overcome unhappy men’s charges of inciting rebellion by wives, the station also offers programming for divorced men and children of single parent homes.

The divorce rate in the Muslim world varies from roughly 24% to 35%.

Read more in this [Israeli] Haaretz article: Neighbors / Want to divorce? In Cairo, the radio offers women help.

Arkansas trial court enters temporary order establishing child support and alimony obligations.

Husband pays via wage garnishment.

Final judgment actually reduces total support obligation by over $600 per month.

Husband does not take steps to have new garnishment order entered and served on his employer. (This would be Husband’s responsibility.)

Husband’s wages continue to be garnished at the higher level of the temporary support order.

Husband apparently does not notice that he is overpaying for a couple of years.

Once Husband notices a couple of years later, Husband seeks to receive credit against future payments equal to the amount of his past overpayments.

Trial court rules against Husband, concluding that it was Husband’s responsibility to pay attention to how much he is paying relative to how much he is required to pay and ruling that the overpayments are voluntary.

It would certainly seem that Husband was able to make the higher temporary support payments without undue hardship motivating him to carefully review the garnishment records.

Moral of Case: wake up and get with it.

Read more in this Mens News Daily editorial: Court Rules Child Support Overpayment = Windfall to Mom and the actual legal opinion

Florida reportedly has the distinction of having enacted this country’s strictest state prohibition on adoption by gay prospective parents.

But gay people are permitted to serve as foster parents (and collect state funds for same).

Even for years.

One gay foster father (Foster Dad) took in a baby boy and his four year old brother (Boys) five years ago.

It is undisputed that both Boys have thrived in Foster Dad’s care. Even the Department of Children and Families concedes that Foster Dad is a great parent.

Foster Dad wants to adopt the Boys.

But he was blocked by Florida’s ban on gay adoption.

So Foster Dad challenged the ban in court – and won at trial. Because there is no evidence of inferior parenting by gay parents and because the statute denies children in foster care permanency.

Now, the case is crawling its way up the state’s appeals ladder.

And all the while the Boys are denied permanency…

Read more in this Palm Beach Post blog editorial: Lose his case, lose his kids? and this National Public Radio article: Florida Judge Rules Against Gay Adoption Ban.

Today, everyone has a cell phone.

In which they can store the numbers of everyone who is anyone to them.

And, paradoxically, most communication with their cell phone doesn’t happen through talking on it.

Three times as often, it happens through text messaging.

Totally uninhibited text messaging.

Admissions.

Confessions.

Flirtations.

Threats.

Plots and plans.

Text trail …

E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

As though no one else could ever see them but the intended receiver.

As though they would vanish without a trace once read.

But not so.

They may not last forever like e-mail.

But they last long enough to be found when least expected – and they’ve more accessible to eavesdroppers.

And they last long enough to print or download.

And, through the legal process, text messages can be made to live on longer than they would otherwise.

Potentially causing a whole lot of grief to the sender or recipient, in family court and otherwise.

Be careful what you text for …

Read more in this New York Times article: Text Messages: Digital Lipstick on the Collar.

Many states offer or even require divorcing or separating parents to take a parenting class. Florida is one of those states, mandating a four hour class on co-parenting after separation.

Now, researchers at the University of Missouri’s Human Development and Family Studies program have developed an online program, called Focus on Kids Online, to comply with Missouri’s legal requirement. (Florida’s four hour class is also available online.)

Parents who have completed the Missouri program actually self-report better relationships and heightened awareness of problems – and solutions for those problems.

That is what may truly distinguish the University of Missouri program from its counterparts in Florida and other states.

Enthusiastic about the response, the University plans to offer the online program to other states in the future.

One suggestion in the program is that parents provide consistent routines and chores in each parent’s home. A great concept, but difficult to implement in practice.

Read more in this Science Daily article: Digital Solutions Developed to Support Divorced Families.

A question in a newspaper’s legal advice column addresses an issue that catches many a spouse by surprise.

Can a spouse subpoena financial information from the other spouse’s new cohabitant?

To the shock and chagrin of the surprised spouse, the answer is, in a word, yes.

For example, under Florida’s rules of court procedure, parties are allowed to seek information that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”.

This is actually a pretty broad license to “go fish”.

And yes, sometimes, the true intent of the “fishing” spouse really is to shock and chagrin the other spouse (or their new cohabitant), even more than to obtain information.

Read more in this Boston Herald column Q & A on: Financial Follow-Up

So many separating fathers have the preconceived notion that it is impossible for them to have majority timesharing with (or physical custody of) their children.

But they couldn’t be more wrong.

More and more separated and divorced dads want, and can and do get to have their children with them most of the time.

According to a recent article, fully fifty (50%) percent of fathers who seek equal or majority timesharing with (physical custody of) their children receive it.

Due to a combination of the recession and social change, the American family has changed … and family courts have adapted to it.

More and more mothers are the primary breadwinners in their families and more and more fathers are the primary caregivers for their children prior to separation.

Applying the same logic that traditionally resulted in awards of custody (primary timesharing) to stay-at-home mothers now results in awards of equal or majority timesharing (physical custody) to fathers … even when the mothers work only because the fathers don’t.

As a result, more than two million mothers do not have majority timesharing with (physical custody of) their children.

Read more in this New York Times piece: More Fathers Are Getting Custody in Divorce and this Working Mother article: Family Focus – Custody Lost.

While most people were enjoying a long Thanksgiving holiday with family last weekend, others weren’t enjoying themselves at all.

Even in Ogden, Utah, police report more complaints on Thanksgiving of domestic violence and disputes over timesharing requiring police intervention.

On a broader scale, the University of California recently analyzed 911 calls and concluded that there were sizable increases in them on certain holidays:

• Thanksgiving – 22%
• Christmas – 17%
• New Year’s Eve – 32%
• July 4th – 28%
• Memorial Day – 30%

 
The UC study also noted an 8% increase in domestic violence on the occasion of a surprise loss in a professional football game.

And the study also noted an 8%-10% increase in domestic violence on “hot days”.

Too much togetherness, too much alcohol, the stress of the holidays and a weak economy all contribute to the above statistics.

Read more in this Salt Lake City, UT KSTU Fox 13 Now news article: Domestic Violence Calls Rise on Thanksgiving.

Opponents of gay marriage in California publicly justify their position as “protecting marriage”.

So, proponents of gay marriage, taking their argument to its logical extreme, are now protesting divorce as a threat to marriage.

A group of such “divorce protesters” actually marched on California’s state capitol a couple of weeks ago to draw attention to their causes.

The “divorce protesters” are doggedly pursuing getting their initiative on the June 2010 ballot.

Just in case, anyone biding their time in California may want to get moving on their divorce before next June …

Read more in this [Sacramento CA] KXTV News 10 article: March to Ban Divorce Lands at State Capitol.

It happens time and again.

Mother and Father move to sunny South Florida from another state.

They’re here for a year or so.

Father loves it here.

Mother is a stay-at-home mother.

Father becomes involved with other women.

Couple breaks up.

Father isn’t particularly involved in Children’s lives prior to the parents’ separation.

Mother has primary timesharing.

Perhaps Father doesn’t help much with financial support for the Children (or Mother). Perhaps he does.

Perhaps Father doesn’t help much with the Children in any respect. Perhaps he does.

Perhaps there was some history of domestic violence in the parents’ relationship. Perhaps not.

Mother yearns for the supporting network of her parents, siblings and extended family back home, where Mother and Father came from a year or so before.

Mother’s old employer has an opening that would be just perfect for her.

Mother tells Father she would like to return back home. Father can see the Children whenever he wants though.

Father balks.

Then Father threatens to go to court. Perhaps Father threatens worse things.

Frightened, overwhelmed, isolated and alone, Mother assembles the Children and flees to Grandma’s and Grandpa’s for a respite from a difficult situation.

Not necessarily with the intent to remain there permanently. Perhaps with it.

But, oh, it’s just so good to have some help with the Children, not to have to pinch every penny like a woman in a precarious situation, not to live among strangers, to be treated nicely, to have a pleasant home environment for the Children, to feel like maybe things could be better tomorrow, and so on.

After a couple of weeks, Mother decides to continue this comparatively idyllic existence for longer.

Mother e-mails Father with her decision.

After all, after the way Father has treated her, who can blame her? Mother thinks to herself.

Actually though, Florida’s family courts can – and often do – blame Mother.

Since 2006, an evolving Florida statute has specified a procedure a parent must follow if that parent wishes to relocate with the parents’ children.

If the other parent objects, the parent hoping to relocate must justify their goal either to the other parent’s or the Florida family court’s satisfaction.

If that parent just takes off with the couple’s children without following the statutorily specified procedure, that parent can be penalized in family court … surprisingly harshly, in fact.

It is hardly ever a good idea to just take off with your Children, even if their other parent knows exactly where you are and how to reach you and the Children.

It is far, far more prudent to follow the statutorily specified procedure if you wish to relocate with your Children.

In the meantime though, you are at liberty to move less than fifty (50) miles away without either the court’s or your ex’s permission.

That at least buys you a margin of safety.