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

Teens in foster care are not that adoptable. So they tend to remain in foster care. Permanently.

Yet these teenagers may have extended family who might be willing to take them in and adopt them. If they only knew of their circumstances. Or existence.

That’s the premise that gave birth to the non-profit, Foster and Adoptive Care Coalition. Among other things, the non-profit’s investigators search for such extended family members of teens in foster care.

Where teens do have suitable relatives, the odds that these relatives will adopt them are significantly greater than the odds of their adoption by unrelated strangers looking to adopt.

In fact, the organization is able to get ninety percent of teens in foster care connected with their extended family members.

And seventy percent of the children with relatives end up being adopted, generally by their own extended family members.

In St. Louis, there are often 400 teens and preteens in foster care. Extended family member adoptions can make a big dent in that number … and a big difference in these foster children’s lives.

Read more in this New York Times article: A Determined Quest to Bring Adoptive Ties to Foster Teenagers.

First came The Divorce Party, not long ago at all.

So it was just a matter of time until …

The Divorce Gift Registry.

The brainchild of a British department store.

It’s intended not only to help a newly divorced ex-spouse celebrate their divorce, but also to replace items they lost in the divorce, which are needed to equip their new post-divorce home.

US department stores and boutiques will undoubtedly follow suit in short order and offer their own divorce gift registries as well.

Read more in this Rockford, IL MyStateLine article: British Store Chain Launches Divorce Gift Registry and this New York Daily News article: British department store Debenhams introduces gift registry for the newly divorced.

It’s been ten years since the US Supreme Court all but stranded grandparents seeking visitation with their grandchildren out in the cold, but the grandparents of America refuse to be left there … and many state legislators have since taken up their cause, despite the high court’s ruling.

A Wisconsin statute allows a family court to order visitation for grandparents where the grandchildren’s parent has died and it is in the best interests of the children to have visitation with their grandparents.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently held that the statute encompasses overnight visitation.

The children’s surviving father argued that the statute violated equal protection under the law because it treats different types of parents differently based on whether their spouse is alive or dead.

The intermediate appellate court concluded that the distinction was justified by an overriding compelling state interest to protect a child’s interests after the death of a parent.

The father also argued that the overnight visitation awarded at the lower level exceeded the scope of the visitation contemplated by the statute and amounted to an improper “physical placement”.

The appellate court concluded that the plain meaning of the word visitation was consistent with overnight visitation.

Indiana has no statute like Wisconsin’s – yet. Indiana residents and a legislator fighting on their behalf are trying to change that.

Grandparents recently testified before the Indiana legislature about adult children arbitrarily withholding visitation with their grandchildren, maintaining that this hurt the grandchildren as well as the grandparents.

Read more in this Wisconsin Law Journal article: Overnight visitation is not physical placement and this Evansville [IN] Courier & Press article: Grandparents testify in Indy to establish visitation rights.

Mother and Father divorce. Mother and Father have three Boys together.

Mother and Fiance move in together with the Boys, Fiance’s child and a child of Mother’s from a previous relationship.

Mother and Fiance have two more children together. And become engaged.

This growing blended family reportedly works very well.

Then Father gets a new job out of state.

He informs Mother that he will be taking the Boys with him.

Mother obtains a court order awarding her sole custody of the Boys and providing for them to remain in their home state with Mother.

This Father cannot accept.

Father takes the Boys for visitation at his parents’ house.

Mother calls Father to tell him that she wants the Boys returned.

Father drives over to Mother’s and Fiance’s home.

Father then allegedly reveals a gun and shoots Mother to death … in front of the other children.

Father is arrested for Mother’s murder.

And this blended family is torn apart.

The Boys presently live with Father’s parents. Fiance tries to visit them every other weekend.

Mother’s child from a previous relationship is with some relatives of hers.

Mother’s and Fiance’s children are with Fiance, undoubtedly missing their Mother and siblings.

Read more in this San Jose Mercury News column: Herhold: A lethal child custody battle.

Many states now transmit child support (and spousal support) payments to recipients via debit cards.

Sounds convenient for all.

Unless some of the money that is supposed to be available through the card isn’t.

One state using debit cards is New Jersey.

One child support recipient was allegedly told that she spent her “missing” support money … on jewelry … in Nepal.

And she would have to take her disputes up with the merchant … in Nepal.

This mother in need of support had not been charging jewelry to her card in Nepal.

But the debit card company disagreed with her for two months.

Until the media intervened on the mother’s behalf.

Reportedly, this is not an isolated instance of fraudulent charges that were made the support recipient’s problem to investigate and resolve with the merchant.

Some support recipients who have had to deal with fraudulent charges have opted to switch from debit cards to direct deposit of their child support money into their accounts.

Read more in this New Jersey Star-Ledger article: Another EPPICard user misled on how to fight fraudulent charges.

That’s a question implied by recent scientific advances.

Family law keeps getting more and more complicated, thanks, in part, to science.

It is now reported that scientists have extracted “bad” DNA from one mother’s egg and inserted into that mother’s egg “good” DNA extracted from another mother’s egg.

(For those who are wondering, “bad” DNA foreordains disease, birth defects or the like, and “good” DNA carries the promise of normal and healthy.)

Both mothers in this instance were monkeys, but the science underlying the procedure theoretically applies to humans as well.

So, if two different mothers contribute DNA to an egg, are both DNA-contributing mothers a mother (or half-mother) to the eventual baby?

From a scientific perspective, the answer would seem to be, indisputably, yes.

But what about from a legal perspective? That’s less clear-cut and will probably depend on a number of considerations.

The potential ramifications of multiple DNA contributors can become unwieldy, at best.

These very legal issues just may be taken up in our family courts in the future.

Read more in this New York Times editorial: A Legal Puzzle: Can a Baby Have Three Biological Parents?.

Twelve year old Girl is in child protective custody.

Girl is placed in foster care with Man.

Reportedly, Man is a pimp who has been profiting from Girl’s prostitution at the time the Maryland Child Welfare Agency (Agency) and Girl’s aunt allegedly approve him as Girl’s guardian.

Now Man pleads guilty to this offense with Girl … and three other girls. He could be sentenced to as long as 20 years’ incarceration.

Man has extensive arrest record over twenty year’s long, but no prior convictions.

Agency is supposed to run a background check on any prospective guardian / foster parent, but typical background checks only pick up convictions.

Read more in this Washington DC Examiner article: Court records: P.G. social services approved pimp as foster father.

Wealthy Wife and Husband divorce in UK in 2007.

Marital assets are divided equally.

The trial court also orders Wife to compensate Husband from her share of the marital estate for some real estate losses he suffered. This is in addition to his receipt of half of the marital assets.

Wife appeals that ruling, arguing that Husband may recover his losses in the future.

Court excludes evidence that those property values have already rebounded to a degree.

Wife proposes that the properties be sold within five years, with the profits or losses being shared equally.

Husband and Wife await the British appellate court’s ruling.

Read more in this UK Telegraph article: Frisbee heiress launches bid to overturn ‘monstrously unfair’ divorce settlement.

A couple of months ago, I posted a Warning to Seriously Ill Women: Be Prepared to Be Divorced … Now based on a study.

Another study concludes that parents of a child suffering from cancer are not statistically significantly more likely to divorce than any other parents, even if the child dies. This survey looks at nearly a million couples living in Norway over a twenty-five year period.

The people conducting the survey believe it shoots down an insidious myth. But they are quick to admit that living in Norway may defuse many of the stresses of parents of children with cancer because Norway has free medical care and an extensive social welfare system.

The study also reports a greater risk of divorce in the subset of couples where the wife is college-educated, particularly where the child’s cancer involves the child’s central nervous system. The reasons are unknown, but it is speculated that more educated women face more stresses juggling a career with child care, particularly where the child has special needs.

Read more in this Reuters article: Child’s cancer does not raise divorce risk: study.

Couple separate.

Husband condemns divorce and threatens Wife numerous times.

Wife gets injunction for protection against domestic violence, or restraining order, against Husband.

Wife requests that Husband be allowed only supervised visitation with their three and five year old Children.

Court, however, orders unsupervised visitation for Husband, including weekly overnight timesharing with the couple’s three and five year old Children.

Exchanges are conducted at Wife’s Mother’s home for her safety.

Divorce goes through.

During latest visitation, Husband sends increasingly disturbing text messages to Wife, in which he seems to try to lure Wife to his location.

One message alarms Wife and she calls police.

Upon investigation at Wife’s Mother’s home, police discover Wife’s Mother and both Children dead. Wife’s Mother was shot and Children were stabbed to death.

Husband is charged with “aggravated” murder.

Husband’s defense seems to be that Wife divorced him.

Husband is convicted of murdering all three victims and is sentenced to death.

Read more in this Cleveland WJW-TV Fox 8 news article: Ex-Wife: Mammone Admitted Killing Their Kids, Her Mom and this Canton[OH] Repository article: James Mammone III gets death sentence for murdering children, former mother-in-law.

Mother and Father break up.

Their Son is 5 years old.

Court awards custody of Son to Father.

Mother alleges that Father sexually molested Son.

Child welfare investigators find no evidence to support those allegations and recommend that Father be awarded custody of Son.

Mother abducts Son.

And allegedly hides him in a hole in the wall – quite literally – at the house of her mother (Grandmother).

For two years.

Police say Son reacted to his release as though he had rarely if ever been outside of his hole in the wall, a small hidden crawlspace built into a wall in his grandmother’s house.

Mother is now charged with felony child abduction.

Grandmother is now charged with aiding and abetting.

A man who also lived in the Grandmother’s house is under arrest as well.

Son is now living with relatives pending further investigation of Father and evaluation of Son by child welfare workers.

Father maintains his innocence.

Read more in this ABC News article: Father Rejoices After Police Find Missing Son Alive, Hidden at Grandmother’s Home and this WSIL ABC TV 3 news article: UPDATE: Another Suspect Arrested in Kidnapping Case.

Boyfriend lives in New York.

Girlfriend lives in New Hampshire.

Boyfriend and Girlfriend “meet” on the internet.

Couple has two Daughters.

Relationship sours.

Custody battle in New Hampshire begins.

Girlfriend accuses Boyfriend of sexually abusing Daughters and of “mental delusions”.

Boyfriend accuses Girlfriend of sexually abusing Daughters and of “mental delusions”.

Neither police nor child protection agencies in either of their states have taken any action against Boyfriend (or, apparently, Girlfriend).

Boyfriend [erroneously] contends that this proves that Girfriend abused him with false accusations … alienating their Daughters from him and manipulating the legal system.

Court concludes that couple cannot “co-parent”.

Therefore, court awards Girlfriend primary custody and majority timesharing.

Court also awards Boyfriend “liberal” visitation.

Seeking primary custody himself, Boyfriend files appeal … and learns that New Hampshire law denies unmarried parents in child custody cases, among other folks in family cases, an automatic right of appeal.

So, Boyfriend seeks a discretionary appeal. And loses.

Now, regrouping, Boyfriend asks the trial court to reconsider its ruling, a little late in the game. He is now asserting that different appellate rules based on marital status of parents is discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Whatever else, New Hampshire’s unusual appellate rules do at least have the virtue of trimming the appellate dockets considerably.

Read more in this Concord [NH] Monitor article: Unmarried couple’s custody case hits snag – No automatic appeal in fight.

The goal of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is to facilitate return of internationally abducted children to their home states within a brief six weeks.

Unfortunately, this is a far cry from the reality.

According to an article written from the British perspective, one-third of children abducted from the UK to other countries which have signed the Hague Convention are not returned within a year. Several countries typically require well over a year, or even a couple of years, for cases to run the course of their legal system.

Some countries which are parties to the Hague Convention reportedly never return children. Others rarely do so.

According to the article, Hague Convention signatory countries least likely to return children to the UK (and, presumably, anywhere else) are:

• Croatia

• Ecuador

• Honduras

• Mauritius

• Peru

• Serbia

• Sweden

• Zimbabwe

According to the article, even the US refused to return one-third of abducted children.

Of course, some cases of non-return by Hague Convention signatories may be the result of good faith differences in findings of fact or good faith differences in the application of the law of the Convention (particularly the exceptions) to the facts of the cases.

But, if this is the track record of the countries that agreed to the Hague Convention, the even poorer track records of non-party countries shouldn’t be surprising.

Read more in this [UK] Guardian article: Third of abducted children not returned home after a year.

Florida is a so-called “no-fault” divorce state. Actually, at this point in time, so is every other state in the union.

Except, of course, New York state. The lone holdout requiring fault for divorce.

Many attorneys and mediators have worked for years toward changing New York’s divorce law.

But with no success to date.

Leaving it to divorce litigants to discover and prove legal fault.

One commentator points out that the added costs to spouses and the extra clogging of the New York courts with courtroom fault-dramas are just too much in these recession-plagued times.

Who knows? Maybe this will be the year New York’s divorce law changes.

Read more in this New York Times editorial: New York’s Antique Divorce Law.

Mother and Father are divorced.

Child welfare agencies in two states are familiar with the family.

Mother is initially awarded custody of their three Children.

Later, Mother loses custody of Children and Father is awarded custody of Children.

Mother is allowed visitation supervised by child welfare personnel at the child welfare agency’s facilities.

Father has other children from other relationships. Father’s visitation with them is reportedly restricted and he was allegedly arrested for injuring one of his other children previously.

While Children are in Father’s care, Father allegedly gets drunk while “playing” with a gun … on Christmas Eve.

All three Children are present at this time, including one-year old Baby.

Father’s gun goes off, shooting one of the Children in the head and killing her.

One of the other Children dials 911, not Father.

Father is arrested for manslaughter, endangering a child and tampering with evidence … and released on bail.

Mother’s counsel seeks to have the surviving Children placed into Mother’s care. Father’s counsel seeks to have the surviving Children placed into Father’s care.

Instead, the Court orders that Father have no contact with the two surviving Children for the time being, that Mother continue to be restricted to supervised visitation, and that neither parent have access to Children’s school.

Children are in foster care.

Read more in this Denton [TX] news article: Father accused in girl’s shooting can’t see children.

Ex-Husband and Ex-Wife divorced in the early 1990s.

Ex-Husband is a very, very wealthy man who founded a successful investment company during his divorce from Ex-Wife.

Ex-Wife sues Ex-Husband in a civil lawsuit for claimed racketeering. More specifically, allegedly:

• hiding assets from Ex-Wife and the family court during their divorce
• filing papers with the court that were false
• fraud and
• insider trading.

Ex-Wife’s first lawyer dismissed her suit shortly after it was filed, apparently due to a falling out between him and his client. But Ex-Wife plans to re-file through new counsel.

The original actions reportedly sought $300 million.

Read more in

• this BusinessWeek article: Patricia Cohen to Again Sue Ex-Spouse, SAC’s Founder (Update2) and
• this BusinessWeek article: SAC Capital Founder Cohen’s Ex-Wife Drops Lawsuit (Update3) and
• this Business Insider article: Ex-Wife: Stevie Cohen Confessed To Insider Trading In The 80s.

There’s a relatively easy way and a potentially very hard way to collect a spouse’s share of the other spouse’s pension awarded in a divorce.

The hard way in many cases is to passively wait for the ex-spouse to send it. Perhaps to e-mail, call or text message the ex.

When things get bad enough (arrears mount), to file a motion for contempt.

Time-consuming, costly and aggravating.

Then there’s the easier way.

To have the pension plan administrator just send it directly to the spouse awarded a share.

No begging, arguing, threatening or waiting.

The spouse on the plan never gets their hands on the money and has no opportunity to interfere with collection.

What wondrous mechanism accomplishes this?

Well, in Florida, former spouses receiving checks directly from their ex’s pension plan administrator know they owe their thanks to a “QDRO“, or a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (and the lawyer who advised getting it).

A QDRO (pronounced “quad-ro”) is a nifty order that a judge signs as part of the divorce.

Although QDROs can be somewhat complex and may cost some money, for the spouse who is not directly on the pension plan, the return on investment can be huge … and the other spouse may well be required to bear the associated expenses.

To appreciate what the big deal is about a QDRO, you’d probably have to talk to someone living in one of the five states that do not recognize QDROs.

Such as Kentucky.

One woman, waiting for her share of her husband’s pension benefits, has instead seen him jailed twice rather than send her her court-ordered share. And still she only receives her share long enough for him to “get out of jail”.

But Kentucky legislators are working on implementing (sadly, reinstating) recognition of QDROs in Kentucky.

Read more in this [Louisville, KY] Courier-Journal article: Bill aims to simplify pension payments.

Minnesota Husband and Wife divorce.

Court ends marriage without yet addressing all issues in the case.

Court enters an injunction or restraining order prohibiting either spouse from transferring or spending marital assets while property division is still up in the air.

Husband has a substantial 401(k) account in his name.

Husband spends $125,000 from that retirement account, without Wife’s or court’s permission.

Judge holds Husband in contempt of court.

Judge sentences Husband to ninety days’ incarceration, but allows Husband thirty days to replace the funds and thus avoid jail.

Judge also orders Husband to pay Wife’s attorneys’ fees. Either way.

Read more in this [Minneapolis / St. Paul] Pioneer Press article: Judge: Hecker must pay back 401(k) or go to jail and this EyeWitness 5 ABC-TV news article: Judge to Hecker: Pay Up or Go to Jail.

During a thirty day span between November and December, domestic violence resulted in eighteen deaths in the state of Oregon, including children. The killers all committed suicide when they were through.

Oregon is appointing a special domestic violence prosecutor and working to improve statewide services in domestic violence situations.

Government commentators made the following observations after this run of violence.

1. Shelters and related services are not adequately funded relative to need

2. Child welfare agencies must work in conjunction with domestic violence services providers

3. Domestic violence carries over into victims’ workplaces and

4. Abusers’ access to guns is lethal

It is hoped that these insights will translate into more effective strategies and better outcomes.

Read more in this [Portland, OR] Oregonian editorial: Domestic violence murders: Community and victims cry out for solutions.

Brazil is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Yet it took nearly six years and massive political and legal effort to secure the return to this country from Brazil of a little American boy abducted by his mother … who died over a year ago.

That boy reportedly was far from the only American (or other non-Brazilian) child abducted to Brazil.

On the other hand, India is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Yet, in a recent case there, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that an Indian Wife who had been permanently residing in the UK with her Husband and their child, must return to the UK with their child for custody proceedings there.

Ultimately, the adverse impact of Brazil’s conduct on future trade with the US may have propelled Brazil to finally send the boy home.

Now, a Congressman from that boy’s home state, New Jersey, has introduced legislation intended to promote enforcement of the Hague Convention by appointing an official to monitor compliance and to empower the government to impose sanctions for noncompliance.

An international network of judges is also communicating in the hope of facilitating timely returns of abducted children.

Read more in this [India] Daily News and Analysis article: SC asks NRI woman to fight child custody battle in England and this Baltimore Sun article: Justice for stolen kids and this [New Jersey] Hub article: Legislators call for bill on international child abduction.

These days, lots of people reportedly spend lots of time on so-called social networking sites.

What are they up to there?

Well, it seems a respectable percentage may be engaging in virtual flirtations … and beyond.

A British divorce website initiated a study of recent American divorces or, more specifically, court-filed papers in US divorce cases.

Well, the study concluded that a rather astonishing twenty (20%) percent of such court filings specifically refer to the social networking website known as “Facebook” as a cause of the breakdown in the marriage!

The study encompasses 5,000 divorce cases in the US.

And, although Facebook is the leading reported offender among social networking websites, other social networking websites, including Twitter and MySpace, are not overlooked in court filings either.

The study does not go so far as to attribute any divorces to Facebook (or Twitter or MySpace).

The study also puts out there that divorce attorneys may scour social networking websites looking for “dirt” on opposing parties (which may be useful) … and on their own clients (for damage control purposes).

A divorce lawyer’s work is never done.

Read more in this [Philadelphia] ABC TV 6 news article: Study: Facebook often leads to divorce.

Ex-Husband and Ex-Wife are divorced.

Ex-Husband was ordered to pay Ex-Wife alimony in the divorce.

Ex-Husband is in arrears to the tune of $70,000.

Not because of illness or disability or unemployment.

Ex-Husband actually owns several successful businesses and holds roughly one hundred patents.

He’s comfortable.

But Ex-Husband contends that Ex-Wife breached their settlement agreement, in which he agreed to pay Ex-Wife alimony, by abandoning their sons thirty years ago.

And so Ex-Husband refuses to pay the alimony arrearages, out of principle.

Ex-Husband is eighty years old and their divorce took place thirty-eight years ago.

None of the above caused a Georgia judge to hesitate before ordering Ex-Husband to jail.

Read more in this [Jacksonville] Florida Times-Union article: South Georgia man went to jail out of ‘principle’.

Michigan Husband and Wife have two children together.

Husband is a podiatrist.

Husband works long hours and travels a good bit.

Wife is in counseling over marriage-related issues.

Wife’s therapist suggest that she do some “digging” on Husband, using the internet and phone records.

Wife agrees.

And is shocked by what she finds.

Husband was already married to another woman in another state when he married Wife. They were never legally divorced before his marriage to Wife.

Wife knows Husband as a Protestant.

Wife discovers Husband has secretly converted to the Muslim faith .. and adopted an Arabic name. Husband has also traveled to the Middle East twice on spiritual journeys.

Oh, and Husband married another woman subsequent to his marriage to her … in an Islamic wedding ceremony in Canada.

Husband’s position is that he thought he was divorced from his first wife when he married Wife, and that his third marriage was not formalized but only enacted to spare the bride from having to go through with an arranged marriage against her will.

Wife seeks an annulment.

And this is one of the relatively unusual grounds that would support an annulment in lieu of a divorce, at least under Florida’s law pertaining to annulment.

Read more in this USA Today article by way of the Detroit Free Press: Michigan woman’s Google search turns up husband’s 2 other wives.

Husband and Wife are divorcing, and each is vying for custody of their Sons.

Sons go to counseling with Counselor, a therapist.

Counselor and her husband (Corroborator), also a therapist, have offices in the same practice and suite.

Counselor testified in the custody trial that Husband yelled at Counselor in rage.

Corroborator also testified in the custody trial, backing up Counselor’s testimony.

It turns out that Husband secretly recorded his conversation with Counselor.

No yelling on the recording.

As a result, Counselor and Corroborator stand trial for perjury.

The family court judge presiding over the custody trial testified against Counselor and Corroborator at their criminal trial!

Yet Corroborator’s patient, presumably a neutral, disinterested third party witness, also testified that Husband was loud in Counselor’s office.

It is unclear whether the recording could have been incomplete or, as Corroborator contends, not legitimate at all.

Jury is hung and mistrial is declared because jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict.

Technically, the state can try Counselor and Corroborator again, but the likelihood is diminished.

Read more in this Lufkin [Texas] Daily News article: Counselor takes stand to defend self in perjury trial and this Lufkin [Texas] Daily News article: Judge declares mistrial in perjury case.

California Husband and Wife have two year old and four year old Daughters.

Wife, an attorney, accuses Husband of molesting their older Daughter.

Husband denies the allegation.

Wife files for divorce.

California authorities do not pursue a criminal case against Husband.

Wife and Daughters and maternal Grandmother move from Southern California to Texas.

Wife again seeks prosecution of Husband for the alleged molestation of Daughters.

Husband’s attorney indicates that no experts back up Wife’s allegations against Husband. (Which, if true, is not conclusive.)

California trial court orders Mother to bring Daughters back to California – and indicates that the court plans to award temporary custody of Daughters to Husband’s Sister.

Rather than relinquishing Daughters to Husband’s family and placing them at risk of contact with Husband, either Mother or Grandmother shoots Daughters to death and then shoots the other adult before turning the gun on herself. All are killed.

Although both women have gunshot powder residue on their hands, the weapon is registered to Grandmother and investigators conclude that Grandmother was probably the shooter.

Read more in this Los Angeles KABC-TV 7 news article: Custody dispute suspected in Clemente murders and this Wall Street Journal posting: Investigators: Grandmother Pulled Trigger in Howrey Associate Slaying.

Father allegedly owes $37,000 in child support arrears.

Father has the distinction of owning a motorized bar stool.

Father reportedly drives around town, intoxicated, with the bar stool in his car – and is involved in an accident.

As a result, Father is convicted of DUI.

Father then tries to sell his motorized bar stool on eBay, hoping to cash in on its relative notoriety.

Father receives a bid over $1,000 … but the bidder doesn’t follow through and make the payment.

Child support enforcement doesn’t think an auction is such a bad idea for collection purposes though.

The agency seizes Father’s bar stool with the intention of auctioning it off locally, offline, itself.

But was the Agency premature in giving up on eBay?

Read more in this Columbus Dispatch article: Bidder reneges on motorized bar stool eBay offer.