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

In some divorces, one spouse “buys out” the other spouse’s equity position in the marital home.

How is the dollar amount of the buyout determined?

Very often the buyout is accomplished with a refinancing of the mortgage on the home, which removes the bought out spouse’s name from the mortgage, as the buyout removes the bought out spouse’s name from the deed.

As part of the refinancing of the mortgage, the lender will typically require a current appraisal. The appraisal is the most common means of setting the price for the buyout.

But a noted law professor makes a pretty good case that an inexpensive home inspection should also be conducted and serve as a “reality check” on the appraisal price.

How so?

Home inspectors focus on the condition of the internal “systems” in the home. Defects, damage, wear, poor condition are typically noted.

Repairs and curative efforts have costs associated with them, which can be factored into an appraised price to reach a more equitable buyout price.

In some cases, the results may spur a spouse to reconsider buying out the other spouse.

According to the professor’s research, failure to take account of such negative conditions is a common basis for the buying out spouse’s efforts to reopen divorce cases after final judgment.

Read more in this New York Times piece: Home Inspections During Divorces.

Mother and Father are originally from Turkey.

Mother and Father have two Children, Son and Daughter, together.

Mother and Father separate.

Mother is awarded sole parental responsibility for Children.

Mother, who lives in the UK, takes Children to Turkey to visit Grandparents.

While in Turkey, Father allegedly seizes Children’s passports and forcibly abducts Children.

Son manages to escape and is returned to Mother in the UK, despite lack of a passport.

Turkish authorities initially refuse to facilitate the return of Daughter to Mother, although Turkey is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

But subsequently, authorities intervene to persuade Father to bring Daughter to Mother, where they reside in the UK.

Upon Father’s return to the UK, he is served with several court orders, including an order for Father to return Daughter to Wife and another prohibiting Father from having contact with Children or Mother.

Read more in this Yorkshire [UK] Post article: Police persuade father to bring home his abducted daughter.

In Tennesee, an unusual custody battle is brewing. The subject of the battle is a thirty-six year old female …

Elephant.

Woman, one of the most prominent experts in the world on elephant rehabilitation, raised the Elephant in the circus from a tender age.

Woman eventually founded, ran and lived in the nation’s first habitat for “retired” elephants past their performing prime.

Until, after fifteen years of service, the sanctuary reportedly fired her.

After her discharge, Woman was initially allowed “supervised visitation” with Elephant. The justification for the supervision was alleged roughness toward Elephant.

Later, Woman was barred from any contact with Elephant.

The habitat has grown to 2,700 acres and $23 million, with tens of thousands of benefactors.

Woman has now filed a lawsuit, and many supporters of the sanctuary are rallying to her cause. Among other things Woman is seeking in her suit, Woman is still seeking visitation with Elephant.

Woman contends that politics and personal greed led to her termination, rather than alleged aggression.

The court’s view remains to be seen but the public or, at least, the supporters of the habitat, appear to be sympathetic to Woman’s position.

After all, the Elephant is like family to Woman. Firing Woman is one thing. Cutting her off from Elephant is another.

Read more in this New York Times article: Sanctuary in Custody Fight Over Elephant.

Arizona Student posts on social networking website Twitter that he would hit Arizona Judge in the face if given the opportunity.

Judge learns of post.

Judge seeks restraining order of protection against Student.

And judge’s request is granted, and order of protection is entered against Student.

Perhaps another reason to apply self-censorship on social media websites.

Still, in truth, it is questionable whether a restraining order would have been entered in Florida on similar facts … if the target were not a member of the judiciary.

Read more in this WireUpdate article: Arizona student gets restraining order after Twitter threat.

Canada reports that total child support and alimony arrears across the nation exceed $2.7 billion Canadian.

Applicable to roughly sixty-four percent of support cases in which such statistics are kept.

Compliance varied from as high as eighty percent to as low as fifty-two percent, with several major regions reporting compliance of roughly sixty-three percent.

Read more in this Ottawa Citizen article: Unpaid child, spousal support tab hits $2.7 billion.

Australian Girl is taken into child protective custody by the child welfare agency (Agency) of the Australian government when Girl is twelve years old (presumably due to abandonment, abuse or neglect by Girl’s parents).

While in the custody of the Agency at the age of twelve, Girl is allegedly sold for sex.

Now Girl has an attorney and is looking to sue the Agency and government for its neglect.

The Agency reportedly concedes its negligence, but maintains that the Girl is fine now.

As part of her case, Girl will need to prove not only the neglect, but that it resulted in actual harm to her. That will require expert psychological evidence.

Since Girl is an indigent child, she is hoping to receive donations from the public.

Read more in this [Australia] World Today ABC newsradio article: Girl sold for sex wants to sue Tas Government.

Mother and Father divorce. Mother is awarded custody of their Daughter.

Daughter lives with Mother in Mexico. Father lives abroad.

Daughter, at 13, runs away from Mother in Mexico and goes to live with Aunt in Canada, with Grandmother’s assistance.

Daughter obtains asylum in Canada under the United Nations Refugee Convention, alleging that Mother abuses her.

Mother files an application for Daughter’s return to Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Mother maintains that Father’s family orchestrated Daughter’s flight.

Once a person is granted “protected” status under the UN Convention, they cannot generally be returned to the country where they were prosecuted.

But parents have the legal right to make decisions and exercise authority on behalf of their children. Therefore, the Hague Convention likely takes precedence over the UN Convention where parental rights to a minor child are involved.

At trial, the Canadian Court orders that Daughter return to Mexico.

Aunt is appealing the ruling.

Read more in this Toronto Star article: Mexican teen who fled abuse returned to mother.

Many parents imagine that their child’s preferences in custody and timesharing, as allegedly expressed to them, will control the outcome of their child custody and timesharing case in family court.

They are usually disappointed to learn that that is probably not a significant consideration in their case at all.

On a practical level, it is all too common for children to express to each parent that they prefer to be with that parent primarily.

Which highlights the uncertainty as to the children’s true preferences. How can they reliably be determined?

In Florida and many other jurisdictions, divorce court judges rarely hear from children directly regarding their preferences. Subjecting children to testifying in court “against” either parent is frowned upon as damaging to children.

There are other ways to put children’s stated preferences before the court but, for a variety of reasons, the court often is not receptive toward receiving that input as evidence in the case.

And even if the court were, do children know what is best for them?

At best, not necessarily. At worst, definitely not.

And those are some of the problems with the proposal of three Connecticut children lobbying for family court judges to speak directly with children in the privacy of the judge’s chambers.

It also tends to put the children right smack into the middle of the case. And that is not healthy for children.

Read more in this Danbury [CT] News Times article: Siblings aim to change child custody law.

According to a recent survey of nondivorcing married couples, commissioned by a British law firm of divorce attorneys, ten percent or more of British husbands admit that they would hide assets during a divorce, in order to keep a greater share of marital assets to themselves after property division in the divorce.

It is possible that some husbands might hide assets in their divorces, but might not own up to it for purposes of a study.

The same survey reports that, in one third of couples, one spouse does not really know what their significant other earns.

And one third of couples maintain separate accounts, meaning that one spouse may not know what or how much money is in their significant other’s individual accounts.

In twelve percent of couples, one spouse intentionally conceals or even misleads their spouse about their higher ticket purchases. More than half admit hiding any paper trail of those purchases.

Among young couples, nine percent admit to making investments that they conceal from their spouse. Again, it is possible that some who do so might not own up to it.

Men, more than women, reportedly tend to maintain financial privacy from the outset, to protect themselves financially in the event of a divorce.

The survey results suggest that one spouse in many couples is in effect cheated in the division of marital assets in their divorces.

Read more in this Times of Malta article: Husbands hide assets to avoid big divorce hit.

Seventeen year old Nebraska Mother has an eighteen month old Toddler.

Mother, reportedly an admitted drug user, and her Boyfriend are allegedly intoxicated.

Mother and Boyfriend allegedly duct tape Toddler to a wall, with his hands trapped behind his back.

A “sippie cup” is also taped to the wall … beyond Toddler’s reach. His fingers are bound together as well.

Mother and Boyfriend take pictures of Toddler taped to the wall.

And show / send the pictures to various friends and family members.

Who notify authorities.

Mother and Boyfriend are arrested.

Mother is sentenced to ten days’ incarceration. She is also placed on two years’ probation.

Boyfriend is sentenced to three to five years’ confinement for child abuse. He is also sentenced to additional time … on unrelated felony charges.

Child welfare / health agencies will monitor the situation on an ongoing basis.

Read more in this All Headline News article: Mom Who Duct-Taped Toddler To Wall Has Custody Of Child Again.

Australian Husband and Wife marry.

Husband is under the impression that Wife holds substantial property.

Several months after the wedding, Husband learns that Wife’s holdings are less substantial than he had thought.

Husband seeks an annulment, arguing fraud by Wife.

At trial, the court rules that there was no fraud as to the nature of the occasion of the wedding. The court finds that Husband had the power to consent to marriage and did in fact agree to marry Wife.

Since there was no fraud as to the fact of marriage or identity of the bride, the Australian court holds that the marriage is not subject to annulment.

Read more in this Sydney Morning Herald article: Till debt us do part case dismissed.

There’s actually less divorce than we generally hear.

The percentage of first marriages that fail is now at forty percent. Not fifty percent, as widely believed.

The two most likely causes of any divorce are money and affairs.

On the other hand, money (or, actually, lack of it) is forcing a certain percentage of couples who want to divorce to stay together during this recession.

Especially the drop in home values. But also the actual cost of divorce and the tax impacts.

Read more in this Houston Fox 26 KRIV TV article: 2010 Bucks Marriage and Divorce Trend.

Texas Husband and Wife have stormy fifteen year marriage.

Husband allegedly physically abuses Wife throughout it.

Husband and Wife have three Children together.

In 2006, Husband, intoxicated, carrying a gun, chases Wife into Daughter’s room, and threatens to shoot and kill Wife … if she doesn’t reveal the name of a man Husband believes asked her out.

Husband then gives the gun to Wife, and asks her to shoot him. When Wife disarms the gun though, Husband beats her.

That incident drives Wife to seek a domestic violence restraining order against Husband.

That incident also leads to Husband being convicted of assault on Wife. But the court withholds adjudication in the case.

In 2008, Husband allegedly abducts the Children to Pakistan. But Wife is able to secure their return to the US after about a year.

Wife files for divorce from Husband.

A guardian ad litem is appointed by the court to look out for the best interests of the Children.

Neither the guardian ad litem or Wife opposes unrestricted visitation by Husband.

In their divorce, Husband is awarded timesharing with Children.

And during Husband’s timesharing, Husband allegedly murders all three Children.

And wounds himself as well.

Husband is now charged with three counts of murder.

October is national domestic violence awareness month.

Read more in this Houston Chronicle article: Slain kids’ mom tells of abusive marriage.

Evaluating a divorce settlement proposal isn’t always as straightforward as one may think.

In appropriate cases, it may be well worth it to have a financial advisor and/or tax advisor review a settlement proposal before it is finalized.

One commonly overlooked issue in cases where spousal support and / or child support is involved is assurance to the support-receiving spouse that the support-paying spouse is maintaining a life insurance policy to secure the paying spouse’s obligations.

Of course, it is good to require the paying spouse to provide proof on an annual basis that the policy remains in good standing and full force and effect.

But what if the ex refuses to furnish that proof in years following settlement (or final judgment)?

There are a couple of ways to address this possibility without the receiving spouse having to bring a contempt proceeding.

One way is for the receiving spouse to be designated as the actual policy owner. As owner, the receiving spouse will always be informed of the status of the policy. Even if their ex is ordered to and/or agrees to pay the premiums.

The other way is for the policy to be nonmodifiable and noncancellable without thirty days’ notice to the receiving spouse. There is typically a surcharge for this provision.

But it may be well worth it. This way the ex cannot just pull the plug on the policy without the receiving spouse’s knowledge.

Both approaches accomplish the objective, without the receiving spouse having to chase their ex for proof of the status of the policy.

Then, at least if the receiving spouse does bring a contempt action, they will know that it really was necessary to reinstate the policy and that they will have solid proof of the lapsed status of the policy.

Another important consideration in some cases are tax impacts of alternative divisions of property. Different assets are treated differently for tax purposes.

And this can have a big impact on the ultimate “bottom line” of a settlement or judicial disposition of property by a family court judge … if either party puts on evidence for the divorce court judge to consider regarding tax bases, tax treatments and tax impacts associated with the different marital properties and alternative property divisions in the divorce.

Read more in this Holland [MI] Sentinel article: Making Cents: How to come out a winner in a divorce.

Different states approach child support calculations differently.

Some base the support amount on both parents’ incomes, such as Florida. Some look only to the paying parent’s income.

Some look to gross income, others net income.

Some use a guidelines chart of support obligations at various income levels, such as Florida. Some apply a percentage to the reference amount.

That’s complicated enough.

States that use guidelines charts generally only specify support obligations at incomes within a certain range, representing portions of the spectrum that are relatively typical.

But not every parent’s income is within the typical range. Some people earn less and some people earn more.

And guidelines support obligations are not specified outside of those typical ranges.

So how is child support calculated for those with incomes outside those typical ranges?

In Florida, a flat percentage is applied to the additional income above the maximum guidelines income.

But Connecticut’s child support guidelines do not provide clear guidance as to how to calculate child support when the parties’ incomes exceed the maximum income under their guidelines.

Because of that omission, a trial court, in effect, pulls out of thin air a percentage to apply to one wealthy couple’s excess income over the guidelines. In this particular case, the couple’s income exceeds the guidelines amount by a substantial margin.

Husband appeals from the trial court’s ruling.

And the appellate court reverses, finding the trial court’s approach to constitute an arbitrary abuse of discretion.

The appellate court’s rationale is that, as income rises dramatically, the percentage of family income allocated to children’s needs declines and, therefore, the trial court’s approach results in an arbitrary transfer of Husband’s income to Wife.

The appellate court also takes exception to awards of hefty percentages of speculative future bonuses.

This holding is consistent with recent legal trends operating to keep the lid on and even to reduce child support awards.

Read more in this Connecticut Law Tribune article: Limits Set On Child Support For High Wage Earners.

Massachusetts Husband and Wife divorce.

Husband, who is an attorney, is required to pay Wife alimony.

By default, alimony payments are deductible by the paying spouse and includible as income to the receiving spouse.

Husband allegedly deducts Husband’s alimony payments from his income taxes for 2004 through 2008.

But, in their settlement agreement, which was adopted in a court order, Husband and Wife had reportedly agreed that the alimony payments would be taxable to Husband rather than to Wife. This is permitted under the Internal Revenue Code.

Accordingly, Husband shorted the government by over $132,000 in income taxes. Bad enough.

Husband dug himself deeper into the hole by allegedly showing investigators a forged court order and misrepresenting facts in an effort to cover the truth up.

As a result of which, the government has charged Husband with tax evasion.

The maximum sentence for this charge is five years’ confinement, plus three years of probation, and a quarter of a million dollar fine.

Read more in this Needham [MA] Times article: Needham man charged with evading $132,216 in income taxes.

A divorce financial analyst poses the question: can you afford to divorce?

In truth, sometimes the question is: can you afford / stand / survive not divorcing.

In which case the question should be: how can you become able to afford to divorce?

For most people, they probably can afford to divorce. But they will probably benefit from, if not have to, make some financial adjustments to their lifestyle.

Hopefully, the positive emotional and psychological adjustments in their lives will more than make up for the possibly less positive financial adjustments.

But everyone should go into a divorce situation with their eyes wide open, having considered how their lives will change and what the costs will be.

Some of the questions to ponder:

1. post-divorce budget:
   expenses – basic necessities, necessary amenities, dispensable luxuries
   income from all sources – work, child support, alimony, etc. less taxes
   leaving surplus or deficit
2. tradeoffs in property division: are you better off to stay in the house or pass on it for liquid assets (this is more complicated if you are upside down, as so many people are these days)
3. consider your financial future a few years down the road, and your path there

Read more in this Denver KUSA NBC 9 News 6am article: Too broke to break up.

Florida Wife asserts that, before their marriage, Husband represented to Wife that he is free of any sexually transmitted diseases.

Husband and Wife have intimate relations – without protection.

Wife allegedly later learns that Husband is – and was – HIV-positive.

Wife now accuses Husband of intentionally misleading Wife about his medical status and acting maliciously.

Wife has filed for divorce from Husband in Florida family court. They have been married one year.

Wife is healthy at this time, but there is a cloud of uncertainty hanging over her now.

Read more in this New York Post article: Wife accuses Roberto Alomar of exposing her to HIV.

Southwest Florida one year old Baby is shot by his Uncle, apparently accidentally.

Baby is expected to make a full recovery from his wound.

But, as a result of the incident, the Florida Department of Children and Families removes Baby from his Mother’s care and places him in child protective custody.

A restraining order is entered against Uncle.

Mother is allowed supervised timesharing with Baby.

Mother is reportedly following the case plan ordered by the Florida juvenile dependency court, including taking parenting classes.

There are concerns about Mother’s ability to protect Baby if Uncle is released from confinement.

But Mother believes she is prepared to resume caregiving for Baby.

Mother undergoes an evaluation by a psychologist, but the report is not ready yet.

The court orders the Mother to attend child custody mediation pending the psychologist’s report.

Mother reportedly was expected to enter a plea in this juvenile dependency case, but reportedly changed her mind during a routine status check hearing and is now seeking a trial.

Read more in this WBBH NBC TV 2 News article: Last minute decision left mom without custody of son.

When people contact a Florida family law attorney, they very often have a serious personal situation.

There may be domestic violence.

They may have been abandoned without a cent to their name.

Their home may be on the verge of foreclosure.

They may be unable to get access to their children.

And on and on.

Frequently, these people will characterize their situation as an emergency, and request that the court deal with their serious situation on an emergency basis.

Lawyers call that “emergency relief”, which is typically dispensed at an “emergency hearing”.

So, what is an emergency in the eyes of the Florida divorce court?

The truth of the matter is that the Florida family court’s perception of an emergency is quite different from that of the man or woman, mother or father, on the street.

In Palm Beach County, severe financial distress is not an emergency.

Withholding of access to children, even on an extended basis, does not create an emergency.

In fact, the vast majority of serious situations are not deemed an emergency by the Florida divorce court.

In Florida’s family court system, classification as an emergency is generally reserved for matters of life and death. Of a child.

Another type of emergency is imminent unlawful removal of a child from the Florida divorce court’s jurisdiction.

Not too much else. Although whether a situation is an emergency is evaluated on a case by case basis.

Mischaracterizing situations as emergencies to the Florida family court won’t get you far … and may even hurt your position in your case. It wastes the Florida divorce court’s most precious resource: time.

When in doubt, it is prudent to consult an experienced Florida family law attorney about whether your self-styled emergency is likely to be deemed an emergency by the Florida divorce court system.

Read more in the local rules of your county’s Florida family court.

All too often, one spouse knows virtually nothing about the family’s financial picture.

Even if the other spouse “takes care of” or “handles” all of that sort of thing with only the very best of intentions, this is a dangerous situation for the coddled spouse.

Never mind the possibility of divorce, for a moment.

What if the financial-caretaking spouse unexpectedly dies? Or suffers a devastating, incapacitating injury or illness?

How will the healthy spouse figure out and pick up the pieces, and manage the situation for the family, even on a temporary basis?

And if either spouse decides to divorce, best intentions may fly out the window.

The coddled spouse is at a severe disadvantage in determining and weighing their courses of action and options.

Depending on the particular circumstances of the case, they may have guaranteed that obtaining full and fair disclosure will be far more time-consuming and expensive than it has to be. And it is so unnecessary.

The coddled spouse is entitled to know about the family finances. And should, for the sake of all concerned, including the couple’s children.

A spouse who refuses to see that and insists upon maintaining total financial secrecy is raising a big red flag. And that should inspire the coddled spouse to take remedial action … and to educate him or herself by consulting an attorney.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal piece: VOICES: Leslie Thompson, On the Uninformed Spouse.

Husband and Mistress are having an affair.

Husband and Wife’s marriage is breaking down.

Wife finds out about affair.

Wife wants to sue Mistress for wrecking her marriage.

Can she?

This question is popping up with greater frequency lately.

The answer depends on the state where the involved parties live.

But here in Florida the answer is no.

This civil claim was abolished by statute years ago.

By way of consolation, even if the claim still existed, it would be pretty tough to prove causation of damages.

The challenge: Which came first? The breakdown of the marriage or the affair?

Read more in this [Torrance, CA] Daily Breeze column: ASK THE LAWYER: Suing the ‘other woman,’ support obligations, and who gets the dog.

Fiance is in a romantic haze. Not thinking prenup.

Or thinking prenup but unwilling to broach the subject with his or her significant other.

What to do?

Well, one way to avoid having to talk with the intended spouse about this possibly unpleasant subject is to simply take unilateral premarital action.

And set up a trust.

A properly drawn – and properly funded – trust can protect a person from themself.

That includes the spouse they may choose in the event that things don’t work out (or, even if they do).

And the creditors they may become indebted to.

Although more expensive than a prenup, a trust offers certain advantages, such as privacy and autonomy.

In fact, in many situations, a trust is desirable even when there is a prenuptial agreement.

Read more in this Financial Advisor magazine article: Shielding An Estate From Unloved In-Laws.