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

UK Husband and Wife divorce after forty years of marriage.

Husband and Wife have one adult child, Son.

Couple are wealthy and own a hotel and some other commercial real estate.

Court awards Wife about 5 million pounds UK, to be paid out in installments, plus some property.

The court also orders Wife to exit the business, and Husband to hold Wife harmless from any liabilities arising during her time in the business.

Two months after their divorce is final, Wife, who is 70 years old, unexpectedly passes away.

Son is Wife’s sole heir.

A baby was severely injured in one of the couple’s properties several years ago.

After Wife’s death, the liability insurer denies coverage on a 3 million UK pound lawsuit claim.

In the midst of an appeal, Husband seeks to modify the property division between Husband and Wife in order to set aside the hold harmless and have Wife’s estate bear some of the now uncovered liability for the baby’s injuries.

The justification Husband offers is that he didn’t know the insurer would deny coverage.

Son opposes.

The court takes the matter under advisement and will issue its ruling at a later date.

Under Florida law, a property award is fairly difficult to set aside … unless there is nondisclosure or fraud or overreaching.

Read more in this [UK] Westmorland Gazette article: Father and son fight over £5m divorce payment after ex-wife’s death

Once the final judgment is entered, most exes just want to move on.

But first, you should take care of a few things likely to be forgotten if not attended to promptly. (Some of these may have been handled already, but it is worth double-checking.)

• revoke any medical power of attorney, living will or health care surrogate designation of your ex

• execute a new health care surrogate designation, living will or medical power of attorney naming someone else

• revoke any will designating your ex as your personal representative / executor and/or beneficiary

• execute a new will designating someone else as your personal representative / executor and substituting another beneficiary for your ex. Also, designate a guardian for your child(ren) in case your ex dies first or is unable or unwilling to serve

• amend any trust designating your ex as a trustee and/or beneficiary

• revoke any general power of attorney in favor of your ex

• execute a new general power of attorney appointing another agent

• change designated beneficiaries on non-probate property, such as life insurance policies, IRAs, 401(k)s, pensions, death benefits and annuities

• change designated beneficiaries on non-probate property such as POD (payable on death) accounts and re-title joint accounts with your ex

• update titles on real property and homeowners insurance policies, and borrower on note and mortgage (see settlement agreement and/or final judgment)

• update titles on motor vehicles and related insurance

• set up a trust / amend trust trustee designation for any assets your child will inherit in the event of your death so that your ex will not have control of the assets and

• close any joint credit card or charge card accounts with your ex

Read more in this Green Bay Press-Gazette article: Estate planning after a divorce.

Kuwaiti Husband and Wife made sexually explicit videotapes of themselves.

Husband and Wife are now divorcing.

The divorce court awards Wife alimony.

Husband is not happy about having to pay Wife alimony.

Husband threatens to put videos of Wife on the internet … unless Wife agrees to let Husband off the hook for alimony.

Police are investigating.

Similar scenarios are playing out increasingly frequently in divorces.

Read more in this [Dubai] Gulf News article: Wife gets blackmailed over alimony in Kuwait.

Stepparent adoptions are simplified, streamlined adoption procedures by which the new spouse of a biological parent may relatively easily adopt their new spouse’s child.

The plain language of stepparent adoption statutes contemplates a legal marriage between a child’s existing parent and their new spouse.

In Missouri, as in Florida, homosexual couples may not legally marry.

But may they adopt using stepparent adoption?

Well, in Missouri, two or more judges have permitted just that.

It’s not clear precisely how many judges, in which counties, are approving stepparent adoptions by gay couples.

But one Missouri judge called another Missouri judge a “knucklehead” for doing so.

While blanket prohibitions of adoption by homosexual couples are being struck down in some states, such as Florida and Arkansas, lately, that, in itself, does not legalize the use of stepparent adoptions by gay couples.

Read more in this St. Louis Today piece: POKIN AROUND: When it comes to same-sex adoption, ‘knucklehead’ in eye of the beholder .

Florida family court enters temporary domestic violence restraining order of protection against Aggressor.

In the few short weeks thereafter, before the court has a chance to rule on whether to extend the injunction for protection against domestic violence, Aggressor allegedly violates protective order … twice.

Aggressor reportedly drove through the alleged victim’s neighborhood one time. And confronted the victim the second time … right in the courthouse where Aggressor’s case is being heard.

Aggressor is a Florida police officer, serving on Jacksonville’s force for over fifteen years.

Despite numerous citizen complaints – and two internal police department complaints against him.

Aggressor had previously been threatened with termination for further misconduct.

But that threat was never carried out. It was followed by more ineffective disciplinary measures.

Aggressor is now confined without bail in connection with one of the two charges pending against him.

Aggressor reportedly remains on voluntary leave without pay from his apparently continuing employment as a Jacksonville police officer.

It is unknown whether conviction and prolonged incarceration would jeopardize Aggressor’s law enforcement employment.

Read more in this [Jacksonville] Florida Times-Union article: Jacksonville officer finds himself on other end of law in Clay.

A study conducted by Virginia’s Radford University correlates divorce risk more highly with certain professions than the general population.

Specifically, the study reports that the occupations facing the greatest risk of divorce are:

• performers
• athletes
• massage therapists
• telemarketers
• waiters
• baggage porters and
• roofers.

Who knew?

Somewhat less scholarly in approach, a poll of a so-called “infidelity” website’s seven million members suggests that the male professionals most likely to cheat on their spouses are:

• physicians
• police officers
• lawyers
• real estate agents and
• engineers.

The poll also suggests that the occupations of women most likely to cheat on their spouses are:

• teachers
• stay-at-home moms
• nurses
• administrative assistants and
• real estate agents.

Read more in this Toronto Sun article: Professional break-ups – Can some careers cause more divorce than others?.

A defect in the language used in certain Church of England wedding ceremonies over the last thirty years reportedly may invalidate some one million marriages due to a legal technicality.

It seems that the Church’s ceremonial language was updated.

However, the prior ceremonial language was mirrored in a British statute regulating procedures for valid marriages …

And the statutorily-mandated language was not amended to conform to the updated ceremonial language.

An attorney for the Church of England denied the invalidation of any marriages due to the technical defect in the updated church ceremony though, citing a “savings clause” in the statute applicable to marriages entered in “good faith” by the intended husband and wife.

But other Church attorneys, as well as secular divorce law attorneys and family law attorneys in the UK expressed doubts.

Perhaps the most interesting issue raised by this gaffe is:

can the ceremonial defect be raised as a defense in divorce cases, in an effort to avoid support obligations or property division under divorce law and child support law?

Whatever the interpretation of the existing British statute, a properly crafted future amendment to the statute may address the concerns.

Read more in this [UK] Daily Mail article: Revealed: A million marriages are ‘invalid’ because of Church of England blunder.

Canadian Mother and Father have four children together.

Three of the children live with Mother and one with Father.

Mother has been on and off public assistance for years, but has been working of late.

And earning about $11 per hour.

With the three children to support.

Father, her ex, for reasons unstated, does not work.

Father, and their child who lives with him, are on public assistance.

And because Father receives public assistance, the government is requiring Father to seek child support from Mother or risk loss of his public assistance.

The court will rule on Father’s petition for support in a couple of months.

Meanwhile, the stress of the support case has overcome Mother, who is now on leave from her job.

The amount in dispute in Father’s case is approximately $60 per month.

There is no indication whether Father pays Mother any support for their three children who live with her.

It is common for US states to pursue child support from noncustodial parents as well when the custodial parent receives public assistance.

Read more in this [Montreal] CTV News article: Single mom facing child-support squeeze.

Indian Husband and Wife marry in a Hindu wedding ceremony.

Husband and Wife have two Sons together.

Family lives in Malaysia.

Husband unilaterally converts to Islam during marriage.

Husband converts young Sons to Islam without Wife’s agreement – or knowledge.

Husband and Wife separate.

Wife takes Sons to live in Australia.

Wife brings a constitutional case over Husband’s secret conversion of Sons, seeking custody of them.

Malaysian Court enters temporary timesharing order requiring Wife to bring Sons to Malaysia so that Husband may exercise visitation with Sons.

Wife allegedly does not comply with temporary order.

Husband presses Wife’s contempt and objects to her case being heard because of it.

Malaysian Court holds that Wife has no right to put on her case, because she is in violation of the court’s order by withholding Husband’s access to Sons. Wife must return to Malaysia to earn the right to press her case … or her case will be dismissed.

Read more in
this MSN article: Shamala cannot be heard as she breached visitation rights and
this Malaysian Digest article: Federal Court Dismisses Shamala’s Referral Application.

Boy, five years old, lives in Indiana. He is not living with Mother.

Mother allegedly abducts Son and takes him to California.

After four months, Mother is arrested in California on charges of custodial interference.

Son is taken into child protective custody pending pickup by Son’s legal guardian.

US marshals played a key role in finding Mother and Son.

Read more in this San Jose Mercury News article: Woman arrested in Dublin in connection with child abduction

Florida Husband and Wife’s marriage is troubled.

Wife files for a domestic violence restraining order of protection against Husband.

Late that night, Husband awakens from a nightmare and confesses to Wife that he had dreamed of killing himself.

Husband asks whether Wife still loves him.

Wife replies in the negative.

Husband then removes a gun from underneath Wife’s pillow.

Husband tells Wife he cannot live without her.

Husband allegedly shoots at least one bullet into their bedroom ceiling.

Wife calls the police. Wife is not looking to have Husband arrested.

Instead, Wife wants to have Husband Baker Acted, that is, psychologically evaluated for posing a danger to himself and others.

Husband reportedly suffers from mental illness and is prescribed medication for same.

Husband gets his hands on a second gun.

Husband warns Wife that he will shoot at any police officers who come to their home.

Husband allegedly tries to kill himself.

Wife tackles Husband and manages to gain control of one of the guns.

Husband is arrested for discharging a weapon in a dwelling, a felony.

Husband is confined.

Husband is a Daytona Beach police officer. Wife is a former Deland police officer.

Read more in this Daytona Beach News-Journal article: Shot fired in marital discord between Daytona policeman, wife.

Lesbian Couple have two Children via artificial insemination. They are and have been the Children’s primary caregivers.

But Bio Father, the sperm donor, has had shared parental responsibility for Children.

Bio Father, who is gay, now seeks timesharing with Children, although he had represented to the Lesbian Couple that he “require[s] little involvement”.

This year, when the Children are nine and seven years old, the UK trial court awards Bio Father equal timesharing with Children.

Lesbian Couple appeals.

And the UK appellate court has taken the high profile, politically charged case under advisement.

Read more in this Australian news article: Lesbian mother, gay father in court over children.

Davenport, Iowa apparently thinks so. The City has a local ordinance that holds a parent accountable if their child breaks the law or causes a third party harm.

Accordingly, the ordinance imposes punishments for their children’s infractions on parents.

Parental punishments progress with each succeeding infraction, from a mere warning, to attending mandatory parenting classes at a parent’s expense, to monetary fines starting at $750.

As written, the ordinance requires an “accused” parent to prove that the parent has not been negligent in supervising their child. Failing that, if the City deems the parent responsible, the punishment stands.

Son is arrested for having “pot” and violating the local curfew.

The City of Davenport “punishes” Mother.

Mother takes the matter to court.

At trial, the court rules in Mother’s favor, and awards Mother significant attorney’s fees.

The City of Davenport appeals.

Iowa’s highest court then holds that some of Davenport’s ordinance is unconstitutional, because it deprives parents of due process.

In particular, the court strikes the ordinance provision that relieves the government of having to prove that the parent was negligent and, as written, unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to a parent to prove that they were not negligent.

And the appellate court upholds Mother’s victory at trial.

Otherwise, the ordinance stands though and the court approves, conceptually, holding parents accountable for their children’s misdeeds.

But now the law will require the government to put on affirmative proof of the parent’s negligence and, presumably, that that negligence “caused” the child’s misconduct. So, the ordinance no longer stacks the deck in favor of government … and, arguably, now stacks the deck in favor of parents.

Read more in this [Davenport, IO] Quad-City Times news article: Parental responsibility law takes hit from Iowa court and this Des Moines / Ames WOI-DT 5 ABC TV news article: Parts of Parental Responsibility Law Struck Down.

Quebec Man and Woman cohabitate, but never marry.

Man is a billionaire.

Man and Woman break up.

Woman seeks alimony. Woman’s claim is denied.

Quebec appellate court rules that provincial alimony law discriminates against cohabitants, and strikes that provision.

One-third of Quebec couples are in cohabitant relationships rather than legal marriages.

And the rest of Canada allows alimony to the needy partner when cohabitating couples separate.

Quebec appellate court allows the Quebec legislature one year to cure the constitutional defect in the alimony law.

So, Man and his billion seem to be off the hook.

But the next one might not be so lucky …

Read more in this Winnipeg [Canada] CTV News article: Quebec court paves way for common-law alimony.

UK bio Mother has Child through artificial insemination.

At the time, Mother, a lesbian, is in a committed relationship with Girlfriend.

Mother and Girlfriend raise Child together.

Until Child is ten years old.

When Mother and Girlfriend break up.

Court awards parental decisonmaking rights to Girlfriend.

Now Mother seeks child support from Girlfriend…

And the Court denies child support.

The applicable UK law on child support at the time provided that child support is owed only by a legal “parent”, that is, a biological parent or a legal adoptive parent.

Technically, Girlfriend is neither.

Although she has parental decisionmaking rights.

Inconsistent rulings. Incapable of being reconciled.

Which is why UK law recently changed.

Now, both homosexual parents may be recognized as legal parents, with access rights and financial responsiblities, under UK law.

Read more in this [UK] Bio News article: Lesbian mums in dispute: fertility law, child maintenance and what makes a parent.

The Chinese province of Sichuan ranked seventh among Chinese provinces in number of couples granted divorces last year.

Sichuan province climbed in rank to first position this year.

Why the dramatic change?

1. Some experts attribute it to a powerful, life-altering earthquake there in 2008. It reportedly inspired an attitude that “life is too short” to remain stuck in an unhappy marriage.

2. Other experts attribute it to revised legislation simplifying the divorce process. (Couples wishing to divorce are no longer required to produce “letters of introduction” from their “work units” or “neighborhood committees”.)

3. And still other experts attribute it to increased social mobility.

Of course, most likely, a combination of all of them drove the growth in divorce in that province.

All are universal and have influenced divorce rates in the US and elsewhere, to one degree or another, in one place or another, at one time or another.

Read more in this [India] Sify news article: Earthquake blamed for divorce rise in southwest China.

Prenuptial agreements, or prenups, are highly recommended for owners of closely held businesses.

After all, the future Husband and Wife may not be the only ones impacted by a prenup, or lack of same. There may be children.

And there may be other extended family members also affected.

A prenuptial agreement is the only way of protecting the interests of all those other folks and the business itself, in addition to the actively involved future spouse.

For the faint-hearted future spouse uncomfortable with broaching the subject, there is a simple solution.

Incorporate the requirement of a prenuptial agreement right into the shareholders’ agreement or members’ agreement, or other business management documents.

This approach makes the prenup mandatory, but depersonalizes the issue.

After all, divorce of a principal is de-stabilizing to the entire business, and the threat of a fragmentation of a spouse’s ownership interest and rights threatens harmonious management.

A prenup can specify ownership, voting rights, valuation, buyout where appropriate, characterize property as marital or nonmarital by agreement, and provide for death of a future spouse as well as the possibility of divorce. As well as other issues.

Read more in this Delmarva [MD] Daily Times article: Business owners: Consider prenuptial policy.

Husband and Wife have three Children together.

Husband is arrested for allegedly murdering Wife … before Children’s eyes.

And then fleeing from the scene with the Children in tow.

Husband is now in jail awaiting trial.

Children are in foster care.

Both sets of Children’s Grandparents are in the process of qualifying as foster parents for Children.

At a family court hearing concerning the Children, Husband requests that the Children visit Husband in jail. Husband believes that the Children would like to visit him in jail.

The Children’s paternal Grandparents support the Children visiting Husband in jail.

The Children’s maternal Grandparents object to any such timesharing with Husband.

The attorney appointed to represent the Children also objects to any timesharing with Husband, because the Children may be called as witnesses at Husband’s criminal trial and Husband might attempt to influence the Children’s testimony during visitation.

Husband’s attorney counters by proposing electronic monitoring to guard against witness-tampering. It is unclear how effectively such monitoring could guard against manipulation.

The Children’s attorney asks the Court to speak with the Children’s therapists before ruling on visitation.

The family court judge indicates he will consider Husband’s request for timesharing but that he will take no action regarding any existing criminal court orders barring or limiting contact with the Children or witnesses in general.

One can only speculate about Husband’s motivations for timesharing.

Read more in this Mankato [MN] Free Press article: Murder suspect requests visitation for kids.

There are about 200,000 parental abductions of children in the US annually. The majority arise out of child custody disputes.

Many of these abductions last for years.

And while one parent of each child worries and waits, there is one, often overlooked resource that may know where these abducted children are: the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Just because someone abducts their child doesn’t mean that they don’t file and pay their taxes. Or claim the child dependency tax deduction for the child they abducted.

In fact, according to one study, about a third of parental child abductors do.

Which makes the IRS privy to where the abducting parent and abducted child live. And in a position to help the other parent bring their abducted child home.

But the IRS generally isn’t talking.

It seems taxpayers have privacy rights. Even if there’s a felony warrant out for them.

There are limited exceptions. But they require a federal crime and a court order from a federal court.

Yet most child abductions are state crimes, investigated at the state level. And most federal judges wouldn’t enter such an order anyway.

The only reason the other parent may find out that the IRS has information about their abducted child is when the IRS disallows their own claimed child dependency tax deduction, because their child’s other (abducting) parent has already claimed the one allowed deduction for their child.

Read more in this New York Times article: I.R.S. Sits on Data Pointing to Missing Children.

Husband seeks church annulment of his marriage to Wife.

His cited grounds: Wife approves of open marriages, in which both spouses are free to have other sexual partners. She expresses this abstract position to Husband before their marriage.

But Wife has never actually cheated on Husband in any way, shape or form. She has been totally faithful, just freethinking.

Husband is granted an annulment of their marriage by a court of the Catholic Church in Italy.

Wife appeals the annulment in a divorce court in Italy … and the annulment is upheld and Wife is denied alimony because of her abstract, heretical beliefs.

After further appeals by Wife, Italy’s top appellate court upholds all of the previous rulings.

Read more in

• this [UK] Guardian news article: Woman denied alimony because she had talked about open marriage

• this Orlando WOFL Fox 35 TV news article: Just the thought of an affair enough to annul Italian woman’s marriage and

• this [UK] Telegraph article: Italian couple’s marriage annulled after wife thought about having affair

Divorce law and all family law varies from state to state.

As an attorney licensed and admitted to practice law in New York and New Jersey as well as Florida, I have long been keenly aware of this, and that states may learn much from one another. By extension, parties and practitioners may learn much from their counterparts in other states.

A California attorney has written an instructive article on temporary restraining orders that automatically apply to California divorce court cases under California law. The article does not reflect the law in effect across the state of Florida (although certain counties in Florida do impose some similar automatic restraining orders on a county by county basis).

California’s automatic restraining orders in family court cases are against:

1. unilaterally removing common children outside the state

2. hiding or disposing of assets of either or both spouses

3. altering the beneficiaries of insurance policies in place for the benefit of the other spouse or their common children and

4. generating or modifying a nonprobate transfer of property

Not surprisingly, exceptions are made: as permitted by written consent of the other spouse or by court order, for transfers made in the ordinary course of an established business, for established living expenses and for reasonable attorney’s fees.

It is worth noting that, just because the above conduct is not subject to automatic prohibition across the state of Florida, does not mean that the conduct would find favor with a Florida family court if brought to its attention in any particular Florida divorce case. It just means that prohibition is not automatic in Florida.

Quite the contrary, divorcing spouses in Florida should be aware that, upon a proper showing in any Florida divorce court, either spouse may be able to obtain a temporary restraining order prohibiting the same behavior in their Florida divorce court case case, only on a case-by-case basis. And any such behavior already engaged in may be taken into account in the ultimate equitable distribution or property division in the particular Florida family court case.

Read more in this Balita Media article: Automatic temporary restraining orders that are in effect upon commencement of divorce.

Internet visitation for parents separated from their children by distance has gained increasing popularity over the last decade.

It began with more expensive add-on web cameras, which required advanced technical hardware and software knowledge to hook up and make work.

But now the options have expanded and simplified.

Many cellular phones come standard with built-in video cameras today.

Internet telephone services offer video phone conferencing. Even online chat applications and text messaging often feature video now.

In short, video communications are now readily accessible to many, many ordinary Americans, often without special equipment or specialized technical knowledge.

Making internet timesharing better, easier and cheaper than ever before.

Which is why more and more states are recognizing it, approving agreements for it and even providing a statutory and/or case law framework for ordering it.

And, despite closer scrutiny of parental relocation in many states, with the recession and weak job market persisting, virtual timesharing is here to stay.

Besides making long distance visitation possible, at least in some cases, internet visitation adds a meaningful dimension to ordinary phone conversations .. and has resulted in longer-lasting phone contact.

But opponents of virtual visitation fear that its availability may encourage courts to allow relocation more freely.

Read more in this FindLaw article: Parenting in Cyberspace? Virtual Visitation and the Court-Ordered Use of Technology Become Realities In Tough Economic Times.

Wife is convicted of stabbing Husband to death, nearly 200 times.

Wife is sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

Wife appeals the sentencing.

Wife is granted a new trial as to punishment.

Wife argues that she was a battered spouse who acted in the heat of passion. She is seeking probation.

The prosecution argues that Wife was an angry wife who achieved a divorce by homicide.

If the murder was in the heat of passion, the maximum sentence is twenty years.

Read more in this Houston Chronicle article: DA calls Jeffrey Wright’s death ‘divorce by homicide’.

Texas Husband and Wife have adult Daughter with Downs Syndrome.

Husband and Wife had guardianship of Daughter, but were reportedly removed as Daughter’s guardians … at a hearing held without notice or opportunity for them to appear and defend themselves against allegations of abuse and neglect.

It is unknown who sought that hearing and who is serving as Daughter’s guardian at this time.

A new hearing was coming up in the case, but that was suddenly canceled, also for unknown reasons.

Daughter’s Brother denies any allegations of abuse and neglect by Husband and Wife.

Husband and Wife believe the cancellation of their hearing was political.

Read more in this Dallas KDAF 33 TV news article: Arlington family who lost custody of disabled daughter in secret hearing cries foul.

Husband and Wife own the marital residence (Home).

Home has appreciated in value since purchase, and Husband and Wife have positive equity in Home.

Husband and Wife are divorcing.

Wife wants to remain in the Home with the Children.

Husband would prefer to sell the Home and split the proceeds of sale.

Husband and Wife reach an amicable resolution.

Wife will buy out Husband’s interest in the Home, and Husband will transfer his interest in the Home to Wife.

Will Wife have a taxable capital gain?

Generally, no. Transfers between spouses in connection with a divorce generally do not give rise to taxable events.

In other words, no gain or loss is deemed to be taken. The buying spouse takes over or assumes the same tax basis that the couple previously had in the transferred property.

Read more in this [Fort Smith, AR] Times Record column: Key to Reducing Capital Gains Taxes.

A divorce lawyer can never remind clients too often that joint debt and marital debt are not necessarily the same.

For example, people who are not married to each other can have joint debt by both of them signing for it.

On the other hand, if only one spouse signs for a debt incurred during the marriage, that is marital debt, although it is not joint.

Fussy details? More than that.

A creditor generally cannot come after a spouse who did not sign for the debt. Only a divorce court can order the other spouse to contribute to paying off that marital, but not joint, debt.

Similarly, a creditor can go after either spouse on joint debt. That is why it is important to close joint accounts promptly.

And, with the stakes potentially high, closing of joint accounts should not be left to the other spouse, without production of proof.

Read more in this CreditCards.com divorce credit column: Divorce doesn’t dissolve joint card debt.

California Mother and Father are raising 15 year old Daughter.

Daughter allegedly steals Mother’s and Father’s car and travels to Utah, to reunite with her biological mother and stepfather.

Daughter tells her biological mother that Mother and Father regularly physically abuse her.

The adults report the abuse to a child welfare agency and law enforcement authorities.

Medical examination of Daughter finds trauma, which examiners characterize as “non-accidental”.

Mother and Father are charged with the felony of “torture”.

Mother and Father’s two younger Children are taken into child protective custody.

Children deny any abuse.

Mother and Father are listed in the Child Abuse Central Index.

Authorities’ investigation continues.

Family doctor testifies that despite numerous examinations, he has not observed any evidence of physical abuse of Daughter.

Authorities eventually conclude that Mother and Father are innocent.

Charges against them are dropped.

But Mother and Father remain listed on the Child Abuse Central Index.

Finally, Mother and Father sue local officials for damages for failure to remove their names from the Child Abuse Central Index long after the charges against them are dropped.

Mother and Father assert that the listing in the Child Abuse Central Index violates their due process rights, because they were not afforded the opportunity to challenge the allegations against them before their names were listed in the Child Abuse Central Index.

The local officials defend by blaming the violation on the state.

An intermediate federal appellate court rules in favor of Mother and Father.

Now the case is awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court.

Read more in this CNN article: Court hears appeal of couple cleared of child abuse, still on registry.

South Carolina Husband and Wife are, respectively, a drug court judge and the clerk of court.

Wife has access to child support enforcement funds from the federal government.

Husband is removed from the bench for unknown reasons.

And Wife allegedly dips into the public coffers, in part to pay Husband’s salary and also to pay insurance premiums for relatives and a vacation home.

To the tune of $338 thousand.

Wife is charged in state court with embezzlement of public funds and misconduct in office … and convicted.

She is sentenced to five years’ probation – and two hundred hours of community service.

Then Wife is charged in federal court with unlawful conversion of public funds.

Wife pleads not guilty

Maximum sentence for the federal charges against Wife are a fine of $250,000 and ten years’ confinement.

Read more in this Beaufort Gazette article: Ex-court clerk appears in federal court.