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

Litigants complain about the California family courts – a lot.

The California Bureau of State Audits has been auditing the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties for the past 17 months.

What did they find out?

According to the Marin Center for Judicial Excellence, both counties’ family courts are substandard in most every category measured.

A California senator reportedly reacted by characterizing the report as “disturbing”.

But local officials in Marin county reportedly interpreted the same reports as “proving beyond any doubt … there’s no problem”.

The Center for Judicial Excellence is particularly concerned (and requested audit specifically on) children involved in custody disputes who are placed with parents who are violent and/or sexual abusers instead of the parent who is not abusive.

But politicians in the court system may have succeeded in ejecting such issues outside the scope of this audit.

But what has come to light is not encouraging. For example, the court system could not show that five of seven of their mediators were even minimally qualified. And the mediators’ supervisor is reportedly not qualified to supervise them.

Similar criticisms apply to custody evaluators as well.

And complaints and potential conflicts are reportedly not documented or followed up on in any systematic way.

The Center also alleges “mass document destruction” hindered the audit.

The Center’s expressed concern is for the impact of these deficiencies upon children dragged through the courts.

Read more in this Marin [CA] Independent Journal article: Marin Voice: Audit unveils court problems.

An Australian gay male couple hire a surrogate mother in India to carry twin fetuses to term for them. The twins’ genetic materials comes from one of the two men and an egg donor.

The couple bring a case in family court to establish the parental rights of the partner who is not biologically related to the twins.

And the Australian family court awards the other partner, who did not contribute genetic material, full parental rights over the twins. The court also acknowledges that the children now have “two fathers”.

Use of foreign surrogate mothers is thriving in Australia.

Read more in this Earth Times article: Court rules gay couple can both be fathers and this Advocate article: Australian Couple Wins Parenting Case.

The UK’s Child Support Agency had accumulated roughly half a million UK pounds in child support over three years that was not flowing to custodial parents as intended.

The accumulation resulted from errors in child support orders and errors in implementation of them. Some accidental and some intentional.

But now the agency, working with UK banks, has corrected the errors and has reinstated the flow of child support money to approximately one thousand children.

It is unclear whether the retained monies earned interest and, if so, where that goes.

Read more in this UK Telegraph article: Missing Child Support Agency money reunited.

Domestic abusers often cut their teeth on abusing pets and other animals before they graduate on to people. Other abusers abuse animals parallel to abusing human victims.

The correlation between animal abuse and abuse of humans is so strong that Florida’s domestic violence statute expressly authorizes the court to consider injury or killing of a pet as a factor in entering a domestic violence restraining order of protection.

Victims of domestic violence often stay in abusive relationships out of concern for their pets. Fifty-four percent of domestic violence victims staying in shelters report that their abuser had hurt or killed their pet.

Three states extend the protection of a domestic violence restraining order to pets. Other states are expected to follow their lead.

As a first line of defense, helping professionals should always seek out information about pets in working with victims of domestic violence.

Read more in this RDH Magazine article: Discerning the truth about abuse.

Husband, an attorney, dies of an apparent heart attack.

Wife, who has two young children from another relationship, is arrested on murder charges.

Wife was previously diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder with schizophrenic features, as well as pain medication addiction.

A dead dog, blood and human tissue are found in their home at the time of Wife’s arrest.

Husband had warned child welfare authorities that Wife could not care for her children alone.

Child welfare agency removes Wife’s children from her custody and seeks to terminate Wife’s parental rights to her children.

Authorities seek appointment of a guardian for Wife in the juvenile court proceedings, but the court court denies it.

The Court does appoint a guardian ad litem for the children though.

It is eventually determined that Husband’s death was a complication arising from old injuries unrelated to Wife.

But the child welfare agency persists in its efforts to terminate Wife’s parental rights and ensure that children are placed with their father.

The guardian ad litem takes the position that even supervised visitation with the children by Wife could be psychologically damaging to the children.

Read more in this Detroit News article: Judge won’t name guardian for lawyer’s widow cleared of his murder.

Lower income spouses ending long term marriages in Florida are well-positioned for awards of permanent monthly alimony. But permanent alimony isn’t the only option – and may not be the best option in all cases.

Increasing numbers of dependent spouses, even seniors, are forgoing permanent monthly alimony in favor of lump sum alimony and / or divisions of property that are more generous to them than an equal division of property.

How come? Prompt and full payment of lump sum alimony and/or generous property divisions:

1. eliminate the risk of the paying spouse’s death in permanent alimony cases

2. eliminate the risk of the paying spouse’s unemployment in permanent alimony cases

3. eliminate the risk of having to chase the spouse for payments the spouse fails to make in permanent alimony cases

4. eliminate their own disincentive to remarrying or cohabitating in permanent alimony cases

5. buys their independence, cuts the cord from their ex and ends ongoing contact with their ex

But when the dependent spouse’s lump sum payment or share of divided property is gone, they will most likely be out of luck getting any monthly alimony.

Read more in this Reuters piece: Gray divorce: The question of alimony.

Mother and Father have a long history with child protective services.

Some of their children have been taken into protective custody and placed in foster care a number of times.

But Mother and Father kept having more children.

They now have seven children.

Mother and Father have been charged over the years with substance abuse, domestic violence, educational neglect and medical neglect.

Mother and Father reportedly haven’t always visited regularly with their children while they were in foster care.

Mother and Father have allegedly misused government funds made available to them.

Mother and Father’s children have been in protective custody on and off for ten years.

Their children are stuck in limbo.

Family court judge orders the child welfare agency to petition to terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights, in the hope that the children may achieve permanency with different parents.

Read more in this Albany Examiner article: Judge orders ACS to file termination petition after 10 years of neglect.

Australian Husband and Wife have two Daughters and a younger Son.

Husband and Wife split up.

Australian family court must decide child custody.

Husband places great emphasis on Daughters’ academic performance. Husband pushes Daughters.

Husband assigns Daughters extra school work … more challenging than their teacher-assigned homework.

He also requires them to write daily reports not required by their teachers …

And requires Wife to read the reports to him on the phone every night.

Wife maintains that Husband and she argue constantly over Husband’s pressuring of Daughters.

Parenting experts frown upon parents imposing excessive pressure on children over academic performance.

And Daughters refused to see Husband for a year.

The family court concludes that Husband is too “rigid and obsessive”. And awards sole custody and sole parental responsibility to Wife.

The Australian family court also orders Husband to undergo family counseling with Daughters and Wife to try to foster a better relationship with Daughters.

Read more in this [Melbourne, Australia] Herald Sun article: Dad slammed over homework load.

According to a divorce financial analyst, the following are the Top Five financial mistakes people make in divorce:

1. Not appreciating the liquidity or illiquidity of each asset

2. Not appreciating the consequence of taxes on each asset and transfer

3. Not appreciating the special considerations associated with retirement assets (taxes, early withdrawal penalties, etc.)

4. Not appreciating legal obligations regarding debt, and how credit ratings work

5. Not appreciating the unpleasant consequences of trying to hide / transfer marital assets

Read more in this [State College, PA] Centre Daily Times article: Identify all assets in divorce.

Nebraska Mother is court-ordered to pay monthly child support of $244.

Mother actually pays $150 per month or less over the next seven years.

Mother is in child support arrears by about $24,000.

Mother is arrested on five felony counts of criminal non-support of children.

Mother enters an agreement under which she pleads guilty to three misdemeanor counts of attempted criminal non-support and is sentenced to probation. Mother is also required to pay $200 per month in child support until her sentence is complete.

Failure to pay support may be dealt with very differently from state to state.

Read more in this Plattsmouth [NE] Journal article: Plattsmouth woman pleads guilty on failure to pay child support.

Father and Mother are both from El Salvador.

Father and Mother have Daughter.

Father and Mother split up.

El Salvador family court awards Mother sole custody of Daughter, reportedly without challenge from Father.

Father asks Mother’s permission to bring Daughter to the US to take her to Disneyland. Mother agrees.

Father allegedly wrongfully retains Daughter in US.

Mother then files for return of Daughter to El Salvador under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

In federal court, Father contends that Mother’s litigation is untimely and that Daughter is settled in the US, that Daughter would be at grave risk of harm if returned to Mother in El Salvador and that Daughter wants to stay in the US.

The Arkansas court rejects each of Father’s positions in turn, finding fault in the legal analysis and/or taking a different view of the facts.

And, nearly two years after Father’s retention of Daughter, a federal judge in Arkansas orders Father to return Daughter to Mother in El Salvador … within fourteen days … at Father’s sole expense.

Read more in this [Fort Smith, AR] Times Record article: Judge Orders Girl, 7, Sent Back To Mom.

New Zealand immigrant Wife and Husband have three Children ranging from nine months to fourteen years of age.

Husband allegedly physically abuses Wife. The most recent reported domestic violence results in Husband’s criminal conviction for domestic battery.

Following Husband’s and Wife’s breakup and Wife’s reporting of his alleged abuse, Wife comes under scrutiny from immigration authorities in New Zealand.

Now that Wife and Husband are separated, Wife is required to earn a certain level of income to support a work visa.

But Wife’s income is below that threshold.

Fear of deportation is expected to have a chilling effect on reporting abuse of immigrants by other immigrants, even though such abuse appears to be on the rise.

Government assistance is available only to victims of abuse by New Zealand citizens or permanent residents.

But New Zealand talks tough on domestic violence.

Read more in this [New Zealand] Stuff article: Migrant faces deportation after abuse.

Louisiana family court hearing officer presides over child support cases.

Like so many people these days, family court hearing officer is a new and active FaceBook user.

Family court hearing officer has case before him involving Father with twenty-three (23) different children. Father is reportedly compensated for his work in cash, and does not pay taxes on his income.

Family court hearing officer posts information on FaceBook that is not personally identifiable (at least not too easily identifiable) about Father’s case … along with His Honor’s personal opinion that Father should seek additional employment to, uh, more constructively occupy some more of his time.

Now, family court hearing officer suffers backlash as a consequence of his posting on FaceBook.

Specifically, it has been suggested that this family court hearing officer lacks the neutrality and impartiality that every litigant appearing before a judge (or hearing officer) is entitled to.

It has also been suggested that the family court hearing officer’s comments were not “judicial”, that is, befitting a judge or hearing officer.

Family court hearing officer is now thinking twice about commenting on FaceBook again about parties to cases before him.

For the litigant appearing before a judge or hearing officer, there may be a lesson to be drawn from this incident.

It should also be noted that the family court hearing officer is reportedly new to the world of social networking, and apparently is not a judge sitting on the bench full time and exclusively, but rather a working attorney who hears only child support cases, on a part-time basis.

Read more in this [Thibodaux, LA] Daily Comet article: Facebook flap is a good lesson and this Houma [LA] Courier article: Facebook flub cause for regret by administrative judge.

Israel recognizes two types of marriages, those solemnized by a religious authority and those solemnized by a civil or secular authority.

Historically, ending of a marriage solemnized civilly is heard in a civil or secular family court, and ending of a marriage solemnized by a religious authority is heard in a religious court.

But in recent power plays, religious courts have claimed and exercised divorce jurisdiction over secular marriages. Including jurisdiction over child support, child custody and property division.

In effect overruling a 2006 decision of Israel’s High Court of Justice, holding that civil marriages can only be ended in secular family courts.

Two religious courts have gone so far as to hold that they have authority to resolve disputes over conditions husbands may impose to agree to a divorce. In one such case, the court denied a divorce to a wife who asserted that she is a victim of domestic violence by her husband.

Religious divorce law applied by religious courts may reflect gender bias that favors husbands in property division.

Read more in this Haaretz article: Rabbis claim new powers in divorces of couples married in civil unions.

Taxpayers who have income from which taxes are not withheld are generally required to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to the Internal Revenue Service.

What kind of income doesn’t provide witholding of income taxes?

Well, for one, alimony.

That’s right.

Alimony is generally included as taxable income for the recipient.

But no taxes on alimony income are withheld.

Therefore, in order to avoid penalties and interest, quarterly estimated taxes should be paid on it.

(Unless taxes are withheld on other income, in which case the amount of withholding can be adjusted upward to, in effect, withold sufficient taxes for the alimony.

Read more in this BankRate article: The skinny on paying estimated taxes.

Husband, an attorney, and Wife divorce in Minnesota in 1978.

The family court orders Husband to pay Wife $20,000 in alimony or spousal support.

Years later, Husband still hasn’t paid some of the alimony owed.

Husband claims to have a history a post traumatic stress disorder as a result of his military service, alcoholism, substance abuse, depression and schizophrenia, and that those conditions prevented him from continuing to practice law or earn a living.

But Wife obtains a judgment establishing Husband’s arrears for spousal support.

The years (in all, more than thirty of them) tick by and Husband still hasn’t paid all of the alimony he owes.

Wife sues him again every ten years … because that is how long a judgment is good for in Minnesota. Successive lawsuits are how the ten year limit is dealt with, procedurally, in Minnesota.

Wife’s most recent attempt to renew her judgment against Husband is, however, rejected by the divorce court, with a dismissal.

Husband’s position is that he did not have the ability to pay the ordered spousal support amounts at the times they were ordered.

It may reasonably be inferred that Husband does have the present ability to pay the judgments.

Legally, the primary issue under Minnesota law would seem to be how many times a support order (or, for that matter, any judgment) may be renewed.

Wife appeals the family court ruling to Minnesota’s Court of Appeals.

Which reverses the order denying renewal of her judgment against Husband.

Then Husband appeals that ruling.

And now final resolution of the issue rests with the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Florida judgments may be enforced for a period of up to twenty years if timely renewed before expiration.

Read more in this [Minneapolis-St. Paul] Pioneer Press article: 1970s alimony dispute isn’t over.

A South Dakota Mother and Father reportedly suffer from substance abuse and psychological conditions.

Mother and Father have a four year old Daughter together. They split up.

Grandparents seek custody of Daughter.

A US Supreme Court decision in 2000, Troxel, virtually eradicated grandparent custody and visitation rights previously recognized by many states.

Nonetheless, in the last several years, some states have been testing the boundaries of Troxel, trying to revive grandparents’ rights.

Especially where, as in this case, for whatever reason, the parents are less than model.

At trial in family court, the grandparents’ petition is denied, because the law it is predicated on is held to be unconstitutional. The specific defect cited by the divorce court is that grandparents may be awarded custody without a finding that the parents are unfit.

But the family court is reversed on appeal to the state’s highest court. Redemption is delivered by a requirement that a court favor fit parents and award custody to third parties only in extraordinary circumstances, such as parental unfitness, abandonment or neglect.

The South Dakota Supreme Court rules that Troxel falls short of mandating that parents be found unfit before awarding custody to a third party. According to them, Troxel requires only that fit parents’ wishes be substantial deference.

Read more in this CBS TV news article: S.D. High Court Backs Grandparent Child Custody

New Mexico Mother and Father have Daughter together in the US.

After Mother and Father break up, Father moves to Mexico.

Now, Father wants to exercise his timesharing and visitation with Daughter … in Mexico.

Mother does not speak Spanish and has never been to Mexico before.

Presumably, Daughter has never been to Mexico before.

Mexico is under travel advisories by the US Department of State due to violence and crime there, and Mother is concerned for their safety and freedom.

Mother has no problem with Father exercising visitation and timesharing – here in the US.

But a New Mexico family court judge orders Mother, a US citizen, to bring now eight year old Daughter, a US citizen, to Mexico to visit with Father for a week.

The presiding judge was unavailable to the media for timely comment.

Mother asserts that she does not have the resources to appeal the ruling.

Read more in this Eyewitness News 4 KOB TV article: Mother, child ordered to visit Mexico in custody case.

According to a recent survey of American couples, one-third of spouses lie to their partners about money matters and one third have been lied to by their spouses.

Among the money matters about which spouses lie are:

• hiding money (58%)

• concealing minor purchases (54%)

• keeping bills secret (30%)

• hiding major purchases (16%)

• maintaining bank accounts on the side (15%)

• hiding debt (11%) and

• concealing income (11%)

When found out, the consequences range from:

1. separation (11%)

2. divorce (16%)

3. loss of trust (42%) and

4. arguments (67%)

Much the same as when one spouse discovers the other is having an affair.

Sometimes such revelations lead to divorce.

Other times, the revelations first come to light during a divorce.

Read more in this Forbes piece: Is Your Partner Cheating On You Financially? 31% Admit Money Deception.

Trying to decide whether you want a divorce?

Does the answer turn solely on finances?

The British government apparently believes that it does.

And has accordingly developed a controversial resource to assist residents of England and Wales with “running the numbers” (under English and Welsh law) to aid English and Welsh spouses in coming to a decision.

The “divorce calculator” may beat tossing a coin.

And it may actually be a great help to separating spouses in projecting post-breakup budgets.

But the divorce calculator also may be lacking in insight into what truly motivates spouses to divorce and how all the variables are weighed in the decisionmaking process.

Regardless, the calculator has quite a few Brits up in arms.

Read more in this [UK] Daily Mail’s This Is Money article: Divorce calculator puts price on your marriage.

Chinese Husband and Wife meet playing games online and marry in 2008.

Husband and Wife both just want to play games online though.

After they marry, they both play on Husband’s account.

Both rack up virtual or digital prizes and jackpots … on Husband’s account.

Turns out, Husband’s and Wife’s real life marriage is not as entertaining as their online game playing.

Wife files for divorce.

And Wife seeks half of the couple’s virtual cyber-wealth accumulated during their marriage.

At trial, a Chinese divorce court denies Wife’s property division claim for half of the couple’s digital assets. Because the Court doesn’t know how to value the web assets.

In one sense, these intangible assets may have no value in the real world in the usual sense. But Wife may simply have failed to meet her evidentiary burden of proof.

There is reportedly an active resale market in which Western newbies to the online games actually buy points accumulated by others in order to leapfrog to higher tiers of competition in the online games. And the resale market should furnish a fair market value for the digital assets on terra firma.

Read more in this China Daily article: Court dismisses woman’s claim to virtual assets and this Time Healthland article: Memo to Gamer-Wives: You Can’t Take it with You.

Budget cuts have been impacting the courts, including family courts, for years now – with no end in sight.

Leaving more cases, with fewer personnel and resources to process them.

Coaxing out every efficiency imaginable.

Encouraging introduction of electronic filing and eventual phasing out of paper filing.

All the while relentlessly inching ever-closer to testing the very limits of justice.

The above is from and about the courts of Oregon.

But it would seem to apply equally as well to Florida’s courts, including Florida’s divorce courts, in recent years.

Read more in this Yamhill Valley [OR] News Register article: Judge worries about court cuts.

Some clients (or opposing parties) are really quite businesslike in their approach to divorce.

They know they want to settle and it is just a question of arriving at the right numbers through negotiation.

They almost always have very specific final numbers in mind.

It is not unheard of for them to encourage their partner to sign an agreement behind their attorney’s back if they have an attorney or, better yet, before they hire an attorney.

After all, it’s all about the numbers. Not words.

Right? Wrong.

When it comes to legal matters, the words actually matter quite a lot.

As just one example …

Imagine a one paragraph marital settlement agreement. Yes, there really are such things out there.

Such an agreement always gets straight to the point – and the number(s).

“Husband agrees to pay Wife $1 million as full settlement.”

Do-it-yourselfers too often favor this type of language.

But what does that $1 million payment represent?

Is it lump sum alimony?

Is it lump sum child support?

Is it property division?

Is it a combination of all of the above?

Who cares?

Well, the Internal Revenue Service for one.

Precisely what the money represents will bear directly on the tax consequences, if any, associated with the payment.

As a result, both spouses will become interested as well, sooner or later.

For example, unless there is an agreement otherwise, alimony payments are deductible by the spouse who makes them … and taxable as income to the spouse who receives them.

Child support is neither includible nor deductible.

Equalization payments are generally neither includible nor deductible, but payments made in kind (by transferring things) may have tax consequences, sometimes unforeseen and undesirable.

The point is, settlement isn’t just about the numbers at all. The words count a lot.

In the end, all that really matters is the bottom line numbers, not the numbers that may be referred to in the agreement. If the words aren’t right, the bottom line numbers may be very, very different from the numbers specified in the settlement.

And that can be an unpleasant surprise that can hit you between the eyes.

Read more in this Florida Times Union article: TTT – December 28, 2010, Divorce & Alimony.

New York Husband and Pennsylvania Wife marry in New York in 2006. In time, they move to Maryland for Husband’s legal work in the Republican political organization.

By 2008, Wife decides she wants a divorce and returns, with their baby Daughter, to Pennsylvania.

Husband attempts to get a divorce court order for Wife to return to Maryland with Daughter, but the Maryland family court rejects Husband’s so-called emergency motion.

The family court awards Husband seemingly generous timesharing and visitation on three weekends of each month, with the qualification that only one of them may be exercised in Maryland.

But, because Husband, an Orthodox Jew, is forbidden by the strictures of his religion from traveling on Fridays from sundown until sundown on Saturdays, in practice, Husband avails himself of much less timesharing than he is actually awarded. Husband is reportedly angry and bitter over the visitation award.

In 2010, the family court grants Husband and Wife their divorce. But in the eyes of their religion and their religious community, Husband and Wife are still married – and not free to remarry others.

Because Husband refuses to grant Wife a “get”, an Orthodox Jewish religious divorce. Husband apparently feels that his dissatisfaction with the court-ordered timesharing arrangement justifies his withholding of consent to a get.

As a result, Husband is now the target of American Jewish media and American Jewish religious leaders and many individuals in Husband’s and Wife’s shared religious community. Hostilities toward Husband have even reached into Husband’s very secular workplace.

Read more in this New York Times article: Religious Divorce Dispute Leads to Secular Protest.

Michigan Husband and Wife have a child together.

Husband and Wife aren’t getting along.

Husband suspects Wife of having an affair.

Husband wants to know for sure.

Husband is concerned about the behavior of third parties around their child.

Wife leaves her e-mail password readily available to Husband.

Husband bought the computer Wife uses. The computer and the home it is in are marital property.

Husband allegedly logs onto Wife’s e-mail account and looks through her e-mail, in search of confirmation.

Some of Wife’s e-mails subsequently are offered into evidence in Wife’s child custody case with her former husband.

Husband is arrested for violation of a state law targeting hackers for profit or with malicious intent to cause damage.

The charge carries a maximum sentence of five years.

This is the first application of Michigan’s criminal statute to spouse’s spying on each other’s e-mails on a shared computer. Husband’s trial is next month.

Florida has a statute similar to Michigan’s.

Read more in this NBC Bay Area TV article: Is Snooping in Your Spouse’s e-mail a Crime? and this ABC World News article: Husband in Hot Water: Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Snooping Through Wife’s E-Mails.

Colorado Husband and Wife have two Daughters together, ages two and four.

Wife is from Argentina.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Custody evaluator appointed by the divorce court reportedly believes that Wife poses an abduction risk to Daughters.

Family court awards primary custody of Daughters to Husband.

Wife is awarded liberal timesharing with Daughters in the US. Wife is also granted the right to take Daughters to Argentina in the summer and in the spring.

During her timesharing with Daughters shortly after the divorce is finalized, Wife takes them to Argentina – for good.

Family court orders that Wife return Daughters to the US right away.

Wife pays no attention to divorce court orders.

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

Husband files an application for return of Daughters to the US.

Husband is advised that the process could take eighteen months.

Read more in this [Glenwood Springs, CO] Post Independent article: Snowmass man haunted by international abduction.

Husband and Wife have two Children together.

The time of Husband and Wife’s exchange of the Children approaches.

And Husband allegedly punches Wife in the face … and knocks her out.

Police arrive. And taser Husband.

Who resists arrest.

Husband is arrested on charges of domestic violence and criminal threats.

Read more in this San Jose Mercury News article: Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute.

Montana currently favors court records being public, as they are in Florida.

But privacy activists are seeking to limit public access to family court records, with the goal of protecting children.

At this time, proposals for restrictions are subject to public comment. The most extreme proposal would seal all family court records except final judgments.

Montana’s law librarian worries because parties without attorneys generally do not know how to apply what privacy protections are already available under Montana law.

Read more in this Washington Post article: Mont. Supreme Court considers access restrictions.

Illinois Husband and Wife have four Daughters from ages four to fifteen.

Wife is not happy in the marriage. Wife files for divorce.

Husband is not served with divorce paperwork. On the contrary, Husband and Wife reportedly reconcile.

Husband and Wife attend a holiday party together on December 5th.

Husband is allegedly intoxicated.

There is snow on the ground in the area where they live.

On the way home from the party, Husband’s and Wife’s car crashes into a light pole.

Husband is killed in the accident.

There are footprints leading away from their vehicle.

And Wife is nowhere to be found.

Subsequent searches, as permitted by the local weather, have turned up no leads as to Wife’s whereabouts or fate.

An unlikely and unforeseeable tragedy.

Which leaves Husband and Wife’s four young Daughters inadequately provided for or protected.

In this instance, the Daughters’ paternal aunt and uncle have reportedly filed for guardianship of Daughters. This is not necessarily a rapid or inexpensive process.

When parents don’t plan ahead and make arrangements for such unlikely and unforeseeable tragedies, their children are at risk of being taken into child protective custody and placed in foster care by child welfare agencies.

Have you planned ahead and made arrangements to protect your children from the unlikely and unforeseeable tragedy that has stricken this family?

In Florida, a straighforward will and a simple designation of a preneed guardian for your children can generally provide the care you want your children to have in such a situation … without the need for an expensive, drawn-out guardianship proceeding or child welfare agency involvement.

Why not add these items to your New Year’s resolutions – and actually follow through and do them? For your children’s sake.

Read more in:

• this Chicago WLS-TV ABC 7 news article: Records show missing mom had filed for divorce

• this Chicago CBS 2 news article: Police Hope To Resume Search For Tanya Shannon

• this Chicago Fox News article: Search for Tanya Shannon On Hold