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

Arkansas Mother and Girlfriend are gay.

Mother gives birth to Baby.

Baby is given Girlfriend’s last name.

Girlfriend is Baby’s primary caregiver for next few years.

Mother and Girlfriend break up.

Girlfriend seeks timesharing and visitation with Baby.

Arkansas does not permit same-sex marriages.

Nonetheless, an Arkansas family court awards Girlfriend timesharing and visitation with Baby.

And, on appeal, Arkansas’ Supreme Court recognizes Girlfriend’s right to timesharing and visitation with Baby.

The Arkansas court places great weight on the fact that Girlfriend has been Baby’s primary caregiver, and both paratners clearly intended that they would co-parent Baby together. This, in effect, equates Girlfriend with a parent.

Read more in this KATV 7 news article: Non-parent in same-sex bond gets visitation rights and this Arkansas Times piece: Supreme Court upholds visitation for same-sex ex

Florida Husband and Wife are divorced.

Husband and Wife have an eleven year old Son together.

Husband exercises visitation and timesharing with Son last October.

As Husband prepares to return Son to Wife at the conclusion of his timesharing, Husband discovers that there is a civil warrant out for his arrest. Husband allegedly failed to comply with the final judgment in his divorce.

When Husband arrives to drop off Son, Husband spots a law enforcement officer. Husband panics and takes off – with Son.

Not to return. They eventually end up in Michigan.

Where Son is found.

Husband is arrested for felony interference with child custody.

Read more in this Fort Myers News Press article: Missing Fort Myers boy found in Michigan.

Florida Husband and Wife have two teen-aged Children.

Wife allegedly murders both Children.

Wife is arrested on murder charges.

Wife is represented in criminal court by public defenders.

The County seeks to freeze Wife’s assets and slap a lien on them to recover legal fees for the public defenders’ services.

Wife agrees to the freezing and lien.

But Wife’s assets are marital property – shared with Husband.

Husband objects to both the freezing and lien in the criminal court proceedings.

Husband has recently filed for divorce from Wife.

Husband argues that it is family court, not criminal court, that should rule on Husband’s and Wife’s marital assets.

Further, Husband asserts, he should not be forced into funding Wife’s defense.

Wife contends, without explanation, that Husband’s interest in their marital assets would not be affected by the freezing and lien.

After a hearing on the issue, the criminal court denies the motion to freeze Husband’s and Wife’s assets and subject them to a lien in favor of Wife’s public defenders.

Read more in this St. Petersburg Times article: Schenecker contests wife’s motion to freeze assets and this St. Petersburg Times article: Judge denies motion to freeze Julie Schenecker’s assets.

“Your calls may be recorded.” That’s what the sign says.

In plain view of the residents. In a jail in New York.

Despite that warning, many inmates being held on criminal charges of domestic violence pay it no heed.

They flagrantly violate criminal court orders for “no contact” with alleged victims of criminal domestic violence, by calling the victims up and confessing, apologizing, warning, dictating, professing love, etc., etc., all with the goal of undermining prosecution of the cases against them.

But recordings of such calls are routinely admitted in New York criminal prosecutions for domestic violence.

Making the alleged victims (unwilling) witnesses for the prosecution – even if they don’t testify live in court, or do, but testify favorably to the defense live in court.

The tapes may be used in court under special rules of evidence that apply.

In one case, an accused called his alleged victim 1,200 times.

Read more in this New York Times article: Abuse Suspects, Your Calls Are Taped. Speak Up.

The Texas Attorney General’s office and the Texas Workforce Commission work together to facilitate continued employment for Texas parents and ongoing payment of child support by noncustodial parents.

The lynchpin of their efforts is court orders mandating employment training and recruiting services for parents behind in their child support.

The program has proven both empowering for parents and cost-effective for the state.

Every dollar spent in providing services to parents yields a return of three dollars in collected child support.

Further, unemployment claims by noncustodial parents and public assistance claims are reduced, and more children are covered by medical insurance.

Some 7,500 delinquent parents have gone through the program since 2005 … and have since paid more than $25 million in support.

The Texas program is reportedly one of the most successful of its kind in the nation.

Read more in this [Columbus, TX] Colorado County Citizen article: Texas Attorney General helping noncustodial parents stay employed.

Today, child welfare agencies are most frequently associated with removing children who have been abandoned, abused or neglected from their families, and placing them in foster care or other alternative placements.

Immediate insulation from worst case scenarios.

The long-term outcome? Arguably, not so good.

Studies show that:

1. more than half of the young adults coming out of foster care are unemployed in their mid-twenties

2. one quarter don’t have a high school diploma or equivalent credential, and only six percent have achieved higher level degrees

3. sixty percent of males have already been convicted of a crime

4. seventy-seven percent of females have been pregnant

5. twenty-five percent have post-traumatic stress disorder

There is another approach to child welfare. Intensive, in-home services, including mental health and juvenile justice, furnished to youth and their families, without breaking the family up, often without separating family members.

Programs self-report on their “graduates” as follows:

• two years out of the programs, eighty-three percent of kids are doing well with their own families

• two years out of the programs, eighty-five percent remain in school or have attained a high school diploma or equivalent credential

• two years out of the program, eight-two percent have had no run-ins with the law

• these programs carry a price tage of about ten percent of traditional child welfare intervention

These programs practice Multisystemic Therapy, and maintain close contact with and oversight of the children in their programs and their families.

Speaking less clinically, the children are happier and have greater stability.

Read more in this New York Times Article: A Families-First Approach to Foster Care.

Husband and Wife are in the middle of their divorce.

Husband works for a California City.

Husband allegedly promotes his Girlfriend from a low level purely administrative position to a high level supervisory position.

The City then demotes Husband for violating the City’s employee romance policy.

Husband’s demotion costs Husband $36,000 in annual salary.

And, according to Wife, costs her substantial lost alimony and retirement benefits as well.

Which is why Wife is suing the City for approximately $4 million in damages.

Wife asserts that Girlfriend is so glaringly underqualified that Husband’s supervisors were negligent in supervising him. Girlfriend, however, remains in the position to which Husband promoted her.

Husband is also suing the City, in a separate lawsuit.

There is some dispute as to whether City’s formal prohibition on supervisors romantic entanglement with subordinates was in effect at the time Husband’s affair began. However, Husband’s supervisor reportedly objected to the two married City employees having an affair.

Some commentators conclude that Wife has no standing because she was not an employee of the City and she cannot prove any damages to herself, at least not until her divorce is final.

Read more in this Sacramento [CA] Bee article: Affair has legal fallout

After a breakup, parenting takes on a new dimension.

For some parents, they really begin learning how to parent themselves for the first time.

One of the things the noncustodial parent must now do is find meaningful yet enjoyable activities to do with their child during their visitation or timesharing.

One father shares some resources he has come to rely on:

• visitors bureaus can acquaint you with activities and attractions you probably don’t know about.

• local public libraries sponsor many activities and events that appeal to children, as well as provide information about even more.

• you can fashion a tour or itinerary for each day you have timesharing and visitation. Take advantage of the changes of season (if applicable) where you are enjoying your timesharing and visitation.

• put on a “kid’s thinking cap” to help you evaluate all the possibilities from a child’s – your child’s – point of view.

Read more in this AOL Travel article on Gadling:Divorced Dads: Five travel tools and ideas to make visitation more fun.

OK. Maybe it’s not your absolute worst nightmare, but it’s probably close.

You die. Your ex inherits some of your property.

What! How can that be? you ask.

Actually, in some states, there may be more than one way.

In Florida and many states though, the way this happens is that a spouse forgets to change their beneficiary designations on their nonprobate assets upon their divorce.

Clients always have a hard time getting this one when I raise this subject with them.

At risk of being simplistic, there are two kinds of property: probate property and nonprobate property.

Probate property is inherited as directed in the owner’s will.

So if you make a will during your marriage and don’t update it upon your divorce, your will still names your ex as your beneficiary. But Florida and many other states have laws that, in effect, write your ex out of your will if your will was made before your divorce was final.

So much for probate property.

But for many people, the majority, if not all of their assets are the other type of property, called nonprobate property. Some examples of nonprobate property include life insurance policies; IRAs, 401Ks and pension plans; a home or other property held in a trust; many bank accounts that are not titled in just one name, and so on.

Nonprobate assets have designated beneficiaries spelled out in their title documents. Wills don’t apply to them at all (unless the named beneficiary is an “estate”).

Suppose a spouse is named as the other spouse’s beneficiary for one of these assets during their marriage. Does the law write the ex out of the beneficiary designation after their divorce?

No, it doesn’t. If the owner-spouse doesn’t change their beneficiary designation after their divorce, their ex remains their beneficiary and inherits from them upon their death.

This was upheld by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2009.

Nightmare come true.

Easily avoided by immediately heeding your divorce lawyer’s advice to update all beneficiary designations and, just to be on the safe side, your will, immediately upon your divorce.

And while your at it, that’s also a good time to consider and address whether your ex is the right person to manage the assets you leave to your children in the unhappy event that you die while your children are still minors. Even if your ex is a wonderful parent, they may not be wonderful at managing those assets … especially if they are significant.

Read more in this Financial Planning article: Heir Loss.

Maltese Father and Norwegian Mother meet over the internet.

Mother and Father move to Malta in 2008 and remain there until early 2009.

Then Mother returns to Norway … and there learns that she is pregnant.

Father joins Mother in Norway due to Mother’s pregnancy.

Mother gives birth to Baby in Norway.

While still in Norway, Father finds out that Mother had had another child earlier … who was removed from Mother’s care by Norway’s child welfare agency.

Mother’s and Father’s Baby, upon birth, goes through withdrawal from medications Mother had been taking.

Norway’s child welfare agency becomes aware of Baby’s withdrawal symptoms and the cause.

Both Mother and Father are worried that Baby will be removed from Mother’s care by Norway’s child welfare agency.

And Mother and Father together decide to move back to Malta with Baby, when Baby is only a few days old.

Baby is “registered as a Maltese national” by Mother and Father.

Mother and Father break up in 2010.

A Maltese court then awards Father custody of Baby in early 2010.

Mother later files an application for return of Baby to Norway under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

A Maltese Court concludes that the Hague Convention is not applicable to Baby, because Baby was never abducted. Further, even if the Hague convention did apply, Baby’s “habitual residence” has, in fact, been Malta, not Norway.

Evidence also supports that Mother is mentally ill.

The Maltese Court denies Mother’s application for return of Baby to Norway and leaves custody with Father.

Read more in this Times of Malta article: Maltese father wins child ‘abduction’ case.

A sad statistic admitted in Australia.

Ten percent of children whose parents have split up never see their fathers a year after the breakup.

And another.

Twenty-five percent of the children that do see their fathers have only daytime visits, without overnights.

These Australian fathers generally have the least contact with their babies and toddlers under two years of age – and their older teens.

It is not clear that most Australian fathers understand their rights under the child custody agreements or child visitation orders applicable to them, let alone the law that should guide the entered child custody agreements and/or child visitation orders.

It is also unclear whether these fathers’ limited contact with their children is in compliance with child timesharing orders and timesharing agreements or the result of the other parents’ arbitrary withholding of their visitation or interference with their timesharing.

It should be noted that families in which allegations of domestic violence have been made may be overrepresented in the population to which these sad statistics apply.

Researchers attribute the limited contact to significant conflict in the family, as well as distance.

At the same time, Australian researchers also conclude that young children do better residing in one primary residence with one primary caregiver, and having only limited visitation with the other parent.

Nonetheless, the current government of Australia is reportedly working on improving fathers’ access to and contact with their children.

Read more in this Sydney Morning Herald article: Many children still do not see their fathers.

Stepfather in Germany lives with Wife and fifteen children.

Four of the children are Stepfather’s stepchildren from a prior marriage of Wife’s.

Four of the children are Wife’s and Stepfather’s together.

Seven of the children are children of Stepfather’s stepdaughter and … Stepfather’s. As confirmed by DNA testing.

Stepfather allegedly regularly raped his Stepdaughter and two of his own children for twenty years.

Stepfather also reportedly prostituted his own daughter and his stepdaughter for money.

Stepfather is also accused of nonsexual domestic violence against members of his family.

Stepfather is charged with 350 separate counts of sexual offenses against his children and stepchildren, and roughly 35 counts related to prostitution.

If convicted of the 350 plus separate transgressions over a twenty year period, Stepfather faces up to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

Read more in this GlobalPost article: Germany’s Detlef S accused of sexual horrors against his children (VIDEO) and this Discount Vouchers News article: Man accused of 20 years of child abuse.

Forty-plus Girlfriend and Boyfriend get engaged to be married. It is the first marriage for both.

Girlfriend owns a business and has an investment portfolio. Boyfriend has significantly less assets than Girlfriend.

Girlfriend’s friends advise her to enter a prenuptial agreement, also known as a prenup, with Boyfriend.

Girlfriend wonders whether her friends are correct and she should have a prenup. Secondarily, she wonders how to broach the subject with Boyfriend.

Where either intended spouse owns a business prior to marriage, they should definitely consider a premarital agreement.

Experience teaches that you can never go wrong planning for and expecting the best … but preparing for the worst. Both from a business standpoint and personally, having a prenuptial agreement just makes good sense for a small business owner.

In the event a marriage doesn’t work out, a prenup will save both spouses money, time and heartache.

Without a prenup, a contentious divorce (sometimes even one that is not so contentious) can paralyze a business, erode its value, and even kill it.

In a nutshell, an antenuptial agreement can mean the difference between an uncontested divorce and a contentious divorce.

If someone must go through a divorce, an uncontested divorce is surely
preferable to a contentious one.

As for broaching the subject, spouses must be able to discuss everything with each other. A prenup is just one of those kinds of things.

Read more in this [MI] Observer and Eccentric article: Prenuptial agreement is always a good idea.

Under current Utah law, no-fault divorce is available. And in such a divorce, fault is not a factor in determining alimony.

Proposed legislation is pending in Utah to modify this approach.

The bill would allow a judge to consider whether a stay-at-home, custodial parent was at fault in the divorce and, if not, award additional alimony toward the goal that they remain stay-at-home parents after the divorce.

Paradoxically, a different bill pending in Utah seeks to phase out permanent or long term (greater than five years) alimony. This mirrors debates and shifts in law playing out across the nation.

The role of fault in alimony and / or property division in no-fault divorce states such as Florida can be confusing. Some believe fault should be irrelevant.

Others believe that courts should be permitted to consider fault. Still others believe that economic fault alone should be considered.

Here in Florida, although divorce itself is granted without consideration of fault, the court may consider fault in both alimony or spousal support awards and in property division or equitable distribution. However, in practice, fault rarely comes into play unless the fault is economic in nature or the fault imposes an economic impact on the other spouse.

Read more in this [Salt Lake City] Desert News article: Bills would allow Utah judges to consider fault when awarding alimony.

UK Husband is injured in car accident and his leg is amputated.

Husband receives a substantial legal recovery due to the accident.

Husband and Wife later meet and marry. They have two children.

Husband and Wife decide to divorce. Wife seeks half of Husband’s legal recovery.

UK court awards Wife more than half of Husband’s legal recovery.

In light of the Court’s awards, Husband reportedly will have to sell his disabled-friendly home to move away from his children to a less expensive area.

Husband may appeal.

This ruling seems questionable in several respects were Florida law applicable.

Read more in this [UK] Daily Mirror article: Amputee has to give more than half his crash compo to wife in divorce.

Husband and Wife are unhappy.

They decide to get a divorce.

Wife files first. Or Husband does.

They agree on everything, making theirs an uncontested divorce.

They’d both like to get it over with quickly, but …

They have to wait a year – and attend state-mandated marriage counseling.

This is the scenario some North Dakota Republicans are looking to legislate in North Dakota. To lower the divorce rate.

There would be an exception for victims of domestic violence, where allegations are substantiated.

Some North Dakotans think this scheme sounds heavy handed and oppressive.

Read more in this WDAY News 6 970 AM news article: ND Bill would require mandatory marriage counseling for those seeking a divorce.

Mother, Father and Son live in Australia.

Mother removes Son from Australia, to an unknown location.

In search of Son, Father undertakes an expedition bicycling throughout Europe, wearing a T-Shirt bearing Son’s photograph. Father cycles through the UK, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Germany, as well as other countries.

Father locates now six year old Son in Amsterdam.

Three years after Son went missing, a Dutch court grants permission for Father to return Son to Australia under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Mother is arrested in the Netherlands, where she is opposing extradition to Australia.

Read more in this 9 MSN News article: Aussie father and son’s happy ending and this New Zealand Herald article: Dad’s quest ends as son returns home.

Husband and Wife divorce in New York in 1993. They have four Children together

Husband is court-ordered to pay child support.

Wife and Children move to Connecticut. Husband moves around from state to state as well.

Husband allegedly has not made a single child support payment in all these years, other than very small amounts garnished from wages and intercepted tax refunds.

Husband’s arrears reportedly come to $175,000.

Husband is indicted for nonsupport, which carries a maximum sentence of two years and a maximum fine of $250,000 … on top of back sulpport.

Read more in this Trumbull [CT] Patch article: Trumbull Man Allegedly Owes $175,000 in Child Support.

Canadian Husband and Wife have their ups and downs.

Wife files for divorce in March of 2008, but the couple reconcile.

In 2009, Husband, who does well playing a TV game show at home, tries out to appear on the show – after Wife applies for him.

Husband is accepted on the show.

The couple travel together to California in October 2009 for Husband to appear on the show.

And Husband wins. $51,600.

A pretty good chunk of change for the couple, being a school teacher and a part-time longshoreman.

After Husband’s victory, Wife again takes up her divorce case.

Now, Wife asserts a claim to half of the game show winnings as marital property.

Husband maintains that the entire pot should go to him alone, since Wife had filed for divorce before his game show appearance. Husband also suggests that the prize money is not “income” or “earnings” as contemplated by (Canadian) divorce law.

To protect her interests, Wife asks the court to order that the entire prize be deposited into a special account until the couple agrees what happens to it or the court enters an order on the subject.

A year later, the battle drags on.

Trial, and a ruling on the pot, approaches.

Generally, under Florida divorce law, the date of filing of the petition for divorce is the cut-off date for purposes of determining whether property acquired by either or both spouses is marital or nonmarital. But, where, as here, an open divorce case is not active and the couple resumes the marital relationship in all respects, it tends to negate the breakdown of the marriage legally required for a divorce under Florida divorce law.

Timing is everything.

Read more in this [Vancouver, WA] Columbian article: ‘Wheel of Fortune’ jackpot at heart of divorce battle.

Louisiana Mother gets pregnant with Father’s Child.

Father knows that he will have to pay child support for Child.

Father allegedly beats Mother about the belly.

Father’s reported goal is to destroy the unborn baby … to avoid child support.

Father is charged with attempted feticide and other charges.

Father prepares to enter a plea agreement.

The criminal court fines Father $300.

Then all charges against Father are dropped, with Mother’s blessing.

This is not Father’s first arrest on domestic battery.

Read more in this [Abbeville, LA] Vermilion Today article: Charges dropped against Eunice man accused of attempted feticide.

Mexican Mother and Mexican immigrant Father, living in neighboring Fort Pierce, Florida, have two Children together. The Children, who are eleven and nine, are US citizens.

Mother and Father split up. Mother returns to Mexico, taking Children with her.

Father regularly deposits child support money into a bank account for Mother. The support money accumulates in the account, unspent.

And Father hears worrisome gossip.

Father travels to Mexico to check on Children.

It turns out Mother left the Children with her eighty year old Grandmother … indefinitely. Without visiting them or seeing to their needs.

Children are living in terrible poverty. Daughter is malnourished. Children forage for food in dumpsters.

Grandmother and Father appear before Mexico’s child welfare agency. No one knows how to reach Mother to inform her.

Grandmother gives up custody of Children to Father, who will take them to the US.

Children settle in with Father in the US. Children do not miss Mexico.

Two years go by. Mother files an application for return of the Children to Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The US judge hearing the case rules that there was no abduction, because Grandmother agreed to Father taking the Children to the US and the Children are now well-settled. Further, Mother’s action is untimely and barred.

Read more in this Treasure Coast [FL] Palm article: Anthony Westbury: This judge really got it right.

Parents are allowed various tax breaks under the Internal Revenue Code.

Some of them deserve highlighting when parents are divorced or unmarried.

1. Child Dependency Deduction. The early bird gets the worm. The first parent to file snares the deduction. If they were not entitled to it, the other parent will have to prove that to the IRS. Part of the proof will be documentation showing that the parent seeking the deduction provided more than fifty percent of the child’s support

2. Child Care Tax Credit. The cap on this has increased. Obtain a statement of the amount paid from the provider

3. Alimony or Spousal Support. The recipent must remember to include alimony in their reported income. The paying parent may deduct it. This is the default tax treatment. The spouses may agree differently.

4. Adoption Credit. The cap on the credit has been increased.

Read more in this Fox Business News article: Tax Breaks Every Parent Should Know.

Massachusetts has been struggling with alimony reform for quite some time. Like many states. Including Florida.

In Massachusetts, proposed legislation would limit how long alimony can generally be ordered for, based on the length of the marriage.

It would also protect a second spouse’s income from going to alimony to the former spouse. And end alimony upon cohabitation of the dependent spouse.

It would even permit a spouse to retire out of their alimony obligations.

All of these proposed amendments mirror trends sweeping the nation.

Florida has already passed its own version of alimony reform.

Read more in this Boston Herald article: What would change under alimony reform and this Boston Herald editorial: Antiquated law pure insanity.

There are many ways that parties and/or conscientious counsel can try to keep costs down in divorce cases in family court (among others). Unfortunately, the legal system often doesn’t make it easy.

And may punish you. Regrettably, economizing can turn out to be very expensive.

The above observations apply in countless situations in divorce courts (and others) throughout Florida, New York, New Jersey (these I can speak to from personal experience). Likely, the world.

Here’s yet another example that just caught my attention.

Husband and Wife are working toward an amicable, uncontested divorce.

They own a marital business.

Husband and Wife agree on a fair market value for the business of $60,000. It’s not clear how they arrive at that number.

But that number underlies their property division, marital settlement agreement and final judgment of divorce.

Several months later, Wife seeks to throw out all three.

She now asserts that the business was worth $172,000, rather than $60,000. A difference of $112,000, half of which, presumably, would be allocated to Wife.

How does Wife arrive at that $172,000 value?

Wife hires an appraiser to perform a limited, qualified valuation – after the fact.

What’s that?

In a nutshell, a limited, qualified appraisal is performed based on strictly limited documentation and inputs.

Why?

Such documentation and inputs are often within the sole control of one spouse, and often may only be obtained through what is called the discovery process in the divorce court case. (Less documentation and inputs requires less expert review and analysis.)

In amicable cases, discovery may be sharply curtailed to contain costs and because there is trust.

In adversarial, contested cases, even where full discovery is desired by the spouse with less knowledge of the finances, it may nonetheless be limited because of the cost in both legal fees and experts’ fees of pursuing it from a spouse who is fully committed to avoiding full disclosure and who likely has the resources to stonewall, dodge, delay, and otherwise drive up the cost and increase delay as much as possible.

In this particular case, it is likely that timely discovery was voluntarily limited. And then, after Wife’s window of opportunity closed (there are rules that bar going back after the fact to do what you could have and should have done at an earlier time), Wife realized she “got took”.

And, likely because of limited information as well as limited financial resources, all Wife could obtain at that point was a limited, qualified valuation. And that just wasn’t good enough to persuade a court to set aside a previously agreed upon valuation, however arrived at.

If Wife’s change of heart was right on, she took a beating in the divorce property division.

She certainly saved legal fees up front by not pursuing discovery timely. And she certainly saved experts’ fees by obtaining only a limited or qualified valuation.

Hopefully, Wife saved enough money in the original case to offset the loss of her half of the difference between the two valuations. (Of course, the qualified valuation may have been low too. That will never be known for certain now.)

Read more in this Business Valuation Resources LLC newsletter article: More problems using preliminary valuations in divorce

Florida Woman obtains domestic violence restraining order of protection against Man.

Undeterred, Man reportedly calls and sends text messages to Woman repeatedly.

Woman contacts police to report Man’s violations of injunction for protection against domestic violence.

Patrolman comes to Woman’s house.

While Patrolman is at Woman’s home, Man calls Woman.

Patrolman advises Man he is violating domestic violence injunction.

Man excuses his conduct by the fact that he is presently in another state.

Patrolman advises Man that that does not excuse or insulate Man from restraining order.

While Patrolman is still at Woman’s home, Man calls again.

Patrolman again advises Man he is violating the order of protection, and admonishes him against calling Woman again.

Man states he is calling Patrolman, not Woman.

Patrolman instructs Man to call him at police station and not to call Woman’s phone again.

Man is arrested for violating Woman’s order of protection.

Read more in this [Crestview] Northwest Florida Daily News article: Man calls woman twice while she’s reporting him to police.