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

A personal finance expert opines that “modern” divorce is about money. And to a large extent, that’s true.

Of course, there may also be important noneconomic issues pertaining to parental responsibility and timesharing. But those are outside the focus of a personal finance expert.

Relative to the money aspects of divorce, however, here are some tips from the personal finance expert:

1. Follow the money. Copy records you can gain access to. Tax returns. Savings account statements. Retirement plans. Insurance policies. Financial statements. Wills. Trusts. Brokerage account statements. Credit card statements. Credit reports. Etc.

2. Poke around in the business. Business records. If the stakes are high enough, a forensic accountant may be warranted.

3. Protect yourself. Squirrel away a nest egg to see you through the case. A separate savings account is prudent. Ditto a separate credit card. Freeze the joint credit cards and any home equity lines of credit to avoid your spouse maxing them out.

4. Itemize premarital / nonmarital assets. Identify which were maintained separately and which were commingled with marital assets.

5. Don’t overlook your spouse’s pension and retirement accounts.

6. Be realistic in your expectations for alimony under the circumstances of your case and the law of your state. Also be aware that this is a rapidly evolving area of the law in many states. Depending upon both, you may want to have good handle on your reasonable employment and salary expectations.

7. Don’t overlook health care coverage and COBRA benefits.

8. If the assets and/or income involved are substantial, a tax advisor can be helpful in structuring a settlement to get the most tax-bang for your bucks.

9. Similarly, a divorce financial planner can also be helpful in evaluating settlement proposals and making your money work as hard for you as possible.

10. Bitter, protracted legal battles cost money. It is worth considering whether the reasonably anticipated benefits really justify the costs.

Read more in this CBS TV Money Watch article: 10 Steps to Avoid Losing Your Shirt in a Divorce.

Husband and Wife are both originally from Nigeria.

Husband and Wife have two Children together and the family has been living in the US.

Wife takes the Children to Nigeria on vacation … and informs Husband that they will not be returning.

Wife takes the Children to the UK for a vacation.

Husband applies for return of the Children from the UK to the US under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, even though the Children are just visiting in the UK.

The UK trial court concludes that the Children are habitual residents of Nigeria … but orders the return of the Children from the UK to the US anyway.

Wife appeals.

The appellate court reverses, holding that the Children should remain in Nigeria.

The court weighed heavily the delay in filing for return of the Children in the UK..

Read more in this [UK] Children & Young People Now article: Legal Report: Child abduction and this Bailii [UK] England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions.

Although things are changing, at least in some states, many gay couples raising children together still face many legal challenges, especially in the event of a breakup or the death of the biological parent.

In Michigan, one lesbian couple, an Attorney and a former Mechanic, have taken pains to create as nearly as possible the equivalent of equal spousal and parental rights, despite Michigan’s prohibition of adoption by a gay person of their partner’s biological or legally adopted child.

In this de facto family, the Attorney has given birth to two children. The Mechanic stays home and serves as the primary caregiver to the children.

Accordingly, the Mechanic earns no salary and is not permitted to save for her retirement on a tax-favored basis.

Nor does the Mechanic have any right to visitation or timesharing with the children in the event the couple breaks up … or the Attorney dies.

In fact, the Mechanic’s parental rights are severely limited even being together with Attorney. The Attorney signs a parental consent form twice a year authorizing her to consent to treatment for the children and related matters. Hardly a reliable solution.

The couple have consulted with experts who concentrate on serving nontraditional families like theirs. They have received some helpful advice … but cannot or choose not to act upon much of it.

As far as the children go, key recommendations include:

1. power of attorney for parental authority, which does not expire automatically

2. parental appointment of guardian

3. domestic partner agreement and

4. co-parenting agreement

From a financial perspective, the breadwinner partner can hire the nurturing partner as a nanny for a nominal salary. That would at least permit the nurturing partner to invest their nominal salary in an IRA.

Read more in this New York Times article: The Extra Hoops Gay Parents Must Jump Through

Sixty year old UK Husband and Wife are divorcing after twenty-one years of marriage.

Husband is a trust fund millionaire in the hotel business, currently living in Spain and managing a property there.

Husband is worth about 4 million UK pounds in assets he owns outright.

There is also 6 million UK pounds in a trust fund his father established during the marriage.

The UK family court awards Wife some properties, along with a 3 million pound lump sum payment from Husband based on the trust.

Husband asserts that the trust is not for his benefit but for future generations of his family, and that he has no control over it. Husband further insists that the trustees of the trust will not cooperate in making trust funds available to pay Wife the court-ordered obligations.

Husband further asserts that the upshot is that he will be forced to sell the assets he controls to pay the award to Wife and his court-ordered child support obligations, and that he will be left homeless.

The UK family court finds that Husband is misrepresenting his finances and relationship to the trust and trustees.

Husband has appealed the trial court’s rulings.

Read more in this UK Daily Mail article: Millionaire claims he faces homelessness after unique divorce ruling orders trust funds to go to wife.

Six (6%) percent of the globe’s Catholics live in the US.

Yet, of the marriage annulments granted by the Catholic Church, a whoppingly disproportionate sixty (60%) percent of them are granted to residents of the US.

These recently released skewed statistics touched off considerable debate.

The Catholic Church justified the numbers by patting itself on the back for issuing annulments expeditiously.

Other commentators found fault with Americans.

Read more in this Catholic Culture article: Why does the US lead the world in marriage annulments? and this Catholic World Report article: Annulment Nation.

Some months ago, a four year old Brooklyn Girl, who weighed only eighteen pounds, died of malnutrition, dehydration, drug poisoning and injuries resulting from abuse.

New York’s child welfare agency was already involved in the Girl’s life and had assigned a caseworker to her case.

At the time of her death, the Girl had allegedly been beaten regularly … and bound to her bed.

Her mother and grandmother both reportedly were aware of these facts.

The Girl’s mother and grandmother have both since been indicted for murder and manslaughter, respectively.

The Girl’s caseworker and his supervisor both allegedly subsequently made false entries in the Girl’s case file to reflect, fraudulently, that the child welfare agency had done its job, visiting, or attempting to schedule visits to the Girl’s home, and checking on her welfare.

In fact, the caseworker reportedly made no visits or attempts to check on the Girl and had not complied with the agency’s requirement of biweekly checks.

For their alleged negligence and attempted fraud in this case, the child welfare agency’s caseworker and supervisor were indicted for criminally negligent homicide, official misconduct and endangering the welfare of a child, as well as falsifying and tampering with public records.

The charges against the child welfare workers are believed to be the first of their kind in New York.

The child welfare workers’ defend that they were just following orders from higher ranked individuals in the agency and, apparently, that they are unfairly being made scapegoats.

The child welfare agency is concerned that the charges will adversely impact recruiting of child welfare staff.

Read more in this New York Times article: Welfare Worker and Supervisor Charged in Death of Child.

As recently as the 1970s, rural Iowa boasted a divorce rate out of 1910s America at large.

And there were hardly any paternity cases for child support and/or child custody, between parents who were not married.

Rural Iowans went to church regularly, mothers stayed at home with children and, well, people in their world did not divorce.

But forty years later, things have changed … in a big way.

Except for the fact that most rural Iowans still belong to a church and attend regularly, now, rural Iowa pretty much mirrors the rest of America.

Rural Iowa women today are more likely to be college-educated than in the past … and more likely to be college-educated than rural men.

They are out in the workforce.

Being divorced no longer carries much of a stigma in rural Iowa.

And divorce has multiplied there by a magnitude of seven times.

And rural Iowa now has its share of paternity cases for child support and custody disputes between unmarried parents.

Read more in this New York Times article: Once Rare in Rural America, Divorce Is Changing the Face of Its Families.

Father is court-ordered to pay child support.

Father used to be a professional basketball player and earns a high income.

But his child support arrearages reportedly have piled up to nearly $1 million.

Finally, Father is charged with three counts of failure to pay support for different children in different states.

Father pleads guilty and awaits sentencing.

Father faces up to six months of imprisonment.

And, perhaps worse, Father will still be required to pay the support he owes.

Read more in this Carmi [IL] Times article: Former southern Illinoisan owes nearly $1 million in support.

New York Girlfriend and Boyfriend have been dating for over six months.

Girlfriend is 32 years old, a foster parent of a 17 month old Baby and a 9 year old girl, and the mother of an 11 year old girl.

Boyfriend is 19 years old.

Girlfriend left Baby in Boyfriend’s care while taking the two girls to school.

When Girlfriend returned home, Baby was unconscious and in respiratory distress.

Baby was later diagnosed with broken ribs and a ruptured spleen, and was assessed as being in critical condition.

Baby’s injuries are under investigation by authorities.

Law enforcement authorities suspect that Baby’s injuries are the result of Boyfriend beating Baby.

Boyfriend turned himself in to authorities and is now under arrest on charges of assaulting Baby.

According to accounts of third parties, Boyfriend believed that Baby needed to grow “tougher”.

Yet Girlfriend reportedly insisted that Boyfriend is “good” to her children.

Prior to the suspected beating, Baby had been recovering from prenatal heroin addiction and doing well in foster care with Girlfriend.

In fact, Baby’s adoption by Girlfriend is underway.

It is unknown whether recent events jeopardize the adoption.

Read more in this New York Times article: Arrest Made in Beating of a Child in Brooklyn.

When a parent consistently doesn’t pay child support, the family court typically has a range of options to enforce their support obligations, and to punish them and deter future nonpayment.

When a parent withholds court-ordered visitation and timesharing with a child, the family court’s enforcement options are considerably narrower and more limited.

But, in response to a particularly egregious case, the Illinois legislature is looking to change that.

New proposed legislation in Illinois would allow family courts to:

1. incarcerate noncompliant parents

2. require them to post bonds

3. impose increasing monetary fines on them

4. revoke driver’s licenses and revoke business licenses and

5. modify custody based on the denial of visitation

Read more in this [Springfield, IL] State Journal-Register article: ‘Steven Watkins’ bill passed by Illinois House committee and this Capitol Fax article: Strong penalties proposed for visitation violations.

Wife takes New Jersey Son to Brazil to visit relatives.

And stays there. Permanently.

Wife divorces Husband there and remarries.

And cuts off virtually all contact between Husband and Son.

Husband is awarded custody of Son by the New Jersey family court.

Wife pursues custody of Son in Brazil’s family court.

Wife dies.

Wife’s second husband and Son’s Grandparents continue the litigation in Brazil, resisting Husband’s efforts to have any contact with Son, let alone to procure Son’s return to the US.

After five years, Husband is finally able to secure Son’s return to the US to live with him.

However, Grandparents continue their legal battle in Brazil’s family court.

And Grandparents demand visitation with Son in New Jersey family court as well.

At first, Husband allows limited contact with Grandparents during Son’s transition back to life in the US.

Then Grandparents allegedly try to circumvent Husband to obtain greater visitation.

Husband finally cuts off contact between Grandparents and Son.

The New Jersey family court denies Grandparents’ demands for visitation with Son. Because they persist in trying to thwart New Jersey family court orders via the Brazilian family court and interfere with Husband’s parental responsibility over Son.

Read more in this Asbury Park [NJ] Press article: Sean Goldman grandparents denied visitation after international custody dispute and this New Jersey News Room article: Grandparents of Sean Goldman denied visitation.

Connecticut Boyfriend and Girlfriend start dating in 2007.

Boyfriend takes Girlfriend to Italy toward end of 2008.

While there, Boyfriend proposes and presents Girlfriend with a $5,000 engagement ring.

Ring is a little too shabby for Girlfriend’s tastes.

Boyfriend takes it back.

And presents Girlfriend with a $12,000 ring.

That sits better with Girlfriend, and she accepts it.

Possibly because of the substitution or perhaps not, Boyfriend falls upon some harder financial times.

As a result, Boyfriend and Girlfriend break up.

What of the ring?

Well, Boyfriend wants it back now.

Girlfriend refuses, claiming it was a Christmas present.

Who gets the engagement ring?

A Connecticut family court rules that Girlfriend must return the engagement ring to Boyfriend.

This holding represents something of a (modern) shift in the law of premarital breakups.

Read more in this Connecticut Post article: Not only is the romance over, but the fiance gets his ring back.

Maryland is poised to become what may be the first state to treat pets of divorcing couples as more than mere property.

Under proposed legislation, the family court would be authorized to establish visitation with a pet just as family courts establish timesharing for children.

The one glaring difference is that the family court would not be authorized to order payment of “pet support” or reimbursement of pet-related expenses by one spouse to the other.

If passed, this proposed legislation would represent a significant advance in the status of pets in divorces.

Currently, although spouses may agree to any arrangement they wish regarding their pets, the law views them as merely personal property to be awarded just the same as any other tangible property, based on fair market value.

Read more in this Washington Examiner article: When mom and dad split up, it’s the pets that suffer.

Girlfriend and her two toddlers cohabitate with Boyfriend.

Boyfriend has child from another relationship.

Boyfriend owes back child support.

How much?

Enough to land him in jail for nonpayment of support.

Girlfriend wants Boyfriend back home with her.

So, she, consciously or unconsciously, resolves to do what she must to accomplish that.

That turns out to include allegedly robbing a bank for child support money.

Girlfriend also reportedly uses a toy gun.

After allegedly committing the robbery, Girlfriend heads to the jail to pay Boyfriend’s child support arrears.

Needless to say, Girlfriend is caught and arrested.

Eventually, convicted. And sentenced to six years’ incarceration … to be followed by five years of probation.

Now neither Boyfriend nor Girlfriend are at home with Girlfriend’s toddlers.

And Boyfriend likely isn’t seeing his own child either.

Read more in this Imperfect Parent piece: Sentenced bank robber says she did it for child support.

It seems that tens of millions of people are burning their keyboards up on social networking sites, especially Facebook.

Interacting with everyone from friends and colleagues to friends from college and grad school … including long lost loves.

Apparently, there is something about the internet that tends to strip away restraints and inhibitions and lends itself to secrecy.

Permitting what would undoubtedly be innocent, casual, occasional contacts in the brick and mortar world into ongoing connections.

The difference between accidentally running into someone from your past and re-discovering someone from your past … and re-igniting an old flame.

So dramatic is this trend that Loyola University is warning couples against using Facebook, to guard against them becoming the one in five marriages allegedly “ruined” by Facebook.

Experts conclude that, in most cases, innocent curiosity and secrecy can turn into dangerous intimacy.

Read more in this [North Carolina] Huliq article: Divorce rates rise, curiosity and Facebook major culprits.

Times change. Or, as one of my law school professors used to put it, “the pendulum swings”.

Tennessee Husband and Wife are divorcing.

Husband and Wife have been married for 21 years.

Husband and Wife have two adult children together.

Husband earns $137,000 per year.

Wife, who is 43 years old, earns a considerably lesser $72,000.

At trial, the family court denies Wife any alimony whatsoever.

On appeal by Wife, an intermediate level appellate court awards Wife $1,250 in monthly alimony for life, unless she remarries.

This time, Husband appeals.

The assertion under Tennessee law is that such an award is not appropriate, because the Wife is not 50 or older, and/or was not married to Husband long enough and/or did not sacrifice her career sufficiently for the marriage, and/or Wife is not unable to obtain a “good” job.

Policy considerations include that permanent alimony allegedly has the unintended side effect of discouraging long-term marriages. Husband further argues that Wife is discouraged from remarrying with such a permanent alimony award.

Wife, on the other hand, maintains that she deserves permanent alimony, arguing that she once worked two jobs to get Husband through school so that he could get to the point where his career is now.

At a high level, as in Florida, Tennessee looks to the paying spouse’s ability to pay alimony and the receiving spouse’s need for alimony.

The trial court seems to be more in tune with the trend sweeping the nation … now, than the intermediate appellate court. The pendulum has swung … again.

Under Florida law, significance is still attached to the fact that the marriage endured more than twenty years, but the relatively young age of the Wife and her actual earnings history would not be overlooked by a Florida court either.

Read more in this Knoxville [TN] News Sentinel article: Tennessee Supreme Court considers life alimony.

Illinois Husband and Wife are divorcing.

They have a three year old Daughter together.

Husband is killed. Wife’s grandmother is convicted of murdering him.

Husband’s parents, Grandparents, seek visitation and timesharing with Daughter.

The court grants Grandparents’ request for visitation.

Wife reportedly has refused to comply with the court’s order for Grandparents’ timesharing since last November.

Wife expresses a desire to relocate to Florida.

Grandparents ask the court to hold Wife in contempt.

Wife does not appear at hearing on contempt.

Court finds Wife to be in contempt and issues a warrant for Wife’s arrest.

Read more in this [Illinois] State Journal-Register article: Arrest warrant issued for Jennifer Watkins in visitation case.

Kentucky Father places Infant son into an oven. A cold one, but an oven.

Father is arrested for this conduct.

A Kentucky criminal court judge bars Father from having any contact with Infant.

Close to a year ago.

Now, Father’s attorney requests supervised visitation for Father, since Father is at-large on bail.

However, the criminal court judge denies Father’s request, and extends his earlier ruling absolutely prohibiting any contact with Infant.

Read more in this Paducah Sun article: Dad in oven case gets no visitation and this Lex 18 NBC TV News article: Man Not Allowed Contact With Infant Son He Put In Cold Oven.

Own a marital home and going through a divorce?

Then what will happen to that marital home has to be resolved in the divorce.

One outcome is for the parent with whom the children reside most of the time to remain in the marital home.

This outcome can come about in two different ways.

One, the spouse who stays in the home can have exclusive use and possession of the home until the youngest child turns eighteen. In this scenario, both parents remain owners of the home and remain on the mortgage until the property is sold and the proceeds divided.

Alternatively, the spouse who stays in the home can buy out the other spouse’s equity interest at the time of the divorce and refinance the mortgage to remove the other spouse from the mortgage as well as the title. This scenario, of course, requires the spouse who stays in the home to qualify for a new mortgage without the other spouse.

The last alternative is for both spouses to sell the home to a third party and divide the net proceeds.

A mortgage professional offers some advice for those going the sometimes thorny buyout route.

• keep in mind that not keeping joint debts current during the divorce process can adversely affect both spouses’ credit and the buying out spouse’s qualification for refinancing, regardless of whom any particular debt is ultimately assigned to in the divorce

• as early in the process as possible, the spouse who will be buying out the other spouse should open their own new credit accounts and close all joint accounts and also verify their credit rating, to avoid surprises

• from the vantage point of buying out the other spouse’s net equity, it is best to resolve all property division as soon as possible, with determining the marital home’s current fair market value, to both spouses’ satisfaction, being a top priority

• the spouse buying out the other spouse should remember, for purposes of refinancing, to add to their income the amount of child support and any alimony they should be receiving

• the spouse being bought out would do well to verify that the mortgage lender has in fact satisfied and released their obligations under the original note and mortgage

Read more in this Toronto Move Smartly article: Mortgage Advice for Couples Planning a Divorce.

In too many divorces, one spouse has, at least arguably, legitimate concerns about the other spouse’s willingness to hide or dispose of assets acquired during their marriage. Such assets are generally marital assets, subject to property division in the couple’s divorce.

What to do?

The spouse who does not control such assets can request that the family court enter a restraining order, or injunction, freezing such assets and prohibiting the spouse who controls them (or both spouses) from hiding, transferring or otherwise using them unilaterally, until division of property in the divorce case is resolved.

In a recent high profile case abroad, the Colombian family court has ordered that the assets of Wife, a politician, be seized, at the request of Husband.

The restraining order, or injunction, is, arguably, particularly appropriate in that case because marital assets are distributed across the globe.

But such measures are by no means restricted to high profile cases.

Read more in this Colombia Reports article: ‘Ingrid Betancourt’s properties seized’ and this Miami Herald article: Colombia freezes Betancourt assets in divorce case.

Family member hurts or even kills another family member.

Then seeks to profit from having harmed their family member.

Perhaps they will collect an inheritance.

Perhaps they will collect alimony in a lump sum.

Etc. Etc.

Some Florida legislators don’t think that’s right. And aim to prevent it from happening.

So they have drafted legislation to block a convicted criminal from profiting from hurting a family member.

The proposed legislation is inspired by similar legislation in New Jersey.

Read more in this Sunshine State News article: Bipartisan Bill Aims to Stop Criminals Profiting After Injuring Family.

Connecticut Husband and Wife divorce.

Theirs is not the garden-variety divorce.

Husband is an advertising executive. Wife is an attorney.

Husband allegedly kidnaps Wife, holding her hostage in one of their homes. During the hostage crisis, Husband asserts to police that the home is rigged with explosives.

Before torching the home.

The home, by the way, is contingently awarded to Wife in the event that Husband fails to pay her $100,000 in attorney’s fees. Accordingly, Wife is entitled to any insurance proceeds.

Husband is also required to transfer to Wife his interest in another marital property, a beach home.

But, rather than do that, prior to his deadline, Husband allegedly burns this house to the ground too.

At this time, Husband stands charged with two counts of arson, as well as other charges related to the hostage-taking situation.

Trial in both cases lies ahead for Husband.

Notwithstanding all of the above, Husband sues his property insurer … for his emotional distress. He attributes same to the insurer denying his insurance claim – after reportedly summarily concluding that Husband burned the home down himself.

Husband asserts that the insurer should have commissioned an independent investigation before reaching any conclusions about it.

The civil trial court dismisses Husband’s lawsuit against his property insurance company.

On appeal, however, an intermediate level court unanimously reinstates Husband’s claims for emotional distress.

Read more in this Insurance Journal article: Connecticut Court: Man Charged in Arson Can Sue Insurer.

It’s tax season.

Alimony or spousal support is deductible by the paying spouse or ex.

Alimony or spousal support is includible by the receiving spouse or ex.

As long as the alimony is required by a court order. One adopting and approving a settlement agreement will suffice.

End of discussion? Not quite.

Note that the alimony or spousal support check doesn’t have to be made out to the spouse or ex, or even given to them directly.

Payments made directly to a third party for the spouse or ex’s account are treated as alimony or spousal support … as long as the payments are required by court order. Again, one adopting and approving terms of settlement will do.

Examples of third party payments that may fall under this heading are medical expenses paid to health care providers, rent or mortgage payments paid to landlord or lender, tuition payments made to an educational institution, life insurance premiums paid to an insurer, auto insurance payments made to an insurer, car payments made to a lessor or lender, etc., etc.

Similarly, if a spouse is required to make the entire mortgage payment on a home co-owned with a spouse or ex, half the payment may be deducted as alimony or spousal support by the paying spouse or ex.

If a spouse is required to pay real estate taxes and/or insurance on a home co-owned as tenants in common (the most common arrangement after divorce), half the payment may be deducted as alimony or spousal support by the paying ex.

But taxes and insurance are not deductible by the paying ex if the former spouses own the real estate as joint tenants after the divorce (less likely).

Type of real property ownership is a technical legal issue with nontax consequences as well as tax consequences.

Each spouse should consult with their own attorney regarding which type of real state ownership best suits their particular needs, and also to ensure that the new deeds are drafted so as to conform to those needs.

Read more in this Main Street piece: Tax Tip: Deductible Alimony.

This blog generally steers away from family law issues arising with celebrities from the entertainment world. They receive more than enough coverage from other sources.

But every “rule” is made to be broken.

In a recent television interview with a Celebrity on a media campaign, the topic of his alleged domestic abuse was broached … and casually dismissed, as though nothing.

The celebrity reportedly accidentally shot his then-fiancee some years ago.

Later on, a different woman accused him of smacking her in the head for rejecting his sexual overtures. The Celebrity settled her civil suit against him out of court.

Later, yet another woman pressed criminal charges against him for allegedly knocking her to the floor of his home. The Celebrity reportedly pleaded “no contest”.

Later, the Celebrity’s ex-wife got a domestic violence restraining order of protection against him.

Later, his subsequent wife pressed criminal charges against him for assaulting her with a knife. The Celebrity pleaded guilty and was put on probation.

Later, yet another woman pressed criminal charges against the Celebrity over the Celebrity’s rampage in a hotel room, that chased her into hiding in a locked bathroom. Police declined to prosecute.

Later, the Celebrity’s latest ex has obtained a domestic violence restraining order against him for graphic violent threats. The Celebrity’s children were removed from his home by child welfare auuthorities.

The Celebrity is handled with kid gloves and is enjoying great popularity. His recent interviewer seemed reportedly downgraded domestic violence.

Is something wrong with this picture?

What does it say about our collective attitude toward domestic violence?

Read more in this New York Times editorial: The Disposable Woman.

A former juvenile court judge in Pennsylvania retired in disgrace about two years ago.

Part of his job was sentencing youth offenders.

There are many reasons to favor one juvenile correctional facility over another with respect to any particular juvenile offender’s circumstances and needs.

Keep in mind that juvenile courts’ objectives generally include treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents, rather than mere punishment.

This particular judge allegedly chose correctional facilities for sentencing based on his own personal financial gain, not the juvenile offenders’ circumstances and needs.

And, as a result, this particular judge was recently convicted of twelve separate counts of racketeering and conspiracy … for extorting up to millions of dollars from the developer and owner of certain juvenile correctional facilities to which he sentenced juveniles in his court.

Read more in this New York Times article: Pennsylvania: Mixed Verdict for Disgraced Judge

Texas Mother and Father have Daughter together.

Mother and Father split up.

Father picks two year old Daughter up for visitation … and disappears with her – for two years.

A nonprofit association recently located Father and Daughter.

And the police have reunited Mother with Daughter.

Father has not been charged with kidnapping. It is unknown whether he will be charged with custodial interference or similar criminal charges.

Read more in this [San Antonio] KENS 5 TV news article: Local mother holds her daughter again after two-year separation.

Although this may not be as relevant for many people in the current economic climate as it has normally been, what happens to the marital home in the divorce may generate significant tax consequences, either good or bad. Handled properly, it should be good.

Under the right circumstances, a single taxpayer may avoid tax on $250,000 in capital gains resulting from the sale of a primary residence. For a married couple, that amount doubles to $500,000.

This shelter is available to the couple both during the divorce and after the divorce is finalized, provided all other requirements are met.

Where the couple continues to own the residence together indefinitely after the divorce (think exclusive use and possession of the home with the custodial parent until the children are grown), the other spouse risks not qualifying due to the home not being his or her principal residence.

According to tax experts, an explicit provision in the marital settlement agreement or final judgment of divorce for temporary exclusive use and possession with one spouse preserves the primary use position of the other spouse as well if both spouses continue to own the home, or even if the spouse who vacated has sole ownership after the divorce.

Of course, a taxpayer should always consult their own tax advisor for tax advice relative to their specific situation.

Read more in this BST Financial newsletter article: A House Divided.