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

These days, many couples are searching for what they hope is an easier, cheaper approach to divorce (and resolution of other disputes too). Different practitioners each tout their own preferred methodology.

One such available methodology that gets less attention than some others is arbitration. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution option, in that it aims to avoid lengthy family court litigation (paper motions and multiple legal and/or evidentiary hearings) that culminates in a divorce court trial before a family court judge in a family court courtroom.

Compared to mediation, another alternative dispute resolution methodology, arbitration is still fairly trial-like. So what is arbitration, and why would someone consider using arbitration?

In a nutshell, arbitration is generally faster, more private, less expensive and less formal than conventional litigation.

An arbitrator, a privately engaged professional, often a former judge, presides over proceedings as an ultimate decision-maker, much like a judge. But in arbitration, the parties get to choose their arbitrator for themselves.

An arbitrator hears testimony and also considers other, nontestimonial evidence in arriving at an award, much like a judge.

Typically, an arbitrator’s decision in a binding arbitration is final (although there are certain narrow exceptions).

The arbitration process is generally leaner and more streamlined than typical family court proceedings. Most hearings before the ultimate hearing are eliminated, and development of evidence from the opponent and third parties is normally reduced. This saves parties money as well as time.

And the “main event” is not held in a public courtroom.

Of course, like almost anything else, arbitration can be misused and abused so as to erode its good features and advantages.

Arbitration has not gained great traction in Florida family law yet, but it is finding favor in Canada and other countries already.

Read more in this appellate opinion and this American Bar Association Litigation News Article: Protecting the Natural Cost Advantages of Arbitration

According to an article that appeared in the New York Times last month, certain Chinese provincial governments seize babies from their parents, who cannot afford their fines for violating restrictions on reproduction, and then they sell the seized babies on the black market, into adoption.

For American parents of adopted Chinese babies, such reports are a disturbing revelation. Fueling nagging questions about their children’s origins, and the circumstances leading to their adoption.

But the subject is largely taboo among adoptive parent communities, who have ample reason to fear that questions will only slam the door to adoption in the questioners’ faces.

Some sixty four thousand Chinese babies were adopted in the US from 1999 through 2010.

And, unlike several other countries, China has long been perceived as the most ethical adoption system, which is a source of adoptable babies, that can be found overseas.

Read more in this New York Times article: For Adoptive Parents, Questions Without Answers.

Louisiana Husband and Wife have a preschool-aged Daughter together.

Wife dies.

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

Husband and Grandparents reach an agreement granting Grandparents substantial visitation with Daughter. The agreement recognizes that the timesharing schedule will have to be adjusted when Daughter begins school.

The agreement is adopted in a Louisiana family court order. The family court also approves of Husband and Daughter relocating to Mississippi.

After Husband and Daughter relocate, Husband registers the Louisiana family court order in Mississipi. This permits enforcement of the Louisiana family court order in the Mississippi family court.

Grandparents ask the Mississippi family court to hold Husband in contempt and enforce the Louisiana family court visitation and timesharing order.

Husband does not dispute his noncompliance with the Louisiana family court order.

He does, however, ask the Mississipi family court to modify the Louisiana family court order by dramatically reducing Grandparents’ visitation and timesharing with Daughter based upon her reaching school age and certain conduct by Grandparents that he objects to, such as allegedly not adhering strictly to Daughter’s special diet and calling Daughter by her first name instead of her middle name, which is the same as Wife’s.

The Mississippi family court changes Grandparents’ visitation and timesharing schedule, but does not reduce their visitation. In fact, the Mississippi family court increases their timesharing a bit.

Husband appeals as to the modification only, objecting that his due process rights were violated by a perceived rejection of his objections to Grandparents’ conduct and arguing that Grandparents did not ask for more visitation, so the family court does not have authority to award it.

On appeal, the Mississippi appellate court upholds the Mississippi family court’s modification and expansion of Grandparents’ visitation and timesharing schedule with Daughter, underscoring that the original Louisiana agreement and court order affording Grandparents visitation and timesharing were not challenged when made in Louisiana and are not subject to review on this appeal.

As for the changes made by the Mississippi family court, the appellate court finds that both parties asserted that Grandparents’ current timesharing schedule no longer works for them and Husband specifically sought modification of the schedule in his pleadings. Grandparents’ objections to the schedule was tantamount to a request by Grandparents for modification.

And the Mississippi family court found at trial that it was in Daughter’s best interests to increase timesharing with Grandparents, and that finding was within its discretion.

The appellate court also confirms that the Mississippi family court has jurisdiction to modify the Louisiana court order under Mississippi’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

Since neither Daughter, either of her parents or any one “acting as a parent” to Daughter still lives in Louisiana, and Daughter and Husband have been living in Mississippi for two years, Mississippi is now Daughter’s “home state”. Grandparents’ access rights do not bring them within the statutory definition of someone “acting as a parent”. Indeed, Husband has “sole legal custody” of Daughter.

As to Husband’s objections to certain specific conduct by Grandparents, the Mississippi family court instructed Grandparents in regard to those matters. Thereby accommodating Husband’s due process concerns and upholding his fundamental parental rights.

Read more in this Mississippi appellate opinion.

Oregon Mother has three month old Baby.

Mother reads the Old Testament and decides that she wants Baby to be circumcised.

But Mother fears Baby is too old for a doctor to agree to perform the circumcision.

So Mother watches YouTube videos on circumcision.

And decides to perform the circumcision on Baby herself.

Using a box-cutter.

Only Baby bleeds excessively and suffers great pain during the circumcision.

So Mother dials 911 for assistance.

Mother is arrested for harming Baby.

Mother pleads guilty to criminal mistreatment.

Mother is sentenced to five years’ probation…

And ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

The Court finds that she loves Baby and had no intent to hurt him.

Baby has since recovered and lives with his three siblings … in the child welfare system. Mother has supervised visits with Baby and his siblings.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Mom who used box-cutter to circumcise 3-month-old baby gets five years probation.

Just about everyone has either been divorced themselves or gone through it, vicariously, with a close friend or loved one.

That’s probably why just about everyone has an opinion on just about every aspect of divorce … and fancies themselves the expert to be giving you advice.

Regardless of whether the divorce they are familiar with occurred in the same state, subject to the same laws as yours, or of whether the circumstances of that case are even remotely similar to yours.

They all mean well, of course. But they generally just overwhelm you with input, breed confusion, anxiety and doubt, cost you extra legal fees for explanations of why your case or the applicable state law is different from their case and the law that applied to it and, worst of all, undermine your legal position and steer you into the proverbial doghouse with your judge.

(Take the example of one of my client’s buddy-advisors: “You don’t have to follow that court order. It’s unconstitutional. I saw that on the internet.” The it in question refers to child support. And the principled good buddy won’t be the one headed off to the pokey.)

In most cases, it’s really best not to discuss the details of your divorce with others. Not unless you want to see them in court … testifying under subpoena from your spouse – about the “private” information you leaked to them. Yeah. Oops.

And you don’t want to spill your guts on social media either. Those leaks don’t even require subpoenaing your buddy to testify.

If you can afford to hire divorce professionals, let them do their jobs for you. If you can’t, then do your best to learn and follow the rules and law yourself. Then rely on your own judgment. Don’t poll the universe about the specifics of your case.

And it’s not just women that get into trouble with this. In my experience, in general, men are just as prone as women to gossiping about their marriage and their divorce, and, in general, even more prone to leaking and polling.

Be the exception. In the end, you’ll be glad you were.

Read more in this Forbes piece: Warning: Don’t Let Friends, Family or Non-Divorce Professionals Give You Divorce Advice.

Kentucky Husband, who has been serving in the US army, and Wife have two Children together.

Husband and Wife divorce. Husband is ordered to pay child support.

Several years later, Wife seeks to modify child support.

Husband, representing himself, writes a letter to the Kentucky family court explaining that he has no attorney and asking the family court to accommodate his request that any hearings be coordinated so that he can attend by telephone, because he is out of state and has military obligations.

The family court coordinates a hearing and makes arrangements for Husband to participate by telephone. But, as so often happens, the docket gets backed up and Husband’s case is not actually heard until two hours later than was expected.

Husband is unable to participate then.

The family court proceeds without Husband, utilizing public records culled from the internet. The family court enters an order retroactive to the first of the month of the hearing.

Wife later files to have Husband held in contempt for not complying with the family court’s modified child support order.

Again, Husband, representing himself, faxes the court a motion to postpone the hearing Wife has scheduled. In his paperwork, he sometimes uses the word “stay”. Husband’s response to Wife’s papers states again that he is in the army and that he was ordered not to go to Kentucky, and explicitly invokes the Service Member’s Civil Relief Act.

Husband also sends a letter from his Commander and his Nurse Case Manager, both indicating that Husband is being treated for significant physical injuries, and is also receiving mental health services and should not have contact with Wife.

Husband also requests sanctions and a protective order against Wife and requests that his child support be reduced.

The family court ignores Husband’s efforts to invoke federal legal protections for service members, as well as Husband’s medical status and efforts to arrange counsel and telephonic participation in the proceedings. Even though Wife’s attorney does bring them to the attention of the family court.

The family court holds Husband in contempt and fines him for failing to comply with the recently modified child support order. Husband is found to be in arrears by approximately $400. The family court also orders Husband to pay Wife’s modest attorney’s fees.

Husband subsequently files to overturn the modified child support order and all the orders entered afterwards, based upon it. Repeatedly indicating that he is in the military and invoking protections under federal law.

The family court denies all of Husband’s requests to appear by phone but allows “reasonable time” for him to arrange to appear in person … or his requests for relief might be stricken or denied without his participation.

The family court then proceeds to deny Husband’s motions based upon his failure to set hearings and attend to press his motions.

Husband appeals.

On appeal, the appellate court overturns all of the child support modification, contempt and related orders entered. The family court failed to consider, as required by law, whether Husband’s inability to participate in the modification hearing would adversely affect his interests.

The Service Member’s Civil Relief Act is supposed to be construed liberally to protect service members called up to active duty to serve their country. Husband substantially complied with the Act.

The family court proceeded to the modification hearing without Husband, despite Husband’s efforts to appear, and denied his later requests to appear by phone or to obtain a continuance due to his service.

The appellate court remands for a new hearing on modification of child support, to be conducted in compliance with the Service Member’s Civil Relief Act.

Read more in this Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion.

Colorado Husband and Wife have been divorced for five years.

They have two Sons together.

Their Younger Son, now ten, has special needs and lives with Wife, a college professor and her second husband.

Their Older Son, now thirteen, lives with Husband.

A relatively unusual, but not unheard of, custody arrangement.

The Colorado family court orders Wife to create a private e-mail account for Younger Son and to get Younger Son a cell phone to use to communicate with Husband.

That was three months ago.

Wife allegedly has yet to comply with the divorce court’s order.

The family court holds Wife in contempt … and sentences Wife to ninety days in jail.

Wife is let out after four days.

Husband challenges Wife’s early release … and Wife is incarcerated for another day and a half.

Wife reportedly fears that her position has been placed in jeopardy by her confinement. She has reportedly mortgaged her home to fund hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in her divorce court case.

It is unclear why Wife did not comply with the family court order and risked being held in contempt and jailed.

Wife contends that she has encouraged communication between Younger Son and Husband, and that Son calls Husband weekly. She reportedly does not comprehend the divorce court’s harsh treatment of her.

Wife also contends that Husband denies her access to Older Son and will be pursuing that in family court.

Read more in

• this [UK] Daily Mail article: University professor jailed for failing to set up email account for her 10-year-old son

• this Denver ABC KMGH 7 News article: CSU Prof. Jailed 4 Days In Custody Battle

• this Denver ABC KMGH 7 News article: CSU Prof. Jailed Again In Child-Custody Battle.

Divorce used to be the enemy of the family cited by family values advocates. No longer.

Cohabitation has since overtaken divorce by a long shot.

Social scientists associated with the University of Virginia report that divorce has returned to dramatically lower pre-1970s levels.

But cohabitation has risen even more dramatically.

Forty percent of American children will now live in a home where at least one of their parents is cohabiting with another adult.

And cohabitating couples are 170% more likely to break up by the time children in the home reach twelve years of age than are married couples.

And those children are more likely than others to use drugs, suffer from depression, be delinquent and drop out of high school.

Those children are also three times more likely to be physically, emotionally or sexually abused than other children are.

Read more in this press release: Cohabitation, Not Divorce, is Now Linked to Rising Rates of Family Instability in America.

Louisiana Father and Mother have lived together for about ten years. The police have been summoned to their home on more than one occasion, and as recently as about a month ago.

They have a seven year old Son together who is disabled by cerebral palsy.

Mother reportedly leaves much of Son’s care to Father. Father reportedly resents having to care for Son, who is wheelchair bound and requires a feeding tube.

Mother goes out to attend to repairing her car.

Father allegedly murders Son by beheading him with a meat cleaver. Son’s head is left on the road which leads to the family’s home.

The rest of Son’s body is found in a trash bag nearby, the feet and one hand also severed.

Father is arrested for first degree murder and is confined. He faces the death penalty if convicted.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Jeremiah Lee Wright decapitated own 7-year-old disabled son; chopped up body to spite mom: cops

Desperate wannabe parents for whom traditional adoption does not work can become easy prey for people looking to take advantage of them.

Recently, one of them, a wealthy Socialite, shelled out $180,000 for a baby carried to term by a surrogate mother in the Ukraine.

Only to discover that her baby and many similar “designer babies” are full siblings.

Canadians lament that alimony, or spousal support, is “all over the map” and unpredictable in cases where the paying spouse has high earnings, over $350,000.

In the US, some would say that alimony is all over the map across the board, regardless of the paying spouse’s income.

Why?

In a nutshell, in the US, states do not have alimony guidelines, formulae or charts to guide (or constrain) court awards, as they do for child support.

That is really the long and short of why spousal support awards may be inconsistent and unpredictable.

As in Canada, settling alimony disputes via mediation maintains greater privacy and reduces risk.

Read more in this Canadian Lawyer article: All over the map.

Wisconsin Mother has Son while she is imprisoned.

Maternal Grandparents raise Son … until he is five years old.

When Son is three years old, Father files a family court case to establish legally that he is Son’s father and to win custody of Son.

Prior to trial in family court, Father and Grandparents come to a child custody and timesharing agreement granting Father custody, but also granting Grandparents substantial visitation with Son. That agreement is adopted into a visitation order by the family court.

Later, Father seeks to modify the agreed order with the intention of reducing Grandparents’ timesharing and visitation.

At trial on Father’s proposed modification, the family court does modify its previous order, but the court still awards Grandparents substantial visitation with Son, although less than previously agreed.

Father appeals, raising several technical arguments relative to a Wisconsin grandparents’ visitation statute and a landmark federal constitutional case.

On appeal, an intermediate level appeals court upholds the family court’s award of substantial school year visitation to Grandparents at trial, but reverses and remands for further proceedings as to nonschool year visitation, based upon ambiguity in Father’s court papers as to whether Father was seeking to modify visitation outside the school year at trial.

Read more in this Wisconsin family court opinion and this Kids Matters Inc article: Visitation Rights of Grandparents Reaffirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

Nebraska Mother has Son in 2001.

Mother’s gay Partner of twenty years was actively involved in choosing Mother’s sperm donor for Son’s birth, planning and financing the in vitro fertilization, and raising Son until their breakup in 2006.

Mother allowed Partner to visit with Son for a year and a half afterwards.

Then Mother allegedly cut off all contact with Partner – for two years now.

Nebraska does not recognize gay marriage or civil unions, nor allow adoptions by gays.

Partner files for visitation and timesharing.

Prior to trial, the Nebraska family court dismissed Partner’s case for visitation and timesharing. Partner appealed.

On appeal, Nebraska’s highest court held that Partner nonetheless may argue in family court that she is a legal parent based on her course of parental conduct toward Son. This principle of in loco parentis has long been applied to stepparents and grandparents.

This ruling is consistent with rulings in several similar cases in Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The Nebraska Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to take evidence in regard to Partner’s claims.

Read more in this Omaha World-Herald article: Ruling: Woman can seek custody.

Florida Mother and Father have a Toddler together.

Mother takes Toddler to a shopping center in a stroller on a weeknight.

Mother tells Toddler to stay put outside, while Mother goes to get Toddler a candy bar.

Mother allegedly enters a bar – and gets a cocktail.

Soon, it starts to rain outside.

Patrons of the bar call police about the Toddler left alone outside in the rain.

Mother is arrested.

At her first appearance in court, Mother tries to tell the presiding judge that she went to the bar to apply for a job.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Florida woman tells judge she was going to look for a job when she left baby outside a bar.

Mother and Father have eight year old Son.

Son is autistic.

Mother is a multi-millionaire businesswoman who reportedly retired to care for Son.

Mother takes Son to posh New York hotel.

During their stay, Mother allegedly kills Son with an overdose of prescription pills.

Mother’s suicide note is found in the hotel.

But Mother is still alive, if just barely.

Their hotel suite is littered with pills.

Mother is arrested on murder charges.

Mother’s pricy defense team assert that Mother acted to protect Son from sexual abuse by Father and other abuses by “predators” in their lives – and intended to commit suicide by drug overdose after her “mercy killing” or “altruistic filicide” of Son.

It is unknown whether Mother pursued any other avenues to protect Son from the alleged abuse.

Mother reportedly has psychological challenges.

A sample of Mother’s blood, taken near the time of the murder, was reportedly lost prior to testing at the hospital to which Mother was taken. Due to legal wrangling between the prosecution and the defense, there was a significant delay after collection before testing was undertaken.

Mother has been confined since her arrest a year and one-half ago, and her most recent request for bail has been rejected.

Read more in

Every state views it differently. In fact, an argument could be made that every family court judge views it differently.

What?

Drug use. By a parent.

The potential field of drugs that may be used and/or abused is broad: cocaine, methamphetamines, heroin, too many to name really … and marijuana.

The latter of which more and more states are legalizing use of for medical purposes.

Not all the same?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Family law and juvenile dependency law often draw no hard and fast distinctions based on the particular drug of choice – or the type of use.

In family court or juvenile dependency court, the answer to whether the particular drug of choice – or the nature of the use – matters may well depend on what state you live in … or which family court judge or juvenile dependency court judge a case – your case – happens to be randomly assigned to.

Right now, in New York City, for example, the child welfare agency may be following a policy of filing civil child neglect charges against parents caught with nominal amounts of pot and/or who have admitted to authorities using marijuana in the past. In cases where law enforcement takes no criminal legal action. But makes a notification or report to the child welfare agency hotline.

Although the criminal justice system’s hands are tied from even making an arrest, such parents still face loss of child custody of their children – or restrictions on their contact with their own children – through the family court system or the juvenile dependency court system. Often without any proof of actual demonstrated neglect or harm to their children.

And their children could be forced into foster care, at least temporarily.

Child welfare agencies often maintain that even recreational or medical marijuana users may in fact neglect their children. Fail to send them to school. Leave them unattended. Otherwise suffer impaired judgment while caring for them which exposes them to danger or risk. And, of course, that may be true.

Representatives of parents, on the other hand, counter that, once such parents are on the child welfare agency’s radar due to possession of nominal amounts of marijuana or admission of pot use, the agencies then are in a position to seek other grounds to act against the parents – and, as a result, sometimes they may in fact look for those grounds – and they may in fact find them. And, if they exist, in the context of child protection, does it matter how they were identified?

Such parents ultimately face high stakes consequences. Not only as to custody and visitation and timesharing. But also restriction of their prospects for employment working with children in a variety of capacities.

In New York, this civil court record raises a cloud over such parents until the parent’s youngest child turns twenty-eight years old.

In contrast to New York, California, which has legal medical marijuana use, now requires a showing of actual harm to children before their child welfare agency may mount a juvenile dependency case for removal of the children.

Needless to say, one may take a different view of these complex cases depending upon whether one’s vantage point is parental rights or children’s rights.

Read more in this New York Times article: No Cause for Marijuana Case, but Enough for Child Neglect.