General legal information furnished as a service of Fort Lauderdale / West Palm Beach family law attorney Janet Langjahr
Husband and Wife decide to marry.
Husband insists on prenup - or else.
Confusing prenup is quickly patched together with three different lawyers.
Under prenup, Wife waives everything. No property division in event of divorce. No alimony in event of divorce. No nothing in event of divorce.
Wife requests a valuation of Husband’s assets. Husband refuses - on the basis that it would be too expensive to obtain one.
Couple marry.
Turns out Husband is a multimillionaire.
Seven years later, couple splits up.
Wife asks for property division and alimony.
Trial court awards it, voiding prenup over Husband’s failure to disclose the value of his assets.
Canada’s Supreme Court refuses to hear Husband’s appeal, leaving the holding stand.
Some commentators vigorously condemn the trial court’s ruling. They criticize the court for requiring expensive asset valuations to validate prenups.
This attitude may be premature overreaction.
Several US states require asset disclosures in prenups. A precise formal valuation is not typically required though.
Just a disclosure of the rough nature and approximate value of the assets. Closer to $1 million or $10 million? $8 million or $12 million?
Is an “expensive, formal valuation” really required to give “fair notice” of the approximate value of what the spouse would be waiving?
Read more in this Canadian National Post article: Karen Selick: Court ruling means marrying for love is not an option.
When does the obligation to pay alimony end? That depends on many factors.
More and more, it is the intention of legislators, courts and divorcing couples that the alimony obligation end when the receiving spouse enters a marriage-like relationship, even if it lacks the ceremonial formality of marriage per se. In other words, “cohabitation”.
But what is “cohabitation”? That depends too.
New York’s highest appeals court recently addressed that very issue. In a case where a settlement agreement provided that alimony terminate if the wife lived with a new significant other for “60 substantially consecutive days”.
The evidence showed that she did in fact live with her significant other for the specified time period. What’s the issue?
Under prior New York case law, the intermediate appellate court concluded that cohabitation required “sharing of finances”. And that this “couple” did not do.
New York’s highest court held that the definition of cohabitation depends on diverse factors and the parties’ intent.
The decision is expected to incite much litigation over cohabitation as applied to the specific facts of particular cases.
Florida’s counterpart to NY law on “cohabitation” sets forth the factors comprising a “supportive relationship”.
Read more in this Newsday article: Court: ‘Cohabitation’ ambiguous in NY divorce law.
Georgia Husband and Wife prepare for second marriage each.
They make a prenuptial agreement. Wife waives claims to alimony, the marital home and other assets in the agreement.
Fast forward several years.
Divorce case begins. The Court awards temporary alimony to Wife and shared temporary possession of the marital home to both.
Although there is no prior history of violence in the marriage, the Court also orders Husband to turn his guns over to his father during the case. Perhaps an omen of things to come.
Next, the Court voids the prenuptial agreement. Husband not happy.
Finally, the Court orders mediation, a process by which spouses meet with a neutral third party in an effort to come to a settlement agreement.
Husband and Wife went to mediation one morning. They did not settle their case though.
The Husband called in to his job that he wouldn’t be at work that evening.
Just hours after the mediation, the Husband beat Wife to death with an aluminum baseball bat.
Afterwards, he fatally shot himself with a gun.
Husband reportedly confessed to Wife’s attorney and his own work supervisor.
No one anticipated this eruption of domestic violence - except perhaps the judge who ordered Husband’s guns removed from the home.
Among other things, this case demonstrates the potential danger of husband and wife living together in the marital home during a divorce.
If it is necessary, a Florida court (and courts in other states as well) can order that one of the spouses temporarily move out of the marital home until the end of the case.
Read more in this Athens [GA] Banner-Herald article: Couple’s legal fight ends in their deaths
Man marries woman. Couple has child.
Man becomes city manager of a Florida town.
Man has sex change operation.
Man-turned-woman gets discharged from city manager job.
Couple begins divorce.
Couple reaches agreement under which former husband pays former wife alimony and child support.
In an unusual property division provision of the marital settlement agreement, former wife will be entitled to one-half of any monies former husband receives from selling his / her story to the media in the form of a book or movie.
Read more in this Tampa Tribune article: Transgendered Ex-Largo Manager Gets Divorce Terms
They used to be primarily about how property would be divided in the event of divorce - or death of a spouse.
And perhaps alimony and attorney’s fees in the event of a divorce.
In the old days.
Modern prenups have gotten more expansive … and creative.
He wants guarantees about how frequently they will have sex.
They each want promises that the other will maintain - or lose - weight.
He wants a guarantee she will get pregnant - within a certain number of years, months, days, etc.
She wants a “no smoking pledge”.
And on and on.
Social promises, for a social contract.
Morally binding perhaps. Not legally enforceable.
The sole remedy: take it - or leave it (also known as divorce).
But such provisions are more and more common. Kind of like personalized wedding vows.
One newer promise finding its way into prenups is in the more traditional vein, but updated and enforceable.
A promise to pay or provide health insurance to the other spouse.
This makes perfect sense in times where people are often driven to marriage to obtain affordable health insurance coverage.
Read more in this US News & World Report article: Prenuptial Agreements to Lose Weight, Have Sex.
Work your fingers to the bone supporting the family while your spouse goes to school to eventually bring more bacon home to the family.
… Then get dumped when your spouse finally receives his or her sheepskin.
It’s a classic drama that plays out over and over again.
The exploited spouse views that degree as a commodity that he or she in essence bought for their spouse.
But is the degree itself property that has an intrinsic value that can be divvied up on the marital balance sheet?
Most states say no, Utah and Florida among them.
What about the understanding of the expected quid pro quo between the spouses?
Well, this varies from state to state, but it’s best not to expect too much based on an implied understanding or even a verbal agreement.
As in other areas of life, there is just no substitute for a solid written contract reflecting the expectations of both parties.
In Utah, a divorcing wife recently went outside of her husband’s divorce case to file a separate civil lawsuit for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
While some have criticized taking this dispute outside the family court, the Utah Court of Appeals held that the wife could press her civil suit but that she would have to prove a written contract.
Not surprisingly, the couple never hired attorneys to draw up a formal legal contract. But there reportedly were a series of e-mails back and forth that may be deemed to constitute a contract.
Of course, even where there is no written contract and the degree per se may not be divisible, there may be more than one way for the exploited spouse to skin the cat. For example, the professional practice founded upon the degree may have a value that can be divided. Or the degreed spouse’s income may be split up, with a portion going to alimony. Or the exploited spouse may at least be reimbursed for the money spent on tuition to obtain that degree.
Read more in this Salt Lake City Deseret News article: Little redress available for ’support’ spouses.
After the divorce. Before the remarriage.
Second and subsequent marriages are more likely to fail than first marriages.
At the same time, each spouse in a second marriage is more likely to enter the union with assets, debts - and children.
Making things more complicated.
A prenup is the way to think through, negotiate and agree upfront who gets what in the event of a divorce - or death - of a spouse. The surviving spouse. His kids, her kids, their kids, a combination of all of the above?
Before the marriage, either party can walk away if agreement can’t be reached - unscathed, at least financially.
But the instant the “I dos” are exchanged and wedding gifts received, there is no turning back and the other spouse and/or a court have a say in who gets what - and escape is less likely to be unscathed.
Read more in this Kiplinger’s article: Blended Family Finances.
A wealthy British advertising executive and publisher, husband and father, divorced his wife.
And, according to him, the rumors started. He abandoned them, leaving them with nothing, and so on.
Rightly or wrongly, he believes he has been maligned, criticized, scorned … speculated about.
Yet he believes the settlement was generous, and resents the whispers behind his back.
So, while most wealthy folks going through divorces are more likely to be looking to seal their court files from public scrutiny, this man decided to strike back in a very public way.
He launched a website intended to set the record straight about his divorce.
On the site, he purports to disclose the terms of his divorce settlement.
He hopes it will quell the wild rumors.
Time will tell.
Read more in this UK Independent article: Businessman puts divorce deal on web to stop ‘rumour mill’ and this [India] Economic Times article: Millionaire posts divorce details on net to stop rumours.
Local Boca Raton area couple divorced in 2001.
As part of an agreement between them, Husband paid Wife an extra $1.5 million on the condition that she not fight him for custody of their children. There were also provisions to block Wife from fleeing the jurisdiction with their children.
If Wife later challenged any part of the settlement agreement, the agreement required her to refund the $1.5 million paid to her.
Wife sheltered her settlement money offshore.
In 2003, Wife accused Husband of violating their agreement - and sought a modification of the settlement.
The Court ruled that her sought-after modification was a challenge to the settlement agreement, and ordered the Wife to refund the $1.5 million. The Court subsequently held her in contempt.
Warrants were issued for Wife’s arrest. And then Wife went on the run.
For two years. But Wife finally turned herself in early this year.
And served five months in confinement. Before agreeing to refund $1 million into a trust fund for the couple’s kids.
As part of this latest settlement agreement, Wife agreed not to contact their younger kids except by mail or e-mail, or to see their older minor child except under supervision - if the child gives written permission for any visitation. Wife also agreed not to live in the same town as the children - or any neighboring towns either.
And if Wife violates this settlement agreement, the agreement entitles Husband to recover not only the $1 million but also additional monies that he claims she owes him for her previous violations.
This case went up to the Florida Supreme Court while Wife was a fugitive. Three of the justices actually questioned the legality of the original settlement agreement, at least as to custody. But the majority of justices refused to entertain that position of the Wife while the Wife was on the run.
Read more in this Palm Beach Post article: Jailed mom let go, will return some divorce money.
Divorce represents one of the occasions in a person’s life when they should give some consideration to life (or estate) planning documents. Admittedly, it may not be your first thought.
But, after one of you files for divorce, do you want your spouse to be the one to make decisions about your medical treatment, or lack of same, if something should happen to you? (Recall that health care surrogate / health care proxy / medical power of attorney you executed years ago.)
And if you should become permanently or temporarily disabled after one of you files for divorce, do you want your spouse to be able to conduct all manner of financial transactions, even with your separate assets? (Recall that durable general power of attorney you executed years ago.)
And, heaven forbid, you die before your divorce is final (which may put an end to your divorce) or right afterwards, do you still want to leave all (or any) of your assets to your current spouse? (Recall that will you executed years ago.)
All of the above should be reviewed and updated as soon as one of you files. But that is far from all.
Although many, many people do not realize it, their will does not control how all of their property passes. Much of people’s property today is non-probate property, which passes in accordance with how the asset is titled or a beneficiary form. Their will has no bearing on it.
Some examples include insurance policies, IRAs, jointly titled assets and trusts.
If your spouse is in debt up to his eyeballs, do you really want your life insurance payable to him or her, if your intention is to provide for your kids? (Recall that beneficiary designation form you executed years ago.)
401(k)s seem to fit into the garden-variety non-probate category of assets too, but be forewarned that federal law kicks in to protect a surviving spouse - unless special paperwork is executed. Although your spouse probably won’t agree to it during the divorce, that paperwork can be made part of a settlement.
And then there are state elective share statutes, also designed to protect a surviving spouse no matter what the deceased spouse’s will says. But again, there is special paperwork that can take your estate out of your spouse’s reach, but your spouse probably won’t agree during the divorce.
So, in appropriate circumstances, when possible, some pre-divorce planning may be desirable.
The above are just a few of the life (or estate) planning matters you should consider when contemplating divorce.
Read more in this Newsweek article: Financial Planning: Wills And Other Ways.
In many divorce cases, the most thorny property division question is: what to do with the marital home?
That is especially likely in a depressed real estate market like the current one.
One commonly agreed to option is for the spouse who wants to remain in the house to refinance the other spouse’s name off the mortgage.
But what if the occupying spouse doesn’t have sufficient income or credit to accomplish what was agreed to?
Well, that may depend on what state you live in.
A Virginia women is apparently facing jail time for not being able to refinance as agreed.
Due to the downturn in the real estate market, she also has been unable to sell her way around the refinancing obligation.
Read more in this WAVY TV 10 (VA) article: York Co. woman faces possible jail time for failing to refinance, sell home.
A millionaire and his wife are pitted against each other in an ongoing custody battle … over their dog.
The “father”, who has no children, has spent over $60,000 to win custody of the pooch.
At first, the couple engaged in roughly equal timesharing, by agreement.
Then the “mother” accused the “father” of abuse.
The judge didn’t buy it, and the “father”’s timesharing resumed …
Until the “mother” moved to Connecticut.
Since then, the “father” has had no time with their pet.
The “father” is filing an appeal.
Read more in this New York Daily News article: Fur flies over dog custody.
Last month I posted Canada to Enforce Premarital Agreements Crossing into Religious Issues.
In that case, the Canadian Supreme Court ordered a man to pay his ex-wife nearly $50,ooo for making her wait 15 years for a religious divorce - in violation of their prenuptial agreement.
The Canadian high Court based its ruling both on the contract and a Canadian statute that penalizes spouses who hold up religious divorces.
Now the ex-husband is seeking an appeal to challenge the statute as interfering with freedom of religion and as being discriminatory, because he argues that it targets Jews.
It is anticipated that the Canadian Supreme Court will decline to hear the appeal, possibly because the ruling was supported on contract grounds independent of the challenged statute.
Read more in this Montreal Gazette article: Man challenges divorce law.
The Canadian Supreme Court recently ruled that a premarital agreement is a binding contract and that the Court has the power and obligation to enforce it - even where it has religious implications.
In the case at hand, a premarital agreement provided that, in the event the couple’s marriage broke down, the husband was to seek a “get” for the wife. A get is a divorce under Jewish religious law.
Without the get, under religious law, the spouses are still considered married to each other.
The husband refused to pursue a get for fifteen years, until after the wife was beyond her child-bearing years.
The wife sued the husband for breach of contract, seeking damages because she was unable to remarry and have kids within her faith.
But, of course, under Canadian law, she had the legal right to remarry and have children.
Read more in this Montreal Gazette editorial: Court erred badly in divorce ruling.
Financial Considerations In A Divorce Settlement:
Read more in this Kansas City Fox 4 News article, FOX 4 Finance: Divorce Settlements.
Granted, taxes are not foremost in the minds of most couples going through a divorce.
But for couples with sufficient assets, income and civility, tax impact is an important consideration which may be factored into any divorce settlement.
Couples should pay particular attention to alimony, the sale of the house, income tax filing status and timing of the divorce.
An interest in real estate can be transferred from one spouse to another tax-free, but alimony payments are normally taxable income to the receiving spouse.
Capital gains treatment on sale of real estate may favor selling as a couple before the divorce, rather than as a single after the divorce.
For late-in-year divorces, it may pay to wait until early the following year.
In appropriate cases, it may be well worth consulting a tax accountant or tax attorney on the structuring of any divorce settlement.
Read more in this [New Jersey] Courier Post article: Keep your cool in a divorce to avoid tax headaches.
Under the law of California, Florida and many states, the obligation to pay alimony ends when the receiving spouse remarries, among other possibilities.
A divorcing California man agreed to pay his wife a certain sum of money each month as alimony.
After their divorce, his ex-wife registered her domestic partnership with another woman.
Believing the registered domestic partnership to be equivalent to marriage, the man thought he was released from the obligation to pay alimony.
But a California judge disagreed, ruling that the domestic partnership is mere cohabitation and not a marriage.
The man plans to appeal the court’s order that he continue to pay alimony.
The ruling highlights one of the less publicized impacts of the difference between marriage and civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Read more in this San Francisco Chronicle article: Man ordered to pay ex-wife alimony, despite domestic partnership.
Accountants offer some useful advice on how to protect yourself from financial ruin in a divorce.
Regardless of how financial accounts are titled, they may be marital assets or liabilities, subject to equitable distribution in the divorce.
But in the short term during the divorce case and before final judgment, accounts that are titled jointly pose special issues and challenges in relation to recourse options open to creditors and the other spouse.
Joint accounts also pose special issues and challenges in regard to which spouse has access to how much of the funds in the accounts and when.
How to best handle joint accounts during a divorce case really depends on the facts of the particular case.
But spouses should try to educate themselves on, among other things, how marital assets and liabilities are actually titled.
Beneficiary designations should be re-considered.
Provisions for children, especially minor children, should also be re-considered.
Read more in this St. Louis Post-Dispatch article: Protect yourself if you’re facing a divorce.
Husband dies of a gunshot wound inflicted on the side of the road. Wife is charged.
Murder trial.
First witness for prosecution: Divorce lawyer.
His testimony: Their prenup limits Wife’s take in event of a divorce to $250,000 plus half of jointly held assets, for an estimated total of approximately $1.5 million.
In event of Husband’s death, his estate would be about $6 million. Her inheritance, about $3 million.
Next key witness: Wife’s boyfriend.
His testimony: He shot the Husband, for which he pleaded guilty to stalking and a gun charge. Why did he do it? For half of her inheritance.
Read more in this [Cleveland] Plain Dealer Reporter article: Defense begins its case with divorce lawyer and this KDKA [Akron] CBS article: Tearful Donna Moonda Learns Jury’s Guilty Verdict.
Some spouses used to complain of an interfering inlaw. Things have changed. The interfering inlaw pales in comparison to the latest interference in some marriages.
Imagine trying to hold your own against your spouse’s employer or future business partners. Yet that is exactly what many spouses must do these days.
It is reported that many hedge funds are now mandating that prospective partners have an executed post-nuptial marital property settlement agreement waiving any interest in or claim to the hedge fund. Other funds merely strongly encourage it.
Following suit, postnups are also reportedly making a splash among partners in investment banking companies as well.
Before long, postnuptial waivers of claims to business entities may become the price of admission to partnership in numerous businesses, including, among many others, accounting firms, law firms, medical practices, etc.
Of course, it is important to keep in mind that waiving a claim to the business itself is not necessarily the same thing as waiving a claim to a share of the value of the business, which could be paid from other assets. It may, however, complicate the process of determining the value of the business.
But it all depends on how broadly or narrowly, and creatively, the postnuptial agreement is drawn.
Read more in this New York Times article: Hedge Funds: With More Money Comes More Post-Nups.
Despite rumors of change on the horizon, New York state still hasn’t adopted “no fault divorce”.
But, despite the seeming inconsistencies, the chief judge has announced a planned collaborative family law center. Its goal: faster, cheaper, friendlier divorces.
There is even anticipated to be free legal services for participants who can’t afford attorneys of their own. That would represent a new variation of collaborative family law.
Under current New York law, however, divorcing parties are still facing a long haul, first through collaborative family law efforts to reach an agreement, then through a year of separation under the agreement reached.
Read more in this New York Times article: Chief Judge Plans Center to Ease Divorce Process.
All too often, one bride or groom-to-be calls to set up an appointment to review a prenup - a few days before their wedding. As often as not, they cancel their appointment at the last minute.
From offhand remarks they make, it seems they have “spoken to some friends and relatives” and “they have concluded” that they have nothing to worry about.
“I’m signing the agreement at the last minute. I’m actually better off for not consulting an attorney. I’m really not too sure what my fiance’s assets are - but I’m not marrying them for their money anyway.”
And so on.
Those folks would probably cringe over a recent Rhode Island decision. The bride in that case was not represented by counsel, but the groom was. The couple signed the agreement just four days before the wedding. The groom’s major assets were listed - but their values weren’t.
The agreement contained typical, but empty, boilerplate language reciting that the parties had made full disclosure, that they were satisfied with it, and that they had had adequate opportunity to review it.
The trial court refused to enforce the agreement on the grounds that it was unconsionable, the groom had not made full disclosure and that, therefore, the bride’s execution was involuntary. But that was the trial court.
On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed that the agreement was unconsionable - but reversed, upholding the unconsionable agreement.
In everyday language, the Rhode Island high court held that: if you signed it, you’re going to have to live with it.
And that is not inconsistent with the modern jurisprudence regarding prenups, absent fraud.
While there was some reported language suggesting that the holding was based at least in part on the wife’s failure to meet her burden of proof as to her allegations, the tone of the report suggests that the wife would have had to have proved fraud to satisfy the appellate court.
Read more in this Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly article: RI Supreme Court rules prenup agreement valid despite unconscionability.
Missouri ex-husband stops paying alimony due under an “unmodifiable” divorce settlement.
His defense: he contends that his ex-wife tried to hire a professional hitman to murder him, and he shouldn’t have to finance her misdeeds.
The man’s argument is hampered, however, by a complete lack of corroboration of his allegation. He didn’t even report the alleged attempted murder to the police.
The appellate court posed tough questions about the dangers of opening the floodgates to litigation to terminate support obligations based on nothing more than unsupported allegations of misconduct.
But the ultimate flaw in the ex-husband’s version of events, however, is that the ex-wife has no rational motive for murder. She would lose out on all future support if her ex-husband were murdered.
Read more in this St. Louis Post-Dispatch article: Ex-husband alleges murder-for-hire plot in alimony case.
Prenups are all over the news again, thanks to a super-wealthy celebrity who didn’t do one.
But prenups aren’t just for people like him.
Still more prenup tips are laid out in this Kiplinger’s article: A Primer on Prenups.
Highlights of the article are:
Marital (pre and post) agreements can help assure that each spouse’s legal obligations and expectations are met - even if the new couple remains together until one of them dies.
Many people sour on marital agreements don’t really grasp that - or the legal and emotional obligations that may have arisen out of a prior marriage and/or existing children.
When embarking on a second (or later) marriage, communication and analysis before the wedding about each party’s financial situation is even more important than in a first relationship.
These may spawn individual and/or joint action plans for couples to work on before the wedding.
Read more in this Portsmouth [NH] Herald article: ‘I do’ — again: Money does matter when remarrying.
Prenups (or lack of same) have gotten a lot of media attention lately, both in the context of “regular folks” and of celebrity divorces.
Their cousin is the postnuptial (or postnup) agreement, often also known as a property settlement agreement.
Although sometimes also known as a marital settlement agreement or a separation agreement, a postnup really doesn’t have to mean the end is coming.
Rather, a postnup can be thought of as a prenup done after the wedding - sort of.
There are similarities and differences between the two types of documents and, believe it or not, they are not mutually exclusive documents.
A postnup may make up for failure to get around to timely and properly executing a prenup before the wedding.
It may also modify, or even supersede and replace a prenup.
It may address changes that have developed since the wedding, either in the financial circumstances of the couple - or in the evolving relationships within the blended and expanded family.
In fact, some couples execute multiple postnups over the years.
Like a prenup, a postnup can be designed to “kick in” in either or both of two dinstinctive situations:
Read more in this BankRate.com article: For richer or poorer … or according to the postnuptial agreement.
WomansDivorce.com shares the expertise of financial planners and analysts in an article titled Divorce and Your Finances - The 7 Most Costly Mistakes.
The article serves as a good reminder of some of the more subtle pitfalls to watch out for in negotiating settlements, such as:
Muslims call it a marriage contract. And they are gaining popularity among American Muslims.
Americans of all faiths call similar documents prenups. And, as previously posted, they too are gaining popularity among Americans generally.
The Muslim marriage contracts in use in America today are more likely to tread into non-financial matters, the enforceability of which may remain untested in American courts - or may previously have been rejected by American courts - when outside the context of Muslim marriage contracts.
But the law may be evolving, at least in this context, according to this Lowell [MA] Sun article: Marriage contract a tool for Muslim women’s rights.
An organization of Muslim women lawyers is at work developing a model marriage contract for use among Muslim Americans.
Here’s a local Palm Beach County case that powerfully illustrates why couples entering subsequent marriages may wish to enter prenups if they have children from previous marriages.
The subsequent marriage was quite lengthy and the couple amassed many millions in assets. The marriage fell apart and there was a vigorous dispute over the assets.
Before a property settlement agreement was finalized, the husband died in an accident.
The wife then contended that the divorce proceedings should be terminated - a position well supported by law.
The husband’s family contended that a temporary agreement should be made permanent.
Although permanent agreements often do turn out quite similarly to permanent agreements, it doesn’t have to happen that way. And temporary agreements are - by definition - temporary, that is, only intended to govern during the divorce case.
The trial court adopted the husband’s argument. The wife appealed and later passed away. But the appeals court just ruled in her favor.
So what happens to all those millions the husband made?
They will be inherited by the wife’s son from a previous marriage.
Even parents with more modest estates agonize over the prospect of their own children being similarly disinherited in favor of a subsequent spouse’s children from a previous marriage.
There’s a moral here: this “surprise” outcome could have been easily avoided with just a little premarital planning.
Read more in this Palm Beach Post article: Widow wins money battle posthumously.
An immigrant who reportedly overstayed her visa was arrested here in Florida - the day before she and the father of her baby were to finalize an agreement on paternity, custody and child support for their baby.
The woman had allegedly been working to support her baby, using someone else’s social security number.
It turns out that the father’s attorney previously represented the immigration agent, who was instrumental in the mother’s arrest, in his own divorce.
And the father reportedly went around threatening the baby’s mother with deportation if she didn’t reconcile with him. In fact, the local police cited him for trespassing at the baby’s grandmother’s home, where he allegedly made the same threats of deportation.
The father is reportedly on probation for drug charges.
The woman’s attorneys believe that the common attorney link between the immigration agent and the baby’s father is more than coincidence, and may bear on the legality of the case against her and, therefore, her defense.
The judge in the case ordered the sheriff’s office to disclose the identity of law enforcement’s informant.
But the sheriff’s office flat out refuses to comply with the court’s order - and makes no bones about it.
Perhaps there is something to the defense’s suggestions that this woman, just one of many local immigrants allegedly improperly using another’s social security number to work, was singled out for unequal treatment under the law because of the child custody and support case, and the father’s attorney’s presumed access to the immigration agent who had reportedly been his client.
Read more in this Treasure Coast Palm article: Indian River County Sheriff’s Office refuses to identify informant.
| Listen to Janet |