Mother remains undocumented for years. Father secures legal status on a temporary but renewing basis.

The government pursues increased child support from Father for their Daughter.

And then Father looks to get custody of Daughter.

To modify custody, Arkansas requires a material change of circumstances since entry of the previous child custody order.

At trial, the family court modifies child custody and awards custody of Daughter to Father. It appears that the trial judge bases his ruling upon his personal political and policy views, rather than Arkansas child custody law.

On appeal, Arkansas’ highest court reverses and restores custody of Daughter to Mother.

It turns out that the circumstances Father complains of, Mother’s undocumented status and lack of a valid driver’s license, are exactly the same as they were at the time of Mother’s and Father’s divorce. They were apparently acceptable to Father then, and the marital settlement agreement was approved by the family court and adopted in its final judgment.

Further, the evidence at trial showed that Father had had little or no contact with Daughter for about two years.

Read more in this Arkansas Times piece: Illegal Immigrant.

Florida Wife allegedly tells undocumented Man and Woman that she is an agent with the office of Immigration Services and that they will be deported.

Wife says she must take Baby into custody, and Man and Woman give her Baby.

Man and Woman realize that something is not right and report incident to authorities.

Wife pleads guilty to charges of kidnapping and impersonating a public officer, and could get sentenced to life in prison.

Wife is married to a professional baseball player.

Wife previously served time for arson, grand theft and forgery.

Read more in

• this FanHouse news article: Wife of Pirates Outfielder Could Face Life in Prison for Kidnapping
• this Tampa Tribune article: Woman pleads guilty in kidnapping of migrant workers’ baby and
• this Tampa Tribune article: Woman could get life for taking infant

Husband and Wife have Son, who is also a US citizen.

The family lives in the US, specifically California, for Son’s whole life.

Wife is unhappy and now claims to be a victim of abuse.

While on vacation visiting family in India, Wife decides to stay in India to see how she enjoys the work there and to have Son in India while she is doing so.

Husband arguably consents to the seemingly temporary arrangement.

Two months after arriving in India and after Husband files for divorce and custody of Son in the US, Wife seeks an Indian court order awarding her custody and guardianship of Son.

Husband intervenes in the Indian action, arguing that India does not have jurisdiction over Son.

The Indian trial court nonetheless proceeds and find for the Wife.

But the intermediate level appellate court reverses, concluding that Son is a permanent resident of the US and merely a temporary resident of India and therefore defers to the California court’s jurisdiction over Son.

The case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court of India.

Its forthcoming ruling will impact many families in similar situations.

India is not currently a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Read more in this [Indian] Daily News & Analysis article: Can Indian judiciary interfere with orders of courts abroad? SC to decide.

Wealthy French Father, accompanied by counsel, takes papers that look like official Mexican court papers before a Texas judge, representing that he has legal custody of Son.

The Mexican court papers were reportedly incomplete and misleading.

Apparently, neither Father’s counsel nor the court verified them.

Texas judge enters pick-up order for Son, with a hearing date scheduled for shortly afterwards.

Law enforcement officers pick up Son, who protests vigorously the entire time, to the effect that Father beats him.

Officers ignore Son’s words.

Mother tries to get Son back at airport.

Son refuses to accompany her – out of fear that Father will kill Mother.

Father absconds with Son.

Not for the first time, according to Mother.

Father and Son miss scheduled court date.

Texas court issues warrant for Father’s arrest on perjury and custodial interference.

That was two months ago.

Father allegedly abducted Son to France for two years, reportedly beating him and leaving him unsupervised and denying any contact at all with Mother.

Read more in this Fox News article: Worldwide Manhunt Under Way for Fugitive Father, Missing Son and this San Antonio Express News article: Dad accused of perjury, kidnapping.

Later, Husband contacts Wife and invites her and two year old Baby to China to reconcile.

Within a day of Wife’s and Baby’s arrival, Husband reportedly disappears with Baby. Husband takes up with Chinese Girlfriend.

Husband leaves Baby with a babysitter and fails to pick her up. Baby ends up in a Chinese orphanage. After Husband allegedly abducts her.

Wife and Mexican Embassy official show up where Husband is staying. Husband goes after them both with knives, but is not prosecuted in China.

Wife obtains a New York State court order, awarding her sole custody of Baby.

China is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and does not recognize foreign child custody orders.

Wife obtains a US visa by virtue of being a victim of domestic violence. Husband is deported from China.

Warrant is issued in US and Husband is arrested by US federal authorities for international parental kidnapping.

A combination of US nonprofit agency attorneys, private attorneys, Chinese private investigators, the Mexican consulate in China, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US State Department, and Wife’s resourcefulness, initiative and determination culminated in Wife finding Baby, abandoned in the Chinese orphanage.

Read more in this New York Times article: Family Fights Odds, Retrieving Kidnapped Girl.

Re-consideration of standing policy is prompted under the new administration by the application for asylum of a Mexican woman who was beaten, raped and imprisoned by a man who set her bed on fire while she was in it.

It remains a government concern that this new protected class of asylum applicants not “open the floodgates”.

Read more in this New York Times editorial: Asylum for Battered Women and this New York Times article: New Policy Permits Asylum for Battered Women.

Mother resolves to rid Daughter of them. With a voodoo ritual.

Mother allegedly pours rum on the floor in a circle surrounding Daughter and then pours some more on Daughter’s head and then … sets fire to Daughter.

When Daughter is engulfed in flames, Grandmother puts the fire out with water.

Then Mother and Grandmother simply bathe and put Daughter to bed, without any medical treatment.

Not until the next day, at a relative’s urging, does Mother take Daughter to a hospital.

Daughter has second and third degree burns over twenty-five percent of her body.

Mother is charged with assault and endangering the welfare of a child.

Mother denies her guilt and tells police the incident was an accident caused by Daughter startling her while she was boiling rice.

Mother also denies awareness of Daughter’s burns.

Mother blames Grandmother for putting Daughter to bed without medical treatment.

Grandmother is charged with reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child.

Daughter, still in the hospital in a medically induced coma, is now in child protective custody.

Daughter told her foster caregiver what happened.

Neighbors reportedly heard Mother and Grandmother yelling at Daughter to remain down on her knees for hours on end on various occasions.

It does not appear that any of the neighbors ever called the child abuse hotline or the police to intervene on Daughter’s behalf.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Prosecutors: Queens mom Marie Lauradin performed voodoo fire ritual that left daughter, 6, scarred.

Immigration authorities conduct a raid there.

136 illegal immigrants are taken into custody.

One Mother is sentenced to jail, with deportation likely to follow.

American couple seeks to adopt Mother’s Baby.

Missouri Court terminates Mother’s parental rights to Baby based on abandonment of Baby.

The Court finds that Mother hasn’t contributed to the Baby’s support or tried to visit with Baby … while in jail.

Although Mother may have received two letters from the Court and the adoptive parents’ attorney, Mother doesn’t read English and does not have an attorney for her custody claim.

Mother has not known where Baby is.

Every time Mother has gone to Court, Mother has tried to find out about Baby.

Terminations of parental rights of mothers like Mother are occurring with increasing frequency, with babies like Baby being adopted by Americans.

Read more in this New York Times article: After Losing Freedom, Some Immigrants Face Loss of Custody of Their Children.

A grandmother visiting her baby grandson was picked up by immigration agents on an outstanding deportation warrant.

It seems that social workers advised immigration officials of the time and place of the scheduled visitation.

The immigrant family members could not see what their legal status had to do with their visitation.

Some groups warn that schemes like this discourage immigrants from cooperating with child abuse investigations.

But the Department of Children and Families maintains that it is just complying with its legal obligations.

Law enforcement authorities indicated that when they encounter people with outstanding arrest warrants against them, they routinely arrest them.

Whatever procedures apply, arresting illegal immigrants sometimes leaves children in this country without caregivers in their own families.

Read more in this South Florida Sun Sentinel article: Social workers used children as bait in immigration case, man claims.

Their daughter (Daughter) is born in Mexico in 1996.

When Mother and Father separate in 2001, Mother returns to the US. Mother alleges that Father committed domestic violence.

Father contends that Mother wrongfully kept Daughter in the US beyond her agreed few months’ stay in 2002.

Although they have both been here for years now, technically, neither Mother nor Daughter are in this country legally.

Over four years after Mother allegedly wrongfully retained Daughter in the US, Father applies for return of Daughter to Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It is not clear why Father waited so long to act.

A federal trial court holds that Daughter should be returned to Father in Mexico for a custody determination there.

On appeal, the intermediate level appellate court reverses, based on an exception in the Hague Convention where, due to the lengthy passage of time, the child in question has become well settled in his or her new location, so that return would only cause the child further distress.

By all accounts, Daughter is well-adjusted and doing well in the US.

Some disagree with the appellate court’s ruling because none of the family is a US citizen or legal resident.

As with all decisions under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, this ruling is a not a determination of custody, or in which country Daughter will ultimately live. It just decides which country has jurisdiction to determine custody, and where the child will remain until custody is determined.

It is likely that the appellate Court was heavily influenced by Daughter’s protracted stay in this country before Father ever chose to file an application for her return. There is nothing to suggest that Father’s delay resulted from ignorance of where Daughter was abducted to.

Read more in

• this LA Times article: Huntington Beach girl can stay in U.S. during custody dispute
• this Fort Mill [SC] Times article: Mexican girl can stay in US during custody battle and
• this Orange County Register article: Mexican girl living in Surf City allowed to stay

Husband founded TV station with mission of portraying Muslims as peace-loving.

Husband reportedly became violent with Wife.

Wife obtains order of protection barring Husband from marital home.

Husband allegedly murders Wife … by beheading her … at the TV station.

Husband turns himself in to authorities.

Husband is charged with murder.

Husband was reportedly under stress because his business wasn’t doing well lately.

There has been some speculation as to whether the murder was a so-called “honor killing” under Islam.

Read more in this New York Post article: BUFFALO ‘BEHEADING’ and this Times of India article: Pak-American beheads wife, sparks debate about Sharia.

Federal government brings deportation proceedings against Father for multiple driving convictions.

How do immigration court and family court impact each other?

There are reportedly few guidelines for judges or parties when immigration law and family law collide with each other head-on.

Federal trial court allows Father to remain in the US, so Father can follow state court visitation and child support order (based on higher US calculations). The Court concluded that federal immigration law should defer to state policy in family law.

But a federal appeals court reversed the ruling and sent it back to the trial court. The federal government argued that the case should be viewed no differently than a run of the mill relocation case where the custodial parent seeks to move to another state.

The federal court agreed, ruling that the noncustodial parent could live in a border town – and the children could visit in the deported parent’s country. Of course, that may sit better in theory than in practice.

Whatever the outcome, Father will be violating one of two US court orders.

State courts generally only consider immigration issues from the perspective of whether the immigrant parent will likely flee with the child.

But what if the deported parent simply kept the child in the other country after visitation?

With stricter enforcement immigration laws, family court issues are anticipated to turn up in immigration courts with increasing frequency. Are they ready?

Read more in this Los Angeles Times article: Custody case of Long Beach boy complicates deportation of illegal immigrant.

Of the approximately 16,000 victims of fraud, force, coercion and abuse per year, about twenty percent wind up in Texas.

These illegal immigrants are often victims of domestic violence and abuse.

Immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, are often hesitant to speak out or seek help.

And so four women per day are murdered by their abusers.

But help is available in most communities. From shelters. And from nonprofit associations.

Read more in this Dallas Morning News editorial: Abuse of immigrants in focus.

Due to birth defects, for most of the American’s life, this individual could have been denominated either a male or a female. But the original birth certificate designated this individual a male.

Prior to the marriage, this individual had surgical removal of male genitalia, reportedly solely for health reasons. The individual’s birth certificate was subsequently amended and her gender was re-designated as female.

The month after the marriage, the American went to court to amend the birth certificate to again designate him as male. The American argued that the original amendment was an error.

But the trial court and, later, an appellate court, refused, holding that the American was time-barred from challenging the original amendment of the birth certificate.

The couple’s marriage license was revoked and the marriage annulled, because same sex marriage is not legal in Wisconsin.

As a result, the New Zealand woman was denied a visa to remain in the US.

The American is quite distressed over the woman’s loss of legal status in the US and plans to appeal to the highest court available.

Read more in this Fairfax New Zealand Limited article: Marriage struck down as husband fails to change gender.

In a New York subculture of immigrants from Africa, relationships are breaking or straining over much more graphic grounds: polygamy by the husband. A religious custom of multiple marriages has reportedly been imported with some Islamic African immigrants.

Although illegal and grounds for deportation, polygamy is apparently widely practiced by immigrant African families who often live “under the radar”.

A recent, much publicized building fire in the Bronx suddenly illuminated the polygamous lifestyles of some residents of the building.

Polygamy is associated with a culture of domestic violence and living conditions that may tend to attract the intervention of social services agencies.

Women from these immigrant groups often condemn polygamy. The men, however, reportedly defend or deny it.

Read more in this New York Times article: In Secret, Polygamy Follows Africans to N.Y.

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.

Although the judge reportedly wanted only to spare her from being deported, his concern was completely unnecessary.

First, federal law protects immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. Second, turning her over to immigration authorities was outside the province of the court.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the only reason that the woman’s legal status in this country came up on the courtroom record was because the judge delved into it with his questions – even though it was totally irrelevant to her application for an order of protection.

The judge’s misguided concerns over the woman’s right to stay in this country potentially placed her at risk of serious bodily harm.

Incidents like this underscore the importance of interdisciplinary training of judges in areas of law often overlapping with family and domestic violence law.

Read more in this LA Times article: Experts Criticize Judge’s Deportation Threat.

If one spouse sponsors the other one into the US, the sponsoring spouse typically must swear out an Affidavit of Support, Form I-864. The purpose of this form is, essentially, to assure that an immigrant will not become a public charge, but remain a responsibility of the citizen spouse.

Sponsoring spouses rarely give a thought to swearing out this affidavit when they are trying to bring their loved one into the US. Not so after the relationship takes a turn south.

That affidavit doesn’t mean anything if the couple divorces, does it? Wrong.

The government can hold the sponsoring spouse to the Affidavit of Support.

But that’s not all.

The immigrant spouse can also have the courts order the sponsoring spouse to make good on the Affidavit of Support.

This was confirmed in a recent federal court case litigated here in Florida.

Read more in this Immigration Daily article about the enforceability of affidavits of support in divorces from immigrants.