Florida Divorce * Child Custody * Domestic Violence Law Lawyer | Boca Raton

California lesbian couple have Twins.

Both partners are listed on Twins’ birth certificates and Twins’ have both partners’ names in their hyphenated surnames.

Shortly after Twins’ births, couple breaks up.

Biological Mother (Bio Mom) then takes up with sperm donor-Biogical Father (Bio Dad).

Lesbian couple had made no formal legal arrangements between themselves or, for that matter, with Bio Dad regarding Twins.

Bio Mom’s former lesbian partner (Other Mom) files paternity suit to get visitation with Twins.

California trial court orders shared legal custody of Twins between Bio Mom and Other Mom on a temporary basis.

Bio Mom, Other Mom and Bio Dad settle case, continuing same terms on permanent basis. Bio Dad’s rights, if any, are not known.

Bio Mom reportedly settled the case to avoid costly and drawn out litigation.

Read more in this Santa Cruz [CA] Sentinel article: Former Santa Cruz lesbian partners settle paternity suit.

Parental alienation.

Much has been written and said of it.

Yet neither the American Medical Association nor the American Psychological Association have recognized it.

Many courts have acknowledged it, however.

And confused it, at least in some cases, with trying to protect a child from a physically and/or psychologically abusive parent.

Resulting in some children being ordered into unsupervised timesharing and, in some cases, majority timesharing, with an abusing parent … to punish the so-called alienating (that is, protecting) parent.

In California, a legislator has sponsored a bill that, if passed, would deny the use of parental alienation in California’s family courts.

Is it better to err in favor of protecting an allegedly alienated parent’s “rights” or in favor of protecting a child from abuse?

Ultimately, that may be the real question on which use of parental alienation in court should turn.

Read more in this Capitol Weekly article: Parental Alienation must be excluded from all custody hearings.

It’s been ten years since the US Supreme Court all but stranded grandparents seeking visitation with their grandchildren out in the cold, but the grandparents of America refuse to be left there … and many state legislators have since taken up their cause, despite the high court’s ruling.

A Wisconsin statute allows a family court to order visitation for grandparents where the grandchildren’s parent has died and it is in the best interests of the children to have visitation with their grandparents.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently held that the statute encompasses overnight visitation.

The children’s surviving father argued that the statute violated equal protection under the law because it treats different types of parents differently based on whether their spouse is alive or dead.

The intermediate appellate court concluded that the distinction was justified by an overriding compelling state interest to protect a child’s interests after the death of a parent.

The father also argued that the overnight visitation awarded at the lower level exceeded the scope of the visitation contemplated by the statute and amounted to an improper “physical placement”.

The appellate court concluded that the plain meaning of the word visitation was consistent with overnight visitation.

Indiana has no statute like Wisconsin’s – yet. Indiana residents and a legislator fighting on their behalf are trying to change that.

Grandparents recently testified before the Indiana legislature about adult children arbitrarily withholding visitation with their grandchildren, maintaining that this hurt the grandchildren as well as the grandparents.

Read more in this Wisconsin Law Journal article: Overnight visitation is not physical placement and this Evansville [IN] Courier & Press article: Grandparents testify in Indy to establish visitation rights.

Unmarried Utah Mother gets pregnant by Father.

When Son is born, Father’s name is listed on birth certificate as Father.

But Father is in jail when Son is born, so Father doesn’t sign birth certificate.

So Father’s name is removed from Son’s birth certificate.

After about six months in Mother’s care, Son is taken into protective custody by child welfare agency.

Son eventually is placed with a foster family, with whom Son has remained for a couple of years.

Child welfare agency takes steps to terminate Mother’s parental rights.

Father files motion to intervene in that case.

Father fails to undergo a DNA test to prove that he is Son’s biological father before the scheduled trial over termination of Mother’s parental rights.

Then Mother agrees to give up her parental rights to Son.

Son is freed up for adoption under Utah law.

And Utah court concludes that Father lacks legal standing to assert parental rights to Son any longer.

Father maintains that no one ever advised him of the importance of signing Son’s birth certificate or proving his biological relationship to Son via DNA testing shortly after Son’s birth.

Father appeals trial court’s dismissal of his motion to intervene in the case against Mother over custody of Son.

Breaking new legal ground in Utah, the appellate court reverses, and grants Father a hearing to prove that he is Son’s biological father.

All Father wants is the right to obtain pictures of Son and e-mails about his development, which Son’s foster parents were apparently unwilling to agree to.

Read more in this [Salt Lake City] Deseret News article: Ruling offers new hope to unwed dads in Utah.

Many states offer or even require divorcing or separating parents to take a parenting class. Florida is one of those states, mandating a four hour class on co-parenting after separation.

Now, researchers at the University of Missouri’s Human Development and Family Studies program have developed an online program, called Focus on Kids Online, to comply with Missouri’s legal requirement. (Florida’s four hour class is also available online.)

Parents who have completed the Missouri program actually self-report better relationships and heightened awareness of problems – and solutions for those problems.

That is what may truly distinguish the University of Missouri program from its counterparts in Florida and other states.

Enthusiastic about the response, the University plans to offer the online program to other states in the future.

One suggestion in the program is that parents provide consistent routines and chores in each parent’s home. A great concept, but difficult to implement in practice.

Read more in this Science Daily article: Digital Solutions Developed to Support Divorced Families.

So many separating fathers have the preconceived notion that it is impossible for them to have majority timesharing with (or physical custody of) their children.

But they couldn’t be more wrong.

More and more separated and divorced dads want, and can and do get to have their children with them most of the time.

According to a recent article, fully fifty (50%) percent of fathers who seek equal or majority timesharing with (physical custody of) their children receive it.

Due to a combination of the recession and social change, the American family has changed … and family courts have adapted to it.

More and more mothers are the primary breadwinners in their families and more and more fathers are the primary caregivers for their children prior to separation.

Applying the same logic that traditionally resulted in awards of custody (primary timesharing) to stay-at-home mothers now results in awards of equal or majority timesharing (physical custody) to fathers … even when the mothers work only because the fathers don’t.

As a result, more than two million mothers do not have majority timesharing with (physical custody of) their children.

Read more in this New York Times piece: More Fathers Are Getting Custody in Divorce and this Working Mother article: Family Focus – Custody Lost.

I previously posted on a case where a North Carolina court ordered children out of homeschooling and back into public school at least in part to compensate for the mother’s religious views.

In a similar recent case, a girl was ordered out of homeschooling and into public school because of her “rigidity on faith”.

In an even more recent high profile case, a teenager fled her family in Ohio after converting to Christianity, for fear that her Muslim parents would execute a so-called honor killing on her. A Florida court ordered the teen returned to Ohio, but into foster care.

There are plenty of other cases lately where aspects of a parent’s religious beliefs or practices – or lack of same – appear to play a significant role in a parenting dispute’s outcome.

Unfortunately, the outcomes don’t always seem consistent – or logical – across the country.

Are family courts indirectly imposing their own religious values on minor children and their parents? And what of a parent’s constitutionally protected right of religious freedom?

These are the questions some are asking – and hoping the US Supreme Court will address in the near future.

Read more in this ChristianityToday article: Splitting Babies – Religious differences are making custody disputes even messier.

Residents of Maine will be voting next week on proposed legislation intended to broaden and simplify usage of marijuana for medical purposes.

What does that have to do with family law?

Well, one of the proposed provisions prohibits discrimination against patients in child custody matters.

A significant number of people have allegedly lost custody of their children just because they use medical marijuana – or grow it.

Specifically, the proposed legislation provides that patients cannot be deprived of custody or (presumably, unsupervised) timesharing or visitation unless their marijuana use renders them “unreasonably dangerous” to their child.

In other words, under the proposals, it would be illegal discrimination to deprive a parent of custody (or unsupervised visitation) just because the parent’s behavior with marijuana use makes the parent merely dangerous to their child.

Ironically, this kind of proposed language may give a medical marijuana user an advantage over a non-user … not to mention over their child. Who may only be in danger, but not unreasonable danger.

Read more in this Drug War Chronicle newsletter article: Feature: Maine Medical Marijuana Dispensary Initiative Ahead in November Election Campaign.

US-resident Mother refuses to allow Son to visit Israel-resident Father and attend school there for a year.

Both Israel and the US are parties to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Mother opposes, ironically citing a provision of the Hague Convention intended primarily for the benefit of fleeing victims of domestic violence.

The provision allows a court to refuse an otherwise-required return of a child if there is a serious risk that the child will be harmed, physically or psychologically, by return.

In this context, Mother, like others before her, argues that terrorism strikes in Israel make it too dangerous to order her child there.

Ohio judge partially accepts Mother’s argument. Court rules that child should go to Israel … but is barred from Haifa, Israel.

Other US judges have been in full sympathy with Mother’s argument in denying returns.

An Ohio attorney takes exception to the characterization of Israel as a “war zone” and believes that rulings refusing to return children to Israel aid terrorists at Israel’s expense.

That attorney has established a nonprofit association in Israel to assist parents pursuing return of their children to Israel.

It is reported that ten percent of divorced couples in Israel are new immigrants.

Read more in this Israel Haaretz article: Lawyer from U.S. sets up body to repatriate abducted Israeli kids

Tennessee Husband and Japanese immigrant Wife have two children. Couple divorce.

Wife is unhappy in Tennessee. She writes to Husband of her concerns that their children are “losing Japanese identity”.

Over the course of a year, Husband repreatedly asks Tennessee court to prohibit Wife from removing children from the US. These are not idle requests.

In Japan, the noncustodial parent more or less fades out of a child’s life after divorce. Mothers almost always get custody. Foreign parents almost never get custody – or timesharing (or visitation).

The Tennesee court does not really share Husband’s concerns that Wife may abscond with the children. After all, Wife testifies that she will stay in Tennessee; she just wants a vacation with relatives in Japan.

So, passports are released to Wife. Wife and children vacation in Japan.

And return to Tennessee. Wife retains passports.

Then, two weeks later, in August, the children’s school calls Husband to report their absence from school. News to Husband.

Wife is on her way to Japan with their children.

Now Tennessee court awards Husband full custody of the children.

So what is an American father to do?

In this case, Husband goes to Japan, grabs his abducted kids while they are walkling to school, and walks toward the US Consulate.

But before Husband can reach the safe haven of the US Consulate, he is arrested while still on Japanese soil … for kidnapping his own children, of whom he has sole custody under US law.

Husband is now in a Japanese jail, waiting to learn his fate. Wondering: will he be prosecuted for kidnapping his own children, of whom he has sole custody under US law?

Since 1980, Japan has refused to enter the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The US, Canada, Britain and France have all called upon Japan to sign. And resolve numerous cases where abducted children have foreign parents totally cut out of their lives, as though they had never been.

Read more in this Associated Press article via Google: Dad jailed in Japan warned ex-wife would take kids and this CNN article: Group calls for release of American dad jailed in Japan

New York Mother of three suffers from depression.

Baby is hospitalized for “failure to thrive”.

Children, including Baby, are removed from Mother’s care.

Court orders that Baby’s Uncle be investigated for possible placement of Baby with him.

In Court several days later, the Child Welfare Agency clears the Uncle but cannot produce the court-ordered written report.

Court investigates Uncle and approves him as well.

Baby’s Guardian ad Litem approves placement with Uncle.

Parties reach agreement on placement of Baby with Uncle.

Court orders liberal visitation by Mother, supervised by Uncle.

Family Court orders that Baby be placed into the custody of Uncle.

Child Welfare Agency delays actual placement with Uncle for nine days, for reasons that are not clear – if any.

Baby and Mother (and Baby’s siblings) are thereby deprived of substantial (six hours) daily timesharing and bonding.

Court holds Child Welfare Agency in contempt for its delay in placing Baby with Uncle … and fines Child Welfare Agency $2,500 plus costs. And awards Mother damages.

Read more in this West Palm Beach Examiner article: Judge finds NYC Administration for Children Services in contempt for not placing child with uncle.

They’ve been around for a while. But they weren’t universally or wholeheartedly embraced. Parenting coordinators.

But that will likely be changing next month. Due to a new statute.

And the recently imposed requirement that a parenting plan be made in Florida divorces involving children and Florida paternity cases involving children of separating parents who were never married.

A Florida parenting plan is a detailed statement of how parenting responsibilities (decisionmaking, timesharing and support) will be allocated between the parents. More detailed than marital settlement agreements and paternity settlement agreements have commonly been in the past.

Many parents find it difficult to agree on all of the provisions in a complete Florida parenting plan … Leaving it to the court to work out the details of the parenting plan.

Enter the parenting coordinator.

After the parenting plan is entered by the court, many parents find it difficult to live by the plan. Conflict erupts at exchanges.

Again, enter the parenting coordinator.

A parenting coordinator works with parents outside the courtroom to amicably develop or implement a parenting plan without litigation, to arrive at a Florida uncontested divorce or uncontested paternity case.

Depending on the wording of the order of referral to parenting coordination, the parenting coordinator may make recommendations to the court, or may actually have limited authority to rule on and decide certain disputes between the parents.

But parenting coordinators’ primary focus is to help the parents work together to resolve parenting disputes on their own without conflict.

Read more in this press release: National Cooperative Parenting Center Responds to New Florida Legislation.

Husband has close ties to mob family.

Husband opts to testify against various alleged mob members in return for concessions in criminal charges against himself.

Husband is in midst of a divorce, with one still-minor Daughter involved.

Husband accuses Wife of not promoting “normal” relationships between Husband and their children.

Husband is in the federal witness protection program. FBI agents accompany Husband everywhere.

Even when exercising timesharing with Daughter. Wife is not thrilled by potential risks to Daughter and reportedly withholds visitation.

Husband and Wife had lavish life style. Before Husband entered witness protection.

Now Husband claims to be broke. Wife doesn’t buy it.

Wife asks permission to relocate to New York state so that she and Daughter can live more cheaply with family members.

Husband opposes the relocation, citing the increased risk to him posed by the relationship between Wife’s family members and the mob family who is out to get him.

But the Court sees the economic logic of the relocation and allows it, doubting that Husband is at any greater risk with Wife living in New York than Boca / Delray.

Read more in this Palm Beach Post article: Mob ties complicate Palm Beach County divorce for dad in witness protection program.

New Jersey Mother and Father have Daughter.

Mother is deployed to Iraq for nearly a year.

Daughter is in Father’s care during Mother’s deployment.

Before Mother departs for Iraq, with the assistance of the military, Mother and Father devise a parenting plan for her return. Nothing goes through the courts though.

Mother returns.

Father denies Mother access to Daughter except for a few, short visits.

Father maintains that Daughter doesn’t really know Mother.

The military does nothing to enforce the parenting plan agreed to.

Now Mother and Father are going through the courts.

Each parents seeks sole custody of Daughter.

It has become commonplace for returning soldiers to find their custody or visitation whittled down. Returning mothers are experiencing this to an even greater degree than returning fathers.

Although there has been much lobbying for changes in law to prevent this from happening, remedial legislation has not gone as far as may be needed. The military has not pressed for more, not even enforcement authority for parenting plans.

Special statutes notwithstanding, deployment away from a one year old for an extended period of time poses challenges in protecting children’s interests and well-being that a family court judge cannot ignore.

Daughter cried upon Mother’s return.

A family court judge has given Father temporary residential custody of Daughter with provision for daily visits and weekly overnight visits to Mother.

Mother reports that she would oppose any threatened redeployment.

Read more in this New York Times article: Soldier’s Service Leads to a Custody Battle at Home and this New York Times article: After Iraq, the Battle at Home.

A British college instructor (Father) hasn’t seen his Daughter in fourteen years.

Her Mother allegedly abducted her from the UK to Brazil at that time.

Brazil is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

But Brazil sometimes seems to follow the Convention only at its pleasure.

Brazilian authorities have reportedly told Father he is not welcome in Brazil.

Father is now appealing to the UK government to intervene with Brazil, but probably too late to do any good even under the Hague Convention. Daughter is now 17 years old.

Mother reportedly changed Daughter’s name as part of an improper adoption.

Read more in this Kent Online article: Lecturer vows to battle on over estranged Brazilian daughter.

New York state Mother and Father, a medical doctor / psychiatrist, have a Daughter together.

But mother has sole custody of Daughter.

Under New York law, that means that Mother, in general, has sole medical decision-making authority for Daughter.

During timesharing with Daughter, Father adjusts Daughter’s dosage of medication downward.

Father “concluded that the treatment regimen prescribed by his daughter’s doctor was too aggressive and the prescription strengths were too powerful.”

Mother initiates a contempt proceeding against Father for unilaterally adjusting Daughter’s medication.

The Court dismisses the Mother’s motion, finding that the Father has a “good faith basis” for adjusting Daughter’s medication dosage and, therefore, is not guilty of criminal or civil contempt, or willful defiance of Mother’s or her doctor’s court-ordered authority.

The Court also finds that Father’s status as non-custodial parent is not tantamount to being a “potted plant”.

Rather, a timesharing parent “has a residual authority to make decisions in the child’s best interest that are called for by the immediate circumstances–even if those decisions might overlap with or intrude upon the other parent’s ’sole custody’ authority.”

Read more in this West Palm Beach Examiner article: Albany family court judge finds non-custodial dad not guilty of contempt for changing child’s meds.

Maryland recently added a second facility for children in foster care to have visitation with their biological parents and siblings – under supervision of social workers.

The facility is actually a house, minus televisions, computers and similar modern distractions found in most homes.

Visitation in this home-like setting aids in the assessment and facilitation of interactions to support eventual reunification of foster children with their biological families. That typically takes about eighteen months.

This facility is different from most supervised visitation centers, which simply try to keep the peace and maintain safety.

Much of the work to renovate and adapt the house to its new purpose was done with donated labor and funds.

Read more in this Maryland Gazette article: Home opens for foster children, biological parents.

Seven year old boy (Son) lives with his Grandmother in Alabama.

Massachusetts biological Father wants visitation with Son.

Father goes to court seeking visitation.

Father reportedly wants to build a relationship with Son.

It is unclear whether a court ever grants visitation or any custodial rights to Father.

But Father apparently convinces Grandmother that it has.

Father has Son with him on Father’s Day.

And Father allegedly beats Son on Father’s Day.

Into a coma.

Son dies.

There is no indication that Father has ever previously been convicted of domestic violence or child abuse, or even whether Father has ever been subject to an injunction for protection against domestic violence or order of protection.

Father is now charged with homicide in Son’s death.

Read more in this [Chattanooga, TN] WRCB TV 3 Eyewitness news article: Father accused in boy’s beating pleaded for visits and this [Montgomery, AL] WSFA 12 News article: Shocking revelation in boy’s beating death.

Tennessee has gone one better on a trend toward protecting custodial and visitation rights of parents deployed in the military.

Under a brand new law, a parent deployed for at least ninety days can assign his or her visitation rights to a relative, subject to the court’s authority to veto the surrogate’s visitation if it is not in the child’s best interests.

This is an interesting expansion of the widespread view that visitation is a fundamental personal privilege of a parent.

But for now, deployed parents can presumably transfer their visitation rights to, say, stepparents who are their new spouses.

Legal challenges will likely follow in short order.

Read more in this [Chattanooga, TN] WRCB 3 Eyewitness News TV article: Military visitation rights bill signed by governor.

Arizona Mother has sole custody of nine year old Son.

Father takes Son for a week of visitation as per court order.

In the past, Father has taken Son to Hawaii, a place that Father has said he would like to live.

At the end of the permitted weeklong visitation, Father and Son fail to return … even after a month.

Father’s home appears to be abandoned.

For now, both Father and Son are listed as missing

Authorities are seeking information as to their whereabouts.

Son is on daily prescription medication which Father has not always administered.

Read more in this [Chandler, AZ] ABC TV 15 article: Valley boy and dad remain missing after weeklong trip and this Chandler Police Department press release: Father and Child Missing For Over A Month.

South Carolina Man and Woman live together.

Woman has a Son.

Man acts like any good father would toward Son.

Drives him to school. Roots for him at his ball games. Attends parent-teacher conferences. Etc., etc.

One thing is missing …

A paternity test does not bear out a biological connection between Man and Son.

Man and Woman eventually break up.

But Man and Son do not want to break up with each other.

Man goes to court to obtain visitation, arguing that he is Son’s psychological parent, the father figure in Son’s life.

But the court rules against him, because Son knows that Man is not his biological father and that someone else is.

Man appeals. And the South Carolina Court of Appeals agrees with Man.

Court awards Man visitation with Son.

Shortly before Father’s Day, Man won full custody of Son by agreement with Woman after a six year court battle.

Read more in this [Charleston, SC] Post and Courier article: Helping set legal precedent, man gains custody of boy he helped raise.

In the criminal courts, the defendant can insist on speedy justice.

Not so the litigants in family court, which often operates in a virtual time warp.

Husband and Wife live in North Carolina. They have two children.

Wife files for divorce.

North Carolina Court grants permission for Wife to relocate to Rhode Island, but allows for visitation by Husband each month in both states.

The Wife reportedly tries to block Husband’s visitation and cut Husband out of the children’s lives by accusing Husband of everything from harsh discipline of the children to neglecting them to watch pornography on the internet.

Wife also obtains an injunction for protection against domestic violence, or order of protection, against Husband – in Rhode Island.

Not buying it, the North Carolina Court orders Wife to return with the children to live in North Carolina.

Unhappy with the North Carolina ruling, Wife tries to do an end run around the North Carolina courts and seeks emergency jurisdiction in Rhode Island.

Which Rhode Island’s family courts exercise … repeatedly.

Having apparently exhausted his remedies in North Carolina, Husband appeals in Rhode Island.

And Husband wins …

A mere seven years later.

The reasons Husband wins are because:

1. North Carolina validly exercised jurisdiction in the first place and
2. Emergency jurisdiction is inherently temporary in nature

.

Read more in this Providence Journal news blog post: R.I. Supreme Court: Mother, children must return to N.C.

Washington state Mother and Father, both Indian immigrants, marry and have Son.

As part of their divorce, the Court permits Son to travel to India with either parent.

Mother allegedly takes three year old Son to India.

Nearly a year ago.

And Mother and Son reportedly have not returned to the US since.

Father is entitled to court-ordered visitation.

And, since the abduction, Father has been awarded custody of Son.

But both orders are just so much paper, without practical effect.

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

And India is indifferent to US court orders in family law cases.

Even the custodial interference charges filed against Mother in Washington state have no impact.

Practically speaking, Father has no legal recourse for return of his son.

Read more in this Kent [WA] Reporter article: A Father’s Day he won’t see: International child abduction devastates former Kent man.

Husband and Wife marry.

Husband and Wife have Children.

West Virginia Grandparents see Children.

Wife dies.

Husband inherits Wife’s custody of Children.

Grandparents don’t see Children.

Ever.

For nine years and counting.

Grandparents appeal to the courts for visitation with Children.

Over and over.

With no luck.

Because under current law, Grandparents generally have no rights where a fit parent denies them visitation.

Grandparents are campaigning for support of a petition for grandparents’ rights to take to their legislature.

Read more in this Steubenville, OH WOTV 9 news article: Grandparents Fight For Visitation Rights.

Florida does not allow adoptions by a homosexual couple.

Washington state does.

A lesbian couple living in Washington state each give birth to a child.

And each partner adopts the other’s biological child as permitted under Washington law.

Lesbian couple relocates to Florida.

And eventually breaks up.

At first, they agree to share legal and physical custody of both children, so that the children can spend most of their time together.

The next year, however, one of the couple “goes straight” and becomes engaged to marry a man.

Who wants to adopt his fiance’s biological child.

At that point, when the child is about 9 years old, her mother denies any timesharing to her former partner.

The frustrated partner brings suit to determine parental responsibility and timesharing.

At trial, the court denies the frustrated partner any parental responsibility or timesharing with the denying partner’s biological child.

On appeal to an intermediate level appellate court, that ruling is reversed.

The Florida appellate court holds that Florida has to give full faith and credit to the Washington state adoption and the rights and obligations flowing from it.

Without regard to Florida’s law and policy against gay adoption.

The birth mother intends to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

Read more in this Courthouse News Service article: Fla. Must Recognize Gay Adoptions, Court Rules and this Sarasota Herald Tribune article: Adoption by Sarasota lesbian is upheld on appeal.

Mother, Grandparents and 3 year old Child go to mall.

Mother and Child become separated from Grandparents.

Mother and Child leave mall.

Amber Alert goes out.

Grandparents have legal custody of Child.

Mother is only allowed supervised visitation with Child.

Warrants for Mother’s arrest for kidnapping are issued.

Mother is suspected to have abducted Child to Georgia.

Child is not believed to be in danger of violence from Mother.

But Child is still missing.

Read more in this Mooresville [NC] Tribune article: Warrants issued for mother of missing 3-year-old.

It works for grandparents and extended family members.

It also works for parents who, for whatever reason, are far away from where their kids are.

It’s virtual visitation via the internet.

Thanks to widespread high speed internet access, parents can do practically anything with their kids via web conferencing.

Look each other in the eye while talking. Play board games. Etc., etc.

It’s the next best thing to being there, in the flesh. And, in many ways, it negates the feeling of distance between parents and their kids.

Several states specifically provide for web-based visitation by statute.

Although some noncustodial parents argue it is used as a justification to deprive them of in-person access to their children, some custodial parents argue that it is so popular with the kids that it cuts into the custodial parents’ time with their kids.

Clearly, though, it well serves a valuable purpose in our mobile society, where relocation is a frequent issue.

It can also be useful in certain situations otherwise managed with supervised visitation.

Read more in this Toronto Metro News article: Virtually there – Cyberspace helps divorced parents keep in touch with kids.

A therapist offers mothers her tips for reducing the stress related to exchanges and their child’s visitation with his or her father.

1. Always focus on your child.
2. Make sure the other parent is kept posted on recommendations from school as to services appropriate for your child.
3. Attend a different performance of school events if possible, trade off events or sit far away from the other parent.
4. Ditto for sports events.
5. Be civil at extended family occasions and gatherings – or don’t go.
6. Be accommodating with schedule changes.
7. Treat your ex with respect.
8. Allow communication – but use e-mail for neutrality … and a record.
9. Let your child participate in planning, but don’t put your child in the middle … or on the spot.
10. Attend a Children First class.

Read more in this Single Minded Women website article: Stress-Free Visitation Guidelines and the website Your Child’s Divorce.

Florida birth Mother gives her twin babies (Twins) up for adoption.

Mother maintains she signed adoption papers under duress resulting from sleep deprivation.

Twins are adopted by North Carolina couple.

Adoption is open, according to contract, with Mother being involved with the Twins after the adoption.

Then Mother allegedly takes off to Canada with the Twins.

Mother is charged with kidnapping the Twins.

Mother’s parental rights to Twins are terminated.

Now Mother is seeking visitation with the Twins from a North Carolina court.

The trial court ruling apparently turned quickly on the fact that Mother’s parental rights had been terminated.

Mother is pressing to have a full hearing despite that.

Mother characterizes the case as a custody dispute.

The adoptive North Carolina couple characterize it as a contract dispute.

The North Carolina appellate court has yet to rule.

Read more in:

1. this Raleigh [NC] News TV 14 article: Court continues to mull Quets’ visitation rights
2. this Raleigh [NC] WRAL TV 5 article: Adoption case goes to state Court of Appeals
3. this Raleigh [NC] News & Observer article: Quets makes appeal for visitation

Illegal immigrants planning to visit children in protective custody may want to think twice first.

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.