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

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.

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.

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.

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.

US Father and Brazilian Mother have Daughter together.

Back in 2008, when Mother did not have legal status in the US and the family lived in Illinois, Father and Mother were battling over custody of Daughter.

So Mother allegedly made off with Daughter to her native Brazil.

Father hasn’t seen or spoken to Daughter since.

Until recently, that is.

But a couple of weeks ago, Father, who now lives in Arizona, went to mediation with Mother regarding Daughter, in Brazil.

The mediation was different from the typical divorce or child custody mediation. Not only did Mother’s mother attend (unusual in itself), but both the US State Department (the US central authority) and the Brazilian Central Authority had representatives attend under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The marathon mediation session went on for fifteen hours. Kind of long for one session, but not altogether unheard of.

But the mediation was successful, and Mother and Father resolved custody and visitation and timesharing issues regarding Daughter.

And Father got to see Daughter for the first time in over three years.

Astonishingly, Daughter still remembered Father from before her abduction at two and one-half years of age.

And the two got to spend some quality time together in Brazil, having outings and re-establishing their father-daughter bond.

While the agreement cannot be described as overly generous to Father, it does at least provide for unlimited phone and internet-facilitated communication between Father and Daughter and for regular, if infrequent, timesharing and visitation with Daughter in Brazil until she is twelve and, thereafter, lengthier visitation and timesharing here in the US.

Meanwhile, Father continues to work on petitioning for legislation to facilitate blocking unauthorized removal of children from the US.

Mother could face federal criminal charges if she returns to the US.

Daughter is one of approximately twenty American children detained in Brazil despite the requirements of the Hague Convention.

On the other hand, Brazil claims that that about seventy Brazilian children are in the same boat here in the US.

Read more in this [Tempe, AZ] East Valley Tribune article: E.V. man finally sees daughter who was taken to Brazil; custody deal reached and this [Tempe, AZ] East Valley Tribune article: San Tan Valley man hopes international fight for daughter spurs law.

South Florida Husband and Wife have Children together.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Husband and Wife agree on timesharing schedule which is incorporated into final judgment.

Husband moves to an apartment east of Federal Highway, close to the ocean.

Wife and Children remain in marital home west of Florida’s Turnpike, well inland.

First hurricane season since divorce arrives.

A severe hurricane is expected to arrive during Husband’s timesharing.

Husband lives in an evacuation zone and it is anticipated that authorities will encourage Husband to stay in a shelter until the hurricane passes.

Wife suggests that Children stay in their own safe secure home with Wife during hurricane.

Husband insists on exercising his timesharing with Children, maintaining that whatever happens will be a learning and character-building experience for Children.

Such scenarios play out every year in South Florida.

And many variations of it.

(Husband lives in trailer … or houseboat. Or, Husband wants to take kids out of state – or out of the country – to avoid the hurricane completely.)

Unfortunately, the odds are high that neither the marital settlement agreement or parenting plan or final judgment specifically addresses situations like hurricanes.

Which are inherently emergency situations. Stressful and wrenching. Imminent.

One parent or the other – or both – start clamoring for emergency hearings over how to deal with the hurricane.

Just not feasible in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Although it may not be top of mind when your case is being decided / negotiated, what happens in a hurricane (or other natural disaster, especially where there’s warning) is well worth considering ahead of a crisis.

After all, at the very least, your children’s peace of mind may be at risk; at most, their actual safety and wellbeing.

Florida Husband and Wife have Children together.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Florida family court awards Husband primary residential custody of Children.

It appears that Husband may not be entirely cooperative with Wife’s exercise of visitation after their divorce.

Wife seeks and obtains from the Florida family court several different orders for enforcement of her visitation and holding Husband in contempt of court for his failure to comply with the Court’s orders for timesharing with Wife. The Florida family court also awards Wife significant compensatory visitation or makeup timesharing.

Because of Husband’s obstinacy, the Florida family court, without an evidentiary hearing, ultimately modifies custody of the Children to grant Wife primary residential custody of the Children. Without even having been asked to do so.

The court makes no written findings of fact in support of its ruling.

Husband appeals the modification of Children’s custody. On appeal, an intermediate level appellate court reverses for the following reasons.

1. It is well-established here in Florida that children should not be punished due to their parent’s violation of court orders, or other misdeeds.

2. Further, contempt proceedings are to enforce compliance with previous court orders. Not to modify custody. Especially not where the parent seeking enforcement has not put the other parent on formal notice that they are even looking to modify custody.

3. And last, but not least, the Florida family court did not make any express findings that modification of custody would be in the best interests of the Children.

Read more in the Florida court’s appellate opinion reversing the modification of child custody in contempt proceedings.

Pennsylvania Father allegedly sexually abuses a seven year old girl in the presence of his two year old Son, for which Father is being prosecuted.

Despite this, the Pennsylvania Family Court allows Father visitation with Son, which is supervised by a friend of Father’s.

Then Son’s Mother requests that the court suspend Father’s timesharing with Son.

And the family court does suspend Father’s visitation, temporarily, indicating that timesharing will be reinstated when proper supervision by a social worker is arranged.

Under a new Pennsylvania family law, however, a parent charged with a sex crime is reportedly required to be psychologically evaluated before any award of visitation may be made.

Mother is apparently seeking to have the family court comply with the new law.

Read more in this [Moosic, PA] WNEP-TV news article: Accused Child Molester Loses Visitation Rights.

An interesting case from the ever-evolving battleground of grandparents’ visitation rights, such as they are …

Nevada Father settles original child custody case by agreeing to allow Grandmother four supervised visits with Daughter each year.

Later, a psychologist opines that Grandmother’s visits with Daughter should be unsupervised.

Father, disagreeing with the psychologist, petitions the Nevada family court to modify the prior visitation order and to terminate Grandmother’s visitation rights entirely.

The family court judge sides with Father and terminates Grandmother’s visitation privileges.

Grandmother appeals.

On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court holds that Father fails to establish a substantial change of circumstances, the standard for modification of a judgment or order. Therefore, the original agreement and judgment must stand, and Grandmother’s visitation must be reinstated.

Key to this ruling is that Father is seeking to modify rights already agreed to and ordered, rather than Grandmother seeking to establish new rights for the first time.

Read more in this Las Vegas Sun news article: Court rules grandmother has right to visit granddaughter.

Every state makes its own laws regarding child custody and parental responsibility, and child visitation and timesharing. Beyond the precise language set forth in the statute books, every state’s divorce courts and family courts impose their own unique judicial interpretation of those laws and implement enforcement based, to a large extent, on that interpretation. For those reasons, among others, rulings and judgments in each state’s divorce courts and family courts can vary dramatically, perhaps even more than the wording of their respective state laws might suggest.

A Michigan father contends that many Michigan fathers divorced or separated from their children’s mothers are largely excluded from their children’s day to day lives. And he reports that a whopping forty percent of kids across the US do not have their biological father living in their home.

Despite the evolution of the law governing child custody and parental responsibility, this father indicates that Michigan fathers are ten times more likely to “lose custody” of their children in a custody battle with the children’s mothers. In Michigan cases where the family court awards sole custody to one of the children’s parents, it is awarded to the mothers a staggering ninety-two percent of the time.

Perhaps even more shocking in this day and age, Michigan fathers are reportedly awarded joint custody of their children in only thirteen percent of custody disputes.

And, it is said that the typical Michigan visitation and timesharing schedule grants the noncustodial parents a meager four overnight visits per month.

All combining to effectively isolate many Michigan fathers from their children’s everyday lives of school, extracurricular activities and friendships.

This Michigan father advocates for equal timesharing for fit fathers in Michigan. Both for the fathers’ sakes and for the children’s sakes.

All of the above may seem to be a sad commentary on the state of divorce and child custody laws and visitation and timesharing law as applied in Michigan and, likely, other states as well.

Florida’s child custody and parental responsibility laws and timesharing and visitation laws are drafted so as to be more sensitive to the best interests of children whose parents are no longer together. And the policy of Florida divorce courts and family courts is to be more sensitive to the best interests of children whose families are no longer intact.

Of course, each Florida county and each Florida family court room within each county is somewhat unique.

Any father who identifies with what this Michigan father has to say and who has a child subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida family courts should consult with an experienced Florida child custody attorney. Whatever the law and practice in Michigan, a fit father should be able to look forward to a much better outcome in a child custody dispute in a Florida family court.

Read more in this Muskegon [MI] Chronicle letter to the editor: Legal system forces divorced dads out of kids’ lives

Noncustodial parent and kids at the park.

Noncustodial parent and kids at the movies.

Noncustodial parent and kids at restaurant.

One photo after another, capturing … what?

At first blush, the noncustodial parent and children enjoying happy times.

Under closer scrutiny, many divorced custodial parents see something very different in these photos.

A “fraudulent noncustodial parent”. Pressured into doing activities with the children.

Or photographing activities for ulterior motives (such as attracting dates, impressing acquaintances, family members or judges, easing guilt, etc.).

Perhaps.

But sometimes a noncustodial parent changes in response to the changed conditions of their new reality.

Even if there’s a hidden agenda, the bottom line is that the changes, real or feigned, are in the best interests of the children.

Read more in this Macleans article: Ex-wives rail about phony Facebook dads.

Tennessee Husband and Wife are divorced.

They have a Child together.

Husband has reportedly been battling to see his Child for fourteen years.

It isn’t clear whether the Wife is arbitrarily denying Husband visitation or whether it is really the family court denying Husband visitation.

Because Husband’s visitation is frustrated though, Grandmother, his mother, has also been denied timesharing with Child.

But that may be about to change.

Tennessee has just passed a statute that authorizes judges to award grandparents timesharing with their grandchildren.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the new law will survive a constitutional challenge.

Ironically, Tennessee’s neighboring state of Alabama has just struck down a statute mandating timesharing for grandparents as unconstitutional under settled federal law upholding the fundamental right of fit parents to determine their children’s best interests.

Read more in this [Knoxville, TN] WBIR-TV 10 news article: Judges could soon decide grandparent visitation rights and this New England Cable News article: Ala. court strikes down law for grandparent rights

Today was Father’s Day.

While many fathers celebrate their day with their children, some fathers don’t get to see their children at all on Father’s Day.

In Canada, it appears that parental alienation syndrome drives a wedge between many fathers and their children … with family court approval.

One Canadian father reports that a family court judge asked him:

“Why should I let you see your daughter?”

The situation is reportedly so severe in Canada that male suicides far outpace female suicides.

Father’s rights groups offer support – and lobbying for joint and equal parenting.

Read more in this Winnipeg [Canada] Sun news article: No happy Father’s Day for many dads.

Michigan Mother has a three year old Toddler.

A Neighbor finds Toddler walking in the parking lot of a business next to a busy highway. The Neighbor contacts law enforcement authorities.

When authorities contact Mother, Mother is asleep and slow to respond. Authorities learn that a similar incident took place a week before.

Toddler is taken into protective custody and placed in foster care.

The government files a dependency petition alleging neglect of Toddler.

On a temporary basis, Mother is granted only weekly supervised visitation with Toddler by the Michigan family court. The family court Mother also orders that Mother be subjected to random drug testing.

Read more in this [Bad Axe, MI] Huron Daily Tribune article: Bad Axe mother to have supervised visitation.

California Mother and Father have three year old Son together.

During Father’s visitation and timesharing, Father allegedly abducts Son, from California to Arizona.

For the second time this year.

An arrest warrant is issued for Father.

Son is found, unhurt, with both of his parents.

Mother’s role in the incident is unclear.

Son is taken into child protective custody.

The timesharing during which Father allegedly makes off with Son is a visitation supervised by Child Protective Services.

Read more in this [Palm Springs, CA] Desert Magazine article: Abducted 3-year-old from Moreno Valley found unharmed in Arizona.

Kentucky Wife cheats on her husband. Wife gets pregnant and has Baby.

Wife’s Boyfriend seeks parental rights and responsibilities, including timesharing and visitation with Baby.

Under long-settled legal precedents, where a mother’s marriage is intact, in the eyes of the law, the mother’s husband is (conclusively) presumed to be the father of the mother’s child.

The Kentucky Supreme Court overturns that precedent in favor of a more scientific and pragmatic approach looking to DNA testing rather than blind rules of law.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal piece: Kentucky Supreme Court Wades into Extramarital Affairs and this Courier-Journal article: Kentucky court says fathers of children conceived during affairs have parental rights.

A Canadian city recently marked their Parental Alienation Day with a bubble-blowing event.

Parental Alienation Day was also recognized in Australia, Sweden, Germany and here in the US.

Parents, mainly fathers, expressed their sadness and trustration that they have no voice in the Canadian family courts, and are cut off from their children in divorce.

But the real message is that parental alienation hurts the children as much as the alienated parent.

Children miss out on a relationship with their parent. And tend not to do as well as a result.

The damage can be serious and lasting..

Read more in this Barrie [Canada] Examiner article: Bursting the bubble on parental alienation.

Indiana Mother and Father have Daughter. And separate.

Father has no contact with Mother or Daughter for several years.

Mother receives public assistance for herself and Daughter.

Then Father goes to prison to begin serving a twenty year sentence for armed robbery.

Mother has not initiated any contact with Father and has never pursued child support from him. Similarly, Father has not initiated any contact with Mother or Daughter and has never pursued any relationship with Daughter.

The state files proceedings to recover child support and birth-related expenses from Father and insists upon Mother’s cooperation.

Father files for visitation and timesharing with Daughter.

The Indiana family court orders:

• that Mother provide Father with an annual two hour visitation with now eight year old Daughter every summer at the prison where Father is confined

• that Mother “encourage” Daughter to write to Father, and draw pictures and the like for him

• that Mother allow Daughter to receive communications and gifts from Father

Mother reportedly takes no action to comply with the family court order for timesharing and visitation.

Father files a motion for contempt to enforce the family court parenting order and to penalize (sanction) Mother for her alleged disobedience of the family court visitation order.

The family court holds Mother in contempt of the court’s order … but rules, in effect, that all will be foregiven if Mother promptly complies with the court’s timesharing order now.

Mother is also reportedly experiencing financial distress and, as a consequence, transportation challenges.

Mother apparently fails to comply with the family court parenting order.

The family court acts to enforce its order of contempt … and sentences Mother, Daughter’s only caregiver, to six months in jail.

Mother engages a family law attorney to defend her position and seek relief from the court’s contempt orders. Mother’s family law lawyer undertakes several different legal procedures, but Mother cannot afford to have her family law attorney see the measures all the way through.

As a result, Mother represents self (pro se) in court. And loses on all counts.

The family court credits Mother with time served and requires Mother to serve one additional weekend in jail. Provided that Mother complies with the family court’s visitation order.

The family court makes it clear that it is prepared to escalate enforcement measures if Mother does not comply.

Mother plans to do her time … and then to seek free legal assistance to fight the family court’s timesharing and visitation orders.

Read more in this [Fort Wayne, IN] WANE TV news article: Mother chooses jail over visitation.

Brazil has reportedly just adopted legislation that guarantees grandparents the right to visit their grandchildren in the event their parents divorce.

Brazil’s statute bucks the general trend in the US of curtailing grandparent visitation rights where the parents are fit parents.

One can only wonder whether this legislation is a reaction to the world-famous case of the New Jersey boy held in Brazil for five years, even after his mother’s death, before being released to his father. The grandparents recently sought to compel visitation with their grandchild … on their own terms … and lost.

Read more in this CBC News article: Brazil gives grandparents visitation right.

California Husband and Wife look forward to the birth of their Triplets.

Wife delivers the Triplets.

And then, allegedly as a result of medical malpractice, Wife is left severely brain damaged. Unable to eat. Speak. Or move.

One year later, Husband divorces Wife.

Husband discontinues bringing her Triplets to visit Wife.

And Husband goes to family court to attempt to terminate Wife’s parental rights to Triplets.

Termination of parental rights is generally reserved for parents who have abused or neglected their children. Or abandoned them … persistently … willfully … or grossly negligently.

Family court denies the termination of Wife’s parental rights to Triplets.

And awards Wife visitation with the Triplets…

A single annual in-person visitation of five days. With Husband present.

And a monthly internet video conference.

Wife is reportedly thrilled by the prospect of her five day timesharing with the Triplets.

Read more in this [Salt Lake City] Deseret News article: Disabled mother’s visitation cut to 5 days per year and this Los Angeles Times article: Abbie Dorn, severely disabled giving birth to triplets, wins the right to spend time with her children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as the children go, key recommendations include:

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

2. parental appointment of guardian

3. domestic partner agreement and

4. co-parenting agreement

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

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

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

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

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

New proposed legislation in Illinois would allow family courts to:

1. incarcerate noncompliant parents

2. require them to post bonds

3. impose increasing monetary fines on them

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

5. modify custody based on the denial of visitation

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

Wife takes New Jersey Son to Brazil to visit relatives.

And stays there. Permanently.

Wife divorces Husband there and remarries.

And cuts off virtually all contact between Husband and Son.

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

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

Wife dies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Husband finally cuts off contact between Grandparents and Son.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illinois Husband and Wife are divorcing.

They have a three year old Daughter together.

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

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

The court grants Grandparents’ request for visitation.

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

Wife expresses a desire to relocate to Florida.

Grandparents ask the court to hold Wife in contempt.

Wife does not appear at hearing on contempt.

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

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

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

Father is arrested for this conduct.

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

Close to a year ago.

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

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

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

Arkansas Mother and Girlfriend are gay.

Mother gives birth to Baby.

Baby is given Girlfriend’s last name.

Girlfriend is Baby’s primary caregiver for next few years.

Mother and Girlfriend break up.

Girlfriend seeks timesharing and visitation with Baby.

Arkansas does not permit same-sex marriages.

Nonetheless, an Arkansas family court awards Girlfriend timesharing and visitation with Baby.

And, on appeal, Arkansas’ Supreme Court recognizes Girlfriend’s right to timesharing and visitation with Baby.

The Arkansas court places great weight on the fact that Girlfriend has been Baby’s primary caregiver, and both paratners clearly intended that they would co-parent Baby together. This, in effect, equates Girlfriend with a parent.

Read more in this KATV 7 news article: Non-parent in same-sex bond gets visitation rights and this Arkansas Times piece: Supreme Court upholds visitation for same-sex ex

Florida Husband and Wife are divorced.

Husband and Wife have an eleven year old Son together.

Husband exercises visitation and timesharing with Son last October.

As Husband prepares to return Son to Wife at the conclusion of his timesharing, Husband discovers that there is a civil warrant out for his arrest. Husband allegedly failed to comply with the final judgment in his divorce.

When Husband arrives to drop off Son, Husband spots a law enforcement officer. Husband panics and takes off – with Son.

Not to return. They eventually end up in Michigan.

Where Son is found.

Husband is arrested for felony interference with child custody.

Read more in this Fort Myers News Press article: Missing Fort Myers boy found in Michigan.

After a breakup, parenting takes on a new dimension.

For some parents, they really begin learning how to parent themselves for the first time.

One of the things the noncustodial parent must now do is find meaningful yet enjoyable activities to do with their child during their visitation or timesharing.

One father shares some resources he has come to rely on:

• visitors bureaus can acquaint you with activities and attractions you probably don’t know about.

• local public libraries sponsor many activities and events that appeal to children, as well as provide information about even more.

• you can fashion a tour or itinerary for each day you have timesharing and visitation. Take advantage of the changes of season (if applicable) where you are enjoying your timesharing and visitation.

• put on a “kid’s thinking cap” to help you evaluate all the possibilities from a child’s – your child’s – point of view.

Read more in this AOL Travel article on Gadling:Divorced Dads: Five travel tools and ideas to make visitation more fun.