General legal information furnished as a service of Fort Lauderdale / West Palm Beach family law attorney Janet Langjahr
A wealthy British advertising executive and publisher, husband and father, divorced his wife.
And, according to him, the rumors started. He abandoned them, leaving them with nothing, and so on.
Rightly or wrongly, he believes he has been maligned, criticized, scorned … speculated about.
Yet he believes the settlement was generous, and resents the whispers behind his back.
So, while most wealthy folks going through divorces are more likely to be looking to seal their court files from public scrutiny, this man decided to strike back in a very public way.
He launched a website intended to set the record straight about his divorce.
On the site, he purports to disclose the terms of his divorce settlement.
He hopes it will quell the wild rumors.
Time will tell.
Read more in this UK Independent article: Businessman puts divorce deal on web to stop ‘rumour mill’ and this [India] Economic Times article: Millionaire posts divorce details on net to stop rumours.
Your divorce is finally final. Now you can move on with your life.
Maybe you’d like to start over with a new condo or house. You find the perfect place.
You begin working with a mortgage broker. In the course of your chit-chat, you mention you were just divorced.
Don’t be surprised when your mortgage broker asks you for a copy of your … final judgment of dissolution (also known as divorce decree).
How come?
Read more in this WalletPop article: Mortgage Confidential: Why lenders want to see your divorce decree.
Husband and Wife meet right here in Southeast Florida. Wife confides that she is an illegal immigrant.
Husband and Wife marry. Husband sponsors Wife for a green card.
Marriage breaks down.
Husband asks for postnuptial agreement. His apparent intention was that it serve as a divorce settlement.
Proposed agreement reportedly removed custody of any future child of theirs from Wife.
Wife refused to sign agreement. Husband threw Wife out of house.
Then took her back. And so on.
Child was born. Divorce began.
Wife was awarded primary residential custody of Child. Until the day Homeland Security showed up and instructed her to turn Child over to Husband despite the Court’s order.
Husband apparently put Homeland Security onto Wife, claiming to have learned of her illegal status only after the marriage.
Wife was detained for some time and threatened with deportation. Wife was eventually freed, due to Husband’s history of domestic violence.
But when Wife returned to their home, Husband and Child had vanished. Husband claimed to be in Panama with Child.
Wife had never consented to issuance of a passport to Child, so Husband’s story seemed questionable.
Wife obtained court orders requiring Husband to return Child to her custody. To no avail.
About nine months later, Wife got word that Child, now almost 2 years old, had died of pneumonia in Panama.
There were some seeming irregularities in Husband’s and the attending physician’s accounts of how Child died and the circumstances leading up to Child’s death. Wife believes Husband was negligent in caring for Child.
Wife plans to sue Husband over Child’s death. And hopes that he is prosecuted for passport fraud and parental kidnapping.
But none of that will bring Child back …
Read more in this NBC6 TV article: S. Fla. Mother Wants Answers To Baby’s Death In Panama.
Couples with at least $10 million in assets are flocking to divorce courts this year.
The reason? They are feeling the pinch of the credit crunch and generally weak economy.
In New York State, the situation has fueled the biggest spike in divorce filings in nearly thirty years. The last such spike resulted from the introduction of additional grounds into New York’s fault-based divorce scheme.
Folks in NYC’s sometimes high-flying financial sector have gone from multimillion dollar bonuses to … no bonuses at all this year. Life changing.
And marriage changing - challenging.
No longer flush with cash for the distraction of grandiose entertainment, wealthy couples are reduced to … fighting.
Marriages of the wealthy reportedly are not so much inspired by romance as those of other economic statuses. So, when the applicable inspiration diminishes, it’s off to divorce court - in droves.
So anyone seeking a divorce now should find themselves in really good company …
Read more in this [UK] Times article: Credit crunch raises divorce rate for America’s superwealthy.
Extended Pakistani family live in Atlanta. Father arranges marriage of Daughter.
Daughter wants out of marriage. Daughter files for divorce.
Father very upset. So …
Father allegedly strangles Daughter with a bungee cord…
Father is charged with murder, but maintains his innocence.
Father asks Court for accommodation so that he can follow Muslim beliefs in jail.
Read more in this Assyrian International News Agency article: Muslim Man Kills Daughter for Refusing Arranged Marriage and this Atlanta Journal Constitution article: I’m innocent, says man held in daughter’s death.
Maltese Wife, Turkish Husband and their 6 year old daughter lived in Turkey.
Wife told Husband she wanted to return to Malta.
Husband then blocked Wife’s access to the Child and applied to the Turkish Family Court for temporary custody of the Child.
The Turkish Court then prohibited the Child from leaving Turkey before a custody decision was made.
Wife nonetheless removed Child from Turkey to Malta without Husband’s knowledge.
Then the Turkish Court awarded temporary custody of the Child to Husband.
The Husband filed an application for return of the Child to Turkey under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
The Maltese Court ruled that Turkey was the habitual residence of the Child.
Under the Hague Convention, that ruling would normally mandate return of the Child to the country of habitual residence for a custody decision to be made there.
But the Maltese Court nonetheless held that the Child should remain in Malta.
The Maltese Court based its ruling on the following:
Read more in this Malta Independent article: Court: Court bars return of child to Turkish father.
New York remains the last state in the union to require fault-based grounds for a contested divorce.
So it should come as no surprise that, in order to issue an order of protection against domestic violence, New York state has required the parties to be currently or previously married, parents of a common child or blood relatives.
But New York is now becoming one of the last states to afford the protection of restraining orders to dating partners, whether gay or heterosexual.
The bill’s sponsor has been pursuing its passage for twenty years. Better late than never.
Previously, the only remedy for those in many violent intimate relationships in New York was the police and criminal court. Not only did that make it harder to win protection, but it also deterred many from even going through with seeking protection - especially young people.
Going forward, it will be possible for an intimate partner or relative in New York state to obtain relief in family court, with family court’s lower civil burden of proof than criminal court, without having to deal with the police or a prosecutor.
Florida has made similar legal protection from repeat violence, dating violence and sexual violence available for several years, in addition to pre-existing protection available against domestic violence.
Read more in this New York Times article: Albany to Expand Domestic Violence Law to Include Dating Relationships.
They probably had to commit perjury to get their divorce.
Their marriage isn’t irretrievably broken. They don’t have irreconcilable differences.
But they probably had to swear that one or the other applies. Because they desperately need a divorce.
The Husband has cancer and doesn’t have private medical insurance coverage.
They couldn’t afford it at $900 per month. Now they couldn’t get it at any price.
They tried for Medicaid insurance coverage, furnished to the indigent at government expense.
But, although they were too poor for private medical insurance, they were too rich for publicly subsidized medical insurance.
He had to move out of their family home. He had to stop working, except a few hours per week to cover the barest of necessities.
He wasted (technically, spent down, as required) his meager assets.
And only then, as an indigent single man, could he finally qualify for Medicaid insurance coverage in Indiana - and obtain the treatment for cancer that he needed to live.
To qualify for Medicaid in Indiana, a couple must live on less than $1,000 per month after medical expenses.
By the time Husband qualified, he had already incurred about $40,000 in medical debt. So he’ll probably have to file for bankruptcy anyway when he gets well.
Strategic divorce serves two critical purposes:
State laws often permit Medicaid eventually to recoup its expenses from the estate of the spouse who didn’t need care, as well as from the estate of the spouse who did receive care.
There reportedly are more and more people like this couple.
Read more in this Ft. Wayne [IN] Journal Gazette article: Couple divorce to afford cancer treatment.
Ohio is pretty high tech. The child support enforcement agency doesn’t just mail out child support checks to custodial parents.
Instead it either directly deposits the monies into the parent’s bank account or adds the monies to a debit card for the parent.
They’ve been doing it that way for about eight years and it’s apparently worked pretty well.
Until at least one recipient recently received an e-mail, ostensibly from the contracting company that administers the program. The e-mail asked the woman to update her account information.
The e-mail looked perfectly genuine and legitimate to her. So she did as the e-mail instructed.
And after that, all the money was siphoned out of the account.
It was only $168 at the time. But her kids probably could have used that money.
Money they would have had the benefit of if the state had been lower tech and just mailed her a check.
The woman complained to the contracting company. But the company blamed her for being duped and refused to refund her money.
And the state, in effect, backed them up, reportedly maintaining that the agency warns custodial parents not to respond to e-mails about their accounts.
Low tech custodial parents duped. High tech scammers get a windfall. High tech state probably saves money.
Kids suffer …
Read more in this Athens [OH] Messenger article: Scammers targeting child support.
A Malaysian woman filed for divorce.
Problem: No record of her marriage. Case dismissed.
Modified statement of problem: Marriage certificate potentially invalid on grounds of fraud.
The woman’s attorney said these contentions were formalities and that she will refile.
Why does the woman want a divorce? Her politician husband wants to marry an additional wife.
Read more in this WalesOnline article: Woman’s divorce put on hold until she marries.
An Ohio judge was reprimanded for not advancing his cases rapidly enough.
One childless couple’s case was on the judge’s docket for two and one-half years - before being handed off to a general magistrate for trial. And the Wife specifically wanted the case tried to a judge, not a general magistrate.
The judge’s caseload includes a wide mix of cases, not just family law cases. And the cases that languished the longest on his docket were divorce and child support cases.
Statistically, for the years 1998 through 2007, the judge’s peers had only 4% to 11% of their cases open for too long. But, in four of those years, the reprimanded judge had as many as 43%, 42%, 38% and 26% of his cases open for too long.
The judge defended that certain cases have circumstances that cause them to take longer to resolve. Likely true.
In at least one case, some of the custody issues in the case were mooted by the passage of time. For examply, one of the children attained the age of majority.
The odds are that that happened in other cases as well.
The judge will be retiring at the end of the year anyway though. And his statistics have improved. And he has no other blemishes on his record.
So he will be allowed to finish out his judicial term.
Read more in this central Ohio News Messenger article: No rush to judgement.
A New York State man stands accused in federal court of lying on an application for a background check to purchase a gun. The alleged lie was his denial that he was subject to an order of protection.
Under federal statute, it is a felony for a person subject to a protective order to possess a gun.
Last year, a judge reportedly entered an order of protection against the man in conjunction with a then-pending criminal domestic violence charge against him.
As part of an apparent plea bargain, the man pleaded guilty to a lesser violation. Accordingly, the man claimed that he believed that he was no longer subject to an order of protection.
But the man is also challenging the legality of the application’s question about orders of protection - based on a recent US Supreme Court ruling. The ruling proclaims the individual right to possess a gun.
As a result of the ruling, similar constitutional challenges to current legal restrictions on possession of firearms are now pending across the nation.
The US Supreme Court’s opinion, however, indicated in passing that it did not strike down long-established prohibitions on gun possession, for example, such as restrictions on possession by convicted felons or the mentally ill, or in “sensitive” places, such as schools and government buildings.
While the exceptions for felons and the mentally ill may well apply to many gun applicants with histories of domestic violence, the high court’s casual re-affirmation (in dicta) of certain exceptions undoubtedly invites many legal challenges - challenges that will leave victims of domestic violence feeling particularly vulnerable for a long time to come.
Read more in this Albany Times Union article: Landmark ruling used to challenge gun case.
Local Boca Raton area couple divorced in 2001.
As part of an agreement between them, Husband paid Wife an extra $1.5 million on the condition that she not fight him for custody of their children. There were also provisions to block Wife from fleeing the jurisdiction with their children.
If Wife later challenged any part of the settlement agreement, the agreement required her to refund the $1.5 million paid to her.
Wife sheltered her settlement money offshore.
In 2003, Wife accused Husband of violating their agreement - and sought a modification of the settlement.
The Court ruled that her sought-after modification was a challenge to the settlement agreement, and ordered the Wife to refund the $1.5 million. The Court subsequently held her in contempt.
Warrants were issued for Wife’s arrest. And then Wife went on the run.
For two years. But Wife finally turned herself in early this year.
And served five months in confinement. Before agreeing to refund $1 million into a trust fund for the couple’s kids.
As part of this latest settlement agreement, Wife agreed not to contact their younger kids except by mail or e-mail, or to see their older minor child except under supervision - if the child gives written permission for any visitation. Wife also agreed not to live in the same town as the children - or any neighboring towns either.
And if Wife violates this settlement agreement, the agreement entitles Husband to recover not only the $1 million but also additional monies that he claims she owes him for her previous violations.
This case went up to the Florida Supreme Court while Wife was a fugitive. Three of the justices actually questioned the legality of the original settlement agreement, at least as to custody. But the majority of justices refused to entertain that position of the Wife while the Wife was on the run.
Read more in this Palm Beach Post article: Jailed mom let go, will return some divorce money.
Oklahoma couple gets a divorce. Then divorce is, uh, canceled.
It was an uncontested divorce. That means the parties had agreed on everything.
Those are typically informal affairs, hurried along before the presiding judge.
In this instance, only one party, with counsel, appeared at the hearing, the pronouns contained in the papers misled or confused as to gender, and no one mentioned to the judge that the couple were lesbians.
Until a reporter called the judge.
Oklahoma law not only prohibits homosexual marriages in the state but also explicitly prohibits recognition of homosexual marriages legally performed elsewhere.
So, once the judge realized what he had done, he voided the divorce he had granted.
The parties actually appealed, but the voiding of the divorce was upheld.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court did however rule that the parties should have been afforded a hearing first - and remanded for that hearing to be held. Although it appears that it was doomed to be an exercise in futility.
Read more in
Georgia couple divorce. Couple had owned real estate held in both names.
The final judgment awarded the Wife permanent possession of the property and she paid the mortgage from that point on. But, for whatever reason, the Court did not address ultimate ownership of the property, and neither did the parties.
Wife lived in the property for many years. But eventually she moved away to care for her elderly mother.
And when she moved, she rented the property out. For money.
At which point the Husband sought half of the rental income.
And the Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the Husband that he was entitled to half of the rental income.
The Court reasoned that the Husband had not waived his right to ask the Court to order a sale of the house (called partition) and division of the proceeds.
It is unclear whether the Georgia Court similarly divided the mortgage payments and maintenance expenses (insurance, taxes, repairs, etc.) of the property.
Read more in this Augusta Chronicle article: Woman must share rent with ex-husband.
Mother and Father separate. Child, a US citizen, lives with Mother and spends weekends with Father.
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.
Celebrity couple: Wife an actress, Husband an elderly, established theater producer.
According to Wife, Husband threatened to cut her off financially and evict her from her apartment.
Having inadequate resources to combat that until the divorce was final, she videotaped herself airing the couple’s dirty laundry, docudramatizing his alleged threats as well as other intimate matters.
Wife posted video on YouTube, a very popular site for viewing videos. Video earns 4 million “hits”. Practically the entire world sees it.
Husband accuses Wife of spousal abuse, perpetrated by publicizing her videos. Husband apparently cites this “abuse” as the grounds for the divorce. (New York remains a “fault state”.)
Wife defended that she only posted the video to generate income to keep her going until her divorce was final.
And generate income for her it did…
Read more in this [UK] Telegraph article: Tricia Walsh-Smith in court after YouTube rants and this Post Chronicle article: YouTube Sensation Tricia Walsh Smith On Day 1 Of Divorce Court.
Divorce represents one of the occasions in a person’s life when they should give some consideration to life (or estate) planning documents. Admittedly, it may not be your first thought.
But, after one of you files for divorce, do you want your spouse to be the one to make decisions about your medical treatment, or lack of same, if something should happen to you? (Recall that health care surrogate / health care proxy / medical power of attorney you executed years ago.)
And if you should become permanently or temporarily disabled after one of you files for divorce, do you want your spouse to be able to conduct all manner of financial transactions, even with your separate assets? (Recall that durable general power of attorney you executed years ago.)
And, heaven forbid, you die before your divorce is final (which may put an end to your divorce) or right afterwards, do you still want to leave all (or any) of your assets to your current spouse? (Recall that will you executed years ago.)
All of the above should be reviewed and updated as soon as one of you files. But that is far from all.
Although many, many people do not realize it, their will does not control how all of their property passes. Much of people’s property today is non-probate property, which passes in accordance with how the asset is titled or a beneficiary form. Their will has no bearing on it.
Some examples include insurance policies, IRAs, jointly titled assets and trusts.
If your spouse is in debt up to his eyeballs, do you really want your life insurance payable to him or her, if your intention is to provide for your kids? (Recall that beneficiary designation form you executed years ago.)
401(k)s seem to fit into the garden-variety non-probate category of assets too, but be forewarned that federal law kicks in to protect a surviving spouse - unless special paperwork is executed. Although your spouse probably won’t agree to it during the divorce, that paperwork can be made part of a settlement.
And then there are state elective share statutes, also designed to protect a surviving spouse no matter what the deceased spouse’s will says. But again, there is special paperwork that can take your estate out of your spouse’s reach, but your spouse probably won’t agree during the divorce.
So, in appropriate circumstances, when possible, some pre-divorce planning may be desirable.
The above are just a few of the life (or estate) planning matters you should consider when contemplating divorce.
Read more in this Newsweek article: Financial Planning: Wills And Other Ways.
An experienced upstate New York family court judge has reportedly been reprimanded as a result of an anonymous complaint.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct, a judicial review board, reviewed hundreds of hours of transcripts of the judge’s cases over a fourteen year period and found three cases where the judge’s conduct was deemed objectionable - although not harmful to the parties or their cases. All three of these cases had been in and out of the judge’s courtroom over a long period of time.
In one case, the judge rebuked two parents, both incarcerated, each seeking custody of their children.
In a second case, the incarcerated father sought custody of his children, although the mother was not incarcerated. The judge criticized the incarcerated father.
In a third case, the judge passed disparaging remarks about one of the parents seeking custody of his child, after the hearing was concluded and the parties had left the courtroom. The basis for the disparagement was not specified.
The judge apparently listens to child abandonment, abuse and neglect cases every day, all day long.
The judge was reprimanded for the above few remarks.
Read more in this Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin article: Judge admonished for language in court.
How long does a divorce take? It depends …
Couple marries in 1984. Marriage is a successful partnership of complementary business skills.
Couple prospers. In 1990, Wife in car accident. Husband reportedly drags them down into debt.
Couple separates and, in 1995, files for divorce.
Husband moves to Alabama, never to return to Florida - or its courts. Husband remarries, putting all of his assets into his new wife’s name.
In 2001, Court orders Husband to pay alimony of $6,000 per month plus Wife’s medical insurance. Court also orders property distribution to Wife of $240,000 plus substantial interests in Husband’s businesses and patents. Court also orders Husband to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees.
Husband didn’t comply with court orders, and no income deduction was ever established. Husband was held in civil contempt and indirect criminal contempt and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
All to no avail.
New actions were filed in Alabama, which culminated in court orders awarding Wife considerably less, $162,000. Period.
But Husband paid that amount.
And the attorneys took about half of it and Wife used the balance to pay off marital debt left to her.
Leaving Wife with … nothing.
Although it’s been about 13 years, and the couple has gone through 16 different attorneys and 10 different judges to arrive at that point, Wife hasn’t given up yet.
But her Florida judges have all but flat out told her she is just wasting her time, accumulating more worthless pieces of paper in her court file.
An unsatisfactory outcome, for reasons that are not entirely clear …
Read more in this St. Petersburg Times article: A divorce, unsettled , cited to from the Overlawyered website.
Pensions which are marital property may be divided as part of the marital settlement. But there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish that.
The right way is to use a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (”QDRO”). QDROs can be complex.
QDROs must comply with detailed retirement plan provisions, and even QDROs already entered by a judge may be ignored by the plan administrator with impunity under certain circumstances.
The moral is that pensions should not be divided as an afterthought or in a rush job. Both parties must work with the plan administrator to ensure that any QDRO is plan-compliant, accomplishes the parties’ objectives in the most advantageous way for both spouses and is entered by the judge simultaneously with the final judgment.
To drive the point home, there are law firms that specialize in drafting QDROs - and nothing else. Division of retirement accounts should not be done informally.
And the division may be deemed property division - or alimony.
Read more in this Chicago Tribune article: Court order needed to split retirement accounts in divorce.
When social services removes children from a home, placing the children with relatives is generally preferable to foster care. Home studies and background checks of nearby relatives typically take place in a matter of days.
But what if the children live near a state border, and their nearby relatives live in another state? Or further away?
Enter the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children, under which bureaucratic red tape reportedly transforms what takes days within a state into months-long, even a year-long process across state lines.
Months in which children must wait in foster care to be cleared to go live with out-of-state relatives who are ready, willing and able to take them now.
Further, the Interstate Compact often provides no means for review or appeal of a rejection of placement with particular relatives.
Although many child welfare legal experts are critical of the Interstate Compact, for political reasons, change does not seem to be in the wind anytime soon.
It is sobering to note that, according to statistics, approximately half of relatives investigated for placements are ultimately rejected.
Read more in this New York Times article: Waits Plague Transfers of Children to Relatives’ Care.
Child support arrearages in Australia top $1 billion. And the arrearages are growing at the alarming rate of $50 million a year.
In a desperate effort to stem the tide, Australia is going to take a closer look at separated parents suspected of understating their income information.
Private investigators will perform visual surveillance of such parents for a year.
Both parents will also have to produce tax returns to child support enforcement personnel.
And the child support enforcement agency has partnered with a private company to seize and sell a parent’s assets, such as a car or home, to collect arrearages.
After a year, the program will be evaluated based upon its impact on collections.
If it works, who knows where else the program might be adapted and implemented? And what will be next?
The mere thought might have a positive impact on child support collections all over the world.
Read more in
Seven year old Florida girl. Father and Mother were never married, didn’t even date.
Since girl’s birth, Father and Mother have taken turns reporting one another to social services and seeking restraining orders against each other.
Each parent has refused to return the child after timesharing with her.
Both parents have tried to inject others into the middle of their battle, including the girl’s preschool.
The Court file was stuffed with hundreds of pages. Then things really got going.
The Mother reportedly withheld visitation one time too many - and was threatened by a judge with incarceration if she pulled that one more time.
And then the girl turned up for visitation with her Father with bruises on her face.
One of the Mother’s boyfriends subsequently pleaded no contest to the charge of battery on the girl. He was sentenced only to probation, but was ordered not to have any further contact with the girl.
Yet the Florida Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) kept returning the girl from her Father to her Mother. Despite cases like this until that point, Florida’s custody laws are gender-neutral; the law does not favor either parent based solely on their sex.
Then things really escalated in the case. The Mother reportedly accused the Father of sexually abusing the girl.
At which point DCF instituted dependency proceedings, to terminate the Father’s parental rights permanently.
The Court appointed a guardian ad litem (lay advocate)(“GAL”) for the girl in the case. Interestingly, the GAL did not buy the Mother’s version of events.
But still DCF and the Mother proceeded to trial. But the Mother changed her testimony mid-stream.
In the end, the Court did not terminate the Father’s parental rights. Probably not so surprising.
But what happened next was …
In a hearing on whether to terminate the Father’s parental rights, the Court swapped the stakes and awarded the Father primary residential custody of the girl! Over DCF’s objections.
Further, the Court ordered the Mother to undergo counseling and awarded her only supervised visitation with the girl.
It turns out that the abuse allegations were inspired by the Father’s application of medicine for the girl’s recurring urinary tract infections.
The Father’s attorney criticized DCF for not doing a thorough investigation into the allegations in the first place. According to him, the girl was coached, later recanted and was then scolded for recanting.
The girl has been living with her Father and his wife over a year now. She is reportedly thriving there.
The Mother has not seen the girl since the Court’s ruling - although Father has reportedly tried to facilitate same.
Mother filed an appeal of the ruling, but it was dismissed. Mother was not represented by counsel at the hearing, because she intended it to be “her hearing”, to terminate Father’s parental rights.
Her appeal was based on the premise that she should have been afforded the opportunity to retain counsel when the hearing morphed into Father’s modification of custody hearing.
But, when you play with fire, you have to expect that you may get burned …
Meanwhile, the Father plans to sue DCF for its negligence, impliedly arising from bias against fathers. He has since become a fathers’ rights advocate.
Dads can win custody of kids, sometimes even when they really don’t go looking for it.
Read more in this Lakeland Ledger article: Custody Case Opens a Window on Family Court.
Psychologists believe that birth order of both spouses plays a significant role in the success of a marriage.
The best marriages are believed to be between oldest sisters and youngest brothers. Why?
Because, in a nutshell, oldest sisters are accustomed to being mommies and youngest brothers are accustomed to being babied. Such matches are made in heaven.
On the other hand, firstborn children tend to be dominant. Pairing them up is virtually a recipe for disaster. There will be constant competition and strife, which may eventually lead to divorce.
Similarly, only children are all used to being the center of attention. Again, attempting to mate such competitive spirits in a successful marriage is likely doomed to fail.
While psychologists admit that birth order shouldn’t conclusively decide whether to proceed with a particular union, they suggest that intendeds analyze their respective birth orders and the implications of same before embarking on marriage.
While perhaps lacking in romance, this perspective gives prospective life partners a barometer against which to judge the likelihood that their proposed match will last until death do they part.
Not to mention the dating advice it provides for some: if you want to avoid divorce, psychologists recommend that oldest sisters should set their sights on youngest brothers and youngest brothers should court oldest sisters.
As the song says, “what’s love got to do with it?”
Read more in this San Luis Obispo Tribune article: Birth order can indicate whether your marriage will work out — or not.
How many noncustodial parents in Colorado who are behind in their child support payments are blowing money at the track or in casinos?
More than a few, judging by the actions of the Colorado legislature.
From now on, winnings that are subject to income tax withholding will also be subject to interception for child support arrearages.
To implement interception, gaming establishments will be entrusted with a database of the names and social security numbers of deadbeat noncustodial parents to check for winners.
Intercepted monies are required to be transmitted to the state within twenty-four hours of winning.
Gaming companies are apparently not enthusiastic about their new duties in child support enforcement and probably fear, possibly with good reason, the chilling effect interception will have on their customers.
Read more in this [CO] KRDO News Radio article: New Law Ensures Gamblers Pay Their Child Support and this Colorado Springs Gazette article: Gambling winnings will be taken for unpaid support.
Woman physically abused by partner.
Woman goes to battered domestic victims’ shelter.
Woman turned away because shelter exhausted its funding …
Sound far-fetched?
Some victims of domestic abuse, such as the representative composite Woman above, are reportedly already being turned away by some shelters in South Dakota due to lack of accommodations, resources or support services, resulting from cuts in federal funding and, likely, reductions in private donations in a contracting economy.
Unfortunately, acts of domestic violence often increase in a tightening economy.
Some shelters insist that they don’t just turn victims away, that is, not without first making a referral to another shelter that can take them in or help them.
But what happens if there comes a day when there is no other shelter in an economic position to help? …
Read more in this Rapid City [SD] Journal article: Support violence shelters.
Well-off Nebraska couple divorce. Husband ordered to pay substantial alimony ($12,500 per month for 106 months) plus substantial child support ($5,000 per month).
Husband purchased a $1 million life insurance policy for the benefit of his children, although it is not clear whether that was court-ordered. It appears that no other life insurance was ordered by the Court in the divorce.
It is common for courts to order life insurance, where it is obtainable, to secure both child support and alimony obligations.
After the divorce was final, Wife reportedly sought to purchase an additional $1 million life insurance policy on her ex-husband’s life, but Husband refused to submit to a required physical examination. So Wife sought a court order for the additional insurance.
But the Court rejected her claim.
Under Nebraska law, it is illegal to take out a policy on another person’s life without their consent unless the person whose life is insured will own the policy. It is against public policy, because the purchasing beneficiary would have an interest in the insured’s death.
Once the divorce is final, the law applies to ex-spouses the same as to anyone else.
The Court failed to order insurance to secure the alimony obligation at the time of the divorce because it presumably felt that Wife had adequate resources to carry on in the event of Husband’s death. After all, her net worth is reportedly over $4 million.
Read more in this Omaha World-Herald article: Nebraska court says no life insurance policy for ex-wife.
Maryland courts awarded Father custody of the older of two children and Mother custody of the younger child. Later, that Maryland court awarded Father custody of the younger child too.
About seven years ago, Mother allegedly abducted the two children to Egypt.
Father hasn’t seen them since.
He has occasionally spoken to them, only to find that they have been alienated from him.
Father sought to enforce his Maryland custody awards and have the children returned to him in the USA.
He even won a judgment in Maryland against his ex-wife and her mother for $3 million in damages for their interference with his custody of the boys. His ex-mother-in-law even served three years of a ten year sentence for her part in abducting the children.
And a warrant was issued for his ex-wife’s arrest.
But none of these measures have gotten Father any closer to even seeing his boys.
Egypt is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and has not honored any of the court orders entered in Father’s favor.
Read more in this Arab Times article: Lonely dad lives death.
Canadian child protective services removed a seven year old girl and a two year old boy from their parents’ home - because the girl was sent to school with a swastika painted on her arm and other Nazi-like graffiti on her body.
Authorities were also somewhat concerned about possible drug and alcohol abuse and truancy.
But mostly it was the swastika that got them going.
The removal touched off a political firestorm in our neighbor to the North.
The parents have since separated.
Rumor has it that the children will be released to their mother before long.
The case raises the question: is this the type of conduct, as offensive as it is, properly targeted by child welfare laws?
Now every parent has to wonder and worry: where is - and should - the line be drawn before the state may remove children from their parents?
Read more in:
| Listen to Janet |