A Wisconsin couple’s divorce isn’t going to be amicable or private.

The wife alleges that the husband

1. coerced her into a “six page” sex slavery agreement
2. abused her physically and mentally and
3. hid assets from her

Only the last allegation of asset hiding is routine in a case like this, in which the husband is a respected businessman.

The wife is seeking significant monetary damages, including substantial punitive damages.

Read more in The wife of a Husdon, Wis.-area businessman says she was abused and forced into a sex-slave agreement.

An unusual and sad interstate child custody jurisdiction case originates in Arkansas, where family comes from.

Mother got custody of child in the divorce. Father moved to Oklahoma to pursue a professional degree. Later, their child was diagnosed with cancer and Mother and daughter moved to Tennessee for better treatment.

For about two years, the entire family is gone from Arkansas.

Father brings motion in Arkansas for emergency visitation. Mother then requests a stay, registers the original Arkansas judgment in Tennessee, and further requests that the Arkansas court communicate with the Tennessee court.

At the time of an inital child custody proceeding, more than one state may potentially exercise child custody jurisdiction. But, typically, once one state has actually, validly exercised child custody jurisdiction, that original state which exercises jurisdiction over a child [as in a divorce], retains jurisdiction over the child until that original state says it doesn’t.

In practice, most states would likely yield (or decline to exercise) jurisdiction after both parents and the child have moved away from the state. And, according to the Arkansas appellate court, that is usually the case in Arkansas.

Clearly, Mother wanted the Tennesee courts to assume jurisdiction on that basis.

Yet the Arkansas court ruled that it retained jurisdiction. Why?

Because the Tennessee court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the child. Just because a court can do something, doesn’t mean it must – or, in certain cases, should.

In this particular case, the Arkansas court, which had had valid, original jurisdiction, merely occupied the jurisdictional vacuum left by the Tennessee court.

Read more in this Fort Smith [Arkansas] Times Record article.

Father and Mother, divorced, live in Rhode Island. Father is the primary residential parent.

Father’s parents live here in Florida. Court order reportedly bars Father from relocating daughter to Florida.

According to reports, Father tried, unsuccessfully, to modify the order so that he could relocate to Florida, to work in his parents’ business.

Father allegedly takes daughter on a car trip to Florida, during school year without advising mother. Upon investigation, Father’s landlord states that Father moved.

According to accounts, Father is caught with a do-it-yourself moving van, arrested for child snatching and sent back to Rhode Island.

Father contends that he and his daughter are just visiting her grandparents in Florida, that the court order doesn’t absolutely bar the daughter from leaving Rhode Island, just from moving away.

But Father also allegedly states that he has no Rhode Island address at the moment and that he is going to be living with his parents for “a while”.

Now Father is barred from any contact with his daughter at all, although Mother does not feel Father is a danger to their daughter. And Mother is seeking primary residential responsibility based on relocation / visit.

Father contends that his and his daughter’s rights were violated and that the current situation is not in his daughter’s best interests.

Among other facts that are unclear from this report, is why the primary residential parent and his daughter are deprived of any visitation (not even supervised visitation) – especially before any conviction and/or incarceration.

Read more in this Westerly [RI] Sun article.

Engaged couple contracts with surrogate to serve as surrogate mother to carry and deliver babies.

Sperm comes from future groom; eggs are donated by another woman under a separate contract.

Both contracts contemplate that custody of babies after birth will be with groom sperm donor.

After giving birth, the surrogate mother takes the triplets home with her.

Surprisingly, lower court voids the surrogacy contract on grounds that are unclear.

Reviewing court reverses, awarding custody to the biological father.

The surrogate mother plans to appeal.

But similar contractual arrangements have generally been upheld, in various states, when (occasionally) litigated.

Read more in this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania) article.

Practically everyone has heard of prenups. Less well known but, ironically, far more common, are postnups or postnuptial agreements.

A postnup can be the functional equivalent of the prenup you didn’t quite get to before the wedding, and can be made the day after the wedding, the week after you return from the honeymoon, or anytime after that.

A postnup can alter a prenup.

A postnup can settle disposition on death or divorce of property you didn’t have before.

A postnup can serve as a divorce settlement agreement.

All in all, a very versatile form of agreement worth knowing about.

And Florida enforces properly made postnups.

Read more in this MS NBC article.

In the typical child custody case, both parents share parental responsibility – in Florida.

Several other states also favor shared (or joint) legal custody of children.

But the great majority of states don’t.

A New York state legislative committee just struck down the latest proposal for joint legal custody.

This Greater Binghampton Press & Sun-Bulletin article points out some of the reasons why.

Topping the list is domestic violence and abuse, including extremely controlling behavior by one parent.

Attorney / stockbroker Adriane Berg suggests 10 strategies to divide the property in divorce courtesy of MSN Money.

This article is worth reading for anyone whose divorce includes property division. Be forewarned that some of the advice is not really practicable for divorces with modest assets, or where one or both spouses is unwilling or unable to function in a reasonable and civil manner.

But, for those couples with preconceived notions about equitable distribution (“let’s split each asset and debt, one by one”) that are off-base, the article brings home the important message that there are many different strategies for property division – with, potentially, very different net outcomes. And it may stimulate more creative thinking, from a “bigger picture” perspective.

That’s a win-win for both spouses and any children they have.

A case of parental kidnapping comes out of Missouri.

The father allegedly failed to return his two children from a weekend’s visitation.

The father has been captured and sentenced to 41 years in prison for the kidnappings.

But the case can’t be closed.

The two boys are still missing and unaccounted for after two years.

The father refuses to divulge where they are – or even whether they are alive.

The father reportedly has a history of domestic abuse.

Read more in this (Eastern Jackson County Missouri) Examiner article.

USA Today recently published an insightful article about the significant role that money conflicts play in a substantial percentage of unraveling marriages.

The unspoken message in the article is that financial compatibility is as important to the success of a marriage as any other type of compatibility.

Taking that a step further, it should not be surprising that lack of (or poor) communication about money, as well as incompatible attitudes toward spending and debt, both often contribute toward failure to reach an amicable settlement of money issues in divorces triggered by financial incompatibility.

The only bright spot in the picture painted is that people often learn from this experience in a first failed marriage and tackle money compatibility head-on before tying the knot again.

One of the untouted side benefits of negotiating prenups is that they promote, even demand, forthright discussions about attitudes toward money and property and money and property goals as well as wishes in the event of death and/or divorce.

A California appellate court recently upheld termination of spousal support to a domestic abuser and harasser.

The court held that the anti-domestic violence policy behind the statute on which it based its ruling superseded the terms of the parties’ marital settlement agreement, which only allowed modification of support under specified conditions.

The receiving ex-wife was reportedly criminally convicted once of stalking her ex-husband – and subsequently charged again with the same crime. According to the account, the woman was relentless.

The court also pointed out that the alimony was, in effect, funding the ex-wife’s wrongful actions.

Read more in this [Los Angeles] Metropolitan News-Enterprise article.