A teenaged Brooklyn mother was caring for her own eleven month old baby as well as her boyfriend’s two year old sister.

She was alone, bathing the babies and trying to make dinner at the same time.

The dinner was burning.

So she allegedly left the babies, unsupervised, in the tub for a few minutes to tend to dinner.

And her eleven month old went down in the water, not breathing, for a time.

The baby has been on a ventilator, in a coma, for a month now.

Her prognosis is uncertain.

And the young mother has been in confinement ever since, facing charges of endangerment of a child and reckless endangerment – or worse.

The father of the baby hopes to win custody when – and if – the baby is discharged from the hospital.

The mother and her supporters insist that she should be released from jail, that she is not a criminal, that what happened was an accident, that she was learning how to be a mother without any role models.

The article illustrates one legal process for handling such circumstances: criminal charges against the mother who allegedly neglected her child.

The other legal process, juvenile dependency, is a civil process by which children are taken into protective custody and the court supervises reunification of the child with the parents, when and where appropriate. The goal is for the parents to improve their parenting skills and then be with their kids.

The two processes are not mutually exclusive.

But when should the criminal process be resorted to? That is the question here.

And, not surprisingly, that is decided on a case by case basis.

Read more in this New York Times article: A Baby Girl’s Bath Becomes a Young Couple’s Nightmare.

There was a hotly contested child custody case.

There were allegations of sexual abuse.

A custody evaluation was ordered.

The custody evaluator’s recommendation was adopted by the court and incorporated into a custody order …

Then the custody evaluator, a psychologist, was arrested for voyeurism.

Then his license was suspended.

Then he committed suicide.

Then what?

That is the question plaguing a lot of folks in Seattle, where the above reportedly befell a noted psychologist and custody evaluator.

Those involved in the family court system anticipate a greater than typical number of challenges to custody determinations as a result of the above events.

And that could mean future upheaval in the lives of many affected children.

Only time will tell whether his recommendations withstand any challenges which may be made.

Read more in this Seattle Times article: Therapist’s suicide could trigger challenges in legal cases.

A Massachusetts couple has the whole husband-wife spectrum covered.

He is a divorce attorney.

She is a minister and officiates at her fair share of weddings.

After a decade of marriage to each other, they appreciate the irony.

And they probably have accumulated a great deal of insight into which marriages fail and why.

Read more in this Cape Code Times article: Minister and divorce attorney counsel couples starting and ending marriages.

Chicago man and woman live together.

Woman adopts two children.

Man is de facto father.

When one girl is five and the other two, couple breaks up.

Woman denies man access to girls, for a year now.

Man moves for visitation.

Woman moves to dismiss motion for visitation.

How does the court rule?

An Illinois trial court refused to dismiss the motion for visitation, at least outright.

Only time will tell the ultimate outcome here.

In many respects, this case parallels where one partner in a same sex relationship adopts a child which the gay couple raises together – until they break up.

Read more in this Chicago Sun Times article: Man may get to see ex’s adopted girls.

Dad is murdered. Mother is convicted of the crime and sentenced to jail.

Mother’s sister and brother in law are appointed guardians of seven year old child.

Legal custody is shared by guardians and Dad’s parents, who live in another state.

Court orders guardians not to take child to visit Mother in jail.

Guardians later move for permission to do so.

Grandparents move to block visitation with mother.

Guardians move to change child’s last name to their own name, which is not Mother’s name or Father’s name.

Grandparents move to block name change as well.

This case takes shared parental responsibility to a whole new level, making consulting with the child’s other parent seem like a piece of cake by comparison.

Read more about this exotic co-parenting scheme in this [Raleigh, North Carolina] WRAL-TV 5 article: Kontz’s Family Seeks to Reinstate Visitation Rights.

It happens. The isolated case featured in the news where a husband allegedly kills his wife: to get custody of the kids, to avoid paying alimony, to evade paying child support, to avert parting with half of his “stuff”, etc.

But then if you review them all, it may appear that it’s not just an isolated case here and there at all. And maybe it’s not really about the kids or the money or the stuff.

Instead, a narcissistic sociopath is really just looking to keep his dirty little secrets secret.

That’s the chilling conclusion in this disturbing article in the Boston Globe: Why do men kill their wives? Could some of these murders really be no more than “divorce substitutes”?

For those interested in digging deeper into the pathos, whether for self-preservation or not, the article seems to be inspired at least in part by psychologist David Adams’ forthcoming book Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners.

As example after example faces trial in Boston alone, if nothing else, it should serve as a reminder that any kind of a divorce really would have been more tolerable than the possible reality of jail – or worse.