French-Israeli father. Turkish mother.
Child had triple citizenship, but was born and raised in Israel.
Mother and child depart for Turkey to spend a holiday with Mother’s parents in 2004.
And stay there. Permanently.
An Israeli court promptly orders the return of the child to Israel under the Hague Convention in the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Both Turkey and Israel are parties to the Hague Convention.
The Turkish courts agreed with the Israeli courts and upheld consistent orders through two levels of appeals.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg also agreed with the Israeli courts.
But the little girl remains in Turkey.
For months, the father had no contact with his child.
Then, he was allowed biweekly visits for a time.
But the little girl remains in Turkey.
This where both involved countries are members of the Hague Convention.
Read more in this Turkish Today’s Zaman article: [FAMILY TRAGEDY] From Tel Aviv to Ã„Â°stanbul: One manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s search for his daughter.
A four year old Pennsylvania girl is the subject of an order awarding joint, rotating custody of her. The child will move from one custodian to another every seven days.
Not typical, but not unheard of either.
What is unusual is who the alternating custodians are: the child’s two maternal grandmothers.
The little girl’s father murdered her mother and then himself in the middle of their own custody battle, leaving the child an orphan.
The grandmothers settled on this custody arrangement in the middle of a custody trial. They also agreed that one grandfather, a Florida resident, would have visitation rights and be permitted to participate in the little girl’s therapy sessions.
The arrangement may need to be modified when the child starts school in a year. But, at least until that time, the two grandmothers share parental responsibility.
Read more in this Lockhaven [PA] Express article: Joint custody of 4-year-old to continue.
An Oregon man is building up a criminal record. And that is putting the brakes on his divorce.
Over the last eight years since his divorce case was filed, the husband has allegedly been attempting to hide assets from his wife.
Upon learning of the supposed fraud, the wife renounced a settlement agreement.
The wife draws support for her position from fact that the husband, under oath in the divorce case, denied owning an interest in a resort owned by his half-brother – but then filed a separate lawsuit asserting a multi-million dollar interest in the resort.
Unfortunately for the husband, his brother testified under oath that the husband intentionally sought to divert income from his own business to the resort – to hide it from his wife in the divorce case.
Now the husband alleges that he purchased an ownership interest in the resort. And the brother contends that he purchased only an interest in the stream of net income.
The husband reportedly refused to enter a written agreement. After all, that could be found and used by the wife in the divorce case.
In the suit against his brother, the Court awarded the husband a substantial (but fixed) sum of money – but no ownership interest.
Part or all of the amount of the judgment may be subject to property division between the spouses – or, possibly, allocated to support.
Read more in this Salem, Oregon Statesman Journal article: Facing charges isn’t new for property owner.
Divorce doesn’t hurt children.
Post-divorce conflict between parents does.
A recent study concludes that children of amicable divorces are significantly better adjusted than children of high conflict divorces.
Insults, anger and disparagement in front of the children is all harmful to them.
Children feel under attack themselves when one of their parents attacks the other.
Children often feel responsible for their parents’ divorce, especially if their parents argue about them.
If parents must argue, they should do it privately.
Read more post divorce parenting tips in this Bradenton Herald article: Helping your child cope with divorce.