Minnesota judge goes through divorce. By the end, he owes his attorneys over $100,000.

Judge reportedly begins appointing attorney with his divorce law firm to mediate cases on his docket. Nineteen to be precise.

The judge had never appointed this attorney to mediate cases on his docket before his own divorce case. The lawyer reportedly was not qualified for one of the appointments.

The law firm cuts the judge’s divorce legal fees bill by $64,000. There are reportedly e-mails in which the judge proposes a discount for payment in a lump sum.

The judge also allegedly writes “[t]here is also a very substantial past, and future, benefit to you from significant business referrals we have made, in excess of the compromise we are asking for.” The appointed lawyer, indicating she is entertaining the proposal, replies “I certainly appreciate the mediation referrals you have sent my way and hope you continue to do so.”

The judge’s ex-wife reports the judge to the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards. The judge maintains that he did not make the appointments in exchange for the writedown.

He insists that the referrals of which he wrote were to friends going through divorces. Local law enforcement declines to prosecute the judge. No action has been taken against the attorney receiving the mediation appointments.

A hearing will be held to determine whether the judge engaged in conduct which warrants judicial discipline.

Read more in this [Minneapolis] Pioneer Press article: Dakota County / Judge denies divorce fee deal and this Rochester [MN] Post-Bulletin article: State board: Goodhue judge finagled discount on his divorce.

What are the odds?

In Anderson County, South Carolina one recent Saturday, police responded to the scene where a woman allegedly poured lighter fluid on her husband – because he criticized her for pawning some household items. The man declined to press charges.

In another incident in the same community on the same day, police responded to the scene where another woman allegedly struck her husband in the back with a stool. The man had “spanked” the family dog for relieving itself inside their home. This man declined to press charges as well.

One can’t help but wonder about the true reason that the husbands declined to press domestic battery charges against their wives.

And whether it is the same that so many women victims of domestic violence decline to press domestic assault charges against their husbands …

Read more in this Anderson [SC] Independent Mail article: Wives challenge home-based decisions of two Anderson County men

Florida Mother is disabled. Mother takes prescription drugs for pain from her disability.

Department of Children and Families removes Child, places her with maternal grandparents and establishes case plan for Mother to regain custody of Child.

The case plan requires Mother to obtain a medical evaluation from the University of Miami (U of M) ”to explore non-narcotic alternatives to her pain management.”

U of M charges for such evaluations, so Mother applies for financial aid due to her indigency. Mother is wait-listed.

Because the U of M medical evaluation does not take place “timely” due to Mother’s inability to pay for it, the trial Court terminates the disabled Mother’s parental rights and awards permanent guardianship of Child to grandparents. Just as though Mother is indifferent to the case plan.

On appeal, the ruling is reversed and the Mother’s parental rights are reinstated. Reason: parental rights may not be terminated where it is impossible for parent to complete case plan through no fault of parent.

Read more in this Miami Herald article: Mom gets second chance at child’s custody.

A pilot program in Volusia County, Florida allows thirty-five children to remain home with their families instead of being removed as a result of abuse or neglect.

The new Family In-Home Recovery Support Team (FIRST) program concentrates on providing intensive in-home services to just seventeen families at this time.

Volusia is one of two Florida counties with especially high numbers of abuse reports and rates of removal. Volusia also experienced significant increases in removals last year despite a statewide campaign to reduce them.

Cases suitable for the FIRST program may involve domestic violence and substance abuse, but probably not sexual abuse or aggravated domestic violence. Homes posing the greatest risks to children are not appropriate for this new program.

The program works by teaming up a therapist with a social worker from a third party organization for several visits per week to daily visits to troubled homes for about four months.

An additional hoped-for benefit of the intensive in-home services program is that it may reduce burnout and turnover of caseworkers. It is thought that the constant stress of removing children from their homes is a prime reason for both.

Read more in this East Volusia News Journal article: New child services program puts families FIRST.

Georgia Husband and Wife prepare for second marriage each.

They make a prenuptial agreement. Wife waives claims to alimony, the marital home and other assets in the agreement.

Fast forward several years.

Divorce case begins. The Court awards temporary alimony to Wife and shared temporary possession of the marital home to both.

Although there is no prior history of violence in the marriage, the Court also orders Husband to turn his guns over to his father during the case. Perhaps an omen of things to come.

Next, the Court voids the prenuptial agreement. Husband not happy.

Finally, the Court orders mediation, a process by which spouses meet with a neutral third party in an effort to come to a settlement agreement.

Husband and Wife went to mediation one morning. They did not settle their case though.

The Husband called in to his job that he wouldn’t be at work that evening.

Just hours after the mediation, the Husband beat Wife to death with an aluminum baseball bat.

Afterwards, he fatally shot himself with a gun.

Husband reportedly confessed to Wife’s attorney and his own work supervisor.

No one anticipated this eruption of domestic violence – except perhaps the judge who ordered Husband’s guns removed from the home.

Among other things, this case demonstrates the potential danger of husband and wife living together in the marital home during a divorce.

If it is necessary, a Florida court (and courts in other states as well) can order that one of the spouses temporarily move out of the marital home until the end of the case.

Read more in this Athens [GA] Banner-Herald article: Couple’s legal fight ends in their deaths