Divorce law and all family law varies from state to state.

As an attorney licensed and admitted to practice law in New York and New Jersey as well as Florida, I have long been keenly aware of this, and that states may learn much from one another. By extension, parties and practitioners may learn much from their counterparts in other states.

A California attorney has written an instructive article on temporary restraining orders that automatically apply to California divorce court cases under California law. The article does not reflect the law in effect across the state of Florida (although certain counties in Florida do impose some similar automatic restraining orders on a county by county basis).

California’s automatic restraining orders in family court cases are against:

1. unilaterally removing common children outside the state

2. hiding or disposing of assets of either or both spouses

3. altering the beneficiaries of insurance policies in place for the benefit of the other spouse or their common children and

4. generating or modifying a nonprobate transfer of property

Not surprisingly, exceptions are made: as permitted by written consent of the other spouse or by court order, for transfers made in the ordinary course of an established business, for established living expenses and for reasonable attorney’s fees.

It is worth noting that, just because the above conduct is not subject to automatic prohibition across the state of Florida, does not mean that the conduct would find favor with a Florida family court if brought to its attention in any particular Florida divorce case. It just means that prohibition is not automatic in Florida.

Quite the contrary, divorcing spouses in Florida should be aware that, upon a proper showing in any Florida divorce court, either spouse may be able to obtain a temporary restraining order prohibiting the same behavior in their Florida divorce court case case, only on a case-by-case basis. And any such behavior already engaged in may be taken into account in the ultimate equitable distribution or property division in the particular Florida family court case.

Read more in this Balita Media article: Automatic temporary restraining orders that are in effect upon commencement of divorce.

Internet visitation for parents separated from their children by distance has gained increasing popularity over the last decade.

It began with more expensive add-on web cameras, which required advanced technical hardware and software knowledge to hook up and make work.

But now the options have expanded and simplified.

Many cellular phones come standard with built-in video cameras today.

Internet telephone services offer video phone conferencing. Even online chat applications and text messaging often feature video now.

In short, video communications are now readily accessible to many, many ordinary Americans, often without special equipment or specialized technical knowledge.

Making internet timesharing better, easier and cheaper than ever before.

Which is why more and more states are recognizing it, approving agreements for it and even providing a statutory and/or case law framework for ordering it.

And, despite closer scrutiny of parental relocation in many states, with the recession and weak job market persisting, virtual timesharing is here to stay.

Besides making long distance visitation possible, at least in some cases, internet visitation adds a meaningful dimension to ordinary phone conversations .. and has resulted in longer-lasting phone contact.

But opponents of virtual visitation fear that its availability may encourage courts to allow relocation more freely.

Read more in this FindLaw article: Parenting in Cyberspace? Virtual Visitation and the Court-Ordered Use of Technology Become Realities In Tough Economic Times.

Wife is convicted of stabbing Husband to death, nearly 200 times.

Wife is sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

Wife appeals the sentencing.

Wife is granted a new trial as to punishment.

Wife argues that she was a battered spouse who acted in the heat of passion. She is seeking probation.

The prosecution argues that Wife was an angry wife who achieved a divorce by homicide.

If the murder was in the heat of passion, the maximum sentence is twenty years.

Read more in this Houston Chronicle article: DA calls Jeffrey Wright’s death ‘divorce by homicide’.

Texas Husband and Wife have adult Daughter with Downs Syndrome.

Husband and Wife had guardianship of Daughter, but were reportedly removed as Daughter’s guardians … at a hearing held without notice or opportunity for them to appear and defend themselves against allegations of abuse and neglect.

It is unknown who sought that hearing and who is serving as Daughter’s guardian at this time.

A new hearing was coming up in the case, but that was suddenly canceled, also for unknown reasons.

Daughter’s Brother denies any allegations of abuse and neglect by Husband and Wife.

Husband and Wife believe the cancellation of their hearing was political.

Read more in this Dallas KDAF 33 TV news article: Arlington family who lost custody of disabled daughter in secret hearing cries foul.

Husband and Wife own the marital residence (Home).

Home has appreciated in value since purchase, and Husband and Wife have positive equity in Home.

Husband and Wife are divorcing.

Wife wants to remain in the Home with the Children.

Husband would prefer to sell the Home and split the proceeds of sale.

Husband and Wife reach an amicable resolution.

Wife will buy out Husband’s interest in the Home, and Husband will transfer his interest in the Home to Wife.

Will Wife have a taxable capital gain?

Generally, no. Transfers between spouses in connection with a divorce generally do not give rise to taxable events.

In other words, no gain or loss is deemed to be taken. The buying spouse takes over or assumes the same tax basis that the couple previously had in the transferred property.

Read more in this [Fort Smith, AR] Times Record column: Key to Reducing Capital Gains Taxes.

A divorce lawyer can never remind clients too often that joint debt and marital debt are not necessarily the same.

For example, people who are not married to each other can have joint debt by both of them signing for it.

On the other hand, if only one spouse signs for a debt incurred during the marriage, that is marital debt, although it is not joint.

Fussy details? More than that.

A creditor generally cannot come after a spouse who did not sign for the debt. Only a divorce court can order the other spouse to contribute to paying off that marital, but not joint, debt.

Similarly, a creditor can go after either spouse on joint debt. That is why it is important to close joint accounts promptly.

And, with the stakes potentially high, closing of joint accounts should not be left to the other spouse, without production of proof.

Read more in this CreditCards.com divorce credit column: Divorce doesn’t dissolve joint card debt.

California Mother and Father are raising 15 year old Daughter.

Daughter allegedly steals Mother’s and Father’s car and travels to Utah, to reunite with her biological mother and stepfather.

Daughter tells her biological mother that Mother and Father regularly physically abuse her.

The adults report the abuse to a child welfare agency and law enforcement authorities.

Medical examination of Daughter finds trauma, which examiners characterize as “non-accidental”.

Mother and Father are charged with the felony of “torture”.

Mother and Father’s two younger Children are taken into child protective custody.

Children deny any abuse.

Mother and Father are listed in the Child Abuse Central Index.

Authorities’ investigation continues.

Family doctor testifies that despite numerous examinations, he has not observed any evidence of physical abuse of Daughter.

Authorities eventually conclude that Mother and Father are innocent.

Charges against them are dropped.

But Mother and Father remain listed on the Child Abuse Central Index.

Finally, Mother and Father sue local officials for damages for failure to remove their names from the Child Abuse Central Index long after the charges against them are dropped.

Mother and Father assert that the listing in the Child Abuse Central Index violates their due process rights, because they were not afforded the opportunity to challenge the allegations against them before their names were listed in the Child Abuse Central Index.

The local officials defend by blaming the violation on the state.

An intermediate federal appellate court rules in favor of Mother and Father.

Now the case is awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court.

Read more in this CNN article: Court hears appeal of couple cleared of child abuse, still on registry.

South Carolina Husband and Wife are, respectively, a drug court judge and the clerk of court.

Wife has access to child support enforcement funds from the federal government.

Husband is removed from the bench for unknown reasons.

And Wife allegedly dips into the public coffers, in part to pay Husband’s salary and also to pay insurance premiums for relatives and a vacation home.

To the tune of $338 thousand.

Wife is charged in state court with embezzlement of public funds and misconduct in office … and convicted.

She is sentenced to five years’ probation – and two hundred hours of community service.

Then Wife is charged in federal court with unlawful conversion of public funds.

Wife pleads not guilty

Maximum sentence for the federal charges against Wife are a fine of $250,000 and ten years’ confinement.

Read more in this Beaufort Gazette article: Ex-court clerk appears in federal court.