Bermuda Husband and Wife have a five year old Son together.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Bermuda family court awards custody of Son to Husband.

Wife abducts Son and deprives Husband of any contact with Son for nine years. It appears that Wife and Son have been living in various locations in Florida since 2003, along with Son’s younger half-sister.

Mother reportedly has been arrested on more than one occasion for theft.

Son is located in a homeless shelter in western Florida, and authorities arrange for Son to be reunited with Husband.

Husband travels to the US for his first contact with Son in years. They enjoy spending several precious hours together.

But immediately prior to a scheduled mandatory US court appearance, Wife and Son disappear again.

This despite Husband’s application for Son’s return to Bermuda under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Read more in this [Bermuda] BerNews news article: Father’s Heartbreak: Jasai Swan-Burrows and this [Bermuda] Royal Gazette article: Heartbreak as father’s reunion with son ends abruptly.

Sixty-five year old Indian Man lives with thirty year old Woman for three years in India.

Man puts Woman out of his home.

Now Woman seeks alimony and spousal support.

Man objects, asserting that Woman is his housekeeper and not even his wife.

Family court awards Woman temporary alimony.

Man appeals.

The appellate court affirms the divorce court’s ruling, holding that stringent proof of a valid marriage is not necessary at the temporary relief stage of the case. It is sufficient that the two gave the appearance of a married couple.

Read more in this Indian Express News Service article: Marriage valid or not, man must pay alimony: Court.

It’s one of the most misunderstood areas of the law for divorcing spouses. So this bears repeating.

When it comes to debts, family court can only make orders as to and as between the spouses. Family court cannot enter orders which bind third party creditors.

So when the family court allocates a joint debt to one spouse, that does not absolve the other spouse of their legal obligations to creditors. It just creates an obligation from one spouse to the other.

If the spouse to whom a joint debt is allocated doesn’t pay it, the credit of both spouses will take a hit … and the creditor can pursue payment from the other spouse, who thought they were off the hook.

Now that spouse can still take their ex back to family court to enforce the allocation of the debt and obtain an order for reimbursement. But that does not affect the creditor’s rights.

It is sometimes possible for one spouse to have their name removed from a debt at the time of the divorce, but that isn’t typical, especially for non-mortgage, unsecured debt.

In the case of property buyouts by one spouse of the other, a refinancing of the mortgage can be utilized to take the “bought out” spouse’s name off the note and mortgage. The refinancing is essentially a new transaction for new “compensation” to the lender, and the lender re-underwrites the modified loan to satisfy itself that the soon-to-be-single spouse can carry the modified obligation.

But, with unsecured debts, creditors have little incentive to release a spouse from a debt and give up a potential source of payment. So they likely won’t do so.

Whereever possible, it is always “cleanest” to pay off joint debt and replace it with individual debt in the sole name of the spouse to whom the debt is allocated. Unfortunately though, that is often not feasible.

Moral of the story: no matter what is stated in a marital settlement agreement or ordered by a divorce court, neither spouse is free of joint debt until it is paid in full and discharged.

Read more in this El Paso Inc. news article: Debt and divorce decrees.

Mother and Father both enter the US illegally and remain in Arkansas.

Mother remains undocumented for years. Father secures legal status on a temporary but renewing basis.

The government pursues increased child support from Father for their Daughter.

And then Father looks to get custody of Daughter.

To modify custody, Arkansas requires a material change of circumstances since entry of the previous child custody order.

At trial, the family court modifies child custody and awards custody of Daughter to Father. It appears that the trial judge bases his ruling upon his personal political and policy views, rather than Arkansas child custody law.

On appeal, Arkansas’ highest court reverses and restores custody of Daughter to Mother.

It turns out that the circumstances Father complains of, Mother’s undocumented status and lack of a valid driver’s license, are exactly the same as they were at the time of Mother’s and Father’s divorce. They were apparently acceptable to Father then, and the marital settlement agreement was approved by the family court and adopted in its final judgment.

Further, the evidence at trial showed that Father had had little or no contact with Daughter for about two years.

Read more in this Arkansas Times piece: Illegal Immigrant.

In New Haven, CT, a family court support magistrate doesn’t punish parents who don’t pay support.

Yet fifty-five percent more support payments are actually being made through her courtroom.

How is that?

The magistrate helps parents address the reason they are behind in their support payments, be it a substance abuse problem, a homelessness challenge, a criminal record, a limited education or an unemployment situation.

The pilot program is called Problem Solving Initiative, and it specifically targets people with severe challenges, such as those above.

And directs them to community services that may be able to help them, so that they will be able to support their children.

Mental health and substance abuse professionals, as well as college and law school interns, are on hand right in the courtroom.

Read more in this Hartford [CT] Courant article: A Helping Hand, Rather Than Jail, For Parents Who Owe Child Support.

Last October I posted about an unusual case in Mexican Mother Wins Return of Daughter Who Runs Away to Canadian Aunt Because of Alleged Abuse.

Mother was awarded custody of Daughter in her parents’ divorce, but Daughter has maintained that Mother abused her. Although Canada granted Daughter refugee status, Mother secured Daughter’s deportation and return to Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

On appeal in Canada, however, a reversal paved the way for Daughter’s return to Canada for lack of a risk assessment hearing prior to her deportation. With intervention in the case from the UN Commissioner for Refugees and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the appellate court granted Daughter another hearing.

But Mexican authorities had no interest in the Canadian court’s rulings. So Daughter once again fled Mexico, with help from the Aunt with whom she had lived in Canada.

Now Daughter is back in Canada, which she considers her home. And a Canadian family court has ruled that she may remain in Canada permanently, in the care of her aunt.

Read more in this Canada.com news article: Teen embroiled in international custody battle can stay in Canada and this CBC News article: Deported teen refugee back in Toronto.

Girlfriend meets Boyfriend online.

Girlfriend is head over heels with Boyfriend.

Boyfriend tells Girlfriend he is a minister …a bishop … a doctor … a real estate expert … and an attorney.

Boyfriend describes himself online as someone who can help his dates with the gamut from their faith to their finances.

He speaks of marrying Girlfriend.

But first, he reportedly manipulates her into signing a Cohabitation Agreement. A beaut.

The agreement assigns Boyfriend authority to “rule over the affairs of the home”, and holds Girlfriend legally “responsible for all domestic house chores”.

And, of course, allocates “full authority to manage all of the[ir financial] affairs without limitation”. That pertains to all financial accounts, which are required to be “turned over” to him.

Boyfriend also has Girlfriend sign over power of attorney to him as to her property. And a deed to her home.

And Girlfriend isn’t the first victim of Boyfriend’s scheme.

Although Boyfriend has been sued civilly though, he has never been prosecuted for his conduct.

A reasonable cohabitation agreement can be extremely valuable in laying out the legal and financial framework for romantic partners living together outside of marriage (or, for that matter, people who are not romantic partners).

But an unreasonable and overreaching cohabitation agreement (and other transactions) can create a significant expense and hassle, and do financial damage to at least one of the parties to it.

Before entering a cohabitation agreement or other financial transactions with a third party, it is prudent to run a reality check by at least discussing the agreement, ideally with an attorney, but alternatively with another neutral, objective, mature third party with some wisdom, life experience and some experience managing financial affairs.

Read more in this [Charlotte, NC] WBTV 3 news article: 3 women victimized by man they met in on-line dating website.

Despite her award of alimony and spousal support in her divorce, Utah Ex-Wife has trouble establishing a residence after her divorce.

She spends a significant part of her time at her parents’ home.

Ex-Wife’s parents have six foster children living under their roof, all boys.

Ex-Wife allegedly engages in an ongoing sexual relationship with one of her parents’ foster children.

Ex-Husband files to terminate his alimony and spousal support obligation on the grounds that Ex-Wife is cohabitating with the foster child.

At trial, the family court finds that Ex-Wife sleeps at her parents’ home “at least 80 percent of her nights”, and that theirs is her primary residence. Based in part on input from Ex-Wife’s children.

Therefore, the divorce court rules that Ex-Wife is indeed cohabitating with the foster child, and holds that Ex-Wife’s spousal support should terminate.

Ex-Wife appeals. An intermediate level appellate court rules that “cohabitation” only occurs in the context of a conjugal relationship in the nature of a marriage, and reinstates Ex-Wife’s alimony.

And now Ex-Husband appeals to the state’s highest court. Which is expected to rule in the near future.

Several states have statutory provisions permitting termination of alimony and spousal support upon “cohabitation” with another person who is not a relative. But the precise definition of cohabitation is, probably intentionally, rarely nailed down in the statutory scheme.

Florida’s statute is couched in terms of a “supportive relationship” which is akin to a committed long-term relationship.

And yet a local Florida intermediate level appellate court found such a relationship in the former wife’s so-called “cohabitation” with a cellmate in jail. See my previous post, Alimony Terminates Because Ex-Wife is Deemed to Cohabitate with Cellmate Under Florida Settlement Agreement.

Read more in this [Salt Lake City] Deseret News article: High court to determine if sex with teen should stop alimony.

Florida Mother has four Children, ages 10, 11, 14 and 16.

Children’s Aunt has custody of Children and has been raising them for several years.

Aunt, who lives in Alabama, brings Children to Florida to visit with Mother.

Aunt reportedly allows Children to go on a drive with Mother.

Mother allegedly crashes the car.

The 14 year old Child is killed in the accident.

It is reported that Mother is legally intoxicated at the time. In fact, her blood alcohol level is said to be 4 times the legal limit.

The Florida court finds that Mother was not allowed unsupervised visitation and timesharing with the Children and again orders that Mother not have unsupervised contact with the Children.

The court modifies custody of Children, stripping it from Aunt, who reportedly allowed Mother to have the Children unsupervised, and awarding it to Childen’s great aunt and uncle.

The court also enters a restraining order of protection against Mother’s Boyfriend, who reportedly beats the Children. Boyfriend is also arrested on charges of domestic violence.

Both Mother and Aunt may face criminal charges.

Read more in this [Orlando] WFTV 9 news article: Alleged Drunk Mom’s Kids To Stay With Aunt, Uncle.

Five rules of divorce from North Dakota:

1. Cheating doesn’t matter. In the no-fault divorce world, that’s generally true. (Although this may vary from state to state.) Unless marital assets are squandered on the affair, anyway.

2. You can’t hide your assets. Well, strictly speaking, that may not be true. But it’s certainly risky business and inadvisable.

3. It’s never over. All too often, that does prove to be true … over and over and over again.

4. Get a prenup. Never a bad idea.

5. You’re not alone. Well, actually, this depends. Some spouses really are. They may not have to be, if they avail themselves of all available community resources. But some are. And some would be better off if they were, or at least had a smaller support team. It really is possible to have too much help, too much input, especially when it tugs you in too many different directions.

Read more in this [Fargo ND] KVLY & KXJB TV news article: 5 Rules of Divorce.