Texas Husband and Wife have five Children born during their long term marriage.

Wife takes the Children on vacation to Puerto Rico in June of 2009. Husband expects their return in August of that year.

But then Wife advises Husband that she and the Children will remain in Puerto Rico.

Husband waits until April of 2010 and only then files in Texas for divorce and a child custody determination.

In June of 2010, Wife seeks a divorce and child custody determination in Puerto Rico.

Wife participates by phone in the Texas family court case, seeking a continuance and objecting to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over her and child custody subject matter jurisdiction over the Children under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The Texas divorce court denies the continuance and advises Wife that the Texas trial will go forward immediately, with or without her.

The Texas divorce court grants Husband a divorce and divides the marital property. The Texas family court also exercises jurisdiction over the Children under the UCCJEA, citing exigent circumstances and consent by Wife, awards Husband primary custody of Children and orders return of the Children to Texas.

At about the same time, the Puerto Rican family court exercises jurisdiction over Children over Husband’s objection, based on the fact that Children have lived in Puerto Rico for over a year and that the Texas family court has implicitly recognized that it does not have jurisdiction over the Children in a previous child support order.

Wife appeals the Texas divorce court judgment, again challenging both its exercise of personal jurisdiction over her and of child custody subject matter jurisdiction over the Children under the UCCJEA.

On appeal, the Texas appellate court finds that Wife waived her objection to the Texas family court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over her by fully participating in the divorce issues before the divorce court at trial. Legally, a party may consent to a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them, even if the court would not otherwise have personal jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Texas appellate court affirms the Texas family court’s entry of Husband and Wife’s divorce and division of their marital property.

But the Texas family court’s exercise of child custody subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is another story.

Legally, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be consented to, or waived. If a court lacks it, as a matter of law, the court has no power or authority to proceed.

And the Texas appellate court finds that that was the case here. The home state of the Children had become Puerto Rico under the UCCJEA, where they had lived for more than six months prior to filing of either the Puerto Rican or Texas child custody cases.

The Puerto Rican family court never declined to exercise child custody subject matter jurisdiction over Children under the UCCJEA. And the circumstances in Texas did not fall within the strict requirements for exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction, because the Children were not in Texas.

Therefore, the Texas appellate court dismisses all child custody orders entered and rulings made by the Texas family court under the UCCJEA, because the Puerto Rican family court has child custody subject matter jurisdiction over Children.

Read more in this Texas appellate court family law opinion

Danger can lurk in the most unlikely of places. Just ask Ex-Girlfriend.

Her Ex-Boyfriend is a deputy with our own Palm Beach County, Florida Sheriff’s office. They didn’t go the distance.

So, come Valentine’s Day, while on the job, Ex-Boyfriend allegedly detoured to Boca Raton from his Wellington patrol and:

• secretly put a GPS tracking device on Ex-Girlfriend’s car

• hung signs at the law firm where she works, labeling her new boyfriend “a home wrecker and a cheater”

• posted Ex-Girlfriend’s photo online, describing her as a “cheater” and a “user”

• hung signs near Ex-Girlfriend’s workplace, stating that Ex-Girlfriend and her new boyfriend have an STD

• threatened to commit suicide and

• placed unwanted orders to have pizza delivered at Ex-Girlfriend’s new boyfriend’s home

Ex-Boyfriend is arrested on misdemeanor stalking charges, and confined. This may be in his own best interests.

Ex-Boyfriend reportedly also faces criminal charges in nearby Martin County for violating a domestic violence restraining order of protection. It is unclear whether this incident pertains to Ex-Girlfriend as well.

Ex-Boyfriend’s current status with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s office is not indicated. Nor whether Ex-Boyfriend has received any specialized training to respond to complaints of domestic violence.

Read more in

1. this Broward / Palm Beach New Times piece: PBSO Deputy Patrick Burt Stalked His Ex With GPS, Police Say, and You Can Too

2. this Broward / Palm Beach New Times piece: Patrick Burt, PBSO Deputy Charged With Stalking, Facing Domestic Violence Charges in Martin County Too and

3. this WPBF-TV 25 ABC news article: Patrick Burt allegedly posted unflattering comments on Cheaterville.com

Husband and Wife are divorcing.

They file their last joint tax return together. After years of filing joint tax returns.

Husband’s accountant always prepares the joint tax returns. And Wife always dutifully signs.

Husband and Wife go their separate ways, with no further contact between them.

The IRS takes a second look at one of their joint tax returns. And concludes that “the couple” has underreported their income.

Husband is nowhere to be found. So the IRS comes after Wife, who is barely getting by.

I’ve lost count of how many times non-clients have contacted me with a variation of this theme.

Under federal law, spouses who file joint tax returns are jointly liable. That means that each spouse is equally responsible for the entire joint tax liability.

This allows the IRS to pursue the full amount the couple owes from whichever spouse is an easier target.

This can result in harsh and unfair outcomes to a spouse earning less or nothing, who had no say in the other spouse’s reporting decisions, no access to underlying income information and no real choice but to sign the joint tax return presented.

The law does offer protection to some spouses in limited circumstances under the so-called innocent spouse rule . But it isn’t so easy to qualify for this protection.

Under the innocent spouse rule,

1. an innocent spouse hasn’t benefited from or enjoyed the unreported income

2. an innocent spouse doesn’t know or have reason to know about the improper income reporting and

3. it would be inequitable to hold an innocent spouse liable.

If you know or suspect funny business by your spouse, in addition to seeking protection in any divorce settlement you may enter, it may also be prudent to simply file taxes separately.

Read more in this BST article: Joint Returns: Spouses Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

Mother and Father have two small Children. Mother and Father both have substance abuse problems.

Mississippi family court appoints Maternal Grandparents as the legal guardians of the Children.

At first, the Maternal Grandparents allow the Children’s Paternal Grandmother the same visitation as was originally awarded to Father by the divorce court.

But the Maternal Grandparents later reduce the Paternal Grandmother’s visitation.

So the Paternal Grandmother files a family court case seeking (more) grandparent visitation.

At trial, the family court awards Paternal Grandmother the same amount of timesharing that was awarded to Father in the original divorce court order.

Maternal Grandparents appeal.

This case stands out for pitting grandparent against grandparent … and totally overlooking the Children’s parents, even though they are both still alive.

And it is on this oversight that the appellate court hangs its hat in setting aside the family court’s ruling. The appellate court holds that the failure to name the Children’s parents as parties in the case is a jurisdictional defect depriving the family court of power to proceed on the Paternal Grandmother’s petition.

The appellate court could have stopped there but, also interestingly, elected to offer the family court additional guidance for its next round on this case. Specifically, the appellate court directed the family court to make more findings regarding the reasons for its award of visitation to the Paternal Grandmother, as required by Mississippi statute in all grandparent visitation cases.

It is not clear why the family court failed to make proper statutory findings at trial, but it is possible that the divorce court thought the applicable statute did not apply because it is expressed in terms of suit against parents, rather than guardians or custodians. But the appellate court finds that the statute does apply in the case at hand.

Read more in this Mississippi appellate case.