It is not uncommon for a parent to ask how far they may go in punishing a rebellious, defiant child – what therapists often call an “oppositional” child.

For example, a NYC Father beat his 7 year old stepchild (Child) as physical punishment for her misbehavior.

Child dies as a result of latest beating.

Father is charged in the Child’s death.

But is it murder?

Is it even illegal?

Physical discipline as such is not illegal in most states.

What type of physical punishment crosses beyond discipline, to abuse that might lead to the state taking your child away from you – or to abuse that might lead to criminal sentencing?

Many parents expect there to be a firm standard they can look to. But, surprisingly enough, the law in many states doesn’t offer clear guidelines, what lawyers call bright lines.

The Constitution protects a parent’s right to parent in the way that the parent thinks best and legislators are reluctant to make hard and fast rules as to what is acceptable or unacceptable.

So both the civil and criminal cases vary quite a bit from case to case and are not always consistent or reconcilable.

What’s a parent to do? Tread carefully may be a prudent rule of thumb.

Read more in this New York Times article: Murder Case Tests Limits on Parents’ Right to Hit.

Juvenile detention costs New York City taxpayers $200,000 per year per youth. In dollars.

There are other, social costs. Juvenile detention may be viewed as the proverbial fork in the road, where young people are more likely to veer off on the path toward a life of repeat offender crimes.

The alternative to juvenile detention, community-based counseling and probation programs, costs substantially less. In dollars. And in social costs. It reduces recidivism.

But New York State’s policies incentivize confining youths in juvenile detention centers rather than community programs. To the tune of reimbursing the city fifty (50%) percent of the costs of detention.

Reimbursement of community-based programs? A whopping zero (0%) percent. Zip.

What’s wrong with that picture for our children?

What has Florida’s juvenile justice system learned from studies such as this?

What can it still learn from its juvenile justice system as laboratory?

Read more in this New York Times editorial: Juvenile Detention Trap.

Missouri Husband and wife separate.

Fourteen months later, wife gives birth to a child.

Husband and wife advise Missouri’s child support enforcement agency that Husband is not the biological father of the baby.

But since the couple was still legally married, the state declared Husband to be the father and liable for child support.

At one point, he was incarcerated for non-payment.

Six years later, the Missouri Supreme Court recently ruled, however, that Husband could not be incarcerated without a hearing and an opportunity to prove that he is not the biological father of the child.

That’s because Husband was determined to be the father by the child support agency rather than a court.

But even if Husband wins the hearing, that is, proves to the Court that he is not the father, that just means that he can’t be incarcerated for non-payment.

He can still be compelled to pay by other means.

Because he didn’t challenge the determination in a timely fashion.

Some states, including Florida, have amended similar laws – but only if the alleged father timely proves that he is not the biological father.

That still would not have helped Husband here.

Read more in this Kansas City Star article: Despite DNA, child support may be enforced.

Baby is taken into protective custody by Missouri.

Baby is placed with Biological Cousin and his wife.

They provide a loving home and seek to adopt Baby.

State removes Baby from Biological Cousin and places Baby with unrelated couple.

Generally, children’s welfare agencies prefer to place children with suitable relatives rather than strangers.

Why would the state remove Baby from biologically-related foster parents to strangers?

Well, Biological Cousin alleges that it was because he was obese.

The Court said that he didn’t properly follow state procedures for bringing a child into the state.

It took six months, but Biological Cousin got Baby back – after having gastric bypass surgery …

Read more in this Kansas City KMBC TV 9 article: Judge Rules In Baby Max Custody Case and this Kansas City KMBC TV 9 article: Baby Max Stuck In Middle Of Custody Battle.

An Ohio divorce recently turned ugly.

One popular tactic engaged in by couples is “ratting the other spouse out”.

That’s what happened in this case.

The Husband allegedly reported the Wife to … the Health Department.

For keeping some chickens in their home (he still lives there), specifically, the couple’s child’s room.

The Wife is a vet.

And the boy reportedly hasn’t been staying in the room since the chickens have been there.

The chickens are healthy and are being kept in a clean and appropriate manner.

Interesting to note, the Health Department reports that approximately half of the complaints it receives each year arise in divorces.

Read more in this Cleveland WKYC article: Chickens at the center of Willoughby Hills divorce dispute.

UK Mother is incarcerated for four plus years for murdering her babies, based on subsequently discredited medical testimony. In actuality, the babies died of crib death.

Since Mother’s arrest, Father has had sole custody of surviving minor child, Daughter.

Now released, Mother wants a divorce – and modification of custody to her.

Of course, Mother and Daughter’s relationship deteriorated during and immediately prior to Mother’s unjust incarceration.

Father opposes modification of custody, based on Daughter’s alleged desires – and because Daughter has always lived with him and because it would “break his heart” to lose custody of her.

One may speculate that it broke Mother’s heart to be wrongly tried, convicted and incarcerated for murder and wrongly separated from Daughter for years.

Read more in this UK Daily Mail article: Give me a divorce and my daughter, says Angela Cannings, who was wrongly jailed for murdering her sons.

Florida Baby’s biological mother is incarcerated for trafficking in narcotics and prostitution.

Baby’s biological father left the state when Baby was just three weeks old.

Baby was placed in foster care with a loving family, the only family she has since known.

Baby is now four.

Foster family continues to want to adopt Baby.

But, now, biological father, long absent, returns, out of the blue, to assert his right to take Baby to his new home in California.

It was recommended some time ago that social services terminate the biological father’s parental rights, to free the child up for adoption to her loving foster family.

Only it never happened, let alone in a timely fashion. Had it happened, the courthouse door would most likely have slammed in biological father’s face.

What is particularly sad in this case is that the foster family could have – and undoubtedly would have – asked the Court themselves to terminate the biological father’s parental rights – if they had only known that they had that power and right.

But no one ever told them … until it was too late.

Meanwhile, the biological father is allegedly still battling substance abuse problems of his own, even as the Court appears to be ordering reunification.

But the biological father has rights.

And, according to the family courts, Baby apparently doesn’t.

Read more in this Orlando Sentinel article: Orlando-area family faces losing foster child.

Father doesn’t want to pay child support.

How badly?

So badly that he reportedly fled the US for Canada.

How much does he owe?

Allegedly, almost $500,000.

What distinction did that earn him?

A spot on the Ten Most Wanted list for nonpayment of child support.

And criminal charges.

And deportation from Canada.

Father is now being held in custody by authorities.

His bail was set at $500,000.

Read more in this Milford Daily News article: Top 10 deadbeat dad faces charges and this Metrowest Daily News article: Judge sets bail high for father.

The Canadian Supreme Court recently ruled that a premarital agreement is a binding contract and that the Court has the power and obligation to enforce it – even where it has religious implications.

In the case at hand, a premarital agreement provided that, in the event the couple’s marriage broke down, the husband was to seek a “get” for the wife. A get is a divorce under Jewish religious law.

Without the get, under religious law, the spouses are still considered married to each other.

The husband refused to pursue a get for fifteen years, until after the wife was beyond her child-bearing years.

The wife sued the husband for breach of contract, seeking damages because she was unable to remarry and have kids within her faith.

But, of course, under Canadian law, she had the legal right to remarry and have children.

Read more in this Montreal Gazette editorial: Court erred badly in divorce ruling.

Ten years ago a young Australian man wrote a book setting out all the questions and issues to consider before deciding to marry someone.

Using his own book as the determinant of whether to marry a young Utah woman, the young man opted to marry her.

The book garnered the young man significant media attention and launched his career as a marriage advisor.

Only a few years later, the couple divorced.

So then the young man wrote another book setting out all the questions and issues to consider before deciding to divorce your spouse.

Now I suppose he can say he has re-launched his career as divorce advisor.

Good save?!

One thing is certain. The decision whether to divorce is a complex one, which typically must take many issues and circumstances into account.

Read more in this Salt Lake Tribune article: Marriage guru’s own wedded bliss amiss, so he writes book on divorce.