A study conducted by the University of Iowa concludes that early teens who become sexually active are more likely to divorce than those whose first sexual experience occurs later in life. This is particularly true where the early teens’ first sexual experience was not wanted or where they were ambivalent about it.

The statistics are dramatic. Thirty-one percent of sexually active teens divorce within five years after marriage and forty-seven percent within ten years after marriage.

This contrasts with fifteen percent and twenty-seven percent for women who abstain from sex until reaching adulthood.

The study also reports that the overwhelming majority of teens who become sexually active are ambivalent about it.

The study does not draw any clear cut conclusions as to the why behind its findings. It is possible that early teens who become sexually active are simply predisposed toward divorce, but it seems more likely that their sexual precocity fosters ideas and conduct that contribute toward divorce.

Read more in this University of Iowa press release: UI study examines link between teen sex and divorce rate.

Twenty-three year old Boyfriend and seventeen year old Girlfriend live together.

Boyfriend has criminal record, including an arrest for resisting arrest.

Girlfriend reportedly tells Boyfriend that she is leaving him.

Boyfriend and Girlfriend argue.

Boyfriend allegedly “roughs up” Girlfriend.

Girlfriend allegedly obtains a knife from their kitchen.

Boyfriend gets stabbed …

When he runs into the knife, according to Girlfriend.

Boyfriend dies of his stabbing wound.

Girlfriend is arrested on charges of second degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon.

She awaits arraignment.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Teen girl charged with murdering her boyfriend says he ‘ran into the knife’.

To a large extent, alimony is a roll of the dice. Not so much whether alimony will be awarded, but how much – and for how long.

Not just in Florida, but in many states.

By contrast, most states, like Florida, have child support guidelines. A formula or calculation to determine child support.

This simplifies child support calculations and facilitates amicable resolution of child support disputes.

But such clarity continues to elude alimony.

But when New York finally adopted no-fault divorce last year, it legislated a formula for calculating temporary alimony.

Yet, for whatever reason, the New York legislature stopped at temporary alimony. It might have pushed the envelope just a little bit further and applied the formula to all alimony cases, at least as a starting point.

Two other states have adopted formulae for temporary alimony. At the same time, there is currently a good deal of pressure to broadly modify alimony laws across the nation.

The latter seems almost inevitable. If so, perhaps legislatures will seize the opportunity to implement guidelines in temporary as well as final alimony determinations.

Read more in this New York Times editorial: Ending the Alimony Guessing Game.

Times have changed.

A Canadian survey approximately ten years ago concluded that working moms and dads devoted roughly equal time to parenting.

And parents reaching amicable settlements of their divorces these days tend to end up with equal parenting time.

But, as of 1995, only about 49,000 fathers were designated as primary residential parents.

As of 2010, however, about 154,000 fathers were designated as primary residential parents.

Children generally do better when both of their parents are actively involved in their lives.

And fathers generally do much better when they are actively involved in their children’s lives.

Read more in this [Canadian] National Post editorial: Denying fathers their rights.

Tennessee Husband and Wife are divorced.

They have a Child together.

Husband has reportedly been battling to see his Child for fourteen years.

It isn’t clear whether the Wife is arbitrarily denying Husband visitation or whether it is really the family court denying Husband visitation.

Because Husband’s visitation is frustrated though, Grandmother, his mother, has also been denied timesharing with Child.

But that may be about to change.

Tennessee has just passed a statute that authorizes judges to award grandparents timesharing with their grandchildren.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the new law will survive a constitutional challenge.

Ironically, Tennessee’s neighboring state of Alabama has just struck down a statute mandating timesharing for grandparents as unconstitutional under settled federal law upholding the fundamental right of fit parents to determine their children’s best interests.

Read more in this [Knoxville, TN] WBIR-TV 10 news article: Judges could soon decide grandparent visitation rights and this New England Cable News article: Ala. court strikes down law for grandparent rights

Transplanted residents from other states are often surprised by this one … and sometimes clobbered.

Florida has a constitutional protection called homestead.

What homestead does, among other things, is require that the legal spouse of a homeowner:

1. join in any deed of a home to a third party and

2. join in or consent to any mortgage on a home

Florida confers these rights and protections on spouses by virtue of their legal status of being married. How the property is titled or when the property was acquired is irrelevant.

So … a married spouse cannot sell a house they own, or mortgage it, unless the other spouse joins in the transaction or signs a written consent to it.

And a spouse generally won’t be able to get a away with lying about their marital status.

Title insurance companies conduct public records searches that are bound to foil any such lie. When couples divorce in Florida, a final judgment is recorded, just like a deed or mortgage.

Read more in this Sun Sentinel column House Keys: Ask a real estate pro: Do I need my estranged wife’s consent to sell home?.

Mother and Father live in British Columbia, Canada.

Mother and Father have three year old Son together.

Mother and Father break up.

Mother allegedly abducts Son to the US.

Canadian family court awards Father sole custody of Son.

Mother manages to remain at large with Son for seven years, despite Father’s efforts to locate Son.

Mother reportedly flies into a rage while in a laundromat in Arizona, allegedly because Son bought some candy.

Police are summoned.

And discover that Mother is wanted in Canada for parental child abduction.

Police arrest Mother for disorderly conduct.

Son is taken into child protective custody.

Son is then returned to Father, who comes to Arizona. Father plans to bring Son back to Canada (and his two older siblings, Sisters).

Due to the age at which Son was taken, he barely recollects Father or Sisters.

Unrepentant, Mother defends her actions and insists that Father is not Son’s father … despite a DNA test reportedly proving that he is.

Son can undoubtedly look forward to a big adjustment.

Arizona authorities are working with the Canadian courts to find a way to extradite Mother to Canada.

Read more in

• this Vancouver Sun article: Boy’s return to Canada means new set of challenges for family

• this CTV News article: ‘Valor’s had a good life,’ mom says from jail and

• this Calgary Sun article: Missing boy’s father a stranger

Tennessee Husband and Wife have a Son together.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Son now lives primarily with Husband.

Husband learns that Son is not Husband’s biological offspring, but rather the product of an affair by Wife.

Husband sues Wife to recover child support and for damages due to emotional distress caused by Wife’s fraud.

At trial, the family court awards Husband $26,000 in child support and $100,000 in emotional distress damages.

Wife appeals. And the intermediate level appellate court strikes the financial awards to Husband.

Husband appeals. And the state Supreme Court will address for the first time whether a defrauded father may sue for child support and/or damages due to paternity fraud.

This is an issue that will not go away. After years of lobbying by men’s rights groups, numbers of states, including Florida, passed legislation permitting legal fathers to disprove that they are the biological fathers of their legal children and avoid future child support payments.

The catch is that the legal father must mount his legal challenge pretty quickly. And that is believed to be true in the other states as well as Florida.

Further, the sole remedy to date is believed to be termination of child support, but not recovery of previously paid support – or damages. That would represent a significant departure and a new page in our law books.

Not to mention the impact it would have on the innocent children who are the subjects of these disputes.

Read more in this WREG TV News 3 article: Tennessee Supreme Court could determine whether paternity fraud is grounds to sue and this Insurance Journal article: Father’s Day: Tennessee Court Considers Paternity Fraud, Damages.

Times may be tough, but the US Supreme Court isn’t budging.

There has long been debate on whether the government should provide attorneys to parents defending in child support enforcement cases.

Some states have decided that, yes, under their state constitution, the government should afford counsel to defendants in child support contempt cases.

Their rationale: if a court holds a parent in contempt, the court can incarcerate them. Such a case is therefore similar to a criminal case, in which there is a right to counsel.

In a recent case before the US Supreme Court, however, the high court ruled not to extend the right to government-provided counsel to child support enforcement cases.

The court justifies its holding because defendants in support enforcement proceedings can earn their own release simply by complying with the court’s order. Not so in criminal cases.

If the parent pursuing enforcement has an attorney though, then the defendant is entitled to certain “substantial procedural safeguards”, but not publicly funded legal representation.

In the case before the Supreme Court, a South Carolina father contended that he was poor and unable to meet his support obligations. But, without a lawyer, he argued, he was unable to present his defense effectively.

The court was mindful of the fact that many parents seeking enforcement of the other parent’s support obligation often don’t have attorneys themselves.

Procedural safeguards include notices that ability to pay is a key issue in the case, requiring the court to make findings as to the defendant’s ability to pay.

Read more in this New York Times article: Court Issues Split Ruling on Poor’s Right to Counsel and this New York Times editorial: Legal Help for Indigent Parents.

In a significant number of divorces, the divorcing couple have one or more pets.

Under the law, pets are characterized as property and treated accordingly.

But some, if not all, family members, think of family pets as part of the family, even like children.

And the fate of the family pet or pets in divorce court can be complicated … and cold.

A pet health information website recently sponsored a study of the role and influence of pets in family life. It can be substantial.

Among other things, the survey concluded that a whopping ninety percent of pet parents (sometimes called “owners”) would give up money in a divorce in exchange for their pets.

And fight harder over their pets than over money.

Domestic abusers often use family pets to exert control over their victims. And victims of domestic abuse often remain with their abuser longer than they otherwise would out of concern for their pets.

Read more in this Huliq article: Animal lovers choose pets over alimony and presidential candidates.