New Zealand Husband’s and Wife’s long term marriage reportedly breaks down.

Wife reportedly plans to divorce Husband.

Husband is believed to have “eavesdropped” on text messages in Wife’s cell phone, and gotten wind of Wife’s intentions.

Husband allegedly murders Wife with a shotgun.

Husband apparently defends that he did not mean to hurt Wife. With his shotgun.

Husband is convicted of murdering Wife.

Husband is sentenced for murdering Wife.

11 years. $65,000 restitution to Wife’s parents and two children.

Critics of the sentence, who reportedly include numerically significant members of the New Zealand legal profession, are, quite vocally, predicting that a sentence so light virtually invites murder as a pragmatic alternative to divorce.

Meanwhile, domestic violence experts are speaking out to draw attention to the prudence of abuse victims:

1. not tipping off their abusers as to their intentions of leaving them and

2. having a solid plan for their children’s and their own safe escape from the relationship and the home, including important papers and personal items

It is believed that Wife’s family may also be considering a civil suit for additional damages from Husband and/or appealing Husband’s sentence.

Read more in this New Zealand Herald article: Meads sentence sets ‘dangerous precedent’.

It’s no secret that co-parenting breaks down in too many divorces and separations.

Just how bad is it?

Well, in the UK, it is being proposed that, as soon as a child is born, the parents’ education in proper co-parenting upon divorce and separation begin.

Parents would immediately be given a brochure about good co-parenting in the event of divorce or separation at the time of their child’s birth.

The theory seems to be that, if parents are indoctrinated long enough, it will stick no matter what.

It would be interesting to see whether that would bear out.

Mediation would be mandated in child custody cases. As it is here in Florida.

It is also being proposed there that grandparent visitation rights be legislated.

Other proposals in the UK include expediting the legal process in child welfare cases.

Read more in this UK Telegraph article: New parents should be handed divorce advice for their children.

Father is deceased.

Texas Mother allegedly drives in her car with her five year old Daughter.

Mother is arrested for driving while intoxicated. For the third time, reportedly.

Texas family court awards temporary custody of Daughter to Father’s sister (Aunt) in November of 2009.

Mother, who is on probation, is awarded visitation and timesharing with Daughter.

Eighteen months later, Mother now seeks custody of Daughter, asserting that she is much improved.

Certain issues in the case are on appeal.

The family court may terminate Aunt’s temporary custody.

Read more in this [San Antonio] KENS TV 5 news article: Mother with DWI convictions fights for custody of her child.

South Carolina Husband and Wife divorce.

The family court awards Wife permanent alimony and spousal support.

The family court also awards Wife a portion of Husband’s pension toward her share of equitable distribution and property division.

Some time after the divorce, Husband presses a modification action to terminate alimony or, at the least, reduce alimony.

Husband contends that there has been a substantial change in circumstances in that Husband (and Wife) are now receiving payouts from Husband’s pension. Husband argues that Wife’s alimony should be reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of the pension that she is now receiving.

The family court now rules that there is a substantial change of circumstances. And reduces, but does not terminate, the amount of alimony payable to Wife.

The family court also awards Wife her attorney’s fees in this modification proceeding.

Husband appeals the family court’s ruling on his modification case.

The appellate court holds that the alimony rulings made by the family court are within the family court’s exercise of discretion and affirms the family court’s rulings.

The appellate court also holds that the original property division award of the pension cannot be factored in to any modification, because the family court originally took it into account when it fashioned the original property division and alimony awards. Lastly, the appellate court upholds the award of attorney’s fees to Wife.

Read more in this [Orangeburg SC] Times and Democrat article: Court upholds divorce order.

Brazil has reportedly just adopted legislation that guarantees grandparents the right to visit their grandchildren in the event their parents divorce.

Brazil’s statute bucks the general trend in the US of curtailing grandparent visitation rights where the parents are fit parents.

One can only wonder whether this legislation is a reaction to the world-famous case of the New Jersey boy held in Brazil for five years, even after his mother’s death, before being released to his father. The grandparents recently sought to compel visitation with their grandchild … on their own terms … and lost.

Read more in this CBC News article: Brazil gives grandparents visitation right.

California Husband and Wife look forward to the birth of their Triplets.

Wife delivers the Triplets.

And then, allegedly as a result of medical malpractice, Wife is left severely brain damaged. Unable to eat. Speak. Or move.

One year later, Husband divorces Wife.

Husband discontinues bringing her Triplets to visit Wife.

And Husband goes to family court to attempt to terminate Wife’s parental rights to Triplets.

Termination of parental rights is generally reserved for parents who have abused or neglected their children. Or abandoned them … persistently … willfully … or grossly negligently.

Family court denies the termination of Wife’s parental rights to Triplets.

And awards Wife visitation with the Triplets…

A single annual in-person visitation of five days. With Husband present.

And a monthly internet video conference.

Wife is reportedly thrilled by the prospect of her five day timesharing with the Triplets.

Read more in this [Salt Lake City] Deseret News article: Disabled mother’s visitation cut to 5 days per year and this Los Angeles Times article: Abbie Dorn, severely disabled giving birth to triplets, wins the right to spend time with her children.

Generally, withdrawing money from an IRA or similar retirement account prematurely is costly, in taxes and penalties. But this is exactly what must often happen in a divorce.

Giving rise to special exceptions rendering retirement account transfers incident to a divorce free of taxes or penalties.

If an entire IRA account is going to be transferred, it is permissible to simply change the name on the account from the original spouse-owner to the other spouse.

For partial transfers of an account, the methodology is “direct transfer”. In a nutshell, the owner spouse instructs the trustee to transfer a specified amount of the account’s funds to a retirement account in the other spouse’s name.

The transfer must be in accordance with a divorce judgment, so timing is important.

Pensions are divided via a different procedure, which I posted about in
Floridians: Don’t Take Your QDROs for Granted If You Are Entitled to Share in Your Ex’s Pension..

Read more in this Fox Business news article: Moving IRA Assets Under Divorce Decree.

Greek Husband and Wife meet and, in time, marry.

They have two Children together, Daughter and Son.

The marriage breaks down for many reasons. Among them, Wife alleges that Husband beats Son and shares a bed with Daughter while he is naked.

A Greek family court awards Wife sole custody of Children, with restricted visitation and timesharing to Husband.

During one such visitation, Husband reportedly absconds with the Children and abducts them to the US.

Husband settles with the Children in a Greek community in Florida, in the Tampa area. Money is tight, and Husband is arrested for shoplifting.

Through a Greek reality television crime show show picked up in the Tampa area, Wife learns that Children are in Florida.

Wife initiates an application for the return of the Children to Greece under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Law enforcement authorities become aware that Husband is wanted in Greece.

A federal judge in Florida in time enters a pickup order for the Children and Wife is reunited with the Children.

Wife prevails in the Hague Convention hearing and the US court orders that the Children be returned to Wife’s care in Greece.

Wife and Children return to Greece.

Shortly thereafter, Wife is assaulted and Husband allegedly abducts the Children again. To an undetermined location.

Authorities do not expect that Husband will return to the US this time.

Read more in this St Petersburg Times article: Greek drama plays out in Florida

One and one-half year old marriage of Russian Husband and Wife breaks down.

Couple and their child have apparently divided their time between England and Russia.

English wives reportedly typically receive more generous equitable distributions of marital assets than Russian wives.

Husband races to file for divorce in Russia and Wife races to file in England.

Husband wins that race. Sort of.

The British Court of Appeal has held that Wife is entitled to an additional equitable distribution property division award in England, upholding an award of 3 million UK pounds plus legal fees.

Only Husband hasn’t paid, and hasn’t set foot back in England since the court ruled … for fear of arrest.

The ruling undoubtedly bolsters England’s reputation as the so-called “divorce capital of the world”, and its popularity with international wives.

Read more in this UK Daily Mail article: Race to divorce: Russian wife, 27, wins £2.8million payout after just 18 months of marriage in UK

In most married couples, one has a greater tendency than the other to run up debt. When the couple breaks up, the other spouse worries whether they will be liable for the debt their spouse incurred.

This probably sounds as though the answer should be clear and straightforward. But the question may be a little more complicated than it appears at first blush.

For example, is the debt account in the other spouse’s sole name? Or is it a joint account?

This is a key question. If the account is joint, it doesn’t matter which partner actually “spent” the debt.

All account debtors are liable … for the entire amount of the debt. The creditor can go after both debtors or choose the best prospect for recovery.

Now, that’s the story as to the third party creditor. Family court can’t limit the third party creditor’s legal rights.

But family court can order the big-spending spouse to pay off or reimburse the other spouse for all or part of the debt they incurred on their own.

That’s not the only issue either. Even if a debt is in only the other spouse’s name, if the debt is incurred to pay for basic family necessities (“necessaries”), the other spouse may be held liable for the debt as well.

A slightly different question is whether one spouse’s or both spouses’ “stuff” can be made to answer for the other spouse’s debt, regardless of whether, technically speaking, the other spouse is personally responsible for the debt. Unfortunately, the answer to this question varies from state to state and may also vary according to the type of “stuff” the spouses own.

Read more in this Colorado Springs [CO] Gazette article: Money & the Law: Spouse’s debt woes likely your woes, too .