As recently as the 1970s, rural Iowa boasted a divorce rate out of 1910s America at large.

And there were hardly any paternity cases for child support and/or child custody, between parents who were not married.

Rural Iowans went to church regularly, mothers stayed at home with children and, well, people in their world did not divorce.

But forty years later, things have changed … in a big way.

Except for the fact that most rural Iowans still belong to a church and attend regularly, now, rural Iowa pretty much mirrors the rest of America.

Rural Iowa women today are more likely to be college-educated than in the past … and more likely to be college-educated than rural men.

They are out in the workforce.

Being divorced no longer carries much of a stigma in rural Iowa.

And divorce has multiplied there by a magnitude of seven times.

And rural Iowa now has its share of paternity cases for child support and custody disputes between unmarried parents.

Read more in this New York Times article: Once Rare in Rural America, Divorce Is Changing the Face of Its Families.

Father is court-ordered to pay child support.

Father used to be a professional basketball player and earns a high income.

But his child support arrearages reportedly have piled up to nearly $1 million.

Finally, Father is charged with three counts of failure to pay support for different children in different states.

Father pleads guilty and awaits sentencing.

Father faces up to six months of imprisonment.

And, perhaps worse, Father will still be required to pay the support he owes.

Read more in this Carmi [IL] Times article: Former southern Illinoisan owes nearly $1 million in support.

New York Girlfriend and Boyfriend have been dating for over six months.

Girlfriend is 32 years old, a foster parent of a 17 month old Baby and a 9 year old girl, and the mother of an 11 year old girl.

Boyfriend is 19 years old.

Girlfriend left Baby in Boyfriend’s care while taking the two girls to school.

When Girlfriend returned home, Baby was unconscious and in respiratory distress.

Baby was later diagnosed with broken ribs and a ruptured spleen, and was assessed as being in critical condition.

Baby’s injuries are under investigation by authorities.

Law enforcement authorities suspect that Baby’s injuries are the result of Boyfriend beating Baby.

Boyfriend turned himself in to authorities and is now under arrest on charges of assaulting Baby.

According to accounts of third parties, Boyfriend believed that Baby needed to grow “tougher”.

Yet Girlfriend reportedly insisted that Boyfriend is “good” to her children.

Prior to the suspected beating, Baby had been recovering from prenatal heroin addiction and doing well in foster care with Girlfriend.

In fact, Baby’s adoption by Girlfriend is underway.

It is unknown whether recent events jeopardize the adoption.

Read more in this New York Times article: Arrest Made in Beating of a Child in Brooklyn.

When a parent consistently doesn’t pay child support, the family court typically has a range of options to enforce their support obligations, and to punish them and deter future nonpayment.

When a parent withholds court-ordered visitation and timesharing with a child, the family court’s enforcement options are considerably narrower and more limited.

But, in response to a particularly egregious case, the Illinois legislature is looking to change that.

New proposed legislation in Illinois would allow family courts to:

1. incarcerate noncompliant parents

2. require them to post bonds

3. impose increasing monetary fines on them

4. revoke driver’s licenses and revoke business licenses and

5. modify custody based on the denial of visitation

Read more in this [Springfield, IL] State Journal-Register article: ‘Steven Watkins’ bill passed by Illinois House committee and this Capitol Fax article: Strong penalties proposed for visitation violations.

Wife takes New Jersey Son to Brazil to visit relatives.

And stays there. Permanently.

Wife divorces Husband there and remarries.

And cuts off virtually all contact between Husband and Son.

Husband is awarded custody of Son by the New Jersey family court.

Wife pursues custody of Son in Brazil’s family court.

Wife dies.

Wife’s second husband and Son’s Grandparents continue the litigation in Brazil, resisting Husband’s efforts to have any contact with Son, let alone to procure Son’s return to the US.

After five years, Husband is finally able to secure Son’s return to the US to live with him.

However, Grandparents continue their legal battle in Brazil’s family court.

And Grandparents demand visitation with Son in New Jersey family court as well.

At first, Husband allows limited contact with Grandparents during Son’s transition back to life in the US.

Then Grandparents allegedly try to circumvent Husband to obtain greater visitation.

Husband finally cuts off contact between Grandparents and Son.

The New Jersey family court denies Grandparents’ demands for visitation with Son. Because they persist in trying to thwart New Jersey family court orders via the Brazilian family court and interfere with Husband’s parental responsibility over Son.

Read more in this Asbury Park [NJ] Press article: Sean Goldman grandparents denied visitation after international custody dispute and this New Jersey News Room article: Grandparents of Sean Goldman denied visitation.

Connecticut Boyfriend and Girlfriend start dating in 2007.

Boyfriend takes Girlfriend to Italy toward end of 2008.

While there, Boyfriend proposes and presents Girlfriend with a $5,000 engagement ring.

Ring is a little too shabby for Girlfriend’s tastes.

Boyfriend takes it back.

And presents Girlfriend with a $12,000 ring.

That sits better with Girlfriend, and she accepts it.

Possibly because of the substitution or perhaps not, Boyfriend falls upon some harder financial times.

As a result, Boyfriend and Girlfriend break up.

What of the ring?

Well, Boyfriend wants it back now.

Girlfriend refuses, claiming it was a Christmas present.

Who gets the engagement ring?

A Connecticut family court rules that Girlfriend must return the engagement ring to Boyfriend.

This holding represents something of a (modern) shift in the law of premarital breakups.

Read more in this Connecticut Post article: Not only is the romance over, but the fiance gets his ring back.

Maryland is poised to become what may be the first state to treat pets of divorcing couples as more than mere property.

Under proposed legislation, the family court would be authorized to establish visitation with a pet just as family courts establish timesharing for children.

The one glaring difference is that the family court would not be authorized to order payment of “pet support” or reimbursement of pet-related expenses by one spouse to the other.

If passed, this proposed legislation would represent a significant advance in the status of pets in divorces.

Currently, although spouses may agree to any arrangement they wish regarding their pets, the law views them as merely personal property to be awarded just the same as any other tangible property, based on fair market value.

Read more in this Washington Examiner article: When mom and dad split up, it’s the pets that suffer.

Girlfriend and her two toddlers cohabitate with Boyfriend.

Boyfriend has child from another relationship.

Boyfriend owes back child support.

How much?

Enough to land him in jail for nonpayment of support.

Girlfriend wants Boyfriend back home with her.

So, she, consciously or unconsciously, resolves to do what she must to accomplish that.

That turns out to include allegedly robbing a bank for child support money.

Girlfriend also reportedly uses a toy gun.

After allegedly committing the robbery, Girlfriend heads to the jail to pay Boyfriend’s child support arrears.

Needless to say, Girlfriend is caught and arrested.

Eventually, convicted. And sentenced to six years’ incarceration … to be followed by five years of probation.

Now neither Boyfriend nor Girlfriend are at home with Girlfriend’s toddlers.

And Boyfriend likely isn’t seeing his own child either.

Read more in this Imperfect Parent piece: Sentenced bank robber says she did it for child support.

It seems that tens of millions of people are burning their keyboards up on social networking sites, especially Facebook.

Interacting with everyone from friends and colleagues to friends from college and grad school … including long lost loves.

Apparently, there is something about the internet that tends to strip away restraints and inhibitions and lends itself to secrecy.

Permitting what would undoubtedly be innocent, casual, occasional contacts in the brick and mortar world into ongoing connections.

The difference between accidentally running into someone from your past and re-discovering someone from your past … and re-igniting an old flame.

So dramatic is this trend that Loyola University is warning couples against using Facebook, to guard against them becoming the one in five marriages allegedly “ruined” by Facebook.

Experts conclude that, in most cases, innocent curiosity and secrecy can turn into dangerous intimacy.

Read more in this [North Carolina] Huliq article: Divorce rates rise, curiosity and Facebook major culprits.

Times change. Or, as one of my law school professors used to put it, “the pendulum swings”.

Tennessee Husband and Wife are divorcing.

Husband and Wife have been married for 21 years.

Husband and Wife have two adult children together.

Husband earns $137,000 per year.

Wife, who is 43 years old, earns a considerably lesser $72,000.

At trial, the family court denies Wife any alimony whatsoever.

On appeal by Wife, an intermediate level appellate court awards Wife $1,250 in monthly alimony for life, unless she remarries.

This time, Husband appeals.

The assertion under Tennessee law is that such an award is not appropriate, because the Wife is not 50 or older, and/or was not married to Husband long enough and/or did not sacrifice her career sufficiently for the marriage, and/or Wife is not unable to obtain a “good” job.

Policy considerations include that permanent alimony allegedly has the unintended side effect of discouraging long-term marriages. Husband further argues that Wife is discouraged from remarrying with such a permanent alimony award.

Wife, on the other hand, maintains that she deserves permanent alimony, arguing that she once worked two jobs to get Husband through school so that he could get to the point where his career is now.

At a high level, as in Florida, Tennessee looks to the paying spouse’s ability to pay alimony and the receiving spouse’s need for alimony.

The trial court seems to be more in tune with the trend sweeping the nation … now, than the intermediate appellate court. The pendulum has swung … again.

Under Florida law, significance is still attached to the fact that the marriage endured more than twenty years, but the relatively young age of the Wife and her actual earnings history would not be overlooked by a Florida court either.

Read more in this Knoxville [TN] News Sentinel article: Tennessee Supreme Court considers life alimony.