Father lives in South Korea.

Father has four children in South Korea.

Father dies … leaving behind a multi-million dollar estate.

Four people in North Korea believe that they are Father’s children as well, from a previous marriage when Father lived in North Korea.

The North Koreans file a paternity lawsuit in South Korea against Father in order to assert a claim directly against Father’s estate and/or indirectly against Father’s beneficiaries in South Korea.

DNA tests confirm that the four North Koreans are indeed Father’s biological children.

This litigation is reported to be the of its kind in South Korea.

The disposition of the case is anticipated to be followed closely by North Koreans and South Koreans.

Read more in this Korean Chosun Ilbo news article: N.Koreans Win Paternity Suit in Inheritance Battle with S.Korean Siblings and this Korea Joongang Daily article: Children in North win paternity suit in South.

Mother allegedly abuses drugs.

Mother has been investigated by the state’s child welfare agency on at least six occasions. Previous allegations against Mother include taking drugs in front of her children.

Mother allegedly was on so many drugs while she was pregnant recently that her speech was slurred and was unable to walk down stairs.

Mother’s ten day old Baby dies … in a running washing machine.

Mother’s other children have been removed from Mother’s care and placed with relatives.

Ohio law was recently amended … to reduce the number of cases where children are removed from a parent’s care. Last year, Ohio removed more children from a parent’s home than all other states but one.

Under the new law there, a child must face an “imminent safety threat” rather than a mere “risk of danger” to justify removal. And a parent’s drug addiction, by itself, is not deemed to constitute an imminent safety threat.

Read more in this Tulsa World article: DHS laws for child removal defended.

Wife marries.

And Wife marries again, this time to a friend of her first husband.

First husband regrets that Wife won’t give him a divorce.

That’s how second husband learns that Wife and first husband were never divorced.

By this time though, Wife has married third husband.

Wife and second husband were never divorced either.

It seems Wife couldn’t afford to obtain divorces.

So she allegedly just married new husbands without divorces from the old husbands.

Wife is arrested on two counts of bigamy.

Third husband wants to take care of Wife’s first two divorces, so that he can legalize his marriage to Wife.

On the bright side, Wife’s divorces may qualify for a volume discount.

Read more in this Shreveport [LA] KTBS ABC TV article: Oops, She Did It Again — And Again.

Husband and Wife live in New York. They married in the US.

But they come from France. And it just so happens that they entered a prenuptial agreement (prenup) on an occasion when they were in France.

It was Wife, or rather her family who pushed for the prenup.

Flash forward thirteen years.

It turns out Husband has done pretty well over the intervening years.

Now Husband and Wife are divorcing, in New York.

Wife argues that the New York law should control their divorce. And the prenuptial agreement they signed in France should be ignored.

If so, the couple’s assets would likely be divided equally.

Husband, on the other hand, argues that the prenup should be enforced. And French law should govern their divorce.

If so, each spouse would keep the assets held in their respective names.

Of course, a third alternative may be the most likely outcome: the prenup is upheld and New York law applies to it.

Read more in this UPI article: Over the years, though, Husband has done pretty well and this Business Insider article: Sarkozy’s Banker Brother Got Rich And Now His Wife Wants Their Pre-Nup Voided.

Property division can be complicated.

Staying in the family home often appeals to the parent with primary timesharing.

In many cases, to achieve an even split of the total marital assets, this means that all the other assets are allocated to the other spouse.

What may appear to be a fair, even split on paper sometimes isn’t so even over the long haul.

Pensions and financial accounts do not require maintenance and typically will appreciate over time.

Real estate may well appreciate too over time but it also demands sometimes significant maintenance and upkeep expenses as well as routine mortgage service, property taxes and insurance.

Financially less sophisticated spouses often don’t fully appreciate how these costs and expenses can mount.

Before long, they may be forced to sell the home anyway. At a price the market will bear. If they can. The outcome is not always positive, especially in economies such as the present one.

The emotional choice to stay in the home may be a poor decision for the financially weaker spouse … at least if they would have to buy out the other spouse’s interest at or about the time of the divorce.

Of course, the assessment may be different if both spouses will share ownership and expenses of the home until their youngest child is emancipated, and then split the proceeds upon sale.

Read more in this TheStreet article: Life’s Tragedies Take Toll on Finances.

Missouri Father has an adult pregnant Daughter.

Father also has a teenaged Son who, apparently, joined the family from foster care.

Son suffers from mental illness and, at times, allegedly is very aggressive.

Son presently lives in a group home equipped to provide appropriate services to meet Son’s special needs.

This arrangement is likely court-ordered through either a juvenile dependency case or a juvenile delinquency case or related cases of both types, as a result of Son’s alleged prior assault on Father.

Son is released to Father for the Thanksgiving holiday. Father and Son go to Daughter’s home for the holiday.

Over the visit, Son reportedly becomes enraged and allegedly assaults Daughter.

Upon arrival of other family members, who assist in restraining Son, Father calls Son’s Therapist.

Therapist advises Father to call the police.

Father calls the police.

The police arrive …

And ask Son whether Son wants to leave for a psychiatric facility.

Son indicates that he does not.

The police advise Father that they cannot take Son to a psychiatric facility against his will.

Father then requests, as an alternative, that they arrest Son and take him to juvenile detention.

The police advise Father that they cannot arrest Son because he is a minor.

One of the officers on the scene is a supervisor.

The officers suggest that Father take Son home with him, away from Daughter.

Father arranges for a family member to return Son to his group home.

Read more in this Kansas City [MO] Examiner article: KCPD refuse to remove homicidal teen from the home.

This particular family lives in Missouri.

But there are similar families facing similar challenges throughout Florida.

Depending upon Son’s precise conduct and history, Florida law provides at least two different mechanisms for immediate intervention in crises such as this:

• Baker Act-ing (seventy-two hour commitment for psychological evaluation) and

• Arrest on domestic battery by a juvenile

In Florida, law enforcement officers should be familiar with both processes and, in appropriate cases, should be prepared to assist a parent with whichever measure is most appropriate in the case at hand.

In the event that law enforcement officers will not intercede in the immediate family crisis or in the event that family assistance is needed beyond the immediate crisis, a family law attorney with additional experience in juvenile law and, ideally, further experience in mental health law and/or substance abuse law, should be consulted as soon as possible.

Ohio Mother has ten month old Baby.

Mother is apparently unhappy with her child support.

While at her home with Baby, Mother telephones the child support enforcement agency and, angry over the response, allegedly makes a verbal threat to go to their office and murder her child support case worker, social workers and the magistrate presiding over her child support case.

A different person, who had previously threatened violence in connection with his unrelated child support case, recently made good on his threats, killing a woman and then taking his own life.

So the agency takes Mother’s threat seriously and contacts law enforcement.

Police go to Mother’s home to arrest her.

Once at the scene, the officers note that Mother’s home has considerable illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons, and alcohol on the premises, but little baby formula. The home also has the odor of recently smoked marijuana.

Mother is charged with three counts of aggravated menacing, child endangerment and drug possession, and jailed. With bail set at $1 million.

Baby is placed in the care of his grandmother.

The recent murder and the fact that the telephoned verbal threats were made against agents of the courts may have played a role in what may not be typical handling of similar cases.

Read more in this [Charleston, WV] State Journal article: Woman Allegedly Threatens to Kill Social Workers, Magistrate Over Child Support Arrangements.

Some Indians claim to know the key to a successful, enduring marriage and diminished divorce rates: separate bedrooms for husbands and wives.

They believe that husbands and wives need their own spaces, literally and figuratively.

Especially closets and bathrooms.

But, ideally, a whole separate bedroom.

Particularly as the couple ages.

The separate living spaces don’t have to be distant though.

Adjacent bedrooms with a connecting door reportedly can work fine.

Proponents of separate bedrooms to strengthen marriages draw support from the cliche: absence makes the heart grow fonder.

And their premise has been imported into the US.

According to a recent survey of US home builders, sixty percent of custom-built homes in the US will have two master bedrooms by the year 2015.

Read more in this Times of India article: Living apart together

Wife leaves her husband in Georgia.

Wife moves in with her Boyfriend. Twelve years later, Wife and her Boyfriend move to Florida.

Wife, wanting an official divorce from her husband, applies to the legislature to grant her one. The Florida legislature grants Wife a divorce.

Wife then marries her Boyfriend. Years later, Boyfriend dies.

Boyfriend’s will leaves Wife an inheritance … an unsatisfactory inheritance.

Wife elects to reject her inheritance under Boyfriend’s will and to instead take a statutory inheritance, called dower: one-third of Husband’s lands and one-half of his property. Electing dower is irreversible and gives up any claim under a will.

Boyfriend’s Executor rejects Wife’s dower election, on the ground that Wife and Boyfriend were never legally married.

The dispute escalates to the Florida Supreme Court. Which agrees with Executor that Wife and Boyfriend were never legally married. Wife’s divorce from her first husband violates due process because he had no notice or opportunity to appear to assert his interests.

And because Wife’s first marriage was not legally terminated, Boyfriend’s and Wife’s marriage was never valid. Therefore, Wife has no legal right to dower.

Ironically, if Wife had not elected dower, she would have been entitled to keep her inheritance under Boyfriend’s will.

Although dower is no longer around, it has been succeeded by a similar legal mechanism for rejecting an unsatisfactory inheritance under a will and instead electing to take a larger statutory share.

Read more in this Tampa Tribune article: Divorce court files hold intriguing stories.

Lenders bankrolling court cases and keeping litigants afloat until final judgment – and collection – are nothing new really. In civil court.

But in divorce court and family court, they’re breaking new ground. Although they make perfect sense and there’s a huge need.

Millions of dollars in assets and / or revenues in businesses controlled by one spouse all too often allegedly disappear or shrink as soon as one of the couple wants a divorce.

Garnering the proof to support a truly equitable distribution of marital property can require considerable expertise and time from attorneys, accountants and investigators. And that costs money.

Money that one of the couple often does not have access to when needed. Enter private funding of contentious, high-stakes divorce cases for profit.

It’s a high risk business, but the rewards can be high too. Many charge a contingency fee (a percentage of the recovery) rather than interest.

Read more in this New York Times article: Taking Sides in a Divorce, Chasing Profit.