Prenuptial agreements, or prenups, are highly recommended for owners of closely held businesses.

After all, the future Husband and Wife may not be the only ones impacted by a prenup, or lack of same. There may be children.

And there may be other extended family members also affected.

A prenuptial agreement is the only way of protecting the interests of all those other folks and the business itself, in addition to the actively involved future spouse.

For the faint-hearted future spouse uncomfortable with broaching the subject, there is a simple solution.

Incorporate the requirement of a prenuptial agreement right into the shareholders’ agreement or members’ agreement, or other business management documents.

This approach makes the prenup mandatory, but depersonalizes the issue.

After all, divorce of a principal is de-stabilizing to the entire business, and the threat of a fragmentation of a spouse’s ownership interest and rights threatens harmonious management.

A prenup can specify ownership, voting rights, valuation, buyout where appropriate, characterize property as marital or nonmarital by agreement, and provide for death of a future spouse as well as the possibility of divorce. As well as other issues.

Read more in this Delmarva [MD] Daily Times article: Business owners: Consider prenuptial policy.

Husband and Wife have three Children together.

Husband is arrested for allegedly murdering Wife … before Children’s eyes.

And then fleeing from the scene with the Children in tow.

Husband is now in jail awaiting trial.

Children are in foster care.

Both sets of Children’s Grandparents are in the process of qualifying as foster parents for Children.

At a family court hearing concerning the Children, Husband requests that the Children visit Husband in jail. Husband believes that the Children would like to visit him in jail.

The Children’s paternal Grandparents support the Children visiting Husband in jail.

The Children’s maternal Grandparents object to any such timesharing with Husband.

The attorney appointed to represent the Children also objects to any timesharing with Husband, because the Children may be called as witnesses at Husband’s criminal trial and Husband might attempt to influence the Children’s testimony during visitation.

Husband’s attorney counters by proposing electronic monitoring to guard against witness-tampering. It is unclear how effectively such monitoring could guard against manipulation.

The Children’s attorney asks the Court to speak with the Children’s therapists before ruling on visitation.

The family court judge indicates he will consider Husband’s request for timesharing but that he will take no action regarding any existing criminal court orders barring or limiting contact with the Children or witnesses in general.

One can only speculate about Husband’s motivations for timesharing.

Read more in this Mankato [MN] Free Press article: Murder suspect requests visitation for kids.

There are about 200,000 parental abductions of children in the US annually. The majority arise out of child custody disputes.

Many of these abductions last for years.

And while one parent of each child worries and waits, there is one, often overlooked resource that may know where these abducted children are: the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Just because someone abducts their child doesn’t mean that they don’t file and pay their taxes. Or claim the child dependency tax deduction for the child they abducted.

In fact, according to one study, about a third of parental child abductors do.

Which makes the IRS privy to where the abducting parent and abducted child live. And in a position to help the other parent bring their abducted child home.

But the IRS generally isn’t talking.

It seems taxpayers have privacy rights. Even if there’s a felony warrant out for them.

There are limited exceptions. But they require a federal crime and a court order from a federal court.

Yet most child abductions are state crimes, investigated at the state level. And most federal judges wouldn’t enter such an order anyway.

The only reason the other parent may find out that the IRS has information about their abducted child is when the IRS disallows their own claimed child dependency tax deduction, because their child’s other (abducting) parent has already claimed the one allowed deduction for their child.

Read more in this New York Times article: I.R.S. Sits on Data Pointing to Missing Children.

Husband seeks church annulment of his marriage to Wife.

His cited grounds: Wife approves of open marriages, in which both spouses are free to have other sexual partners. She expresses this abstract position to Husband before their marriage.

But Wife has never actually cheated on Husband in any way, shape or form. She has been totally faithful, just freethinking.

Husband is granted an annulment of their marriage by a court of the Catholic Church in Italy.

Wife appeals the annulment in a divorce court in Italy … and the annulment is upheld and Wife is denied alimony because of her abstract, heretical beliefs.

After further appeals by Wife, Italy’s top appellate court upholds all of the previous rulings.

Read more in

• this [UK] Guardian news article: Woman denied alimony because she had talked about open marriage

• this Orlando WOFL Fox 35 TV news article: Just the thought of an affair enough to annul Italian woman’s marriage and

• this [UK] Telegraph article: Italian couple’s marriage annulled after wife thought about having affair

Divorce law and all family law varies from state to state.

As an attorney licensed and admitted to practice law in New York and New Jersey as well as Florida, I have long been keenly aware of this, and that states may learn much from one another. By extension, parties and practitioners may learn much from their counterparts in other states.

A California attorney has written an instructive article on temporary restraining orders that automatically apply to California divorce court cases under California law. The article does not reflect the law in effect across the state of Florida (although certain counties in Florida do impose some similar automatic restraining orders on a county by county basis).

California’s automatic restraining orders in family court cases are against:

1. unilaterally removing common children outside the state

2. hiding or disposing of assets of either or both spouses

3. altering the beneficiaries of insurance policies in place for the benefit of the other spouse or their common children and

4. generating or modifying a nonprobate transfer of property

Not surprisingly, exceptions are made: as permitted by written consent of the other spouse or by court order, for transfers made in the ordinary course of an established business, for established living expenses and for reasonable attorney’s fees.

It is worth noting that, just because the above conduct is not subject to automatic prohibition across the state of Florida, does not mean that the conduct would find favor with a Florida family court if brought to its attention in any particular Florida divorce case. It just means that prohibition is not automatic in Florida.

Quite the contrary, divorcing spouses in Florida should be aware that, upon a proper showing in any Florida divorce court, either spouse may be able to obtain a temporary restraining order prohibiting the same behavior in their Florida divorce court case case, only on a case-by-case basis. And any such behavior already engaged in may be taken into account in the ultimate equitable distribution or property division in the particular Florida family court case.

Read more in this Balita Media article: Automatic temporary restraining orders that are in effect upon commencement of divorce.

Internet visitation for parents separated from their children by distance has gained increasing popularity over the last decade.

It began with more expensive add-on web cameras, which required advanced technical hardware and software knowledge to hook up and make work.

But now the options have expanded and simplified.

Many cellular phones come standard with built-in video cameras today.

Internet telephone services offer video phone conferencing. Even online chat applications and text messaging often feature video now.

In short, video communications are now readily accessible to many, many ordinary Americans, often without special equipment or specialized technical knowledge.

Making internet timesharing better, easier and cheaper than ever before.

Which is why more and more states are recognizing it, approving agreements for it and even providing a statutory and/or case law framework for ordering it.

And, despite closer scrutiny of parental relocation in many states, with the recession and weak job market persisting, virtual timesharing is here to stay.

Besides making long distance visitation possible, at least in some cases, internet visitation adds a meaningful dimension to ordinary phone conversations .. and has resulted in longer-lasting phone contact.

But opponents of virtual visitation fear that its availability may encourage courts to allow relocation more freely.

Read more in this FindLaw article: Parenting in Cyberspace? Virtual Visitation and the Court-Ordered Use of Technology Become Realities In Tough Economic Times.

Wife is convicted of stabbing Husband to death, nearly 200 times.

Wife is sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

Wife appeals the sentencing.

Wife is granted a new trial as to punishment.

Wife argues that she was a battered spouse who acted in the heat of passion. She is seeking probation.

The prosecution argues that Wife was an angry wife who achieved a divorce by homicide.

If the murder was in the heat of passion, the maximum sentence is twenty years.

Read more in this Houston Chronicle article: DA calls Jeffrey Wright’s death ‘divorce by homicide’.

Texas Husband and Wife have adult Daughter with Downs Syndrome.

Husband and Wife had guardianship of Daughter, but were reportedly removed as Daughter’s guardians … at a hearing held without notice or opportunity for them to appear and defend themselves against allegations of abuse and neglect.

It is unknown who sought that hearing and who is serving as Daughter’s guardian at this time.

A new hearing was coming up in the case, but that was suddenly canceled, also for unknown reasons.

Daughter’s Brother denies any allegations of abuse and neglect by Husband and Wife.

Husband and Wife believe the cancellation of their hearing was political.

Read more in this Dallas KDAF 33 TV news article: Arlington family who lost custody of disabled daughter in secret hearing cries foul.

Husband and Wife own the marital residence (Home).

Home has appreciated in value since purchase, and Husband and Wife have positive equity in Home.

Husband and Wife are divorcing.

Wife wants to remain in the Home with the Children.

Husband would prefer to sell the Home and split the proceeds of sale.

Husband and Wife reach an amicable resolution.

Wife will buy out Husband’s interest in the Home, and Husband will transfer his interest in the Home to Wife.

Will Wife have a taxable capital gain?

Generally, no. Transfers between spouses in connection with a divorce generally do not give rise to taxable events.

In other words, no gain or loss is deemed to be taken. The buying spouse takes over or assumes the same tax basis that the couple previously had in the transferred property.

Read more in this [Fort Smith, AR] Times Record column: Key to Reducing Capital Gains Taxes.

A divorce lawyer can never remind clients too often that joint debt and marital debt are not necessarily the same.

For example, people who are not married to each other can have joint debt by both of them signing for it.

On the other hand, if only one spouse signs for a debt incurred during the marriage, that is marital debt, although it is not joint.

Fussy details? More than that.

A creditor generally cannot come after a spouse who did not sign for the debt. Only a divorce court can order the other spouse to contribute to paying off that marital, but not joint, debt.

Similarly, a creditor can go after either spouse on joint debt. That is why it is important to close joint accounts promptly.

And, with the stakes potentially high, closing of joint accounts should not be left to the other spouse, without production of proof.

Read more in this CreditCards.com divorce credit column: Divorce doesn’t dissolve joint card debt.