California Mother and Father are raising 15 year old Daughter.

Daughter allegedly steals Mother’s and Father’s car and travels to Utah, to reunite with her biological mother and stepfather.

Daughter tells her biological mother that Mother and Father regularly physically abuse her.

The adults report the abuse to a child welfare agency and law enforcement authorities.

Medical examination of Daughter finds trauma, which examiners characterize as “non-accidental”.

Mother and Father are charged with the felony of “torture”.

Mother and Father’s two younger Children are taken into child protective custody.

Children deny any abuse.

Mother and Father are listed in the Child Abuse Central Index.

Authorities’ investigation continues.

Family doctor testifies that despite numerous examinations, he has not observed any evidence of physical abuse of Daughter.

Authorities eventually conclude that Mother and Father are innocent.

Charges against them are dropped.

But Mother and Father remain listed on the Child Abuse Central Index.

Finally, Mother and Father sue local officials for damages for failure to remove their names from the Child Abuse Central Index long after the charges against them are dropped.

Mother and Father assert that the listing in the Child Abuse Central Index violates their due process rights, because they were not afforded the opportunity to challenge the allegations against them before their names were listed in the Child Abuse Central Index.

The local officials defend by blaming the violation on the state.

An intermediate federal appellate court rules in favor of Mother and Father.

Now the case is awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court.

Read more in this CNN article: Court hears appeal of couple cleared of child abuse, still on registry.

South Carolina Husband and Wife are, respectively, a drug court judge and the clerk of court.

Wife has access to child support enforcement funds from the federal government.

Husband is removed from the bench for unknown reasons.

And Wife allegedly dips into the public coffers, in part to pay Husband’s salary and also to pay insurance premiums for relatives and a vacation home.

To the tune of $338 thousand.

Wife is charged in state court with embezzlement of public funds and misconduct in office … and convicted.

She is sentenced to five years’ probation – and two hundred hours of community service.

Then Wife is charged in federal court with unlawful conversion of public funds.

Wife pleads not guilty

Maximum sentence for the federal charges against Wife are a fine of $250,000 and ten years’ confinement.

Read more in this Beaufort Gazette article: Ex-court clerk appears in federal court.

In some divorces, one spouse “buys out” the other spouse’s equity position in the marital home.

How is the dollar amount of the buyout determined?

Very often the buyout is accomplished with a refinancing of the mortgage on the home, which removes the bought out spouse’s name from the mortgage, as the buyout removes the bought out spouse’s name from the deed.

As part of the refinancing of the mortgage, the lender will typically require a current appraisal. The appraisal is the most common means of setting the price for the buyout.

But a noted law professor makes a pretty good case that an inexpensive home inspection should also be conducted and serve as a “reality check” on the appraisal price.

How so?

Home inspectors focus on the condition of the internal “systems” in the home. Defects, damage, wear, poor condition are typically noted.

Repairs and curative efforts have costs associated with them, which can be factored into an appraised price to reach a more equitable buyout price.

In some cases, the results may spur a spouse to reconsider buying out the other spouse.

According to the professor’s research, failure to take account of such negative conditions is a common basis for the buying out spouse’s efforts to reopen divorce cases after final judgment.

Read more in this New York Times piece: Home Inspections During Divorces.

Mother and Father are originally from Turkey.

Mother and Father have two Children, Son and Daughter, together.

Mother and Father separate.

Mother is awarded sole parental responsibility for Children.

Mother, who lives in the UK, takes Children to Turkey to visit Grandparents.

While in Turkey, Father allegedly seizes Children’s passports and forcibly abducts Children.

Son manages to escape and is returned to Mother in the UK, despite lack of a passport.

Turkish authorities initially refuse to facilitate the return of Daughter to Mother, although Turkey is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

But subsequently, authorities intervene to persuade Father to bring Daughter to Mother, where they reside in the UK.

Upon Father’s return to the UK, he is served with several court orders, including an order for Father to return Daughter to Wife and another prohibiting Father from having contact with Children or Mother.

Read more in this Yorkshire [UK] Post article: Police persuade father to bring home his abducted daughter.

In Tennesee, an unusual custody battle is brewing. The subject of the battle is a thirty-six year old female …

Elephant.

Woman, one of the most prominent experts in the world on elephant rehabilitation, raised the Elephant in the circus from a tender age.

Woman eventually founded, ran and lived in the nation’s first habitat for “retired” elephants past their performing prime.

Until, after fifteen years of service, the sanctuary reportedly fired her.

After her discharge, Woman was initially allowed “supervised visitation” with Elephant. The justification for the supervision was alleged roughness toward Elephant.

Later, Woman was barred from any contact with Elephant.

The habitat has grown to 2,700 acres and $23 million, with tens of thousands of benefactors.

Woman has now filed a lawsuit, and many supporters of the sanctuary are rallying to her cause. Among other things Woman is seeking in her suit, Woman is still seeking visitation with Elephant.

Woman contends that politics and personal greed led to her termination, rather than alleged aggression.

The court’s view remains to be seen but the public or, at least, the supporters of the habitat, appear to be sympathetic to Woman’s position.

After all, the Elephant is like family to Woman. Firing Woman is one thing. Cutting her off from Elephant is another.

Read more in this New York Times article: Sanctuary in Custody Fight Over Elephant.

Arizona Student posts on social networking website Twitter that he would hit Arizona Judge in the face if given the opportunity.

Judge learns of post.

Judge seeks restraining order of protection against Student.

And judge’s request is granted, and order of protection is entered against Student.

Perhaps another reason to apply self-censorship on social media websites.

Still, in truth, it is questionable whether a restraining order would have been entered in Florida on similar facts … if the target were not a member of the judiciary.

Read more in this WireUpdate article: Arizona student gets restraining order after Twitter threat.

Canada reports that total child support and alimony arrears across the nation exceed $2.7 billion Canadian.

Applicable to roughly sixty-four percent of support cases in which such statistics are kept.

Compliance varied from as high as eighty percent to as low as fifty-two percent, with several major regions reporting compliance of roughly sixty-three percent.

Read more in this Ottawa Citizen article: Unpaid child, spousal support tab hits $2.7 billion.

Australian Girl is taken into child protective custody by the child welfare agency (Agency) of the Australian government when Girl is twelve years old (presumably due to abandonment, abuse or neglect by Girl’s parents).

While in the custody of the Agency at the age of twelve, Girl is allegedly sold for sex.

Now Girl has an attorney and is looking to sue the Agency and government for its neglect.

The Agency reportedly concedes its negligence, but maintains that the Girl is fine now.

As part of her case, Girl will need to prove not only the neglect, but that it resulted in actual harm to her. That will require expert psychological evidence.

Since Girl is an indigent child, she is hoping to receive donations from the public.

Read more in this [Australia] World Today ABC newsradio article: Girl sold for sex wants to sue Tas Government.

Mother and Father divorce. Mother is awarded custody of their Daughter.

Daughter lives with Mother in Mexico. Father lives abroad.

Daughter, at 13, runs away from Mother in Mexico and goes to live with Aunt in Canada, with Grandmother’s assistance.

Daughter obtains asylum in Canada under the United Nations Refugee Convention, alleging that Mother abuses her.

Mother files an application for Daughter’s return to Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Mother maintains that Father’s family orchestrated Daughter’s flight.

Once a person is granted “protected” status under the UN Convention, they cannot generally be returned to the country where they were prosecuted.

But parents have the legal right to make decisions and exercise authority on behalf of their children. Therefore, the Hague Convention likely takes precedence over the UN Convention where parental rights to a minor child are involved.

At trial, the Canadian Court orders that Daughter return to Mexico.

Aunt is appealing the ruling.

Read more in this Toronto Star article: Mexican teen who fled abuse returned to mother.

Many parents imagine that their child’s preferences in custody and timesharing, as allegedly expressed to them, will control the outcome of their child custody and timesharing case in family court.

They are usually disappointed to learn that that is probably not a significant consideration in their case at all.

On a practical level, it is all too common for children to express to each parent that they prefer to be with that parent primarily.

Which highlights the uncertainty as to the children’s true preferences. How can they reliably be determined?

In Florida and many other jurisdictions, divorce court judges rarely hear from children directly regarding their preferences. Subjecting children to testifying in court “against” either parent is frowned upon as damaging to children.

There are other ways to put children’s stated preferences before the court but, for a variety of reasons, the court often is not receptive toward receiving that input as evidence in the case.

And even if the court were, do children know what is best for them?

At best, not necessarily. At worst, definitely not.

And those are some of the problems with the proposal of three Connecticut children lobbying for family court judges to speak directly with children in the privacy of the judge’s chambers.

It also tends to put the children right smack into the middle of the case. And that is not healthy for children.

Read more in this Danbury [CT] News Times article: Siblings aim to change child custody law.