When baby boomers or seniors divorce, the odds are much greater that the wife has mainly been a largely stay-at-home mother and homemaker who never seriously pursued a self-supporting career.

In younger divorcing couples, the odds are greater that the wife has had a career of her own and has earned roughly as much as her husband.

So senior and boomer spouses who are parting are more likely to focus on property division and alimony issues. Retirement savings, pensions, social security benefits, debts, other assets and so on.

But younger divorcing couples are more likely to focus on parenting and child support issues. Timesharing, decision-making, child support and so on.

Also, younger and older couples are likely to have different personal styles in handling the divorce. For example, older couples are more likely to be more deliberate.

Read more in this Mason City [IA] Globe Gazette article: Considerations for boomer divorce different from younger counterparts.

Seventeen year old Florida Girlfriend has infant (Baby).

Despite a difficult childhood, Girlfriend reportedly tries hard to be a good mother.

Girlfriend has boyfriend (Boyfriend), who moves in with Baby and her.

Girlfriend becomes afraid of Boyfriend.

Twenty-one year old Boyfriend has considerable domestic violence arrest history.

Girlfriend seeks order of protection, but doesn’t properly follow through.

Girlfriends takes some measures to try to protect Baby.

Baby’s body is found on an Interstate.

Authorities believe Boyfriend threw Baby out of a car on the highway.

Boyfriend is on trial for first degree murder in Baby’s death.

While in court, Boyfriend allegedly waves to Girlfriend and tells her “I love you”.

Girlfriend complains.

Judge orders Boyfriend not to communicate with Girlfriend.

Boyfriend’s defense will apparently be based, at least in part, on the fact that Girlfriend spent some of her childhood in foster care and received child welfare services, and was committed for three days’ of mental health observation when she was nine years old.

Read more in this Tampa Bay [FL] Fox 13 TV news article: Judge orders McTear to avoid baby’s mom and this St. Petersburg [FL] Times article: Mother of slain baby Emanuel Murray: ‘I can’t believe he’s gone’.

Spanish-speaking men (and women) in Smith County, Texas take their money orders down to the probation department’s Spanish-speaking child support collections Worker.

The Worker instructs them to leave certain fields blank, such as who the money order is made out to.

The immigrant fathers have made their child support payments.

But the mothers of their children claim not to receive child support.

Worker is suspended on an unrelated allegation of harassment.

Worker’s replacement can’t reconcile Worker’s support collections records.

Investigation leads to the money orders being traced back to Worker.

Worker reportedly alters the money orders so that they read as made out to her personally.

Worker allegedly spends the money herself.

And Worker is arrested on felony theft by a public servant of thousands of dollars, among other charges.

Worker pleads guilty and is sentenced to eight years’ incarceration.

With all due respect to the honest vast majority of child support workers, one has to wonder whether child support enforcement hires have to pass criminal background checks … or any background screening.

Read more in this Tyler [TX] Morning Telegraph article: State Employee Stole Thousands In Child Support.

I previously posted on a case where a North Carolina court ordered children out of homeschooling and back into public school at least in part to compensate for the mother’s religious views.

In a similar recent case, a girl was ordered out of homeschooling and into public school because of her “rigidity on faith”.

In an even more recent high profile case, a teenager fled her family in Ohio after converting to Christianity, for fear that her Muslim parents would execute a so-called honor killing on her. A Florida court ordered the teen returned to Ohio, but into foster care.

There are plenty of other cases lately where aspects of a parent’s religious beliefs or practices – or lack of same – appear to play a significant role in a parenting dispute’s outcome.

Unfortunately, the outcomes don’t always seem consistent – or logical – across the country.

Are family courts indirectly imposing their own religious values on minor children and their parents? And what of a parent’s constitutionally protected right of religious freedom?

These are the questions some are asking – and hoping the US Supreme Court will address in the near future.

Read more in this ChristianityToday article: Splitting Babies – Religious differences are making custody disputes even messier.

Turkish Husband and British Wife and baby Daughter live in Turkey … and UK.

Couple are divorcing.

Wife flees with Daughter from Turkey to UK via Greece.

Wife obtains an order of protection in the UK upon learning that Husband is in London.

Husband makes application for return of Daughter to Turkey under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Wife contends in a UK Court that Husband abuses her and that Husband and his family abducted Daughter last year.

UK Court finds that Husband and Wife evenly divided their time between the UK and Turkey (meaning that either country could be viewed as the child’s “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention), but that Daughter was born in Turkey.

Expressing its opinion that the Turkish courts are “much admired” in the UK and that the Turkish Court has shown no bias in Husband’s and Wife’s case, the UK Court orders Wife to return to Turkey with Daughter for the custody case.

Wife is devastated by the ruling.

Read more in this Ilford [suburban London, England] Recorder article: Mum told to return to Turkey for child custody battle.

October was first recognized as Domestic Violence Awareness Month twenty-two years ago.

Twenty-two years later, here in Florida, two different mothers and their respective children are murdered in domestic violence incidents.

Both families have histories of domestic violence.

Clearly, the problem of domestic violence is far from solved.

What are we doing wrong?

Professionals working with victims must learn to properly assess the degree of danger in each case.

And, regardless, professionals must also be able to provide each victim with an effective, custom safety plan.

These two measures should go a long way toward reducing domestic violence fatalities (and injuries).

Hopefully, these milestones won’t take another twenty-two years of awareness to accomplish.

Read more in this Ft. Myers [FL] News Press article: Better protection needed against domestic violence.

Colorado has legal gambling casinos in several towns there.

Father (or Mother) goes to a casino to play.

And wins. Pretty big. At least $1,200. Maybe substantially more.

Father (or Mother) gathers up their winning chips and goes to cash out.

There’s a bit of a delay.

Finally, Father (or Mother) is handed their, uh, net proceeds.

Father (or Mother) complains that they’ve been shorted on their winnings.

Wrong.

Under a recent Colorado law, before cashing out any player who wins at least $1,200, the casino is required to check child support computer system records to determine whether the winner owes any back child support.

If the winner does owe back child support, the arrearages are collected by deduction from their winnings.

This new law has resulted in collection of $600,000 in statewide child support arrearages in just the first year. Not bad.

Casinos aren’t thrilled about the new law. Their customers get angry. And following the law is a nuisance.

Worst of all, casinos fear it is already starting to deter deadbeat gamers from turning out at the casinos.

In other words, deadbeat parents are actively avoiding an opportunity to meet their child support obligations with found money won at the casinos.

This casts some doubt on various special interest groups’ vigorous assertions that those who don’t pay child support don’t pay because they can’t afford it.

Colorado was the first state to pass a law like this … although many states require child support enforcement out of lottery winnings.

Other states are watching Colorado’s apparent success and eagerly contemplating trying to duplicate it.

Read more in this Denver Post article: Colorado gambling law garnishes $600,000 from winnings of deadbeat parents.

Residents of Maine will be voting next week on proposed legislation intended to broaden and simplify usage of marijuana for medical purposes.

What does that have to do with family law?

Well, one of the proposed provisions prohibits discrimination against patients in child custody matters.

A significant number of people have allegedly lost custody of their children just because they use medical marijuana – or grow it.

Specifically, the proposed legislation provides that patients cannot be deprived of custody or (presumably, unsupervised) timesharing or visitation unless their marijuana use renders them “unreasonably dangerous” to their child.

In other words, under the proposals, it would be illegal discrimination to deprive a parent of custody (or unsupervised visitation) just because the parent’s behavior with marijuana use makes the parent merely dangerous to their child.

Ironically, this kind of proposed language may give a medical marijuana user an advantage over a non-user … not to mention over their child. Who may only be in danger, but not unreasonable danger.

Read more in this Drug War Chronicle newsletter article: Feature: Maine Medical Marijuana Dispensary Initiative Ahead in November Election Campaign.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, as I’ve previously posted.

A UK Husband allegedly pursued his fleeing Wife, each in their own respective cars. Husband rammed Wife’s car and then set it on fire.

Husband was arrested and confined until trial.

Wife was too terrified to testify against Husband at trial.

So Wife, the victim, was put in jail for contempt of court, while Husband was at large.

Because of Wife’s silence, Husband was convicted only of threatening behavior and damaging property.

At the conclusion of his trial, Husband was released due to time already served.

Read more in this UK Mirror article: Scared wife put in cells for ‘contempt of court’ during domestic abuse trial as husband walks free.

US-resident Mother refuses to allow Son to visit Israel-resident Father and attend school there for a year.

Both Israel and the US are parties to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Mother opposes, ironically citing a provision of the Hague Convention intended primarily for the benefit of fleeing victims of domestic violence.

The provision allows a court to refuse an otherwise-required return of a child if there is a serious risk that the child will be harmed, physically or psychologically, by return.

In this context, Mother, like others before her, argues that terrorism strikes in Israel make it too dangerous to order her child there.

Ohio judge partially accepts Mother’s argument. Court rules that child should go to Israel … but is barred from Haifa, Israel.

Other US judges have been in full sympathy with Mother’s argument in denying returns.

An Ohio attorney takes exception to the characterization of Israel as a “war zone” and believes that rulings refusing to return children to Israel aid terrorists at Israel’s expense.

That attorney has established a nonprofit association in Israel to assist parents pursuing return of their children to Israel.

It is reported that ten percent of divorced couples in Israel are new immigrants.

Read more in this Israel Haaretz article: Lawyer from U.S. sets up body to repatriate abducted Israeli kids