South Dakota Mother and Father split up before 5 year old Son is born.

Couple fight over custody and child support.

Mother is awarded temporary primary custody of Son, and Father is ordered to pay monthly temporary child support of $150. Later the amount is upped to $363.

Father continues to pay $150 for the next two years though. Father blames it on cash-flow problems in his farming business.

At trial, the court dismisses the child support issues as irrelevant to custody, and awards primary custody of Son to Father. Further, the Father manages to clear his arrearages by the second day of the trial.

But the main reason the trial court awards primary custody to Father is that Mother is allegedly alienating Son from Father.

On appeal, however, South Dakota’s highest court appears to second-guess the trial court’s factual findings, specifically rejecting the trial court’s finding that Mother has alienated Son from Father.

The South Dakota Supreme Court goes on to conclude that it would not be in Son’s best interests for Father to have primary custody, because Father hasn’t adequately provided for Son financially when Son was living with Mother.

Two judges dissent. The dissent seems more consistent with legal trends beyond South Dakota’s borders.

Read more in this Sioux City [IA] Journal article: Supreme Court overturns child custody ruling.

In divorces, people sometimes fight over the most unexpected things.

And so it is in a New York divorce dragging on since 2005.

Husband and Wife have three children together, ranging in age from 8 to 14 years.

Husband contends that Wife is interfering with his visitation with the children.

Several years ago, before Wife filed for divorce, Husband donated one of his kidneys to Wife.

Now Husband seeks return of his kidney – or $1.5 million.

Husband’s attorney admits that he doesn’t expect to get the kidney back. A gift, after all, is a gift.

But Husband is trying to draw attention to his Wife’s denial of visitation with his children and the slow pace of the case.

He’s certainly drawn attention to the kidney …

Read more in this UPI article: Man demands $1.5M, or kidney, in divorce.

Father owes $7,500 in back child support. Bad enough.

Then he is arrested on a drug charge – again. With more than $15,000 in cash and jewelry on his person. And half that amount in illegal drugs.

Criminal court Judge is not happy with Father.

State seizes Father’s cash and jewelry.

Judge proposes that cash and proceeds of jewelry go to child support arrearages.

Except the state statute specifies what seized assets may be used for… Child support isn’t included.

But the prosecutors are researching whether the judge’s proposal can be implemented legally anyway.

Meanwhile, Judge sentences Father to two years under a plea deal, suspends his driver’s license for a year and orders him to pay a fine and court costs.

Sounds like the Judge is on to something, and the forfeiture statute should be amended to allow seized assets to be applied to support obligations.

Read more in this Cincinnati [OH] Enquirer article: A novel use for drug money.

Nebraska couple divorce. Their Daughter is now 4 years old.

Mother files motion to relocate with Daughter to another state.

Daughter’s therapist learns from Mother that there is a recording device in Daughter’s teddy bear.

The recorder was reportedly placed in the teddy bear by the Mother, or someone on her behalf.

It turns out that the device has been recording Father’s visitation for many months.

The Court bars use of the recordings in the courtroom, on the grounds that making the recordings was illegal.

Now, Father and several others who were recorded, including some court-appointees in the case, have filed a damages lawsuit against Mother, her father and Mother’s former attorneys for invasion of their privacy.

Mother’s attorneys terminated their representation upon learning of the recordings allegedly made for their client (although they argued that the recordings should be used by the Court).

Father has recently been awarded greater timesharing with Daughter, nearly equal to Mother’s.

Mother has not been charged in criminal court with making or causing the recordings to be made.

Meanwhile, Father briefly microwaves Daughter’s coats, toys and teddy bears whenever he picks her up, to disable any other recording devices.

Read more in this Omaha [NE] World-Herald article: Custody case tip: Don’t bug kid’s teddy bear.

In Pennsylvania, unemployment has been slowly rising for some time.

In fact, unemployment compensation is expected to start running out for significant numbers of non-custodial parents this spring.

The unemployed increasingly worry about their child support obligations.

Rather than waiting until they accrue arrearages, many are wisely looking to modify their obligations before they become delinquent.

In Pennsylvania, deadbeat parents fear that they face incarceration, despite the tough times.

The flip side of the unemployment problem is that custodial parents who might not otherwise have pressed for child support might have little choice now but to do so.

When asked for advice, child support enforcement authorities in Pennsylvania encourage non-custodial parents to pay what they can manage, even if they can’t pay all that is ordered.

This scenario will be playing out in many areas of the country where the local economies are especially hard hit by unemployment.

Read more in this Allentown [PA] Morning Call article: Job losses test child support.

Husband and Wife have baby Daughter.

Marriage deteriorates. Divorce is filed.

Wife is killed in car accident. Divorce stops.

Wife’s will expresses Wife’s wishes that her mother, Daughter’s grandmother, raise Daughter if something were to happen to her.

But Daughter has a father, Husband.

Husband raises Daughter in North Dakota, sometimes living with his father and sometimes with his mother. Both of his parents are very involved in caring for Daughter.

Now Husband dies in a car accident.

Husband did not leave a will.

Now all the grandparents want Daughter.

Wife’s mother, who lives in far off New England, somehow obtains temporary guardianship of Daughter.

Wife’s mother points to Husband’s father’s disability and Husband’s mother’s allowing her own youngsters to be raised by Husband’s father after their divorce. Husband’s father contends the disability limits heavy lifting and Husband’s mother explains that she only left the children with her ex for continuity.

Read more in this Worthington [MN] Daily Globe article: Grandparents fight for child custody.

Unmarried New Orleans Mother and Father separate.

Two year old Son lives with Mother.

Father chooses to have no contact with Son.

Court reportedly orders Father to pay child support arrearages of $4,000 for Son.

Father suddenly decides to exercise visitation with Son.

Father allegedly murders Son and leaves his body in a playground.

Father calls police and claims that Son has been abducted, although his story keeps changing.

Father is arrested on a charge of first degree murder.

Father confesses, saying he’s “sorry”, but that he has been under “a lot of pressure” because he doesn’t want to pay child support.

Read more in this New Orleans Times-Picayune article: Father kills 2-year-old son, dumps him in park, police say.

With 2009, a new era begins in Illinois orders of protection.

A new state statute requires counties to provide 24 x 7 surveillance of anyone subject to an order of protection anytime the court orders it.

The means: global position satellite technology.

Although not inexpensive, where used, this system should “buy” a great deal of peace of mind – and actual safety – for victims of domestic violence … and ultimate savings to the government by deterring violations by abusers.

In addition to equipment costs, extracting full value from this system requires having sufficient staff to monitor the electronic feeds. But that task may be well suited to existing police dispatchers (or increases in such staff).

Read more in this Elgin [IL] Courier News article: Counties to tighten orders of protection.

Married Chinese couple immigrate to Canada. Sort of.

Husband actually still spends most of his time in China. But Wife and Son live in Canada.

Husband is reportedly part of Chinese mob. Husband is incarcerated in China for what may be a very long time.

After about eleven years of marriage, Wife files for divorce in Canada.

Wife claims that Husband is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, although Husband claims the figure is “only” around thirty-five million. Close enough, apparently.

Wife seeks the marital residence, her car and back child and spousal support of approximately $900,000. Wife claims that her English is poor and she does not have marketable job skills.

Court apparently buys into Wife’s world view, due to what it characterizes as “exceptional” circumstances of the case.

Read more in this Vancouver Sun article: Jailed gangster was worth $400m: divorced wife.

Iowa Mother is supposed to receive child support.

Father apparently pays child support.

Iowa collects the child support from Father.

And … deposits it into the wrong mother’s account.

For four years.

Iowa also allegedly adds insult to injury in two distinct ways.

First, it blames the misrouted payments on the Mother’s request to change the bank account into which her support payments are supposed to be deposited, and her failure and her bank’s failure to catch the change error on the supposedly e-mailed confirmations of the change.

But the Mother denies that she ever requested to change deposit accounts. Still, the financial institution did change hands at some point, which could have contributed to the error.

Second, after finally paying Mother the amount of money that was misrouted to another mother, the Iowa sent Mother a letter saying that it had paid her by mistake – and that she would have to give the money she had received back. Iowa has since apologized to Mother for that latest error.

Iowa admits to two other cases besides Mother’s where child support payments were routed to the wrong parties.

Iowa has not recovered the child support payments inadvertently sent to the wrong mother.

Read more in this Des Moines [Iowa] Register article: Glitch sends support pay to wrong person.