South African Husband doesn’t want divorce.

Wife does, and requests that Husband leave the marital home.

Husband tires to press adult daughter to talk Wife out of divorce – or into waiting.

Husband finally agrees to divorce.

Husband has gun in pocket during final conversation with Wife.

Wife tries to disarm Husband.

Wife is shot and killed.

Police interrogate Husband.

Husband’s “defense” appears to be that Wife only wanted a divorce because “it was that time of the month”, and she would have come to her senses in time.

Read more in this South African Independent Newspaper article: Murder accused believed wife wanted divorce.

Israeli Husband and American Wife marry. Husband and Wife have two Daughters together and live in US.

Husband and Wife divorce. Husband and Wife have shared parenting but Husband is the primary residential parent and Wife has visitation.

Husband absconds with Daughters to Israel – allegedly to evade a criminal trial in the US on charges of drug possession.

Wife sought an emergency modification of custody in the US and was successful in obtaining a modified award of sole custody of the Daughters.

Wife then filed an application for return of Daughters to the US in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Husband’s response was that returning Daughters to Wife would put them at grave risk because of Wife’s abuse of drugs and alcohol and history of neglect of Daughters.

Husband further stated that Daughters preferred to live with Husband in Israel because they had more stability with him.

The presiding Israeli family court judge appointed a therapist to evaluate Daughters and met with Daughters himself.

The therapist concluded that Daughters would not be at risk with Wife in the US. The judge felt that Daughters had been brainwashed by Husband.

Accordingly, the Israeli Court ordered the return of Daughters to the US.

Read more in this Israel News article: Israeli who abducted daughters from US to return them home.

Florida Father’s parental rights to Son are terminated, without his knowledge.

Because Father’s name is common, DCF doesn’t try very hard to find him and notify him, which is required by law.

The only notification that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) gives him is through a notice published in the legal classifieds section of the newspaper.

Son goes into foster care, along with his half-sister.

Father brings claim against DCF for wrongfully “restraining” Son in foster care, where he is abused by his foster parents. Father loses.

Father appeals. Father also loses appeal, for lack of reversible error, because there is no “abuse of discretion”.

But appeals court nonetheless takes DCF to task for not trying harder to locate Father before terminating his parental rights and comments that “[d]ue process of law should never be disregarded” and that parental rights are constitutionally protected.

Eventually, Son’s foster parents are convicted of aggravated child abuse of Son and his half-sister.

Now Son sues DCF for the abuse he suffered because of DCF’s negligence.

And Father also sues DCF, alleging that the agency violated his civil rights. Father’s case largely rests on the appellate court ruling in his previous case.

Read more in this Tampa Tribune: Hernando Today article – Father Follows Son In Suing DCF.

Mother and two Children all live in North Dakota, as does Father.

Mother has custody and Father has visitation.

Mother is found in contempt of court for denying Father access to Children.

Mother absconds with Children to Indian reservation in South Dakota – and fails to appear at modification of custody hearing in North Dakota.

North Dakota Court awards custody of Children to Father.

Mother appeals North Dakota modification of custody.

North Dakota Supreme Court dismisses Mother’s appeal under the “fugitive dismissal rule”.

It is generally not helpful to one’s cause to simply not show up for a trial. Nor to abscond with children in an attempt to circumvent an existing court order or an anticipated court order.

Read more in this [Bismarck, ND] KFYR-TV 5 article: ND Supreme Court Bars Appeal in Child Custody Case.

Father of Milwaukee children allegedly doesn’t pay child support for some time. Approximately $128,000 worth of child support.

Father goes to jail. For a time.

Then Father gets released on probation. One of the conditions of his probation is … that he pay his support … or go back to jail.

After Father is released, he allegedly stops paying child support again. But he doesn’t go back to jail.

Because the government can’t find him. But reporters find him, in Illinois, at the same address he has had for years.

Based on the reporters’ tip, law enforcement arrests Father again. Father now reportedly owes $200,000 in child support arrearages.

There is no indication that Father is unable to pay child support. But, apparently, he doesn’t want to.

Father may return to jail … again … and, perhaps, again.

Read more in this TMJ TV 4 Milwaukee news article: I-Team: Deadbeat Dad James Bartley.

Upstate New York Man gets order of protection against former girlfriend (Woman).

But, as is too often the case, it allegedly does not deter Woman.

Woman maneuvers Man into a bathroom and threatens him.

Woman is arrested for criminal contempt of an order of protection and a civil violation of harassment.

Woman is jailed for lack of bond.

Moral: Women have orders of protection entered against them too. Women violate orders of protection against them too.

Read more in this Glen Falls [NY] Post Star article: Woman charged with violating protective order.

Indian Mother and Father live in UK with their four and six year old Children.

Children go back to India to live with Father’s parents, Grandparents.

Mother says Father sent them there. Grandparents say Mother brought them there.

Mother files in both India and UK to get the Children back with her. She maintains she has “full rights over them”.

Nonetheless, Children reportedly want to stay in India with Grandparents.

India is not currently a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. But lawyers in India are starting to press for adopting the Convention.

Of course in this case, depending how long the Children have been with the Grandparents and the circumstances of their return to India, the Convention might require that custody be determined in the UK. It appears that, at least as far as habitual residence is concerned, the Children are NRI, nonresident Indian children.

Read more in this IBN article: Punjab’s NRI British kids caught in custody battle.

Georgia couple split up.

Older Son goes to live with Husband. Younger Daughter goes to live with Wife.

Couple agrees on child support amount of about $275 per month. Husband pays.

Husband loses job of twelve years when employer downsizes.

Husband vigorously seeks new job. Husband has difficulty finding new job.

Husband struggles to pay agreed support on unemployment compensation.

At a hearing on child support, court establishes support amount at about $660 – based on Husband’s previous salary.

(In Florida, that’s called imputing income to Husband. Income is imputed to the spouse required to pay when that spouse voluntarily becomes unemployed or underemployed.)

The Georgia Child Support Office reports that a Georgia judge can order any amount of support that he or she wants.

Husband has sold most of his furniture and appliances. He hopes he can stay out of jail.

Forty-two percent of parents required to pay child support are delinquent in their payments.

Read more in this WMAZ 13 TV article: GET ANSWERS: The Economy and Child Support.

Couples who go through in vitro fertilization typically have unused embryos left after achieving a successful pregnancy.

Unused embryos may be frozen, destroyed, donated for research or … “put up for adoption”.

Meaning, they can be donated to other couples who are infertile, thawed out and implanted in a would-be mother’s womb.

Purists are quick to point out that it is not truly “adoption”, because the embryos are not the same as a living, breathing baby.

But they do offer another option for infertile couples who want to have a child.

Read more in this Seattle Times article: “Embryo adoption” gives new life to some couples’ hopes for a child.

Husband and Wife decide to marry.

Husband insists on prenup – or else.

Confusing prenup is quickly patched together with three different lawyers.

Under prenup, Wife waives everything. No property division in event of divorce. No alimony in event of divorce. No nothing in event of divorce.

Wife requests a valuation of Husband’s assets. Husband refuses – on the basis that it would be too expensive to obtain one.

Couple marry.

Turns out Husband is a multimillionaire.

Seven years later, couple splits up.

Wife asks for property division and alimony.

Trial court awards it, voiding prenup over Husband’s failure to disclose the value of his assets.

Canada’s Supreme Court refuses to hear Husband’s appeal, leaving the holding stand.

Some commentators vigorously condemn the trial court’s ruling. They criticize the court for requiring expensive asset valuations to validate prenups.

This attitude may be premature overreaction.

Several US states require asset disclosures in prenups. A precise formal valuation is not typically required though.

Just a disclosure of the rough nature and approximate value of the assets. Closer to $1 million or $10 million? $8 million or $12 million?

Is an “expensive, formal valuation” really required to give “fair notice” of the approximate value of what the spouse would be waiving?

Read more in this Canadian National Post article: Karen Selick: Court ruling means marrying for love is not an option.