French-Israeli father. Turkish mother.

Child had triple citizenship, but was born and raised in Israel.

Mother and child depart for Turkey to spend a holiday with Mother’s parents in 2004.

And stay there. Permanently.

An Israeli court promptly orders the return of the child to Israel under the Hague Convention in the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Both Turkey and Israel are parties to the Hague Convention.

The Turkish courts agreed with the Israeli courts and upheld consistent orders through two levels of appeals.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg also agreed with the Israeli courts.

But the little girl remains in Turkey.

For months, the father had no contact with his child.

Then, he was allowed biweekly visits for a time.

But the little girl remains in Turkey.

This where both involved countries are members of the Hague Convention.

Read more in this Turkish Today’s Zaman article: [FAMILY TRAGEDY] From Tel Aviv to Ä°stanbul: One man’s search for his daughter.

A four year old Pennsylvania girl is the subject of an order awarding joint, rotating custody of her. The child will move from one custodian to another every seven days.

Not typical, but not unheard of either.

What is unusual is who the alternating custodians are: the child’s two maternal grandmothers.

The little girl’s father murdered her mother and then himself in the middle of their own custody battle, leaving the child an orphan.

The grandmothers settled on this custody arrangement in the middle of a custody trial. They also agreed that one grandfather, a Florida resident, would have visitation rights and be permitted to participate in the little girl’s therapy sessions.

The arrangement may need to be modified when the child starts school in a year. But, at least until that time, the two grandmothers share parental responsibility.

Read more in this Lockhaven [PA] Express article: Joint custody of 4-year-old to continue.

An Oregon man is building up a criminal record. And that is putting the brakes on his divorce.

Over the last eight years since his divorce case was filed, the husband has allegedly been attempting to hide assets from his wife.

Upon learning of the supposed fraud, the wife renounced a settlement agreement.

The wife draws support for her position from fact that the husband, under oath in the divorce case, denied owning an interest in a resort owned by his half-brother – but then filed a separate lawsuit asserting a multi-million dollar interest in the resort.

Unfortunately for the husband, his brother testified under oath that the husband intentionally sought to divert income from his own business to the resort – to hide it from his wife in the divorce case.

Now the husband alleges that he purchased an ownership interest in the resort. And the brother contends that he purchased only an interest in the stream of net income.

The husband reportedly refused to enter a written agreement. After all, that could be found and used by the wife in the divorce case.

In the suit against his brother, the Court awarded the husband a substantial (but fixed) sum of money – but no ownership interest.

Part or all of the amount of the judgment may be subject to property division between the spouses – or, possibly, allocated to support.

Read more in this Salem, Oregon Statesman Journal article: Facing charges isn’t new for property owner.

Divorce doesn’t hurt children.

Post-divorce conflict between parents does.

A recent study concludes that children of amicable divorces are significantly better adjusted than children of high conflict divorces.

Insults, anger and disparagement in front of the children is all harmful to them.

Children feel under attack themselves when one of their parents attacks the other.

Children often feel responsible for their parents’ divorce, especially if their parents argue about them.

If parents must argue, they should do it privately.

Read more post divorce parenting tips in this Bradenton Herald article: Helping your child cope with divorce.

Some legislators in South Dakota are working to revamp much of the state’s child custody laws that reportedly are not serving the divorced parents of the state, or their children, well. Their stated goal is to focus on the best interests of kids.

Under current South Dakota law, temporary custody of children is apparently awarded to the parent who has been the primary caregiver for the thirty days prior to filing. Unfortunately, a snapshot of such a short slice of life may not accurately reflect which parent has been the primary caregiver over the longer haul.

The new proposed legislation increases the thirty day period to twelve months. That is a much more realistic indicator.

Under current South Dakota law, violation of visitation or custody orders may be punished by fines or imprisonment. Judges have allegedly withheld those sanctions as too harsh.

The new proposed legislation allows more flexible remedies / sanctions, such as ordering attendance of parenting classes, awarding makeup visitation time and awarding legal fees.

Interestingly, the new proposed legislation contemplates “joint legal custody” (what Florida calls “shared parenting responsibility”) but not that both parents “equally participate” in major decisions concerning their children.

Many South Dakotan legal commentators, however, anticipate increased litigation over less than perfect implementations of joint legal custody.

Beware state-specific definitions.

Read more in this South Coast Massachusetts Standard Times article: Child custody, visitation issues considered.

A Michigan senator believes divorce runs roughshod, without any consideration – over pets.

Under the current law of most states, pets are relegated to personal property status.

“You want Rover? … I’ll take the silverware then. Deal.”

The senator has sponsored legislation to remedy that, requiring divorcing spouses to list all of their pets and when they were adopted.

Further, it would require the spouses to file a custody plan for the pet with the court – or take the matter up before the judge presiding over their case.

The Michigan senator was reportedly inspired by Wisconsin legislation that he read about.

But most Michigan commentators have criticized the proposed legislation as adding to the problem of too much family court litigation rather than helping solve the problem.

Oddly enough, the senator does not have a pet. He must think he has a lot of pet lovers among his constituency …

Read more in this Grand Rapids Press article: Bill dictates pet custody in divorce cases.

Dallas, Texas has more than its share of human trafficking in illegal aliens smuggled into this country against their will.

Of the approximately 16,000 victims of fraud, force, coercion and abuse per year, about twenty percent wind up in Texas.

These illegal immigrants are often victims of domestic violence and abuse.

Immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, are often hesitant to speak out or seek help.

And so four women per day are murdered by their abusers.

But help is available in most communities. From shelters. And from nonprofit associations.

Read more in this Dallas Morning News editorial: Abuse of immigrants in focus.

The Arizona Daily Star brought a lawsuit to compel Arizona’s Child Protective Services (CPS) to disclose records in two cases culminating in the deaths of three children.

In Arizona, as in many states, including Florida, juvenile dependency cases are sealed and confidential.

The problem with that is that it all but eliminates oversight by the legislature and accountability to the public.

When there are deaths or near-deaths of children, some Arizona legislators believe that records should have to be turned over to anyone making a request for them, unless disclosure would impede an investigation. Legislation to implement that policy is pending in Arizona.

More pending legislation would

• make termination of parental rights proceedings and other juvenile dependency proceedings public, unless it would not be in the best interests of the children involved and/or would be harmful to them
• increase files available to police and prosecutors with a court order
• implement new procedures when a child in protective custody goes missing
• provide greater public access to the personnel records of state employees, including CPS employees

Notwithstanding opening of hearings, the proposed legislation prohibits disclosing personal identifying information about children outside the courtroom.

Some legislators fear that too much information will be made public – and haunt the children involved.

Read more in this Arizona Daily Star article: House discusses opening some CPS files.

California legislators are considering passing a bill that would pave the way for the state to establish the first free, publicly accessible website in the nation to identify perpetrators convicted of domestic violence, specifically, at least one felony or two misdemeanors.

The intent of the website would be to empower prospective dating partners and significant others to easily and inexpensively “check out” someone whose behavior spawns some concerns – ideally, before they get in too deep.

The sites would also provide information on obtaining restraining orders for protection from domestic violence.

Other online databases now in existence are restricted to law enforcement personnel. Making the information freely accessible to the public could save lives.

In at least one well-publicized murder, the parents of the victim had suspicions about her boyfriend. But, being unable to afford an investigator, they didn’t learn of his three felony convictions for attacking women until after he killed the mother of his child and her mother.

Development and maintenance costs would be funded by fines paid by perpetrators.

Read more in this Government Computer News article: Bill would let Californians screen dates and this New York Times article: Bill Proposes Database of Offenders to Aid Dating.

Continuances are a fact of life in the legal system, for many reasons. But, in some cases, things really get out of hand. And judges usually don’t like it.

Take this California case. Many court appearances and many continuances.

The wife had two types of cancer and suffered from bipolar disorder. Out of money, she was representing herself.

And she checked herself into the hospital because of her psychiatric condition on the day before her re-set trial.

The trial judge decided that enough was enough and proceeded with the trial in the wife’s absence.

On appeal, the court reversed. The appellate court held that the woman was entitled to an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a related California court rule.

The court ruled that the trial court did not have the same degree of discretion in denying a continuance as an accommodation to a disability as for other reasons.

Read more in this Los Angeles Metropolitan News-Enterprise article: C.A.: Judges Violated ADA by Denying Trial Delay to Bipolar Pro Per.