A woman fled with her son from state to state and, ultimately, to Canada to escape domestic violence by the father, according to her.

For that, she has been convicted of kidnapping, and faces a sentence of up to three more years in prison.

She has already served eighteen months for refusing to disclose where the boy is safely hidden.

The boy’s father has denied any abuse. He claimed he had been denied access to his son and that the mother was merely trying to alienate the boy from him.

But the child’s school teacher, a presumably neutral third party, testified that the boy would sometimes start crying at school and ask her to call his mother to make sure she was OK.

Yet it is the mother who is incarcerated.

Read more in this [Montreal] Westmount Examiner article: Woman convicted of kidnapping in cross-border custody dispute.

After shelling out $110,000 in child support, a man discovered after some thirty years that he was not his son’s biological father.

It turns out the boy was reportedly the product of an affair by his mother – with a man who is now wealthy.

The de facto father, a retiree on a limited income, is now suing the former family friend and the boy’s godfather.

In an surprise ruling, the NJ Supreme Court, reversed the trial and intermediate appellate courts and, in essence, ruled that it is just too bad for the divorced father. The statute of limitations has long since expired.

Central to the state high Court’s ruling in the case is that the biological father did not actively trick or defraud the de facto father. He merely never volunteered that he thought he was the biological father.

The mother broke her apparently willful silence when her son married, to warn him that he may carry the gene for a potentially deadly disease that had taken the lives of other children of the biological father.

Otherwise, the de facto father might never have learned the truth.

On the specific facts of the case, financially struggling de facto father vs. wealthy bio dad, the outcome just doesn’t sit well.

But, of course, rules of law have to apply broadly to a wide spectrum of facts. Statutes of limitations are very common in our legal system and are intended to impose finality after an appropriate interval of time.

Read more in this New Jersey Star-Ledger article: Duped ‘dad’ out of luck, court says.

In a far-reaching case, the Florida Supreme Court has held that adoption agencies must notify unmarried biological fathers that their children are going to be placed for adoption and how to register in the state’s paternity registry to protect their rights. If the father still fails to register after thirty days, his parental rights may be terminated.

A statute imposing a time limit on biological fathers to assert their rights was intended to facilitate adoptions and give adoptive parents and the baby finality.

But there have nagging questions with regard to how many biological fathers are actually aware of paternity registries, both in Florida and in other states, let alone how to register with them.

In the case before the Court, the biological father promptly filed a paternity case in court, but failed to register with Florida’s paternity registry. The father maintained that he was unaware of the registry.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding.

Read more in this Citrus County Chronicle article: Court rules for unmarried adoptive [sic] fathers.

A three year old New York state girl and her father are missing, following a custody ruling adverse to the father. It happened during the father’s visitation.

The father allegedly has a history of depression and suicidal thoughts. His wife reportedly fears that he is off of his medication.

Some reports indicate that the father’s car was found near an airport and that the father has taken the child out of the country.

The FBI and Interpol are apparently involved in trying to track down the missing girl and, hopefully, bring her home soon.

Read more in this America’s Most Wanted alert: Deonna Shipman Missing From Liverpool, New York and this News 10 Now article: Search goes global for kidnapped girl.

Children abandoned, abused or neglected.

State steps in to protect them, typically by removing them from the home on at least a temporary basis.

If suitable relatives are willing and available, the children will usually be temporarily placed with them over strangers.

And then begins the process of assessing the weaknesses in the parents’ parenting skills and how to support the parents in building them up – if they are willing and able.

In a recent Maryland case, the children were placed with their aunt. The children did well with her.

And their parents failed to enhance their parenting skills.

One and one-half years later, a court awarded the aunt custody and guardianship of the children.

Not an unusual outcome under the circumstances.

The parents appealed. Also not unusual.

But the rest of the story is.

Because the mother is American Indian.

Therefore, the children are subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act.

That means that the Court was required to make “active efforts” to keep the family intact because the children were American Indian.

(Not that the Court doesn’t or shouldn’t make every reasonable effort to keep every family together, but the requirement is stricter for American Indian children … )

The intermediate appellate court reversed the award of custody and guardianship to the aunt, ruling that the State had, in effect, given up on the parents prematurely, after six months.

Read more in this Baltimore Sun article: Md. court makes unique custody ruling.

A divorced New Jersey father faces eighteen months in prison and a hefty fine after pleading guilty to not paying child support or alimony since 1996 – to the tune of $650,000.

He also faces additional time in confinement for related civil issues.

The man reportedly admitted that he slipped away to Australia, where he purposefully avoided and evaded orders to pay, even though he had the money to do so.

When he returned to the US, for reasons unknown, he was promptly picked up by authorities.

His bail is a little less than the amount of support he owes.

The now-64 year old man’s children are adults in graduate school.

Read more in this North Jersey.com article: Deadbeat dad pleads guilty in Hackensack court.

Accountants offer some useful advice on how to protect yourself from financial ruin in a divorce.

Regardless of how financial accounts are titled, they may be marital assets or liabilities, subject to equitable distribution in the divorce.

But in the short term during the divorce case and before final judgment, accounts that are titled jointly pose special issues and challenges in relation to recourse options open to creditors and the other spouse.

Joint accounts also pose special issues and challenges in regard to which spouse has access to how much of the funds in the accounts and when.

How to best handle joint accounts during a divorce case really depends on the facts of the particular case.

But spouses should try to educate themselves on, among other things, how marital assets and liabilities are actually titled.

Beneficiary designations should be re-considered.

Provisions for children, especially minor children, should also be re-considered.

Read more in this St. Louis Post-Dispatch article: Protect yourself if you’re facing a divorce.

Husband dies of a gunshot wound inflicted on the side of the road. Wife is charged.

Murder trial.

First witness for prosecution: Divorce lawyer.

His testimony: Their prenup limits Wife’s take in event of a divorce to $250,000 plus half of jointly held assets, for an estimated total of approximately $1.5 million.

In event of Husband’s death, his estate would be about $6 million. Her inheritance, about $3 million.

Next key witness: Wife’s boyfriend.

His testimony: He shot the Husband, for which he pleaded guilty to stalking and a gun charge. Why did he do it? For half of her inheritance.

Read more in this [Cleveland] Plain Dealer Reporter article: Defense begins its case with divorce lawyer and this KDKA [Akron] CBS article: Tearful Donna Moonda Learns Jury’s Guilty Verdict.

A Wisconsin father reportedly failed to return his four children (by two different mothers) from an out-of-state trip at the end of his scheduled visitation time.

Some of the children contacted friends by phone or text message to cancel plans for the following week upon learning of the surprise trip with their father.

Both mothers filed missing persons reports immediately following the weekend. An Amber Alert was issued.

Intensifying concerns in this case were allegations that the father had just bought a gun and that he was suffering from paranoid delusions. He had allegedly been prescribed at least three medications for depression and other conditions.

He reportedly told his employers in the Fire Department that he was on a task force on identity theft, which he believed his ex-wife had committed against him. The Fire Department advised that it has no such task force.

He reportedly told the mothers that the gun he had purchased was for his task force work.

The man has been charged with three felony counts of custodial interference and faces yet a fourth charge of another count of the same crime. He will be extradited back to Wisconsin.

Read more in this [Madison, WI] Capital Times article: Warrant: Dad who took kids is prone to delusions.

An unusual child custody case. Missing: the child whose custody is in dispute.

The child is a ten month old baby. A court awarded custody to the father last month.

The mother has been in jail for contempt of court since May, for refusing to disclose the baby’s whereabouts.

Authorities have threatened to prosecute anyone involved in concealing the baby’s location.

The father is an immigrant from Africa. The mother allegedly fears he will abduct the child to Africa if the child is placed in his care.

Read more in this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online article: Baby boy in custody case still missing.