An umarried Irish father has filed an application for return of his children from England under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

According to the father, the mother took the children to England without his consent.

Because the legal rights of unmarried biological fathers appear to be narrower under Irish law than than under our law, the father is reportedly arguing that the mother’s removal of the children denied him the opportunity to seek legal guardianship of their twin boys.

The case is being closely followed in Ireland in that the facts appear to support what could become a landmark ruling under Irish law.

Read more in this United Press International article: Father’s case may be landmark legal matter.

One subject that probably doesn’t get enough attention is what one article dubs “Brady Bunch families”, second marriages with kids of his, hers and, possibly, ours. Such families present unique considerations in the event of divorce or death of a spouse.

If a spouse wants to be sure that a child of a previous relationship is protected, they have to be proactive.

One vehicle is, of course, a prenup.

Another vehicle is a trust created before marriage and funded with separate, premarital property. These are sometimes called divorce protection trusts, although they can protect against more than divorce.

It is also important for a divorced spouse not to overlook the obvious. Wills and nonprobate assets, such as life insurance, pensions, and bank accounts, must be updated after divorce – or their ex may inherit from them. That is not the prudent, preferred way to provide for children with them.

Read more in this InsideBayArea.com article: ‘Brady Bunch’ families can head off money headaches.

Although the statutes set out criteria for determining residential custody of children, they are written in such a way as to allow the family court judge enormous discretion.

In close child custody cases, it may be difficult to predict what will “tip the scales” toward one parent or the other.

In one high profile Tampa divorce with custody of five children, quintuplets, in issue, one factor receiving substantial media attention is the mother’s reported commitment to raising the children on a Vegan diet prohibiting not only meat but also any foods not derived from plants.

This is an uncommon diet for children and the father is allegedly challenging it. And he’s not the first to do so.

The father also alleges that the mother has limited contact between the children and his parents because his parents have leather furniture and might feed the children non-Vegan foods.

Is the father just grasping at straws?

In a recent Atlanta criminal case, a baby on a Vegan diet died of malnutrition. The parents were found guilty.

It may be more difficult to achieve proper nutritional balance on the Vegan diet.

Is the father just grasping at straws?

Read more in this ABC News article: Custody Battle Boils Over Vegan Diet – ABC Looks at the Legality of the Vegan Lifestyle in a Florida Custody Battle.

According to published accounts, A UK dad was a victim of parental alienation, not only by his former spouse but also by the UK courts!

The father was reportedly denied any contact whatsoever with his three children for about six years.

Not because of allegations of violence, sexual abuse or even verbal abuse.

But because the mother allegedly contended that his visits unsettled and confused the children following the parents’ separation.

After allowing liberal access right after the separation, she reportedly methodically pursued a campaign to steadily reduce his timesharing.

It finally got to a point where the court entered an injunction prohibiting him from waving to his children when they drove by on their way to school. That was apparently deemed to be stalking his wife.

For violation of that injunction, he was thrown in jail for four months.

He was later sentenced to ten months in jail for merely driving past their house.

The worst part is probably that when he finally succeeded in getting permission for limited contact reinstated, the children didn’t seem to want to see him. After all, they knew only what their mother allegedly told them about why they hadn’t seen their father for so long.

Sadly, it took the happenstance of a bad argument between the oldest child and her mother to trigger a chain of events that led to resumption of contact.

Ironically, today, the oldest child (now a legal adult) and the youngest child live with their father by choice.

As a result of the years of no contact without explanation, the oldest recounts past feelings of confusion and abandonment and fear that her father no longer loved her. She also recounts how her mother allegedly repeatedly told the girls that their father was “bad”.

The girls were allegedly made to feel guilty if they were to tell social workers that they wanted to see their father.

In the UK, family court proceedings are closed …

Read more in this [UK] Daily Mail article: Jailed for waving at my daughter.

According to estimates, forty percent of children born to married parents will experience divorce in their families.

Extended summertime visitation can be an advantageous time to heal wounds and strengthen eroding bonds between children and the non-custodial parent.

It is important for the noncustodial parent to make their home seem like a real home to the children and to spend meaningful quality time with their children when they have the opportunity to do so.

Read more in this Yuma Sun article: Talking to kids about divorce.

In California (and a few other states), the child of an incarcerated, nonviolent, mother need not be forced into foster care. Instead, the child may be able to head to jail with his or her mother.

Except that, recently, concerns have arisen about the quality of medical care delivered in these “mom’s prisons”. There have reportedly been one questionable death, and several injuries and illnesses not caught and treated as early as they probably should have been.

Most of the moms in these facilities are drug offenders. And they represent the fastest growing segment of the population of inmates in California.

Approximately seventy-five percent of these moms have custody of their children at the time they are sentenced.

The larger question is: should inmate mothers have their young children with them in confinement? Or should the children be temporarily placed with relatives or, if necessary, into foster care?

Read more in this provocative New York Times article: California Investigates a Mother-and-Child Prison Center.

A Miami area media personality is divorcing a wealthy celebrity preacher going through an apparent identity crisis.

First, he reportedly announced in 2004 that he was Jesus Christ. Later, he reportedly announced that he was the Antichrist.

The preacher is under investigation over alleged financial improprieties with his church.

The woman believes that her divorce suit is like a wakeup call to her husband, which will ultimately benefit him. She still follows her husband’s religious teachings.

The couple lived an extravagant lifestyle, which she will be seeking to maintain.

If the case goes to trial, it should certainly be dramatic. The presiding judge will surely need to possess the wisdom of a King Solomon.

Read more in this Miami Herald article: Life with the Antichrist: Wife divorcing preacher.

I have blogged a number of times on grandparents’ rights with respect to visitation and custody of their grandchildren. In a nutshell, for better or worse, those rights have eroded over the last several years.

One of the terms that sometimes comes up in this context is de facto parent, someone who is not legally a parent but who in fact plays the role of parent.

Sometimes, this may be a grandparent. Sometimes it may be stepparent. Sometimes it may be the legal parent’s gay partner. Sometimes it is someone else.

As long as the legal parent is alive and the relationship with the de facto parent is intact, the de facto parent is for all intents and purposes, a parent.

But if the legal parent’s relationship with the de facto parent sours – or the legal parent dies – the de facto parent’s legal standing with respect to the child often is non-existent.

A recent article reveals the concerns of a grandmother who fulfills many of the duties of a mother – because her son has custody of his daughter. The grandmother believes the mother’s lifestyle is too unstable for a child – and worries what would happen to the child if something happened to her son.

Then there is the stepdad who treats his stepdaughter as his own. What if something were to happen to his wife?

Under current national trends, the law focuses on the parent’s constitutional rights.

These surrogate parents suggest that the biological or legal parents’ rights should be subordinated to the rights, needs and best interests of the child.

Just as it is when one biological or legal parent is pitted against the other biological or legal parent.

And some Utahns (and other Americans) are working for legislative reform in this area.

Read more in this Desert Morning News article: Custody laws put many in limbo.

Norwich, Connecticut is trying to help fathers be better at fathering. How?

The Madonna Place Fatherhood Initiative Program, a nonprofit organization launched in 1999.

The Madonna Place offers extended parenting classes geared toward fathers serving as primary caregivers – and co-parenting couples. Some attend under court order, some by choice.

Madonna Place also offers assistance with obtaining employment and legal resources.

And last, but certainly not least, Madonna Place offers moral support from the staff and mutual support of others in similar circumstances.

Read more in this Norwich Bulletin article: Dad learns what it takes.

A Tennessee dad spent two days in jail in 2002 for failing to make all his child and spousal support payments.

The man claimed his financial circumstances had changed for the worse and that even though his obligations had been reduced, he still just couldn’t meet them.

Tennessee’s high court finally ruled that it was error to jail him, because the former wife hadn’t proved that he had the ability to pay and was willfully refusing to do so.

Armed with that ruling, the man is suing the state of Tennessee in federal court.

Although the former wife may have been entitled to an order of arrears for non-payment, a judgment of contempt warranting jail time requires more than non-payment; it requires willfulness.

Read more in this Memphis WMC-TV 5 article: Man jailed in child support case files federal lawsuit.