In the shadow of courts grappling with the concepts of gay civil unions and gay marriage, and rights of gay couples to adopt children, comes a different sort of case out of Maine.

A gay woman formally adopted her partner in a lesbian relationship, with the intention of securing her dependent partner’s rights to inherit from her wealthy family in the event of the wealthy partner’s death.

As a result of the couple’s eventual breakup, complex cases are now pending in two different states – cases which turn upon technicalities, policy arguments and substantive legal grounds.

Some of the Technicalities: The couple actually lived in New York, which explicitly barred adoption between sexual partners, reserving it for parent / child relationships. The adoption in question apparently took place during an extended vacation in Maine, which had no such explicit prohibition. Maine’s jurisdiction is called into question based both on failure to meet the residency requirement and affirmative fraud upon the court.

Some of the Policies: If the elected officials of a state deny inheritance rights to resident gay partners through either marriage or civil unions, should resident gay partners be allowed to circumvent their home state’s social legislative policy by exploiting the less stringent adoption laws of a different, convenient state?

Some of the Substantive Legal Grounds: The creator of the trust that is at the heart of the matter reportedly did not even know about the adoption which transformed the woman that he knew only has his daughter’s gay partner into his legal grandchild – and an heir to his trust. As a matter of estate planning law, should his alleged intentions be thwarted by undisclosed, unforeseeable legal maneuvers by his daughter and her partner?

On the practical side, if the adoption is upheld, Maine might develop a “cottage industry” of hosting gay partner-adoptions for inheritance rights on behalf of homosexuals all over the country.

Of course, none of this would be in issue if gay couples could simply automatically inherit from each other by virtue of marriage or civil union.

This unusual case may turn out to be more significant than it may appear at first blush.

Read more in this Portland Press Herald article: Unusual adoption case has high stakes.

A conservative political group in Virginia sharply criticizes rising divorce rates – and any award of child custody to any parent who filed for divorce.

But the group is not stopping there.

It is lobbying for “consensual divorce”: divorce only in cases where both spouses/parents consent to it.

It does not appear that the group would carve out any exceptions for couples with a history of domestic violence or child abuse.

Read more in this Potomac News article: Family Foundation will push for divorce reform – Group to push divorce reform – Family Foundation says it will propose tightening Virginia’s no-fault laws.

One aspect of of 9/11 that may be glossed over by the general public are the grieving parents of victims, who have since been denied contact with their late children’s children. For them, a double tragedy.

Some bitter fights over visitation have wound their way through New York’s family courts over the last five and a half years, with little, if any, success. (See my previous post Grandparents’ Rights: Another Comeback?)

Other efforts have been made and battles fought outside the courts – sometimes only in the silence of the grandparents’ own hearts and minds.

Sometimes disputes were over disposition of the bodies, monies to be recovered, attempts to blot out a tragic past with a fresh start on a new future, differing house rules, pre-existing hostilities, allegations of abuse, and on and on.

Whatever the reasons, despite the nation’s boundless collective sympathies for the children and the spouses of the victims of 9/11, these grandparents’ double tragedies may have been largely ignored or forgotten.

Read more in this New York Times article: Parents of 9/11 Victims Torn From Grandchildren.

Following the death of a neglected Brooklyn girl, the staff of New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services expanded in both numbers and skills training.

That was essential, because abuse reports climbed by 30% after people saw the consequences of silence and passing the buck.

But, according to a local editorialist, the biggest problem in the child welfare system persists, unimproved: the city’s family court system.

There are reportedly a mere 47 judges presiding over the city’s family courts.

This handful of judges is charged with overseeing the welfare of countless children, averaging 2,500 cases per judge per year. These judges have about 10 minutes per case to make life-altering decisions regarding children.

And the government and poverty lawyers typically appearing before them in such cases aren’t in much better positions.

The city’s public advocate has recommended that there be created the office of children’s public advocate. Given the monumental size of the city’s child welfare system, this sounds like a long overdue measure.

Read more in this New York Times editorial: Fix the Dysfunctional Family Court.

Aging couple with four children live in spacious three story home in distinctive ethnic Brooklyn neighborhood both love.

Marriage breaks down. Among other issues, the wife alleges both psychological and physical abuse.

While the couple owns other nearby properties, each parent claims to love this home and does not want the upheaval of moving.

Further complicating the situation, it appears that physical custody of the children will be split, with one child to reside primarily with the husband and the remainder to reside primarily with the wife.

The trial court presiding over the case fashioned a creative solution: construct an interior wall to divide the house in half, with half to be occupied by the husband and half by the wife.

The innovative ruling was upheld on appeal by the wife.

Read more in this Miami Herald article: Divorcing couple wall off home – Amid a bitter divorce, a wall has gone up, dividing a Brooklyn couple’s house.

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently held that a child can have only one legal father. If that doesn’t sound ground-breaking, consider this.

Man and woman date. Child is conceived during relationship.

Man acknowledges paternity of child. Man and woman live together and raise child together.

Man and woman break up. Man and woman battle for custody of child in paternity case.

Woman’s former boyfriend obtains DNA test proving his biological paternity. Woman’s former boyfriend brings action to establish legal paternity of child.

What’s a court to do? Here’s what the trial court did.

On the one hand, the court refused to revoke the man’s acknowledgment of paternity and, by extension, refused to quash the man’s status as legal father.

But, on the other hand, the court also entered an order establishing the woman’s former boyfriend as the legal father of the child.

Taking the two rulings together, the court, in effect, established two different legal fathers for the boy.

If that seems illogical to you, you’re in good company. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed, reversing and remanding the case for new trial level proceedings.

The appellate court held that the court could not establish paternity of a second legal father without first revoking the acknowledgment of paternity by the first legal father.

The case may be viewed as a victory for legal fathers over biological fathers.

But it is more properly viewed as a victory for those who have already worn the uniform of dad and stepped up to the plate for their acknowledged children, over those who have not yet done so.

Read more in this Michigan Lawyers Weekly article: order of filiation cannot be granted when acknowledgment of parentage already exists, regardless of who the biological father is.

In South Carolina, “cockfighting” is a felony.

Stamping out domestic violence doesn’t seem to be much of a priority there, however. Domestic violence is only a misdemeanor.

For which the county hired one lawyer 4 months ago to prosecute criminal domestic violence cases in county court.

But the county hasn’t assigned her a courtroom, so she hasn’t gotten down to business yet. That’s because other misdemeanors are currently handled town by town in Charleston County.

And Charleston County officials don’t think domestic violence cases merit any different or special handling.

They apparently prefer that the one domestic violence prosecutor spend more of her time traveling back and forth from municipality to municipality, rather than actually prosecuting cases and aiding victims of domestic violence, as she was hired to do.

By contrast, centralized domestic violence courts are operating effectively elsewhere in South Carolina. They provide better safety and security for victims, facilitate better tracking of cases and repeat offenders, and promote involvement of all of the professionals who provide crucial services to affected families.

Read more in this Charleston Post and Courier article: A case of waiting in abuse trials – Domestic violence reform stalls as county officials spar over venue.

Every so often, a prospective client requests a contingency fee arrangement in their family court case – usually on the phone, before they even come in.

Each time, my office advises them flat out that Florida attorneys are not permitted to work on contingency fee arrangements in family court cases.

Often, for whatever the reason, this meets with skepticism – and resistance.

Sometimes, the callers even go so far as to say “but another [Florida] attorney agreed to do it on a contingency fee” …

So, for those callers – and others – who may have wondered about contingency fees in family court cases …

A recent Nevada Supreme Court case, citing both court decisions in other states and administrative opinions from various state bars, squarely held that:

a contingency fee agreement in a family court case violates rules governing attorneys in the practice of law.

If you’re still skeptical, read more in this Las Vegas Review Journal article: Nevada Supreme Court rules post-divorce contingency fee agreement unenforceable.

How long does a divorce trial take? Well, generally it depends on the issues and evidence involved in the case.

But maybe not everywhere.

In Nevada, a 2004 divorce trial, requiring division of substantial business and investment properties, was concluded in just 16 minutes! Now that’s efficient.

Too efficient, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded, as it reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The trial court entered a ruling on an unusual property division, involving not only the spouses but also a spouse’s sibling – without any sworn testimony (and minimal if any other evidence) to base the ruling on.

And after first taking some time to hear and deny a request for a postponement based on the fact that two of the three interested parties barely spoke English and didn’t have attorneys – or even neutral, credentialed translators.

Read more in this Las Vegas Review Journal article: Supreme Court throws out property settlement in divorce.

But read fast – or it may take longer than the trial did.

All too often, one bride or groom-to-be calls to set up an appointment to review a prenup – a few days before their wedding. As often as not, they cancel their appointment at the last minute.

From offhand remarks they make, it seems they have “spoken to some friends and relatives” and “they have concluded” that they have nothing to worry about.

“I’m signing the agreement at the last minute. I’m actually better off for not consulting an attorney. I’m really not too sure what my fiance’s assets are – but I’m not marrying them for their money anyway.”

And so on.

Those folks would probably cringe over a recent Rhode Island decision. The bride in that case was not represented by counsel, but the groom was. The couple signed the agreement just four days before the wedding. The groom’s major assets were listed – but their values weren’t.

The agreement contained typical, but empty, boilerplate language reciting that the parties had made full disclosure, that they were satisfied with it, and that they had had adequate opportunity to review it.

The trial court refused to enforce the agreement on the grounds that it was unconsionable, the groom had not made full disclosure and that, therefore, the bride’s execution was involuntary. But that was the trial court.

On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed that the agreement was unconsionable – but reversed, upholding the unconsionable agreement.

In everyday language, the Rhode Island high court held that: if you signed it, you’re going to have to live with it.

And that is not inconsistent with the modern jurisprudence regarding prenups, absent fraud.

While there was some reported language suggesting that the holding was based at least in part on the wife’s failure to meet her burden of proof as to her allegations, the tone of the report suggests that the wife would have had to have proved fraud to satisfy the appellate court.

Read more in this Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly article: RI Supreme Court rules prenup agreement valid despite unconscionability.