A bipolar woman’s parental rights were terminated earlier this year upon the recommendation of a court-appointed guardian.

No one, not even the mother, denies that she was unable to be a fit parent when her baby boy was born … almost three years ago.

But the mother argues that her illness is well-managed now and that now she is fit and well able to care for her son. Yet, she contends, no one involved in her son’s case is willing to look past her past.

Mental health advocates are taking up the mother’s cause on behalf of the many parents whose parental rights are routinely terminated solely because they suffer from a mental illness – without any showing that the mental illness actually jeopardizes the welfare of their children or that support from social services couldn’t adequately address any legitimate concerns.

Read more in this St. Louis Post-Dispatch article: Mental health is at crux of parental rights case.

Missouri ex-husband stops paying alimony due under an “unmodifiable” divorce settlement.

His defense: he contends that his ex-wife tried to hire a professional hitman to murder him, and he shouldn’t have to finance her misdeeds.

The man’s argument is hampered, however, by a complete lack of corroboration of his allegation. He didn’t even report the alleged attempted murder to the police.

The appellate court posed tough questions about the dangers of opening the floodgates to litigation to terminate support obligations based on nothing more than unsupported allegations of misconduct.

But the ultimate flaw in the ex-husband’s version of events, however, is that the ex-wife has no rational motive for murder. She would lose out on all future support if her ex-husband were murdered.

Read more in this St. Louis Post-Dispatch article: Ex-husband alleges murder-for-hire plot in alimony case.

A 7 year old boy has been raised by his foster mother for five years. The boy’s father has been in jail practically since the day he was born. The child’s mother is also imprisoned.

While in prison, the father made efforts to keep tabs on his son, to contact him, to have visitation with him and to obtain custody of him.

Possibly in anticipation of the father’s impending release on probation, the foster mother instituted proceedings to adopt the child.

At trial, the court terminated the father’s parental rights and approved the adoption.

But, on the father’s appeal, the judgment was reversed. The appellate court held that the father should not automatically be deprived of his parental rights just because he had been incarcerated. The father, by his efforts, had earned the opportunity to pursue visitation and, ultimately, custody upon his imminent release.

The ruling appears to have been grounded solely in parental rights. It did not appear from the report whether the court considered any rights the child might have or the best interests of the child after five years living with his foster mother and probably with no memory of either of his biological parents.

The boy’s mother does not appear to have attempted any contact with the child nor to have participated in the adoption proceedings or appeal in any way.

Read more in this Little Rock, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article: Imprisonment no bar to son, judges decide – They void lower court’s adoption OK.

According to news reports, American fathers essentially lose their kids when their Japanese wives steal away with them to Japan. And it’s not a rare occurrence.

Japanese courts reportedly almost always disregard prior US custody decisions and award custody to the Japanese parent every time, favor children being raised in Japan in every case and typically deny American fathers any visitation rights at all.

Japan apparently does not treat parental abductions as criminal, no matter the circumstances.

Surprisingly, Japan is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. And so the US government and the American fathers left behind are helpless.

Ironically, the Japanese have chronicled, in a cinematic appeal for a US show of support, parental abductions of half-Japanese children by North Koreans – in which Japanese fathers suffered similar fates to the American fathers described above – to the outrage of the Japanese people.

Read more in this Axcess News article: Frustrated Fathers of Abducted Children Turn to Public for Support.

For many people, the phrase “domestic violence” still conjures up images of a husband abusing his wife.

Some states’ domestic violence statutes stick strictly to such images in defining crimes of domestic violence.

Yet many modern day couples are not husbands and wives. And violence may still be very much a part of the relationship between the members of such a couple.

So where do abusers within the context of such relationships stand under domestic violence laws?

It depends upon the state and how broadly its domestic violence laws are written.

In Florida, domestic violence laws cover cohabitants.

In Ohio, however, a man was arrested for felony domestic violence – allegedly committed against his live-in girlfriend.

At trial, the court reduced the felony domestic violence charge to misdemeanor assault, holding that the state’s domestic violence statute was unconstitutional as it applied to unmarried couples.

The case is now on appeal for the Ohio Supreme Court to decide whether Ohio’s domestic violence laws apply to unmarried couples living together.

Read more in this Dayton Daily News article: Top court to rule on domestic-violence law.

There are sooo many family court cases. Especially child support cases.

Establishing support … Enforcing Support … Adjudicating contempt … Establishing support arrearages … Increasing support … Decreasing support … Terminating Support … etc., etc.

It would take more judges than many court systems have for a judge to personally preside over all of those support cases, in addition to all the other family court cases pending before them.

So many states’ court systems, Florida included, have developed some alternatives which conserve judicial resources.

In Missouri, the state’s social services agency has been holding its own administrative hearings, in which its own administrative hearing officers have been modifying child support determinations – determinations which were originally made by judges.

The state (quite plausibly) maintains that the administrative process is faster and cheaper … but many people, including many judges, believe it may be less accurate.

Now, a support-receiving mother has taken the Missouri agency to court for allegedly exceeding its statutory authority, by reducing the child support a judge previously awarded her.

And the Missouri Court of Appeals (and, reportedly, many Missouri judges) agree with her.

It remains to be seen whether the case will be further appealed … and how far the shockwaves may ripple.

Read more in this St. Charles County [MO] Business Record article: Missouri judges to fight new child support system.

The Kansas Supreme Court is about to decide that question in the following case.

A woman was artificially inseminated by an old platonic friend. She became pregnant with twins.

During the months leading up to the birth of her twins, she more or less “dropped” the old friend who had donated his sperm to her. He only found out that she had given birth because of a mutual friend.

Now the twins are 18 months old. They’ve never met their mother’s old friend who had made their birth possible.

But he alleges that the mother and he had verbally agreed that he would co-parent the twins as their father. The mother denies that.

Now, a Kansas statute states that a sperm donor has no parental rights unless the mother and the sperm donor agree otherwise in writing.

No one contends that there was an actual written contract here.

Case closed? Not so fast.

The sperm donor argues that the statute is unconstitutional and not in the best interests of the children conceived.

Meanwhile, the mother filed a petition to terminate the sperm donor’s parental rights – the rights she simultaneously denies the sperm donor had – for unfitness as a parent.

The sperm donor contends that the mother’s petition to terminate parental rights constitutes a sufficient writing under the statute – the statute he argues is unconstitutional.

The sperm donor further muddies the waters by suggesting that the mother, who happens to be an attorney, incorrectly advised him as his counsel that no written agreement was necessary to protect his rights.

At the same time, the sperm donor filed a paternity action to establish the legal father of the children.

The trial court dismissed the sperm donor’s paternity case and the mother’s petition to terminate parental rights, in both cases, because the sperm donor had no parental rights.

The sperm donor appealed.

This is yet another complex, even convoluted real life case that would make a great law school exam.

Except for the fact that only one outcome seems even remotelypracticable: a sperm donor is nothing more than … a sperm donor.

Read more in these Topeka Capital Journal articles: Dispute between friends leads to review of sperm donor rights and Court weighs parental rights.

In some states, including Florida, if one spouse dies during a divorce action but before the divorce is final, the divorce grinds to a halt and the case is generally dismissed.

Does that mean that everything the court has done along the way is out the window and forgotten?

In a recent Vermont case, a divorce court ordered a temporary freeze on marital assets during the case.

That’s not uncommon, usually to protect one spouse from the other spouse siphoning off, mismanaging or dissipating marital assets.

Despite the order, the husband changed the designated beneficiary on his life insurance policy from his wife to other relatives of his. And died.

When the wife moved to enforce the court’s temporary order, the trial court ruled that it no longer had jurisdiction to enforce its prior order. And the wife appealed.

The state’s highest court reversed, holding that, since the order was valid when it was entered, the court still had the power to enforce it now. And equity demanded that outcome.

Read more in this Lawyers USA article: Vermont Supreme Court finds family court retains jurisdiction despite death before divorce.

A Texas judge presiding over the divorce of a Canadian citizen ordered her not to remove the couple’s children from the area.

Despite that order, the woman was allegedly caught on a northbound bus in Kansas with the children – and arrested for interference with a custodial order. She was believed to be headed out of the country, to her native Canada.

As result of the woman’s disobedience of the court’s order, the court reportedly awarded temporary custody of the couple’s children to the children’s uncle.

Read more in this Star-Telegram article on the Bradenton Herald website: Azle woman held in child-custody.

Why would a mother plead for leniency for her child’s alleged kidnapper – especially when the mother has been deprived of any contact with her child whatsoever since 1996?

That’s exactly what happened in this unusual case.

The man was convicted and imprisoned on charges of custodial interference, for aiding his friend in kidnapping the friend’s daughter with the man’s niece – from a supervised visit. The friend then absconded with the child to Iran.

The child’s mother has not been able to have any contact with her since.

Nonetheless, the mother has sought leniency for her uncle, whose wife now requires expensive medical treatments for cancer. The man reportedly wants his freedom so he can return to a six-figure job to pay for her treatments.

And that is what has tipped the scales of – mercy – in favor of the convicted kidnapper’s early release, just halfway through his 16 month sentence.

This case inspired an important change in Connecticut’s child custody laws in 1999.

In Connecticut, it is now illegal for a parent with joint custody to take the child away from the other parent either “permanently or for a protracted period of time”.

Read more in this Stamford Advocate article: Man serving time for kidnapping is out early.