Michigan Mother had four Children. Two of them, aged 9 and 13, are deceased.

Allegedly by Mother’s own hand.

The deceased Children’s bodies were found in a large freezer, wrapped in plastic, when the authorities were executing an eviction at Mother’s home. It is believed that the Children died over a year before their bodies were found.

Mother has been charged with felony murder, premeditated murder, child abuse and torture in each Child’s death.

The surviving Children, born of two different fathers, are in the care of a relative of Mother’s.

A case is pending to terminate Mother’s and the Children’s respective fathers’ parental rights.

Both fathers are reportedly delinquent in their respective child support obligations. It further appears that each is allowed only supervised visitation and has not exercised visitation for a long time.

At a hearing in the case to terminate Mother’s parental rights, Mother seized the opportunity to heatedly accuse one of the Children’s fathers of having “never been there” and flew into an enraged rant when one of the fathers requested unsupervised visitation with one of the surviving Children.

Mother was removed from the courtroom when she became disruptive.

Mother will undergo a competency evaluation in the criminal case pending against her.

Read more in

1. this Yahoo News article via AP: Mom of 2 kids found in freezer removed after court outburst and
2. this Detroit Fox 2 News article: Mother of children found in freezer escorted after court outburst .

Custody cases are among the most passion-igniting and contentious family court cases.

Historically, these cases have been confined to children … with two legs.

The only kind that have been recognized by the law of child custody in the US.

But the law tends to lag behind society.

And with declining birth rates, US society has embraced our four-legged pets as surrogate children.

Separating pet parents have been reaching pet custody and visitation agreements for a long time, both formal and informal.

But the traditional family law framework of pets is as personal property, to be assigned a fair market value as part of property division in divorce.

This legal framework just isn’t consonant with the role that pets play in many modern US families.

And so child custody law is poised to evolve in regards to this issue, as it has with respect to other issues in the realm of family law.

A handful of judges are looking beyond pets’ property values and dipping their judicial toes into the pet custodial waters of the best interests of the pets and which pet parent served as primary caregiver.

Pet parents are even starting to seek domestic violence restraining orders against their exes … to protect themselves and/or their pets.

For better or worse, deja vu. Full hearings are pending … unless the pet parents settle.

Certainly, the allegations being asserted bear more than a passing resemblance to those typically set forth in child custody proceedings.

Even – or is that especially? – celebrities are getting into the act.

Read more in

• this New York Post article: Dogs are the new kids in NYC custody battles
• this New York Post article: Judge orders Robert Conrad’s daughter to return pooch to ex
• this New York Post article: Griffith-Banderas divorce battle turns to the dogs
• this New York Post article: Man wants visitation with dog just to see ex-girlfriend: suit
• this New York Post article: My ex-boyfriend stole my schnauzers: suit
• this New York Post article: Weir gets dog, Voronov get spousal support
• this New York Post article: Landmark custody battle over dog in divorce

New York Husband and Wife married back in 2009 and went their own separate ways very shortly thereafter. They reportedly never even consummated the marriage.

But they never legally divorced. Now Wife wants to get that over with … but Husband, not so much.

So Wife went ahead and filed divorce papers with the New York family court. But when it came time to serve Husband, Wife had no idea where he actually is:

• Husband no longer lives in the same apartment – and claims not to have a set address.

• The US Post Office has no forwarding address for Husband.

• Husband apparently does not work for any third parties.

• The Department of Motor Vehicles has no information on Husband.

• And Husband uses a prepaid cell phone with no billing address on record.
• Not even a private investigator could come up with an address for Husband to be served at.

But the way Wife is generally able to communicate with Husband is on Facebook. And so she asked the New York family court to allow her to serve Husband there.

And after reviewing the facts, the presiding family court judge did so, authorizing service by Wife’s attorney via Facebook private message sent from Wife’s account.

The Court spelled out a schedule of repetitions of the online service attempts, paralleling service by publication for truly missing spouses.

The Family Court judge based its ruling on the fact that for this particular defendant, service via Facebook was the one method most likely to give Husband actual notice that Wife is seeking to divorce him. And that is the whole purpose of personal service.

Read more in

1. this New York Daily News EXCLUSIVE: Judge says Brooklyn woman can use Facebook to serve divorce papers and
2. this Yahoo Finance article: Divorce by Facebook .

Husband and Wife have been married for more than twenty years, but they are separated.

There is a history of domestic violence by Husband.

Wife is ready to move on.

Wife files for divorce.

Wife then texts a friend that Husband is at her home and she is going to tell Husband that she filed for divorce.

That is the last thing seen or heard from Wife alive.

She vanished after that.

Until her remains were found ten days later, beaten to death.

A witness saw Husband the night Wife went missing. He was by his car, wearing latex gloves, in the vicinity of where Wife’s body was found.

Husband denied killing Wife throughout his two days of testimony, but was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder anyway.

Husband was sentenced to a minimum. of thirty years to life in prison.

Read more in

• this New York Daily News article: Man convicted of killing wife on day she filed for divorce  and
• this Fox News article: Man who killed wife on day she filed for divorce gets prison .

New York Wife doesn’t just take things lying down.

For example, her multi-millionaire Husband lobbed a prenuptial agreement at her just a few months before their extravagant wedding. And threatened to back out of their wedding if she didn’t sign it.

After her parents had shelled out $40,000 for the reception. For other folks, that’s a chunk of change.

The thing is though, according to Wife, Husband promised her a) that he would add her to the title of their home and b) that he would shred the prenup after they had children together.

Well, they did. But he didn’t.

So the New York family courts did it for him. And they were upheld by the intermediate and highest appellate courts in New York State. A pretty uncommon thing in the universe of antenuptial agreements.

And thereby set off shockwaves that rippled through the troubled waters of New York’s wealthy and aspiring wealthy.

How could such a thing happen?

Well, to be honest, a couple of atypical, extenuating circumstances may have factored in here.

First, this particular prenuptial agreement really was just about as one-sided as you can get.

Husband’s business is worth $20 to $30 million.

But, under the prenup, Wife was only entitled to a paltry $25,000 for each year they remained married. (So, to put things in perspective, her parents wouldn’t even recoup the cost of the reception if Husband tired of Wife before two (2) years had elapsed after their wedding date.)

And, other than that, Husband would keep the whole entire shooting match. Perhaps the New York family courts (and appellate courts) deemed that just a tad unfair.

Oh, and, second, the prenup wasn’t signed until just a mere four (4) days before their wedding. No pressure.

Interestingly, Wife represented herself for some portion of her divorce case. Which is actually old news, from 2 years ago.

But, for better or worse, Wife has some notoriety now. People take notice of the smallest things.

Like her trying to board a plane at Kennedy Airport with an intimidating set of brass knuckles. That’s the current news.

Such things are not allowed on airplanes these days. And so Wife was arrested and detained long enough to miss her flight (but her sons were allowed to continue on their flight to Florida).

Wife followed a bit later, with her “desk appearance ticket” for her court date on the charge of criminal possession of a weapon.

Read more in:

1. this New York Post article: Wife of millionaire LI real-estate mogul gets judge to rip up her prenup and
2. this New York Post article: Brass knuckles found on woman who beat husband’s prenup: cops

American Husband and Chinese Wife meet overseas while Husband is serving in the military. In time, they marry and their Son is born on a US military base.

After Husband completes his service, Husband, Wife and Son move to Utah.

Husband and Wife’s marriage breaks down and they divorce. Husband and Wife agree to joint legal custody of Son … despite Wife’s alleged assault on Husband with a knife and Wife’s arrest for child neglect.

As part of their divorce, Husband and Wife agree that Son can travel to China with Wife to visit with relatives.

Husband saw Wife and Son off to the airport in 2014 on such a visit. They were expected back in six weeks.

But Wife and Son never returned. They remain in China.

Son no longer speaks English and does not appear to go to school.

Husband has enlisted the aid of the State Department, the FBI, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Chinese Central Authority (which handles claims of international child abduction to China) and a Dutch mediator.

But a year and $50,000 later, it is not clear that much progress has been made.

And in all that time, Husband has only been able to see Son in person for a few days. Their irregular visits over Skype over frustrating and disappointing.

Husband’s quest for Son’s return is hampered because China is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Husband is seeking an order for sole custody based on Wife’s alleged abduction of Son but, for the same reason, that may not help much.

Read more in this Yahoo Parenting article: One Dad’s All-Out Fight for Son After Mom Abducts Him to China

Husband and Wife have a five year old Son together.

Husband, although born and raised in the US, converted to Islam and has repeatedly sought to travel abroad to enlist with terrorist groups there.

He has gone so far as to take Son with him to the airport on such ventures, to foster the illusion of innocent ordinariness.

But Husband’s actions and threats delivered via the internet thrust him on the radar of the FBI years ago. And ultimately landed him in jail for roughly the next twenty-five years.

And Wife’s silent loyalty to Husband got her deported from the US. (She is from Uganda.)

Son has been in the temporary de facto care of Husband’s mother (Grandma) who, ironically, happens to be a senior attorney with the US Attorney General’s office. But no court had actually stripped Husband of legal custody of Son when that happened.

Husband contends that the FBI unconstitutionally thwarted his parental rights – by blocking Son’s relocation to Jordan to be with Wife.

Husband further alleges that the government eavesdropped on his communications when he was incarcerated … and shared private information from those conversations, such as the planned removal of Son from the US, with Grandma.

Grandma had already filed a child custody proceeding to obtain formal legal custody of Son. And after the leak of Husband’s planned removal of Son to Jordan, the court determined that Husband and Wife were unfit parents and awarded permanent legal custody of Son to Grandma.

Husband now asserts that it was an invasion of his privacy for the government to disclose the content of his prison conversations to Grandma for use in a child custody proceeding. And for that wrong, Husband seeks monetary damages from the FBI and Grandma.

The court held that there was no valid expectation of privacy in prison, however.

Read more in this Fox News article: Terror convict sues FBI and his own mother, demanding money for violating his parental rights

Two month old Baby dies in Pennsylvania in 2003. Authorities investigate.

Mother blames Baby’s death on Mother’s 2 year old Daughter throwing Baby out of a swing.

Mother and her family return to their home state of Alabama.

Where, more than a dozen years after Baby’s death, Mother is finally arrested for murder and child endangerment.

At Mother’s trial, three medical experts reject Mother’s explanation of the circumstances of Baby’s death, stating that Baby’s injuries are not consistent with a fall from a swing.

The prosecution asserts Baby’s injuries are more consistent with Baby’s head being banged on furniture.

Mother continues to blame Daughter.

Mother is convicted.

Pennsylvania criminal court judge sentences Mother to maximum sentence of 15 to 30 years, at least in part because Mother assigned the blame to Daughter.

Read more in

• this Patriot-News article: Pa. mom facing prison in infant’s death blames two-year-old daughter for crime: Justice? and
• this Yahoo News article from AP: Mom who blamed baby’s death on toddler daughter gets prison .

Texas Man has been paying child support through garnishment of his pay for thirteen years. He is still delinquent by $21,000 though.

Man does not have any relationship with the child for whom he is paying support. No contact or communication whatsoever.

There’s a reason for that though. Man is not the child’s father.

DNA testing confirms what the child’s mother admitted in a letter to the Texas family court … after designating Man as the father on her child’s birth certificate.

The state of Texas apparently concedes that Man should not be obligated to pay future child support … or any additional child support after the date the DNA test was done and furnished to the court.

But it isn’t quite as agreeable about the accumulated arrears up until that point. Those it insists that Man must still pay.

This comes up often enough that it is reportedly stated on the Texas Attorney General’s child support website.

Whatever else, cases like this should drive home the point that 1) it is never a good idea to ignore communications from the family court regarding a child support (or any other) case pending before it in which you are named as a defendant and 2) and if there is any question whatsoever about paternity, the time to have a DNA test is when the original child support case is heard.

Read more in

1. the Root article: Why Does This Texas Man Owe $21,000 in Child Support if the Child Isn’t His? and
2. this Fox Houston KRIV 26 TV news article: Forced to pay for a child that DNA proves isn’t his .

Mother meets Father … in jail. On visiting day with her Brother.

Brother and Father are incarcerated together. Father is no stranger to prisons, having served multiple sentences going as far back as 1990.

Mother and Father have a brief relationship and Mother becomes pregnant. Subsequently, Son is born.

When Son is 15 months old, Father begins serving a sentence of sixteen years to life in a maximum security prison. Son, now 5 years old, has had no contact with Father since then.

Somewhere along the line, Mother married and Son lives with his two half-siblings and Stepfather as well as Mother. It seems that Son believes Stepfather is his father and addresses him accordingly.

Father seeks visitation with Son. A New York Family Court grants Father monthly visitation ten months a year.

Mother is admonished for permitting Son to cling to the belief that Stepfather is his father.

Mother appeals the trial court’s ruling. Intermediate appeals court affirms the New York trial court’s ruling, but does scale back the required visits to quarterly instead of monthly.

Mother appeals again.

Mother has been vocal regarding her intention not to comply with any court order mandating that she bring Son to a maximum security facility to visit with Father.

By the time Father is released from confinement, it appears that Son will be 17 years old and able to choose for himself whether he wishes to have any relationship with Father.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Judge orders New York mom to let son visit dad in upstate prison, but she vows to disobey