Indiana Boyfriend and Girlfriend have on-again, off-again dating relationship over several years. Last year, however, something changes, at least with Boyfriend.

While in a club, Boyfriend becomes angry with Girlfriend – and “choke holds” her and grips her arm hard enough to bruise it.

Undeterred by her consistent rejection, Boyfriend persistently calls Girlfriend, leaves her phone messages, sends her text messages, loiters outside her office, sends flowers and presents to her workplace, draws a gun in her own home, presents her with an engagement ring – more than once. For over a year.

Adding insult to injury, Boyfriend is a police officer.

Girlfriend finally obtains a dating violence (or repeat violence) restraining order of protection against Boyfriend.

Boyfriend ignores it. For several months.

Finally, after calling Girlfriend nine more times over two hours, Boyfriend overdoses on pills. He survives though.

And calls Girlfriend and chastizes her for not visiting him while he was in the hospital.

And for seeking the restraining order of protection against him.

And still the calls keep coming.

Law enforcement officers eventually arrest Boyfriend. On thirty counts of stalking, battery and invasion of privacy.

Boyfriend is on administrative leve from his police officer job pending the outcome of the criminal cases against him.

Read more in this Indianapolis WXIN Fox 59 TV news article: IMPD officer faces 30 counts in alleged stalking case.

I rarely post about celebrity divorces, but this unusual family court ruling could not be allowed to pass unnoticed …

Husband and Wife and their two young Children live in California. Children are US citizens who were born and raised in the US.

Wife is a successful American actress. Husband is a foreign national.

Wife files for divorce in California. Wife seeks sole custody of their Children.

Husband’s US visa is revoked (allegedly for engaging in illegal activity in the US). Husband’s revoked visa bars Husband from being in the US.

So Husband moves to Monaco and France.

A California family court finally rules on custody.

And it orders that the couple’s Children, US citizens and residents, must move abroad to live with Husband.

Because Husband cannot legally return to the US (because of his alleged misconduct).

And because Wife’s employment reportedly affords her a large income and considerable flexibility.

A novel ruling.

Premised on Husband’s visa being reinstated before the Children’s next academic year. At which time the Children will return to New York and the couple will have equal timesharing.

Wife has reportedly spent $2 million on legal fees – thus far.

Read more in this Los Angeles Times article: Kelly Rutherford’s kids will stay with dad overseas, judge rules and this New York Post article: Kelly loses fight over kids.

Husband and Wife marry in Hawaii.

After moving to Arizona, Husband and Wife have three children born during their marriage.

Husband files for divorce in Arizona.

But the Arizona family court may not grant the couple a divorce…

Because it may not recognize their marriage.

Because Husband was born a woman in Hawaii.

Husband underwent a sex change operation to become a man prior to his marriage to Wife.

But Husband remains a woman internally …

And Husband was the spouse who physically bore the three children born while the couple were together.

(Husband reportedly flaunted a beard while pregnant.)

After Husband’s sex change operation, Hawaii recognized Husband as a man, and recognized his marriage to Wife. (But Hawaii also recognizes same sex marriages.)

Arizona, however, apparently views Husband as a female and, therefore, a partner in a gay relationship. Not a marriage, because Arizona does not recognize gay marriage.

And, once again, although in a somewhat novel way, a US state faces the question of whether to entertain divorce for a marriage that could not legally be entered in that state, although it was legally valid in the US state in which it was entered.

The case may also raise unexpected questions regarding child custody of the three children if Husband is held to be their birth mother and Wife is held to be “merely” Husband’s gay partner and not their mother.

An interesting case to follow.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: ‘Pregnant man’ files for divorce – but Arizona questions whether he was actually married and this West Palm Beach WPTV News Channel 5 article: Thomas Beatie, ‘pregnant man,’ files for divorce from wife Nancy Beatie; Judge questions marriage.

South Carolina Mother and Father have a child together, but then break up.

Father is court-ordered to pay Mother child support.

Father falls behind in his child support obligations.

Mother, who is represented by counsel, mounts a contempt case to enforce Father’s child support obligations to her.

At trial in family court, Father, who has no lawyer, tries to explain to the Court why he hasn’t paid child support.

The family court judge disregards Father’s explanation and sentences Father to a year in jail on the contempt charge.

Thanks to pro bono counsel, Father appeals, and his case rises to the United States Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court reverses and remands Father’s case back to family court. But the Court does not hold that there is an automatic right to counsel in civil contempt cases where the defending parent faces incarceration.

Instead, the Supreme Court bases its reversal on broader (and somewhat more vague) due process grounds. Specifically, the Supreme Court finds that the family court failed to follow any procedural safeguards to ensure that Father not be held in contempt unless his failure to pay child support is indeed willful.

In Father’s case, the family court reportedly ignored Father’s offered explanation and makes no express finding about Father’s ability to pay. But sentences Father to a year in jail anyway.

The Supreme Court finds error in Mother’s representation by legal counsel in the child support enforcement proceedings, with none to the Father who faces confinement. And concludes that due process entitles Father to a level playing field.

In the form of legal representation or alternative procedural safeguards that protect the rights of the defendant facing incarceration where the plaintiff has legal representation.

Read more in this ABA Journal article: Supreme Court Finds No Automatic Right to Counsel in Child Support Contempt Proceedings and the Surpreme Court’s full opinion.

Florida Husband and Wife are in the middle of what sounds like a contentious divorce.

Husband is jailed for criminal contempt in connection with his divorce case … for filing in the case written attacks on the judge presiding over his family court case.

Husband has also reportedly been arrested for contempt previously, several months ago.

The current contempt charges against Husband are dismissed, however, when he apologizes to the judge he criticized.

Husband has reportedly been arrested several other times, but it does not appear that he has been convicted of any charges to date.

The judge dismissing the current charges is the eleventh different judge to preside over Husband’s divorce case. The others all recused themselves.

Husband is also allegedly being investigated by Alabama’s state security and exchange commission.

Husband is running for sheriff of a Florida county.

Read more in this Northwest Florida Daily News article: Sheriff candidate arrested on contempt charges (ARREST REPORT) and this Northwest Florida Daily News article: Contempt charge against sheriff candidate dismissed.

Husband and Wife, both in their 60s, have been married for 45 years.

Wife develops a life-threatening medical condition. Wife is being cared for in the intensive care unit of a hospital.

Husband enters Wife’s hospital room. With a gun.

And shoots Wife.

The next day, Wife is determined to be brain dead.

Husband is arrested immediately after the shooting, initially on a charge of attempted murder, which may be stepped up to murder.

Law enforcement authorities have variously characterized the incident as one of domestic violence … or an attempted mercy killing, intended to relieve Wife’s suffering.

It is unknown whether the couple have any history of domestic violence, or whether Husband has any criminal history or history of domestic violence restraining orders of protection against him.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Police: Ohio man shoots wife of 45 years as she lays in intensive care unit

Gay Husband and Friend enter a civil union in Vermont. Their relationship breaks down over time and Husband moves on.

To Massachusetts, which allows same sex marriages. And Husband then marries Groom there.

Four years later, that relationship breaks down and Husband files for divorce. And this is where it gets interesting.

Groom denies the divorce claim, asserting that their marriage is void and invalid due to Husband’s previous civil union, which was never legally dissolved. Rendering Husband’s marriage to Groom bigamous, Groom contends.

Arguably, the fact that Vermont first legalized civil unions for gay partners and subsequently legalized gay marriage for gay partners supports the argument that civil unions and marriages are not the same thing.

But this case wends its way to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Which holds that the Vermont civil union is the equivalent of marriage and did indeed need to be dissolved prior to marrying in Massachusetts.

In Masssachusetts at least, bigamy laws are not confined to heterosexual marriages.

And, if Massachusett’s ruling is adopted elsewhere, those who formally enter into civil unions will no longer be able to simply pick up and leave without attending to the legal formalities of dissolution.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal piece: Massachusetts Court: Civil Union “Equivalent” To Marriage.

Husband and Wife accumulate various financial accounts.

Each makes their accounts payable to the other in the event of their death.

Their wills designate each other as their respective primary beneficiary.

Then Husband’s and Wife’s marriage suddenly falls apart.

They divorce. Final judgment is entered.

Husband dies.

Neither had a chance to update their wills or account beneficiary designations.

Does Wife inherit under Husband’s will and payable on death accounts?

Until recently, the answer would have been: yes.

This generally surprises people, who just assume it is otherwise.

Florida’s legislature agrees though and has just changed Florida law to void many (but not all) types of inheritances by an ex spouse.

One key section voids any provision in a will that mentions the ex-spouse, unless the will or divorce final judgment provides otherwise.

This section protects divorced former spouses from any oversight in updating their intended inheritance beneficiaries.

But also allows for the possibility that someone may wish for their ex to inherit from them, even after divorce, and will honor such a bequest or beneficiary designation made after their divorce. The law also recognizes that this type of inheritance may be used as a tool in a property division.

Another new section of the Florida statutes voids any gift in a will or beneficiary designation to an ex-spouse which is made after the divorce is final.

This applies to most financial accounts, life insurance, annuities, employee benefit plans, retirement accounts, payable on death accounts and securities accounts.

With some exceptions.

Such as where:

• federal law applies and provides otherwise

• the beneficiary designation is made after the divorce

• the beneficiary is a will or trust

• the final judgment requires the ex to manage the asset for their children

• the ex could not legally terminate the beneficiary designation

• the exes remarry

Read more in this Florida statutes, section 732,507 Effect of subsequent marriage, birth, adoption, or dissolution of marriage and this Florida statute, section 732.703 Effect of divorce, dissolution, or invalidity of marriage on disposition of certain assets at death.

Husband and Wife hail from an Eastern European country ruled by Husband’s brother. They have a Son together, who is ten years old.

Husband and Wife may have already divorced in 2009, but Wife denies it. (And Husband alleges that Wife committed bigamy during the marriage.)

Husband and Wife have disputes, which are being played out in courts in New York City.

Conspiracy and theft in their divorce property division, for example.

And child custody. Husband obtains an emergency hearing date to have Son’s custody transferred to him. To prevent Wife from absconding with Son.

The hearing is expected to take place soon. While waiting, Wife reportedly consoles herself that the New York courts are at least governed by laws, rules and procedures, implying that the courts of their native country are not.

Husband’s grounds for the emergency custody hearing?

Wife allegedly left Son with a babysitter while she partied abroad. And Wife allegedly is wanted by Interpol for crimes allegedly perpetrated in their native country, including kidnapping.

Husband and Wife were married for eight years.

Wife denies that she left Son with a sitter, maintaining that Son was visiting his half-brother in another Asian country.

Read more in this UK Telegraph news article: Kazakhstan leader’s brother accuses ex-wife of conning him out of $20m apartment and this Daily Mail news article: Pampered Plaza scion subject of heated custody dispute between brother of Kazakh president and his fugitive ex-wife.

Divorce among seniors has been on the rise. In fact, between 1990 and 2009, the divorce rate among seniors doubled. Even for seniors over 65 years old.

Divorce is 2.5 times more likely in a second (or greater) marriage than in a first marriage. So these trends are likely to become even more pronounced over time.

And with this trend, financial advisors are, and have to be more mindful of divorce among seniors. They point out that it is more important than ever that seniors take logical, practical steps to protect their own financial interests.

For example, living expenses for a single person may be greater than simply half of their previous expenses as a couple. And the newly single may have extra one-time or infrequent expenses that they must incur upon separation and/or divorce (a new will and health care surrogate, new insurance, new accountant, new insurance agent, etc.)

Divorcing seniors typically have accumulated significant assets worth protecting. They should take advantage of professional service providers. But, if possible, they should strive for an amicable divorce.

Financial advisors may go so far as to recommend foregoing attorneys. That may be pennywise but pound foolish though.

If both spouses are inclined to divorce amicably, their divorce need not be litigious or expensive. But attorneys are the only professionals who can ensure that everything is done legally and fairly, with neither spouse being taken advantage of.

Financial advisors recommend getting copies of all financial documents and securing your copies in a safe location. True, of course.

But if one spouse refuses to provide copies or denies the existence of known assets, then the other spouse will likely need a lawyer. This doesn’t mean that their divorce will not end amicably, but it is a red flag that should raise concerns. Blindly ignoring it in pursuit of an amicable divorce no matter what, is a recipe for disaster – and regret.

A fair settlement requires disclosure. There is simply no getting around that fact.

Financial advisors recommend closing joint accounts immediately and replacing them with individual accounts as soon as the spouses separate.

They also remind that assets and debt need to be put into the correct spouse’s name.

Financial advisors recommend splitting each financial asset, so that both spouses face the same market risks and tax risks. This advice has some merit, but it is often resisted by both spouses.

Financial professionals quite properly advocate that a spouse who is required to make payments over time (whether alimony and spousal support, or property division equalization payments in installments) have not only life insurance but also disability insurance to protect the receiving spouse. Disability at a relatively young age is a much greater risk than most people realize. And jeopardizes both spouses and their children’s well-being.

For individuals who have amassed significant assets prior to marriage, it is important for them to take reasonable steps to ensure that those assets remain nonmarital. These steps include a prenuptial agreement but also maintaining title in the individual’s sole name and really keeping the asset separate, that is, without commingling it with the other spouse’s assets or other joint assets, or applying it directly to common household expenses.

Read more in this US News & World Report – Money article: Financial Safeguards Needed as Senior Divorces Soar.