Joint debt forms a union that can be more powerful than marriage. So powerful that not even a legal divorce can dissolve it.

Yet it is faster and easier to enter than a marriage.

With joint debt, you are responsible to the creditor – even if you get divorced from the other joint debtor.

A divorce court may order the other joint debtor to pay off the account and to protect you against liability on it but, even so, that creditor can still come after you.

For the entire amount of the debt. Not just half, as many, many people seem (mistakenly) to believe.

Your only recourse if that happens is to your ex, back in family court.

Even if you are only a so-called authorized user on an account, a creditor may try to collect from you for the charges that you made on the account. In that situation, you are not legally responsible. But they can try.

If you are a co-signer on a debt, you are like a guarantor. You are responsible for the entire debt if the primary account holder doesn’t pay. But you don’t have access to or control of the account.

And with any joint debt, the entire amount of the debt counts against your credit history and outstanding debt for purposes of underwriting any other borrowing you may wish to do.

That is one reason why a divorcing spouse moving out of the marital home almost always wants his or her name removed from the mortgage on the marital home. They probably will not be able to qualify for a new mortgage of their own on a new home of their own otherwise.

And if the other joint debtor doesn’t meet their obligations, your credit score will be penalized too.

The removal of a joint debtor (such as by death or divorce of a spouse) can also reduce your access to credit. To protect yourself, it is prudent to maintain some individual credit accounts for a rainy day.

In some marriages, it may be prudent to keep all debt individual rather than be adversely impacted by your spouse’s questionable management of their credit.

When it comes to divorce, it is best whereever possible to close joint accounts, preferably by paying them off or, alternatively, by transferring all or part of the balance to one or more individual accounts of the divorcing spouses.

Read more in this CreditCards.com article: 6 Secrets About Joint Credit.

A celebrity divorce in which one parent practices an unconventional religion has recently focused public attention on the role religion may play in family court cases determining child custody and visitation.

Modern America (including Florida) is religiously diverse, and more than a few religions are well-represented among parents.

Parents’ religious affiliations and views may change over time. And sometimes parents are less concerned about differing religious views before children enter the picture than they are afterward.

For the most part, Florida family law is neutral regarding religious diversity, and parents’ religious beliefs and affiliations do not influence family court child custody rulings or divorce court timesharing and visitation schedules.

Each parent in Florida is generally free to have their child participate in their religion and worship during their timesharing and visitation with their child.

In general, a parent in Florida will only be barred from sharing their religion with their child if the other parent shows that that religion wll be harmful to their child.

For example, Mother is a chiropractor by profession. Her religion teaches that the body is naturally, fully equipped for self-healing … and prohibits followers from taking medicines or vaccinations.

Mother qualifies for an exemption so that their child need not be vaccinated for school.

Father objects to this though and seeks ultimate decisionmaking authority over their child’s health care in general and the child’s vaccinations in particular.

At trial, after hearing expert testimony from several physicians, the Florida family court awards Father ultimate decisionmaking authority over their child’s health care, based on the conclusion that vaccinations are in their child’s best interests.

Implicit in the Florida divorce court’s holding is the view that withholding vaccinations from their child could very well be harmful to their child.

On appeal, the Florida family court’s award of ultimate decisionmaking authority to Father is upheld.

Read more in this local West Palm Beach area case.

There’s an expression that it takes a village to raise a child.

Now, a state legislator wants to move a step closer to legislating that concept.

His proposed California legislation would eliminate the statutory limit of two legal parents per child.

In fact, do away with any maximum number of legal parents per child.

In this legislator’s view, it may serve a child’s best interests to have multiple legal parents.

Paying child support. Sharing child custody. Exercising visitation and timesharing.

Extra parents might be drawn from:

• Biological parents

• Gay parents

• Stepparents

• Sperm donors

• Egg donors

• Surrogate parents

• De facto parents and

• Others.

Similar legislation is already on the books in a couple of other US states.

Read more in this Miami Herald article: California bill would let children have more than two parents and this MSNBC news article: California bill would allow children to have more than two parents

Tennesse Mother adopts Russian Son.

By the age of seven, Son is allegedly violent and threatening.

Mother packs Son up and puts him on a plane back to Russia.

Son may be out of sight, but he isn’t out of Mother’s mind.

Son is now living in a group home in the Moscow area.

This does solve Mother’s most pressing problem. Son and the danger he reportedly poses are removed from Mother’s presence.

But the US adoption agency (Agency) that faciliated the adoption and the Russian government aren’t very happy.

The Agency sues Mother for child support. And wins.

A $150,000 win. Over time.

Mother plans to continue to fight the ruling.

Read more in this Fox News TV article: Judge upholds child support in Russian adoption.

Despite statistics bearing out that lower income people marry less frequently and divorce more frequently, a new study finds that lower income people place the same value on marriage as higher income people – and hold divorce in less favor than higher income people.

Further, lower income people have greater appreciation than higher income people of the economic impact of marriage, such as two income households.

Meaning that the explanation for the statistics does not lie with disrespect of marriage as an institution. Contrary to the government’s underlying premise in spending $1 billion trying to enhance attitudes toward marriage among those with lower incomes.

Marriages of poorer couples are more likely to suffer threats to their relationships from economic challenges and social problems such as substance abuse.

The study was based primarily on couples in Florida, but also dramatically smaller numbers in several other highly populated states.

Read more in this press release, Why do Low-Income Couples Marry Less and Divorce More? reporting on the study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family

Valuing a marital business, most typically a closely held business with no third party ownership interests, is almost always a difficult affair.

There are several different methods of valuation used by forensic accountants and other business valuation professionals.

And they can produce wildly different results. And none may strike either spouse as particularly “spot on”.

Because, when you get right down to it, any way you cut it, it is really hard to nail down the true value of a small closely held business.

When spouses are inclined to settle their case amicably, all too often disputes over valuations and even calculations are settled (or settlement is attempted) predicated on the “let’s split the difference” school of hard knocks method of valuation / calculation.

And at the settlement table, that may close the deal.

But, what about those cases where valuation is litigated? Where the experts are brought in to provide professional business valuations.

While in theory the testimony of valuation experts should make it straightforward for a family court judge to identify and establish an accurate value for a business, in reality it may not be quite that straightforward at all.

In one relatively recent Florida case, a Florida family court judge appears also to have followed that well-worn path to business valuation of just “splitting the difference”. In any event, the final judgment failed to explain how the divorce court judge came up with his valuation – but the number was in fact extremely close to a split of the difference between the two spouses’ proposed valuations.

On appeal, an intermediate level appellate court held that this approach was an erroneous abuse of the family court’s discretion.

Surprisingly, there is a line of cases that concludes that various family court judges had “split the difference”, and they reverse the various divorce court judges’ holdings because they are not supported by “competent evidence”.

Now in some of those cases, it may ultimately turn out that the final judgments simply failed to reflect in sufficient detail sounder methodologies actually employed by those Florida divorce court judges in establishing their valuations.

In others, perhaps not so much … until remand back to the family court trial … unless the spouses opt to avoid another trial … and decide themselves this time around to split the difference instead. Stranger things have happened.

Read more in this intermediate level appellate case.

Boyfriend and Girlfriend meet at a university sporting event. Their relationship evolves and they move in together.

Fast forward. Girlfriend presses criminal assault and harassment charges against Boyfriend.

Boyfriend allegedly makes a threatening phone call to Girlfriend … while she is at the police station, for police hear.

Boyfriend is arrested, but released on his own recognizance. A domestic violence restraining order of protection is entered against him though.

Fast forward a little further. Boyfriend reportedly gets drunk and kills Girlfriend with his hands as his only weapons.

Boyfriend records a voice mail message to an ex-girfriend, reportedly confessing to Girlfriend’s slaying. He also leaves written confessions in their apartment.

Boyfriend allegedly places Girlfriend’s body – literally – on ice, in the bathtub.

Boyfriend uses Girlfriend’s cell phone to send text messages to Girlfriend’s friends, impersonating her and pretending that all is well with her.

Boyfriend is now under arrest for murder, criminal contempt for violating the order of protection, and evidence tampering.

Boyfriend is an attorney. He received some of his legal education at Columbia Law School, but graduated from a Florida law school and reportedly lived here for years.

Read more in

• this New York Post article: Lawyer who pretended to be dead girlfriend in texts faces murder rap

• this New York Daily News article: Cops knew slay susp was threat and

• this [UK] Daily Mail article: ‘I will love you forever… I’m sorry’: Lawyer’s disturbing ‘confession’ found in apartment where he ‘beat and strangled executive girlfriend to death’

New York City Woman rides subway. (But it could just as readily be a bus in any city.)

Fellow Passenger admires Woman. Actually, he does a little bit more than that.

Passenger carries his coffee cup with him. But instead of coffee in his cup, Passenger has hidden a small video camera.

And he’s videotaping Woman. And, later on, putting the video up on the internet for all to see.

He’s done this to roughly thirty-four unwitting women besides Woman.

Upon learning what has happened, the women all feel violated and frightened.

But, because the women are all out in public, making the videos does not constitute a crime under New York law.

As it happens, Passenger’s account is terminated by the online video hosting service on which he is placing his videos. But there are other such services.

Whether Passenger’s conduct constitutes a crime may vary from one state to another.

Even if Passenger’s behavior isn’t criminal, depending on the state, the women may have one or more civil remedies available to restrain some or all of Passenger’s conduct and/or to make Passenger liable to them for money damages.

An easier option may be to dress to portray anonymity.

Read more in this New York Post article: Creep with hidden camera targets young women on subway.

Technically, this is not a family court case. But it’s pushing the envelope right on the edge.

Boyfriend has Dog. A really cute little dog.

Boyfriend and Dog take up residency with Girlfriend.

Boyfriend and Girlfriend make videos of Dog visiting New York City tourist attractions. They post the videos on a website featuring the Dog.

And visitors flock to Dog’s website.

By the tens of thousands per month.

Dog is a celebrity.

Then Boyfriend and Girlfriend breakup. Boyfriend and Dog move out.

And this is where things turn unpleasant. According to Boyfriend, Girlfriend seizes exclusive control of Dog’s website (remember, Dog is his) by stealing Boyfriend’s iPad and changing the passwords to Dog’s site … and tries to file a trademark on the site’s name.

Resorting to self-help, Boyfriend tries to grab Girlfriend’s iPhone to get his hands on the re-set passwords to Dog’s website. That doesn’t work.

And Boyfriend is arrested for petty larceny. And that’s the last straw.

Boyfriend starts a new website for Dog’s adventures. And sues Girfriend … for $500,000.

Girlfriend contends that Dog’s website, while popular, never generated any revenue for Boyfriend and Girlfriend.

It is unknown whether there is any dispute over visitation with Dog.

It must also be noted that the fact that Boyfriend owns Dog (that much at least does not appear to be in dispute), does not by itself entitle Boyfriend to sole ownership of the contents of Dog’s website, for which Girlfriend was the primary photographer.

Read more in this Good Morning America ABC News piece: Popular Pomeranian’s Website, ‘Sammy and the City,’ at Center of Lawsuit and this New York Post article: ‘Sammy and the City’ online fortune scuttled by ex: lawsuit.

Where either spouse has a pension or retirement savings, they are not likely overlooked in a divorce.

What is often overlooked by and for younger couples are social security retirement benefits.

But what may have seemed irrelevant or unimportant then, could be relevant and significant now.

Divorce does not terminate a (former) spouse’s right to cash in on their higher earning ex’s social security benefits, at least not if they were married for at least 10 years.

An applicant can collect half of their higher earning ex’s social security benefits. If that higher earning ex has passed away, their surviving former spouse can collect 100% of their benefits.

The one catch is that the applicant must be single at the time they apply for benefits – unless they remarried after turning 60 years old.

The applicant can even collect before their ex starts collecting their own Social Security benefits.

A prevailing applicant is even entitled to collect their bump retroactively by six months.

Recap:

An applicant can collect Social Security benefits based on their ex’s higher earnings if the marriage was for at least 19 years plus:

1. The applicant is at least 62 years old and unmarried and their former spouse is currently collecting benefits.

2. The applicant has been divorced at least two years, their former spouse isn’t collecting benefits and they are both over 62.

3. The applicant is over 60 and their former spouse has died.

4. The applicant’s ex delayed taking Social Security until after their full retirement age.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal article by way of Yahoo Finance: Boosting Mom’s Social Security Payments – When a Divorce Pays Off.