Florida Husband and Wife are divorcing. Not amicably.

They have one Son, who is three years old. They are reportedly battling over custody and timesharing.

Husband arrives at Grandmother’s house to pick up Son for his visitation.

As Husband approaches Grandmother, Grandmother allegedly reveals a handgun and discharges three bullets into Husband.

Husband flees.

Grandmother calls the police … and reports that Husband drew a pistol and threatened her with it.

Grandmother files for a domestic violence restraining order of protection against Husband.

Husband later calls the police as well. But Husband’s account departs from Grandmother’s.

However there are two variations from the all too common “he said, she said” in divorce and domestic violence cases. First, the she is Husband’s mother-in-law, rather than his wife.

Second and more significantly, Husband captures the entire incident on an audio recorded by his cell phone’s video camera.

Grandmother is arrested for attempted murder and detained.

Read more in

1. this Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel article: Cheryl Hepner accused of shooting in-law Salvatore Miglino, of Boca Raton, sheriff’s office says

2. this Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel article: iPhone captures shooting in Tamarac, authorities say and

3. this Good Morning America ABC TV news article: Woman, 66, Shoots Estranged Son-in-Law Over Custody Dispute, Florida Police Say

New York Husband and Wife have seven Children together.

One of their Children reportedly arrives at school with one eye bloodshot.

This apparently precipitates a report of alleged child abuse to New York’s child welfare agency.

Children are removed from Husband and Wife’s home and taken into child protective custody.

And placed in foster care, reportedly in three separate foster homes. Nearly three years ago.

Along the way, an eighth child of Husband and Wife is born. She joins her siblings in foster care.

Husband and Wife claim to have complied with the Family Court’s juvenile dependency case plan with the expectation of being reunited with Children.

They maintain that they are good parents who provided a loving home. They are critical of the care provided by New York’s child welfare agency, citing the agency’s unnecessary medication of one Child for hyperactivity, inadequate security, Children’s complaints of insufficient food and appearance of bruises and cuts on Children.

But Husband and Wife assert that they got wind that their parental rights were going to be terminated and Children were going to be adopted.

Wife has a supervised visitation with Children at a foster care and supervised visitation facility.

Children walk out of the facility with Wife.

And Husband and Wife allegedly go on the run with Children.

For seven days. Until they are caught by law enforcement.

And Husband collapses and is hospitalized for several days.

Children are in good condition. Husband and Wife are arrested on charges of kidnapping Children.

Husband and Wife later plead guilty to interference with custody.

They serve sixty days of confinement and are also sentenced to three years of probation.

Children remain in foster care. Husband and Wife are barred from any contact with Children.

A hearing on visitation for Husband and Wife is forthcoming.

Read more in

• this NBC TV New York news article: Parents Who Abducted 8 Kids Speak of Life on the Run

• this UK Mail news article: The EIGHT children abducted by their parents from foster care are found safe and ‘in good condition’ by NYPD

• this New York Times article: Recalling Days on the Run With Abducted Children

As a matter of public policy, Florida is big on transparency. That’s why we have Sunshine Laws.

In general, our courtrooms are open. Even in family court.

Not so everywhere though.

New York law mandates that its family courts are open to public access. And in theory they are, going on fourteen years.

But, in practice, the reality is a bit different.

Common practices have been demonstrated to include:

• locked courtroom doors

• Do Not Enter and Stop signs on courtroom doors

• signs proclaiming that only people on official business may enter

• guards challenging those seeking entrance to courtrooms

• guards flat-out denying access to courtrooms

• a judge admonishing a reporter to report to a clerk to show his press pass, who in turn told the reporter … that he needed permission from the chief administrative judge to observe in the courtroom

• another judge characterizing family court proceedings as “confidential”

How hit or miss is open access to family courts in New York?

A reporter on a mission to find out was actually denied access to thirty-five courtrooms – out of forty.

Even after identifying himself as a member of the press.

Top representatives of New York’s courts apologized and vowed to do better.

Time will tell …

Read more in this New York Times article: New York Family Courts Say Keep Out, Despite Order.

Twenty-nine year old Australian Woman disabled by both cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis is committed to the legal guardianship of a child welfare Agency in her childhood.

At the time when Woman was taken into government care, her younger Sister was about 4 years old. Sister reportedly resisted the government action, and allegedly struck a child welfare worker.

Woman’s file today reflects that Sister, now twenty, has “anger management issues” … and, as a result, Sister is denied any meaningful contact with Woman, even though Sister keenly desires to have a relationship with Woman.

Sister has appealed to the welfare Agency that administers adult guardianship in Australia, but the Agency has refused to intervene in the situation.

And so Sister is limited to contacting Woman’s caregiver each week, in the hope of finding out how Woman is doing and securing eventual granting of her repeated requests for access to Woman.

Read more in this Adelaide [Australia] Now article: Let me help look after my disabled sister.

Mother has eight year old Son, who is an honor student actively engaged in his school community.

Son is overweight. Extremely.

Just under 220 pounds. Sixty of them gained in one year.

At least one doctor has characterized Son’s weight gain as “life threatening”.

Doctors have ruled out a medical reason for Son’s weight gain, concluding that it is “environmental”.

Ohio child welfare agency (Agency) intervenes due to Son’s sleep apnea.

Son is deemed to be at high risk of developing serious weight-related health conditions.

Son fails to lose weight after a year.

So … Agency removes Son from Mother’s care and places him in foster care.

Ohio juvenile dependency court rules that Mother has neglected Son’s medical care … because Son has not dropped any excess weight to speak of.

Mother and Son are granted one visit per week. For two hours.

An Ohio public defender reports that, by contrast, other Ohio parents have been allowed to keep custody of their children despite having serious drug abuse issues and having beaten their children.

Son has reportedly lost some weight in foster care. But his foster parents are reportedly struggling to keep up with Son’s medical care.

Mother is seeking to regain custody of Son.

Son is representative of the seventeen percent of American children who are obese.

The foster care system is already stretched thin serving children who are abandoned, abused and neglected as those terms are commonly understood.

While some in the medical community advocate placing children in foster care to combat extreme obesity, others reject such extreme measures based only on probability of children developing certain medical conditions, rather than actual diagnoses.

Proposals have been advanced to provide enhanced services to obese children and their families so that such obese children can remain in their homes. Arguably a more practical alternative from a societal perspective and a more palatable alternative from the families’ perspectives.

Read more in this Reuters article: 219-pound boy shows growing problem of extreme obesity and this Cleveland Plain Dealer piece: County places obese Cleveland Heights child in foster care.

Husband and Wife are divorcing. They have a Child.

They are using social media websites. And dating websites.

In the old days of social media, like last year, used to be your worst nightmare was your ex stumbling upon your indiscreet post that could hurt your divorce or child custody or child support or alimony case. That was then.

Now is now.

Husband happens to find some material online that he believes calls Wife’s parenting into question. Which spurs him to seek more of the same, from the presiding family court.

And the Connecticut family court obliges … and ups the “game”. Exponentially.

Specifically, the divorce court orders both divorcing spouses to submit to the family court – and to each other – all of their respective user ids and passwords on all social media websites they use and all of the dating websites that they use.

Meaning that, if it’s out there, it will surely be found.

Which may be why the Wife allegedly asks a friend to clean up after her and delete anything damaging left in her wake.

Only that backfires on the Wife … because the family court then enters an order enjoining or prohibiting either spouse from deleting any of their material from social media websites or dating websites.

Champions of individual privacy rights are sounding an alarm over this arguable invasion of both spouses’ privacy.

Interestingly though, the family court ruling reportedly violates the privacy policies and terms of use of several of the social media websites and dating websites involved.

This could potentially open up a can of worms. That could potentially result in consequences running the gamut from the websites in question closing both spouses’ respective accounts and banning them … to the websites in question formally intervening in the family court case to protect their users’ privacy rights and enforce their own privacy policies and terms of use.

One thing is for sure. We haven’t heard the last of these divorce court rulings.

Stay tuned …

Read more in this [Providence, RI / New Bedford, MA] NBC TV 10 news article: Divorcing couple ordered to provide Facebook passwords and this New York Daily News article: Divorcing couple ordered to hand over Facebook passwords

Husband and Wife have a Son. And then promptly divorce.

Husband moves far away and starts a new family.

Wife raises Son alone. Son has no contact with Husband.

When Son is just eighteen years old, Son has a heart attack while at high school.

Son suffers severe brain damage as a result of his heart attack and allegedly inadequate care while at the high school.

Wife sues the School District for negligence. Wife and School District settle, with School District agreeing to pay $34,000 per month into a Special Needs Trust for Son for twenty years.

Because Son’s recovery is sheltered in a Special Needs Trust, Son is able to receive substantial public health benefits to meet his special needs.

Son dies five years later. Leaving $8 million behind in his Special Needs Trust.

The Special Needs Trust passes to Son’s estate. Since Son does not have a will, under the applicable law, the Special Needs Trust passes fifty-fifty to Wife and Husband.

Wife allegedly plots to deny Husband his half interest in Son’s Special Needs Trust. She reportedly refuses to provide the law firm handling the Special Needs Trust with Husband’s contact information.

She drives from California to Husband’s workplace in Rhode Island and allegedly tricks Husband into signing a disclaimer or waiver of Husband’s interest in Son’s Special Needs Trust, telling Husband that the document is for Son’s burial.

When the first disclaimer document is determined to be possibly inadequate, Wife drives to Rhode Island again with another disclaimer or waiver for Husband to sign.

This time, Husband becomes suspicious and consults an attorney. And then seeks to set the original disclaimer aside. And Wife sues to enforce the original disclaimer.

At trial, the Court refuses to enforce the original disclaimer, due to Wife’s deception as to the nature of the document and insufficient identification in the document of precisely what it is that Husband is waiving.

On appeal, the appellate court affirms the award of half of the Special Needs Trust to Husband.

Even though Husband was never a part of Son’s life after his birth and was not involved in the litigation which resulted in Son’s recovery.

It is hardly surprising that an eighteen year old did not have a will.

Given the severity of Son’s injuries, however, it is surprising that greater attention was not paid to identification of Son’s actual caregivers and loved ones, and protection of their interests under Son’s Special Needs Trust.

Read more in this Academy of Special Needs Planners’ newsletter article: Mother Tries to Trick Her Ex-Husband Out of His Share of a Special Needs Trust and this National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys’ newsletter article: Attempt to Play Fast and Loose with SNT Remainder Fails (Cal. App.)

County in Kansas suffers budget cuts, which in turn leads to budget cuts to County prosecutor’s office.

As a result, the County prosecutor’s office proclaims that it will no longer prosecute municipal misdemeanors, leaving those to the City to prosecute.

The City asserts that it cannot afford to prosecute those cases either and that the City’s attorneys have no experience in prosecuting such crimes.

So, misdemeanor domestic battery everywhere within the County goes unpunished and undeterred … for a month now.

In fact, the City may actually decriminalize domestic violence to deprive itself of jurisdiction over such crimes, in the hope that the County’s jurisdiction will fill the vacuum.

So far, all domestic violence suspects arrested by city police in the last month have been released.

Read more in this Yahoo Lookout piece: Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds.

These days, many couples are searching for what they hope is an easier, cheaper approach to divorce (and resolution of other disputes too). Different practitioners each tout their own preferred methodology.

One such available methodology that gets less attention than some others is arbitration. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution option, in that it aims to avoid lengthy family court litigation (paper motions and multiple legal and/or evidentiary hearings) that culminates in a divorce court trial before a family court judge in a family court courtroom.

Compared to mediation, another alternative dispute resolution methodology, arbitration is still fairly trial-like. So what is arbitration, and why would someone consider using arbitration?

In a nutshell, arbitration is generally faster, more private, less expensive and less formal than conventional litigation.

An arbitrator, a privately engaged professional, often a former judge, presides over proceedings as an ultimate decision-maker, much like a judge. But in arbitration, the parties get to choose their arbitrator for themselves.

An arbitrator hears testimony and also considers other, nontestimonial evidence in arriving at an award, much like a judge.

Typically, an arbitrator’s decision in a binding arbitration is final (although there are certain narrow exceptions).

The arbitration process is generally leaner and more streamlined than typical family court proceedings. Most hearings before the ultimate hearing are eliminated, and development of evidence from the opponent and third parties is normally reduced. This saves parties money as well as time.

And the “main event” is not held in a public courtroom.

Of course, like almost anything else, arbitration can be misused and abused so as to erode its good features and advantages.

Arbitration has not gained great traction in Florida family law yet, but it is finding favor in Canada and other countries already.

Read more in this appellate opinion and this American Bar Association Litigation News Article: Protecting the Natural Cost Advantages of Arbitration

According to an article that appeared in the New York Times last month, certain Chinese provincial governments seize babies from their parents, who cannot afford their fines for violating restrictions on reproduction, and then they sell the seized babies on the black market, into adoption.

For American parents of adopted Chinese babies, such reports are a disturbing revelation. Fueling nagging questions about their children’s origins, and the circumstances leading to their adoption.

But the subject is largely taboo among adoptive parent communities, who have ample reason to fear that questions will only slam the door to adoption in the questioners’ faces.

Some sixty four thousand Chinese babies were adopted in the US from 1999 through 2010.

And, unlike several other countries, China has long been perceived as the most ethical adoption system, which is a source of adoptable babies, that can be found overseas.

Read more in this New York Times article: For Adoptive Parents, Questions Without Answers.