Nebraska Mother has Son in 2001.

Mother’s gay Partner of twenty years was actively involved in choosing Mother’s sperm donor for Son’s birth, planning and financing the in vitro fertilization, and raising Son until their breakup in 2006.

Mother allowed Partner to visit with Son for a year and a half afterwards.

Then Mother allegedly cut off all contact with Partner – for two years now.

Nebraska does not recognize gay marriage or civil unions, nor allow adoptions by gays.

Partner files for visitation and timesharing.

Prior to trial, the Nebraska family court dismissed Partner’s case for visitation and timesharing. Partner appealed.

On appeal, Nebraska’s highest court held that Partner nonetheless may argue in family court that she is a legal parent based on her course of parental conduct toward Son. This principle of in loco parentis has long been applied to stepparents and grandparents.

This ruling is consistent with rulings in several similar cases in Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The Nebraska Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to take evidence in regard to Partner’s claims.

Read more in this Omaha World-Herald article: Ruling: Woman can seek custody.

Florida Mother and Father have a Toddler together.

Mother takes Toddler to a shopping center in a stroller on a weeknight.

Mother tells Toddler to stay put outside, while Mother goes to get Toddler a candy bar.

Mother allegedly enters a bar – and gets a cocktail.

Soon, it starts to rain outside.

Patrons of the bar call police about the Toddler left alone outside in the rain.

Mother is arrested.

At her first appearance in court, Mother tries to tell the presiding judge that she went to the bar to apply for a job.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Florida woman tells judge she was going to look for a job when she left baby outside a bar.

Mother and Father have eight year old Son.

Son is autistic.

Mother is a multi-millionaire businesswoman who reportedly retired to care for Son.

Mother takes Son to posh New York hotel.

During their stay, Mother allegedly kills Son with an overdose of prescription pills.

Mother’s suicide note is found in the hotel.

But Mother is still alive, if just barely.

Their hotel suite is littered with pills.

Mother is arrested on murder charges.

Mother’s pricy defense team assert that Mother acted to protect Son from sexual abuse by Father and other abuses by “predators” in their lives – and intended to commit suicide by drug overdose after her “mercy killing” or “altruistic filicide” of Son.

It is unknown whether Mother pursued any other avenues to protect Son from the alleged abuse.

Mother reportedly has psychological challenges.

A sample of Mother’s blood, taken near the time of the murder, was reportedly lost prior to testing at the hospital to which Mother was taken. Due to legal wrangling between the prosecution and the defense, there was a significant delay after collection before testing was undertaken.

Mother has been confined since her arrest a year and one-half ago, and her most recent request for bail has been rejected.

Read more in

Every state views it differently. In fact, an argument could be made that every family court judge views it differently.

What?

Drug use. By a parent.

The potential field of drugs that may be used and/or abused is broad: cocaine, methamphetamines, heroin, too many to name really … and marijuana.

The latter of which more and more states are legalizing use of for medical purposes.

Not all the same?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Family law and juvenile dependency law often draw no hard and fast distinctions based on the particular drug of choice – or the type of use.

In family court or juvenile dependency court, the answer to whether the particular drug of choice – or the nature of the use – matters may well depend on what state you live in … or which family court judge or juvenile dependency court judge a case – your case – happens to be randomly assigned to.

Right now, in New York City, for example, the child welfare agency may be following a policy of filing civil child neglect charges against parents caught with nominal amounts of pot and/or who have admitted to authorities using marijuana in the past. In cases where law enforcement takes no criminal legal action. But makes a notification or report to the child welfare agency hotline.

Although the criminal justice system’s hands are tied from even making an arrest, such parents still face loss of child custody of their children – or restrictions on their contact with their own children – through the family court system or the juvenile dependency court system. Often without any proof of actual demonstrated neglect or harm to their children.

And their children could be forced into foster care, at least temporarily.

Child welfare agencies often maintain that even recreational or medical marijuana users may in fact neglect their children. Fail to send them to school. Leave them unattended. Otherwise suffer impaired judgment while caring for them which exposes them to danger or risk. And, of course, that may be true.

Representatives of parents, on the other hand, counter that, once such parents are on the child welfare agency’s radar due to possession of nominal amounts of marijuana or admission of pot use, the agencies then are in a position to seek other grounds to act against the parents – and, as a result, sometimes they may in fact look for those grounds – and they may in fact find them. And, if they exist, in the context of child protection, does it matter how they were identified?

Such parents ultimately face high stakes consequences. Not only as to custody and visitation and timesharing. But also restriction of their prospects for employment working with children in a variety of capacities.

In New York, this civil court record raises a cloud over such parents until the parent’s youngest child turns twenty-eight years old.

In contrast to New York, California, which has legal medical marijuana use, now requires a showing of actual harm to children before their child welfare agency may mount a juvenile dependency case for removal of the children.

Needless to say, one may take a different view of these complex cases depending upon whether one’s vantage point is parental rights or children’s rights.

Read more in this New York Times article: No Cause for Marijuana Case, but Enough for Child Neglect.

Sometimes a spouse (or parent) gets stuck on something. They just can’t turn loose of it.

They start to sound like a broken record. Maybe even a little obsessed.

Perhaps they file for a restraining order of protection against domestic violence. (Perhaps something else.)

They lose. The court denies or dismisses their petition or motion.

So, they wait a week or two and then … they file again.

Essentially the same exact allegations. Just reworded a little bit.

And again they lose. Before the same judge, of course.

Who remembers the last go-round. Perfectly.

Or maybe the spouse or parent files for substantially the same relief in their divorce or child custody case this time around.

It may be pure malice. Or it may be sincere conviction that they deserve what they are seeking …

And the judge just didn’t get it last time, but this time will be different.

Truth be told, even some attorneys may humor their clients by enabling these legal efforts.

But the truth is that the claim does not improve with repetition. Quite the contrary.

More likely, the patience of the judge subjected to the same matter yet again will be sorely tested.

And the Court’s assessment of the spouse or parent’s credibility and reasonableness may suffer. Potentially, irreparably. First impressions ….

On top of that, in at least some of those instances, the spouse or parent may also be setting themselves up to have to pay the other spouse or parent’s legal fees incurred to defend vexatious and/or frivolous litigation. In addition to their own legal fees, of course.

And, in still other cases, the spouse or parent may be exposing themselves to the prospect of a separate civil lawsuit for damages, based on malicious prosecution or abuse of process or other similar legal theory.

When your attorney (or other friendly third party familiar with your case) advises you to let something go, you should give that advice thoughtful consideration. If you still remain firmly convinced of the rightness of your position after an open discussion with your attorney or other advisor, then consider seeking out a second (professional) opinion before you dig in your heels and insist or persist.

Following this advice just may save your money – and your case. Really.

Billionaire eighty year old Boyfriend and famous twenty-eight year old Girlfriend are a couple for several years.

Girlfriend, a foreign actress, is now pursuing higher education in New York City.

Boyfriend, an investor and philanthropist, allegedly promises to buy Girlfriend an Eastside apartment.

Boyfriend dumps Girlfriend.

Boyfriend has a new girlfriend.

Boyfriend gives an Eastside apartment (reportedly the one chosen by Girlfriend) to his new girlfriend.

Girlfriend is angry.

Girlfriend sues Boyfriend in New York … for $50 million.

That could buy quite a few apartments, even in New York City.

Girlfriend also alleges that Boyfriend was physically abusive toward her.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Billionaire George Soros sued by former flame Adriana Ferreyr, who claims he reneged on luxe digs and this New York Post article: Soros’ jilted ex on their 5-year affair and his sudden change of heart.

Way too often, clients come in who are totally in the dark about family finances.

Their spouse has been bringing home the bacon, managing the family accounts, paying the family bills, working with the family or their business accountant to prepare tax returns.

In too many instances, the breadwinning spouse orders the the other spouse to sign a joint return right now without even reviewing it. “It’s all correct, I’ve already checked, just sign it.”

That spouse may well be abusive, to one degree or another.

As a result, the intimidated spouse really has no idea how much comes in or even what brings it in, let alone the difference between gross and net and the basis for the spread.

They may – or may not – have some vague hunch that something is not quite right. But they are afraid to ask any questions, much less challenge their spouse.

And so it always comes as a rude shock that they are generally just as accountable and responsible to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as the controlling, breadwinning spouse.

Unless they qualify under IRS rules as an Innocent Spouse.

And under the traditional rule, it wasn’t always so easy to qualify and the relief wasn’t always so expansive.

Thanks to recent changes in the rules, it is now easier for an ignorant spouse to qualify for meaningful relief as an innocent spouse, as long as the couple is divorced or living separately for a year.

The new rule may excuse or reduce the liability of not only an unknowing spouse but also even a knowing spouse who signs a return under duress from the breadwinning spouse.

The new rule also reduces the impact of a two year time limit on claims for innocent spouse status. This change will even allow previously rejected applicants to reapply for protection.

Read more in

• this Knoxville [TN] News Sentinel article: IRS ends innocent spouse rule

• this USA Today article: IRS ‘innocent spouse’ rules can be tough and

• this BST newsletter article: IRS eases liability rule for spouse’s tax debt

Forty-eight year old New York Man falls for twenty-eight year old Woman.

Man allegedly e-mails Woman, texts her and posts on her Father’s Facebook page for work.

All told, seven lovestruck communications.

Law enforcement authorities instruct Man to cease and desist.

Man also texts New York police officer requesting assistance in reaching Woman and Father to make their wedding plans.

Man is arrested for aggravated harassment by city police as well as federal agents, and tossed in jail. Man is confined pending bail.

Impressive response from law enforcement?

Well, Father is a wealthy businessman and New York City’s mayor.

Man’s alleged conduct represents a modern, high tech twist to traditional stalking, known as “cyberstalking”. Computer and, more specifically, internet-facilitated stalking. No face to face contact or interaction required.

Man faces seven years’ incarceration.

Man’s defense reportedly is that the charges are ridiculous.

Oh, Woman has never met or even heard of Man. And Man works in a pizza place.

Man may also be charged with forging a federal judge’s signature on a court order in an unrelated matter.

Read more in this New York Daily News article: Police arrest cyberstalker obsessed with Georgina Bloomberg, Mayor Bloomberg’s daughter and this NBC New York article: Bloomberg Daughter’s Cyberstalker: “It’s Ridiculous” I’m in Jail.

At the moment, marriage is on the decline, at least temporarily. So, more couples are cohabiting or living together.

Generally speaking, that represents freedom from commitment and obligations.

That may be agreeable to both partners, at least for a time. But the time may come when it is not so agreeable, at least to one of them.

Yet by then it may be too late.

For example, a fifty year old Swedish author (Boyfriend) cohabited with Girlfriend. For thirty-two years.

Boyfriend and Girlfriend had no written cohabitation agreement between them and Boyfriend did not have a will.

Boyfriend wrote a trilogy consisting of three novels. He entrusted all three to his publisher simultaneously.

Boyfriend’s trilogy went on to sell kazillion copies and generate a great deal of revenue and income. Sadly, Boyfriend met an untimely death and didn’t live to see that.

At the time of Boyfriend’s death, his estate was worth about $40 million.

Under Swedish law, Girlfriend inherited from Boyfriend … practically nothing. Despite thirty-two years of living together.

Absent legal marriage or a will, a cohabiting boyfriend or girlfriend in much of the United States wouldn’t fare any better than Girlfriend.

Although it appears to have survived to some degree in Canada, the concept of common law marriage has all but faded away in many states in the US.

While both partners may have open eyes regarding their mutual day to day “freedom”, they may not intend to sign up for absolutely nothing in the event of a breakup or death twenty or thirty years into their relationship.

The bottom line is that unmarried cohabitants for the long haul, at least, would do well to ponder their legal position and potential vulnerability in the event of a breakup or their cohabitant’s death.

Even couples who wish to circumvent all the day to day obligations accompanying marriage can still take some fairly simple and straightforward steps to give their long term partner a measure of protection and comfort in the event of one’s death or departure from a lengthy cohabitation.

Those steps are:

1. A will or trust. A will makes provision in the event of a partner’s death. A trust can make provision in the event of a partner’s death or in the event of a breakup. But it is very important to note that a trust or will can generally be changed at any time as long as the person who made it is still alive and legally competent … without notice to someone who was previously a beneficiary. There may be circumstances and conditions that may render a will or trust irrevocable and unmodifiable. But it’s simpler and more common to go with step 2 …

2. A cohabitation agreement. This is a contract that spells out both parties’ understanding of their economic rights and obligations arising out of their relationship. The agreement can pertain to their breakup, the death of either partner, or both situations – as well as the death of both partners simultaneously.

Read more in this [Canadian] Financial Post editorial: Don’t wait till death do you part.

US Father and Brazilian Mother have Daughter together.

Back in 2008, when Mother did not have legal status in the US and the family lived in Illinois, Father and Mother were battling over custody of Daughter.

So Mother allegedly made off with Daughter to her native Brazil.

Father hasn’t seen or spoken to Daughter since.

Until recently, that is.

But a couple of weeks ago, Father, who now lives in Arizona, went to mediation with Mother regarding Daughter, in Brazil.

The mediation was different from the typical divorce or child custody mediation. Not only did Mother’s mother attend (unusual in itself), but both the US State Department (the US central authority) and the Brazilian Central Authority had representatives attend under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The marathon mediation session went on for fifteen hours. Kind of long for one session, but not altogether unheard of.

But the mediation was successful, and Mother and Father resolved custody and visitation and timesharing issues regarding Daughter.

And Father got to see Daughter for the first time in over three years.

Astonishingly, Daughter still remembered Father from before her abduction at two and one-half years of age.

And the two got to spend some quality time together in Brazil, having outings and re-establishing their father-daughter bond.

While the agreement cannot be described as overly generous to Father, it does at least provide for unlimited phone and internet-facilitated communication between Father and Daughter and for regular, if infrequent, timesharing and visitation with Daughter in Brazil until she is twelve and, thereafter, lengthier visitation and timesharing here in the US.

Meanwhile, Father continues to work on petitioning for legislation to facilitate blocking unauthorized removal of children from the US.

Mother could face federal criminal charges if she returns to the US.

Daughter is one of approximately twenty American children detained in Brazil despite the requirements of the Hague Convention.

On the other hand, Brazil claims that that about seventy Brazilian children are in the same boat here in the US.

Read more in this [Tempe, AZ] East Valley Tribune article: E.V. man finally sees daughter who was taken to Brazil; custody deal reached and this [Tempe, AZ] East Valley Tribune article: San Tan Valley man hopes international fight for daughter spurs law.