A Canadian city recently marked their Parental Alienation Day with a bubble-blowing event.

Parental Alienation Day was also recognized in Australia, Sweden, Germany and here in the US.

Parents, mainly fathers, expressed their sadness and trustration that they have no voice in the Canadian family courts, and are cut off from their children in divorce.

But the real message is that parental alienation hurts the children as much as the alienated parent.

Children miss out on a relationship with their parent. And tend not to do as well as a result.

The damage can be serious and lasting..

Read more in this Barrie [Canada] Examiner article: Bursting the bubble on parental alienation.

North Carolina Husband and Wife have two Children, ages 5 and 11.

Wife is diagnosed with breast cancer.

Husband files for divorce, relocates far away from Children and then files for primary custody of Children.

Now Mother’s cancer has metastacized and she is at Stage 4.

The North Carolina family court modifies child custody of Children, awards primary custody ro Husband and orders that Children relocate to Illinois in mid-June.

Wife asserts that her disease is well-managed and does not interfere with her ability to parent Children. Wife also describes Husband as abusive.

However, based on the testimony of a forensic psychologist, the divorce court concludes that “children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non-ill parent”.

There is nothing to suggest that this statement is anything but the personal opinion of that forensic psychologist, unsupported by any scientific studies.

There is no indication that any other factors are considered in modifying custody.

This case has sparked hot debate, petitions and calls for the presiding judge’s dismissal from the bench.

Wife is considering appealing the ruling.

Read more in this Time magazine article: Should a Mother Lose Custody of Her Kids Because She Has Cancer?.

Statistically, women are far more likely to be victims of domestic violence, including stalking, than men are, and men are far more likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence than women are.

According to a study, only eight percent of victims of harassment are men. And women are seldom stalkers.

That’s on terra firma. But things may be changing in the internet era.

A study conducted in the UK concludes that over one-third of victims of stalking via the internet, known as cyber-stalking, are men … and their cyber-stalkers are all women.

The study suggests that women these days are having greater difficulty recovering from rejection … or that perhaps the internet makes it easier and safer for women to engage in stalking behaviors … with anonymity or the appearance of anonymity, or assumed personas and identities.

The study reports that women perpetrate stalking on the internet by leaving messages on victims’ social networking web pages and through e-mails, and by communicating with victims via phony accounts and identities.

Read more in this Times of India news article: Facebook encourages girls to stalk ex-boyfriends.

Bermuda Husband and Wife have a five year old Son together.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Bermuda family court awards custody of Son to Husband.

Wife abducts Son and deprives Husband of any contact with Son for nine years. It appears that Wife and Son have been living in various locations in Florida since 2003, along with Son’s younger half-sister.

Mother reportedly has been arrested on more than one occasion for theft.

Son is located in a homeless shelter in western Florida, and authorities arrange for Son to be reunited with Husband.

Husband travels to the US for his first contact with Son in years. They enjoy spending several precious hours together.

But immediately prior to a scheduled mandatory US court appearance, Wife and Son disappear again.

This despite Husband’s application for Son’s return to Bermuda under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Read more in this [Bermuda] BerNews news article: Father’s Heartbreak: Jasai Swan-Burrows and this [Bermuda] Royal Gazette article: Heartbreak as father’s reunion with son ends abruptly.

Sixty-five year old Indian Man lives with thirty year old Woman for three years in India.

Man puts Woman out of his home.

Now Woman seeks alimony and spousal support.

Man objects, asserting that Woman is his housekeeper and not even his wife.

Family court awards Woman temporary alimony.

Man appeals.

The appellate court affirms the divorce court’s ruling, holding that stringent proof of a valid marriage is not necessary at the temporary relief stage of the case. It is sufficient that the two gave the appearance of a married couple.

Read more in this Indian Express News Service article: Marriage valid or not, man must pay alimony: Court.

It’s one of the most misunderstood areas of the law for divorcing spouses. So this bears repeating.

When it comes to debts, family court can only make orders as to and as between the spouses. Family court cannot enter orders which bind third party creditors.

So when the family court allocates a joint debt to one spouse, that does not absolve the other spouse of their legal obligations to creditors. It just creates an obligation from one spouse to the other.

If the spouse to whom a joint debt is allocated doesn’t pay it, the credit of both spouses will take a hit … and the creditor can pursue payment from the other spouse, who thought they were off the hook.

Now that spouse can still take their ex back to family court to enforce the allocation of the debt and obtain an order for reimbursement. But that does not affect the creditor’s rights.

It is sometimes possible for one spouse to have their name removed from a debt at the time of the divorce, but that isn’t typical, especially for non-mortgage, unsecured debt.

In the case of property buyouts by one spouse of the other, a refinancing of the mortgage can be utilized to take the “bought out” spouse’s name off the note and mortgage. The refinancing is essentially a new transaction for new “compensation” to the lender, and the lender re-underwrites the modified loan to satisfy itself that the soon-to-be-single spouse can carry the modified obligation.

But, with unsecured debts, creditors have little incentive to release a spouse from a debt and give up a potential source of payment. So they likely won’t do so.

Whereever possible, it is always “cleanest” to pay off joint debt and replace it with individual debt in the sole name of the spouse to whom the debt is allocated. Unfortunately though, that is often not feasible.

Moral of the story: no matter what is stated in a marital settlement agreement or ordered by a divorce court, neither spouse is free of joint debt until it is paid in full and discharged.

Read more in this El Paso Inc. news article: Debt and divorce decrees.

Mother and Father both enter the US illegally and remain in Arkansas.

Mother remains undocumented for years. Father secures legal status on a temporary but renewing basis.

The government pursues increased child support from Father for their Daughter.

And then Father looks to get custody of Daughter.

To modify custody, Arkansas requires a material change of circumstances since entry of the previous child custody order.

At trial, the family court modifies child custody and awards custody of Daughter to Father. It appears that the trial judge bases his ruling upon his personal political and policy views, rather than Arkansas child custody law.

On appeal, Arkansas’ highest court reverses and restores custody of Daughter to Mother.

It turns out that the circumstances Father complains of, Mother’s undocumented status and lack of a valid driver’s license, are exactly the same as they were at the time of Mother’s and Father’s divorce. They were apparently acceptable to Father then, and the marital settlement agreement was approved by the family court and adopted in its final judgment.

Further, the evidence at trial showed that Father had had little or no contact with Daughter for about two years.

Read more in this Arkansas Times piece: Illegal Immigrant.

In New Haven, CT, a family court support magistrate doesn’t punish parents who don’t pay support.

Yet fifty-five percent more support payments are actually being made through her courtroom.

How is that?

The magistrate helps parents address the reason they are behind in their support payments, be it a substance abuse problem, a homelessness challenge, a criminal record, a limited education or an unemployment situation.

The pilot program is called Problem Solving Initiative, and it specifically targets people with severe challenges, such as those above.

And directs them to community services that may be able to help them, so that they will be able to support their children.

Mental health and substance abuse professionals, as well as college and law school interns, are on hand right in the courtroom.

Read more in this Hartford [CT] Courant article: A Helping Hand, Rather Than Jail, For Parents Who Owe Child Support.

Last October I posted about an unusual case in Mexican Mother Wins Return of Daughter Who Runs Away to Canadian Aunt Because of Alleged Abuse.

Mother was awarded custody of Daughter in her parents’ divorce, but Daughter has maintained that Mother abused her. Although Canada granted Daughter refugee status, Mother secured Daughter’s deportation and return to Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

On appeal in Canada, however, a reversal paved the way for Daughter’s return to Canada for lack of a risk assessment hearing prior to her deportation. With intervention in the case from the UN Commissioner for Refugees and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the appellate court granted Daughter another hearing.

But Mexican authorities had no interest in the Canadian court’s rulings. So Daughter once again fled Mexico, with help from the Aunt with whom she had lived in Canada.

Now Daughter is back in Canada, which she considers her home. And a Canadian family court has ruled that she may remain in Canada permanently, in the care of her aunt.

Read more in this Canada.com news article: Teen embroiled in international custody battle can stay in Canada and this CBC News article: Deported teen refugee back in Toronto.

Girlfriend meets Boyfriend online.

Girlfriend is head over heels with Boyfriend.

Boyfriend tells Girlfriend he is a minister …a bishop … a doctor … a real estate expert … and an attorney.

Boyfriend describes himself online as someone who can help his dates with the gamut from their faith to their finances.

He speaks of marrying Girlfriend.

But first, he reportedly manipulates her into signing a Cohabitation Agreement. A beaut.

The agreement assigns Boyfriend authority to “rule over the affairs of the home”, and holds Girlfriend legally “responsible for all domestic house chores”.

And, of course, allocates “full authority to manage all of the[ir financial] affairs without limitation”. That pertains to all financial accounts, which are required to be “turned over” to him.

Boyfriend also has Girlfriend sign over power of attorney to him as to her property. And a deed to her home.

And Girlfriend isn’t the first victim of Boyfriend’s scheme.

Although Boyfriend has been sued civilly though, he has never been prosecuted for his conduct.

A reasonable cohabitation agreement can be extremely valuable in laying out the legal and financial framework for romantic partners living together outside of marriage (or, for that matter, people who are not romantic partners).

But an unreasonable and overreaching cohabitation agreement (and other transactions) can create a significant expense and hassle, and do financial damage to at least one of the parties to it.

Before entering a cohabitation agreement or other financial transactions with a third party, it is prudent to run a reality check by at least discussing the agreement, ideally with an attorney, but alternatively with another neutral, objective, mature third party with some wisdom, life experience and some experience managing financial affairs.

Read more in this [Charlotte, NC] WBTV 3 news article: 3 women victimized by man they met in on-line dating website.