Husband, an attorney, dies of an apparent heart attack.

Wife, who has two young children from another relationship, is arrested on murder charges.

Wife was previously diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder with schizophrenic features, as well as pain medication addiction.

A dead dog, blood and human tissue are found in their home at the time of Wife’s arrest.

Husband had warned child welfare authorities that Wife could not care for her children alone.

Child welfare agency removes Wife’s children from her custody and seeks to terminate Wife’s parental rights to her children.

Authorities seek appointment of a guardian for Wife in the juvenile court proceedings, but the court court denies it.

The Court does appoint a guardian ad litem for the children though.

It is eventually determined that Husband’s death was a complication arising from old injuries unrelated to Wife.

But the child welfare agency persists in its efforts to terminate Wife’s parental rights and ensure that children are placed with their father.

The guardian ad litem takes the position that even supervised visitation with the children by Wife could be psychologically damaging to the children.

Read more in this Detroit News article: Judge won’t name guardian for lawyer’s widow cleared of his murder.

Lower income spouses ending long term marriages in Florida are well-positioned for awards of permanent monthly alimony. But permanent alimony isn’t the only option – and may not be the best option in all cases.

Increasing numbers of dependent spouses, even seniors, are forgoing permanent monthly alimony in favor of lump sum alimony and / or divisions of property that are more generous to them than an equal division of property.

How come? Prompt and full payment of lump sum alimony and/or generous property divisions:

1. eliminate the risk of the paying spouse’s death in permanent alimony cases

2. eliminate the risk of the paying spouse’s unemployment in permanent alimony cases

3. eliminate the risk of having to chase the spouse for payments the spouse fails to make in permanent alimony cases

4. eliminate their own disincentive to remarrying or cohabitating in permanent alimony cases

5. buys their independence, cuts the cord from their ex and ends ongoing contact with their ex

But when the dependent spouse’s lump sum payment or share of divided property is gone, they will most likely be out of luck getting any monthly alimony.

Read more in this Reuters piece: Gray divorce: The question of alimony.

Mother and Father have a long history with child protective services.

Some of their children have been taken into protective custody and placed in foster care a number of times.

But Mother and Father kept having more children.

They now have seven children.

Mother and Father have been charged over the years with substance abuse, domestic violence, educational neglect and medical neglect.

Mother and Father reportedly haven’t always visited regularly with their children while they were in foster care.

Mother and Father have allegedly misused government funds made available to them.

Mother and Father’s children have been in protective custody on and off for ten years.

Their children are stuck in limbo.

Family court judge orders the child welfare agency to petition to terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights, in the hope that the children may achieve permanency with different parents.

Read more in this Albany Examiner article: Judge orders ACS to file termination petition after 10 years of neglect.

Australian Husband and Wife have two Daughters and a younger Son.

Husband and Wife split up.

Australian family court must decide child custody.

Husband places great emphasis on Daughters’ academic performance. Husband pushes Daughters.

Husband assigns Daughters extra school work … more challenging than their teacher-assigned homework.

He also requires them to write daily reports not required by their teachers …

And requires Wife to read the reports to him on the phone every night.

Wife maintains that Husband and she argue constantly over Husband’s pressuring of Daughters.

Parenting experts frown upon parents imposing excessive pressure on children over academic performance.

And Daughters refused to see Husband for a year.

The family court concludes that Husband is too “rigid and obsessive”. And awards sole custody and sole parental responsibility to Wife.

The Australian family court also orders Husband to undergo family counseling with Daughters and Wife to try to foster a better relationship with Daughters.

Read more in this [Melbourne, Australia] Herald Sun article: Dad slammed over homework load.

According to a divorce financial analyst, the following are the Top Five financial mistakes people make in divorce:

1. Not appreciating the liquidity or illiquidity of each asset

2. Not appreciating the consequence of taxes on each asset and transfer

3. Not appreciating the special considerations associated with retirement assets (taxes, early withdrawal penalties, etc.)

4. Not appreciating legal obligations regarding debt, and how credit ratings work

5. Not appreciating the unpleasant consequences of trying to hide / transfer marital assets

Read more in this [State College, PA] Centre Daily Times article: Identify all assets in divorce.

Nebraska Mother is court-ordered to pay monthly child support of $244.

Mother actually pays $150 per month or less over the next seven years.

Mother is in child support arrears by about $24,000.

Mother is arrested on five felony counts of criminal non-support of children.

Mother enters an agreement under which she pleads guilty to three misdemeanor counts of attempted criminal non-support and is sentenced to probation. Mother is also required to pay $200 per month in child support until her sentence is complete.

Failure to pay support may be dealt with very differently from state to state.

Read more in this Plattsmouth [NE] Journal article: Plattsmouth woman pleads guilty on failure to pay child support.

Father and Mother are both from El Salvador.

Father and Mother have Daughter.

Father and Mother split up.

El Salvador family court awards Mother sole custody of Daughter, reportedly without challenge from Father.

Father asks Mother’s permission to bring Daughter to the US to take her to Disneyland. Mother agrees.

Father allegedly wrongfully retains Daughter in US.

Mother then files for return of Daughter to El Salvador under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

In federal court, Father contends that Mother’s litigation is untimely and that Daughter is settled in the US, that Daughter would be at grave risk of harm if returned to Mother in El Salvador and that Daughter wants to stay in the US.

The Arkansas court rejects each of Father’s positions in turn, finding fault in the legal analysis and/or taking a different view of the facts.

And, nearly two years after Father’s retention of Daughter, a federal judge in Arkansas orders Father to return Daughter to Mother in El Salvador … within fourteen days … at Father’s sole expense.

Read more in this [Fort Smith, AR] Times Record article: Judge Orders Girl, 7, Sent Back To Mom.

New Zealand immigrant Wife and Husband have three Children ranging from nine months to fourteen years of age.

Husband allegedly physically abuses Wife. The most recent reported domestic violence results in Husband’s criminal conviction for domestic battery.

Following Husband’s and Wife’s breakup and Wife’s reporting of his alleged abuse, Wife comes under scrutiny from immigration authorities in New Zealand.

Now that Wife and Husband are separated, Wife is required to earn a certain level of income to support a work visa.

But Wife’s income is below that threshold.

Fear of deportation is expected to have a chilling effect on reporting abuse of immigrants by other immigrants, even though such abuse appears to be on the rise.

Government assistance is available only to victims of abuse by New Zealand citizens or permanent residents.

But New Zealand talks tough on domestic violence.

Read more in this [New Zealand] Stuff article: Migrant faces deportation after abuse.

Louisiana family court hearing officer presides over child support cases.

Like so many people these days, family court hearing officer is a new and active FaceBook user.

Family court hearing officer has case before him involving Father with twenty-three (23) different children. Father is reportedly compensated for his work in cash, and does not pay taxes on his income.

Family court hearing officer posts information on FaceBook that is not personally identifiable (at least not too easily identifiable) about Father’s case … along with His Honor’s personal opinion that Father should seek additional employment to, uh, more constructively occupy some more of his time.

Now, family court hearing officer suffers backlash as a consequence of his posting on FaceBook.

Specifically, it has been suggested that this family court hearing officer lacks the neutrality and impartiality that every litigant appearing before a judge (or hearing officer) is entitled to.

It has also been suggested that the family court hearing officer’s comments were not “judicial”, that is, befitting a judge or hearing officer.

Family court hearing officer is now thinking twice about commenting on FaceBook again about parties to cases before him.

For the litigant appearing before a judge or hearing officer, there may be a lesson to be drawn from this incident.

It should also be noted that the family court hearing officer is reportedly new to the world of social networking, and apparently is not a judge sitting on the bench full time and exclusively, but rather a working attorney who hears only child support cases, on a part-time basis.

Read more in this [Thibodaux, LA] Daily Comet article: Facebook flap is a good lesson and this Houma [LA] Courier article: Facebook flub cause for regret by administrative judge.

Israel recognizes two types of marriages, those solemnized by a religious authority and those solemnized by a civil or secular authority.

Historically, ending of a marriage solemnized civilly is heard in a civil or secular family court, and ending of a marriage solemnized by a religious authority is heard in a religious court.

But in recent power plays, religious courts have claimed and exercised divorce jurisdiction over secular marriages. Including jurisdiction over child support, child custody and property division.

In effect overruling a 2006 decision of Israel’s High Court of Justice, holding that civil marriages can only be ended in secular family courts.

Two religious courts have gone so far as to hold that they have authority to resolve disputes over conditions husbands may impose to agree to a divorce. In one such case, the court denied a divorce to a wife who asserted that she is a victim of domestic violence by her husband.

Religious divorce law applied by religious courts may reflect gender bias that favors husbands in property division.

Read more in this Haaretz article: Rabbis claim new powers in divorces of couples married in civil unions.