Year: 2023

Child Custody, Religion and Sweat Lodges

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

For many parents, religion and child custody disputes can make you sweat. After a father in Nebraska is enjoined from taking his son to his Native American tribal sweat lodge, he raises the freedom of religion as his defense. How will the court balance freedom of religion with child custody?

Child Custody Sweat Lodge

Sweating the Small Stuff?

The parents have an 11-year old son. The parties never married, and their relationship ended 10 years ago. In 2015, the father was in a severe automobile accident in which he collided with a wall at 75 miles per hour. He suffered a broken back, a traumatic brain injury, and bleeding in his brain.

At that time, a court adopted the parents’ joint stipulation that the mother receive sole physical and legal custody and the father received parenting time set out under their parenting plan. Six years later the father asked to modify the Order. In addition to answering the modification petition, the mother tried to enjoin the father from taking their son to sweat lodges.

A sweat lodge is a hole which holds stones that have been warmed by fire, inside layers of tarps and blankets. The father’s best estimate of the temperature inside the sweat lodge is 100 degrees at most. The amount of time inside the sweat lodge with the door closed is usually 45 minutes, although the amount of time at the sweat lodge is usually 1½ hours.

The father wants his son to be involved with his activities. He defines an “Indigenous life” as “spirituality,” a way of life more than a religion. He fears that by not allowing his son in the sweat lodge, its participants will not be able to include him in prayers.

Additionally, the child will not be able to hear stories of his ancestors, because the elders with such wisdom tell those stories only while in the sweat lodge. He argues an injunction his son from participating in sweat lodges violates his First Amendment rights.

Conversely, the mother believed sweat lodges are unsafe. Her son takes Clonidine for his ODD, which affects his blood pressure. Neither parent checked with the child’s doctor to ensure the sweat lodge would not have a negative interaction with the Clonidine.

The trial court enjoined the father from taking his son to the tribal sweat lodge.

Florida Religion and Child Custody

I’ve written about the intersection of religion and divorce – especially as it relates to vaccinations. Religion, religious beliefs, and religious practices are not statutory factors Florida courts consider when determining parental responsibility.

Nor is religion an area in which a parent may be granted ultimate responsibility over a child. Instead, the weight religion plays in custody disputes grew over time in various cases.

That’s because placing restrictions on a parent’s right to expose his or her child to his or her religious beliefs have consistently been overturned in the absence of a clear, affirmative showing that the religious activities at issue will be harmful to the child.

Generally, Florida courts will not stop a parent from practicing their religion or from influencing the religious training of their child inconsistent with that of the other parent. Religious practices can be restricted, however, when there is a clear, affirmative showing that they “will be harmful to the child.”

Sweat today, smile tomorrow!

Generally, the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Additionally, parents have a constitutional right under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to exercise religious practices and spiritual beliefs with their child.

When a court finds that particular religious practices pose an immediate and substantial threat to a child’s temporal well-being, a court may fashion an order aimed at protecting the child from that threat.

In this case, although there was testimony regarding prayer and spirituality related to the sweat lodge, the appellate court found that the father’s participation in a perspiration ceremony did not constitute a religious practice.

The father was not an enrolled member of any tribe, he really wanted his son to experience the sweat lodge – not only to learn more about Native American culture – but also because he thought it taught his son self-control.

Moreover, a witness testified that people from all religions participate in sweat lodges, and do not need to be tribal members. The mother testified that religion was not practiced at the sweat lodge. Instead, the mother described it as “part of the Native American culture” and posed a danger to the child. Neither parent confirmed with a healthcare professional whether the sweat lodges could adversely interact with the child’s medication.

Because the trial court found the mother’s testimony persuasive that the sweat lodges posed a threat to the child’s well-being, it determined it was in the child’s best interests to restrict his ability to enter the sweat lodge. The higher court find no abuse of discretion in that decision.

The opinion is available at Reason.

Divorce and Euthanizing the Family Pet

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A New York court recently had to decide whether euthanizing the family pet without the knowledge or consent of the other parent during a divorce action violated a New York status quo order. To answer that question, the court had to first determine if the family dog was a marital asset to be distributed or a matter of custody and visitation.

pet custody 2

Cruel and Unusual?

The divorce was in May of this year. The Husband argued that the Wife vindictively violated an Automatic Order by putting their beloved family pet dog “B.” to death without reason, necessity or justification.

“B.” was their emotional support dog, and B.’s custody had not been determined. The Husband testified the Wife did not discuss B.’s medical condition or even give him an opportunity to spend time with B. before putting the dog down. As a result, he suffered extreme emotional distress over their dog’s death. The Husband asked for compensation for this loss in the amount of $1,500 as punitive damages and filed for contempt of court.

The Wife, on the other hand, argued that after the husband returned to the house with the police, he did not take the dog. The Wife also argued that the Husband’s pet was not an emotional support animal, could not even walk without a severe limp, had “too many” masses to count, and was on significant pain medication.

She also argued that she was given a prescription for a tranquilizer for the dog, transported the dog to the Vet, and the dog lunged at the Vet. Because of that, it was the Vet who recommended euthanasia.

The Husband responded that the family dog was adopted from a shelter, and that he was the dog’s sole caregiver. He denied that he was informed of the pet’s conditions, that she had the dog euthanized without his knowledge and consent. He argued that there was no urgent need for B.’s euthanasia.

Florida Pet Custody

I’ve written on the development of pet custody cases and statutes around the country before. Pet custody cases are becoming more and more prevalent as lawmakers promote the notion that the legal system should act in the best interests of animals. This is due, in part, because pet ownership has increased.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), 36.5% of American households owned a dog and 30.4% owned a cat in 2012. As many of these households know, companion animals usually become members of the family.

Florida doesn’t have pet custody or visitation laws. Florida courts are already overwhelmed with the supervision of custody, visitation, and support matters related to the protection of children.

Not all states have ruled out a visitation schedule for dogs like Florida. For instance, while Texas also views dogs as personal property, in one case a Texas court authorized visitation. A new California law changed the way pet custody is handled in divorce cases. The law gives judges the power to consider the care and the best interest of the pet when making decisions.

It’s Up to You New York

The Court reviewed the text of the Automatic Orders which state that neither party can sell, transfer, encumber, conceal, or in any way dispose of, without the consent of the other party in writing, or by order of the court, any property except in the usual course of business, for customary and usual household expenses or for reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with this action.

New York Automatic Orders are codified by a statute which is devoid of any reference to companion animals. Companion animals are not listed, nor provided in, the text of the Automatic Orders. The text of the statute only proscribes the disposition of property.

Additionally, the purpose of the law was to preserve the financial status quo of the parties. It accomplishes that goal by preventing a party in a divorce from dissipating assets in order to deprive a spouse of the property which may have monetary value.

New York statutes include pets in the equitable distribution of property section, but they also are part of the best interests analysis. Questions naturally come to mind. Was it the intent of the Legislature to continue to treat animals as property? Given that the drafters of the statute failed to include any definition – or guidance – as to how courts are supposed to determine “best interests” of animals, the Court is effectively left in a legal vortex to figure it out on its own.

The Court reasoned that the intent of the Legislature was to shift away from treating companion animals as property and ensure that they are given more consideration. Viewed in this way, the husband’s motion sounded punitive in nature, which is the antithesis of an application seeking an adjudication of civil contempt.

Additionally, even if the Court were inclined to find the Wife in contempt of court, the amount of the fine would be limited to $250. The husband had not proved the actual value of his loss of the dog and had not shown that actual loss or injury had been caused.

The court held that the euthanasia of B. the pet dog did not constitute a violation of the Automatic Orders even though the euthanasia was performed without a court order or agreement.

The opinion is here.

Grandparent Visitation and Remarriage

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

In Ohio, an order granting grandparent visitation comes into question after the remarriage of the child’s father. Does the father’s remarriage, and the adoption of the child by the new stepmother, cut off the grandmother’s court ordered visitation rights?

Grandparent Visitation

The Heart of It All

The child. L.S. was born in 2014, to unmarried parents. In 2019, a court awarded John Snyder – the child’s natural father – legal custody. At the same time, Zadunajsky, L.S.’s paternal grandmother, was granted companionship rights with the child.

Then in 2021, Snyder filed a motion to terminate or modify the grandmother’s visitation order because the child has now been adopted by his stepmother, and there is an intact family. The lower court granted the Father’s Motion for Termination without any hearing or the proffering of any evidence.

Instead, the magistrate ruled as a matter of law that in Ohio:

Once the adoption took place, the Paternal Grandmother no longer had standing to seek visitation. Once an adoption order has been entered, all grandparent visitation rights are terminated.

The lower court held there was no case law in Ohio that allows a court to grant or maintain established visitation once an adoption is granted. The legislature has not provided grandparent visitation in the case of an adoption.

This legal reality is very frustrating to courts because the main issue should be what is in the best interest of the child. The lower court also held that the Paternal Grandmother would only have standing to seek visitation upon the death of Father or the divorce of the stepmother.

The grandmother appealed arguing that an adoption by the step-mother of the child was a proper basis for terminating the pre-existing visitation of the paternal grandmother.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

Under current law in Florida, a grandparent may be awarded some visitation rights in very limited situations, such as when the child’s parents are deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state. If only one parent is deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state, the other parent must have been convicted of a felony or a violent offense in order for a grandparent to be able to petition for visitation.

Additionally, a Florida court has to also find that the grandparent has established a prima facie case that the surviving parent is unfit or poses a danger of significant harm to the child. If that burden is not met, the court must dismiss the grandparent’s petition.

In 2022, Florida amended the grandparent visitation law as a result of the murder of FSU Professor Dan Markel. Supporters of the amendment call it the “Markel Act.” Professor Markel was shot to death in his driveway by hitmen hired by his ex-brother in law. His ex-mother in law was recently arrested at Miami International Airport after attempting to board a one way flight to Vietnam.

The new law creates a rebuttable presumption for grandparent or step-grandparent visitation, but only in cases where one parent has been found criminally liable for the death of the other parent, or “civilly liable for an intentional tort causing the death” of the other parent.

The presumption may be overcome only if the court finds that visitation is not in the child’s best interests. The bill does not distinguish between biological grandparents and step-grandparents.

Somewhere in Ohio

The Ohio appellate court agreed with the grandmother and reversed. The opening words of the statute exempt a spouse and the relatives of the spouse from the effects of a final decree of adoption. As Snyder was spouse of the adopting stepparent and Zadunajsky was a relative of Snyder, they are exempt from those effects.

The Father also argued that previous cases affirmed divesting biological grandparents of their visitation and companionship rights. However, the legislature’s intent was to find families for children. The legislature was concerned that if adoptive parents are forced to agree to share parenting responsibilities with people they don’t know, potential adoptive parents will be deterred from adopting. But that legislative intent did not apply to the relatives of the spouse/biological parent in a stepparent adoption.

On remand, the family court may consider whether the continuation of Zadunajsky’s companionship rights is in the best interest of the child in light of the stepparent adoption.

The opinion is here.

International Child Custody and the Death Penalty

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Whether a U.S. state court will have subject matter jurisdiction over a foreign order in an international child custody case turns on whether a parent is subject to the death penalty in the country originally granting child custody. That painful issue is addressed in a recent appeal from the state of Washington.

Custody Death Penalty

Desert Heat

The Father, Ghassan, appealed a Washington state court’s jurisdiction and award of custody of his child, ZA, to the Mother Bethany. Ghassan and Bethany married in Saudi Arabia in 2013. Bethany is a U.S. citizen, and Ghassan is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. The couple had one child, ZA, in Saudi Arabia.

In 2017, Bethany filed for divorce in Saudi Arabia. In January 2019, a Saudi judge granted the divorce and custody of ZA to Bethany. But then in April, the father sued for custody of ZA on behalf of the paternal grandmother. The parties had a bitter custody battle in which the father accused Bethany of gender mixing, adultery, and insulting Islam.

The father presented damning evidence in the Saudi family court, including photographs of the mother in a bikini in the U.S., and a video of her doing yoga.

Adultery, insulting Islam, and insulting Saudi Arabia are crimes in Saudi Arabia which carry the death penalty. The Saudi judge derided Bethany as a foreigner, who embraced western cultural traditions, and even worse, lamented the child spoke fluent English!

The Saudi court awarded custody to the paternal grandmother who lived with the father. Bethany wisely reconciled with her ex, and convinced him to give her custody rights in exchange for her forfeiting child support. With the father’s permission to travel to Washington for a visit with her family, the mother and daughter left the sand dunes of Arabia for the Evergreen State.

The Battle Near-ish Seattle

Bethany filed a petition for temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and then a permanent parenting plan and child support. The father moved to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. In the alternative, he asked the court to enforce the Saudi Arabia custody order and waiver of all financial rights.

The family court denied enforcement of the Saudi order and the mother’s waiver of child support. The family court ruled that Washington had jurisdiction in a custody case if “the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.” The father appealed.

Then in 2021, Washington amended its UCCJEA to add a provision that Washington need not recognize another country’s custody order if:

the law of a foreign country holds that apostasy, or a sincerely held religious belief or practice, or homosexuality are punishable by death, and a parent or child may be at demonstrable risk of being subject to such laws.

On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals applied Washington’s new amendment to the UCCJEA. The Court of Appeals ruled that a Washington court need not enforce the Saudi child custody decree, and may exercise jurisdiction over custody, because Saudi Arabia punishes “apostacy” by death.

The Court of Appeals found that ample evidence supported the family judge’s ruling that the mother faced a death sentence if she returned to Saudi Arabia for her religious and political beliefs. Additionally, the father did not dispute that Bethany could receive the death sentence on her return to Saudi Arabia.

The unpublished opinion is here.

Parental Relocation Update

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

When a parent moves 50 miles from a principle residence, parental relocation is involved. There is a little known update to the law on how we modify custody and time-sharing orders in Florida. And in follow-up to a long standing investigation, police are closing in on the murder-for-hire ring involving one parental relocation.

Relocation Murder

Intrigue in Tallahassee

Tallahassee is the center for political intrigue, but not so much for big murder cases. Many groups have been pushing for alimony reform for years. This year, as part of the alimony reform bill, the governor signed a comprehensive law which impacts relocations of parents from their principle residences.

Timesharing with a child has always been subject to modification by the court.  After a final judgment of divorce or order about timesharing, either parent may seek modification of the timesharing on the grounds of a substantial change in circumstances.

But the party asking for modification of a timesharing order always had to allege that circumstances had substantially and materially changed since the original custody determination, that the change was not reasonably contemplated by the parties; and the child’s best interests justify changing custody.

Effective July 1, 2023, Florida repealed the requirement that a parent must show that a change in circumstance was unanticipated to modify a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule.

Accordingly, if the parents of a child are residing greater than 50 miles apart at the time of the entry of the last order establishing time-sharing and a parent moves within 50 miles of the other parent, then that move may be considered a substantial and material change in circumstances for the purpose of a modification to the time-sharing schedule, so long as there is a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child.

Miss Saigon

I have written about the Markel murder case before. Parental relocations can be very stressful. This week, the ex mother-in-law of a law professor who was murdered in his driveway, has been arrested at Miami International Airport.

Donna Adelson, 73, was arrested at MIA after she arrived at the airport where she and her husband had one-way plane tickets to Vietnam.

Her arrest came exactly one week after a jury convicted her son Charlie on all counts for his role in Markel’s murder. Charlie Adelson is a Fort Lauderdale dentist and the murder victim’s former brother-in-law.

Markel had been involved in a bitter divorce with Wendi Adelson, who filed for divorce in 2012. Markel later learned that she and their two children had moved to her parents’ home in Coral Springs.

In June 2013, a Leon County judge denied Wendi Adelson’s petition for relocation with the children to South Florida. A police affidavit stated: “Email evidence indicates Wendi’s parents, especially her mother, wanted Wendi to coerce Markel into allowing the relocation to South Florida”.

Early in 2014, Markel tried to enforce the judge’s ruling, claiming Donna made disparaging remarks about him to the children. He asked the court to limit the amount of time Donna spent with the children to prevent disparaging remarks. A hearing on the issue was postponed and hadn’t been rescheduled when Markel was murdered in the driveway of his Tallahassee home in July 2014.

One of the other defendants found guilty in the Markel murder had been receiving paychecks from the Adelson’s dental business. Investigators noticed “a significant increase in cash deposits” after Markel’s death.

Markel’s former wife, Wendi Adelson, testified that she didn’t think her brother had been involved in Markel’s murder.

She said that her brother gave her a television as a divorce present and that he joked it had been cheaper than hiring a hit man.

After Charlie Adelson was convicted, Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman told reporter that the investigation was ongoing.

The WPTV article is here.

Divorce Capital of the World

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

London has become known as the ‘divorce capital of the world’, proving that where you file your divorce can be of extreme importance. File in the wrong jurisdiction, like Afghanistan, and your divorce can be deemed a nullity. But file in the right jurisdiction, and you could get a windfall.

Divorce Capital

London Calling

Russian tycoon Vladimir Potanin, is currently making a legal challenge in the UK Supreme Court next week over a $6b marital settlement sought by his ex-wife, Natalia Potanina, which helped to make London’s reputation as the “divorce capital” of the world.

The couple married in 1983 in Russia. During the 1990s, Potanin had a reputed $20bn fortune, including shares in companies or other business entities that were not registered in his name – though Potanin was their beneficial owner, according to information contained in a 2021 Court of Appeal ruling.

Potanina was initially awarded roughly $41.5mn in 2014 by Russia’s courts but has claimed she is entitled to a far larger share of her husband’s fortune.

Potanina, who is Russian but who also has had a home in England since 2014, is now seeking half of the assets beneficially owned by her former husband. The case has prompted what one recent Court of Appeal ruling described as a “blizzard of litigation”.

In 2019, Potanina turned to the High Court in London, citing Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, legislation that gives the English courts the power to make financial orders if a marriage has been annulled outside the UK.

Potanina alleged in proceedings at the High Court that she had “made exhaustive efforts to obtain justice in Russia” but that the sum awarded in Moscow “does not even begin to meet my reasonable needs”. Her attempt to bring a claim in England was initially blocked by the High Court in 2019 on the grounds that the couple had little connection with Britain.

In the 2019 ruling, Mr Justice Jonathan Cohen said that if her claim went ahead, “there is effectively no limit to divorce tourism”. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision in 2021 paving the way for Potanina to bring the action in England.

Potanin is seeking to overturn that Court of Appeal ruling at the Supreme Court in a two-day hearing this month. If he loses the appeal, the battle is expected to move to the family courts.

Florida Divorce Jurisdiction

International divorces often bring up the issue of jurisdiction. Who sues whom, how do you sue for divorce, and in what country are problems in an international divorce case. The answers are more difficult than people think as I have written before.

A British divorce might give more money because British courts can disregard prenuptial agreements, and the cost of living is high in London. However, in Florida, the outcome could be different still.

Rules about children and hiding assets is a problem in every divorce, especially in international cases. The problem of discovery of hidden wealth is even bigger in an international divorce because multiple countries, and multiple rules on discovery, can be involved. The problems in an international divorce are more complicated because hiding assets from a spouse is much easier in some countries than in others.

Florida, at one extreme, requires complete disclosure of assets and liabilities. In fact, in Florida certain financial disclosure is mandatory. At the other extreme, there are countries which require very little disclosure from people going through divorce.

Choosing possible countries to file your divorce in can be construed as “forum shopping”. The European Union introduced a reform which tried to prevent “forum shopping”, with a rule that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. But the stakes are high: ending up in the wrong legal system, or with the wrong approach, may mean not just poverty but misery.

Residency for divorce is a very important jurisdictional requirement in every case. Generally, the non-filing party need not be a resident in the state in order for the court to divorce the parties under the divisible divorce doctrine. The court’s personal jurisdiction over the non-filing spouse is necessary only if the court enters personal orders regarding the spouse.

The durational domicile or residency requirement goes to the heart of the court’s ability to divorce the parties, because the residency of a party to a divorce creates a relationship with the state to justify its exercise of power over the marriage.

Rudie Can’t Fail

Potanin’s appeal of the order granting permission for Potanina to bring her claim in England, could become one of the biggest settlement cases recorded in the country. Potanin, who was hit with sanctions by the British government in 2022 because of his support for the Kremlin after Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, is due to begin on October 31st.

London’s reputation as the “divorce capital of the world” was earned because of a perception that courts there were awarding large financial settlements to financially weaker spouses.

The ruling on appeal is expected to have significant ramifications for other cases, particularly in relation to whether ex-partners can turn to the English courts to obtain a more favorable payouts.

The Financial Times article is here.

Three Men Family Law Case Update 2023

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The Three Men and a Family Law Case Update is back. Many of the changes to timesharing and alimony would cause some to say 2023 has been an “active” year in Florida  family law. So, for anyone interested in discussing the latest developments in Florida family law, and hasn’t already registered, I will be speaking at the Three Men and a Family Law Case Update 2023 on Thursday, October 19, 2023 starting at 12:00 PM to 1:30 PM

Case Law Update

Join me and fellow Florida Bar Board Certified Marital & Family Law attorneys, Reuben Doupé and Cash A. Eaton, for an interactive discussion on some of the major Florida marital and family law changes that have redrawn the family law landscape in 2023.

The course is an online webinar, and we will be reviewing many of the most important recent appellate opinions within Florida Marital and Family Law. Reuben, Cash and I will cover a wide range of topics from Florida’s newest family law cases.

Sponsored by the Florida Bar Family Law Section, attendees will be eligible for 1.5 CLE credits.

Registration is still open so register here.

Father Must Share Custody with Mother’s Boyfriend

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

In a custody decision that will surprise many family lawyers, a Pennsylvania court ordered the natural father of his child to equally share custody of his child with the Mother’s boyfriend. It is a decision that is putting the nature of parental rights back in the news. Will the natural father’s appeal be granted?

Custody Boyfriend

Loco Parentis

The child, S.J., was born in April 2020. At the time, the mother was in a relationship with a man named Kareem Smith. At the time of S.J.’s birth, Kareem thought he was the biological father.

Then the mother died in May 2021, and her boyfriend continued to act as the father.

Victor got a paternity test which confirmed that he, not Kareem, was the biological father of S.J. The Mother’s boyfriend, Kareem, was merely acting in loco parentis – a Latin term meaning “in place of a parent.”

About a month after the paternity test results showed he was the natural father, Victor filed an action for sole custody of S.J. against Kareem. A custody hearing was held in February 2023.

Victor’s position was that Kareem was effectively an interloper who was interfering with Victor’s rights as the parent.  The family court held a few proceedings to introduce Victor to S.J.  Afterwards, the family court entered a temporary order.

The temporary order determined that Kareem was a psychological parent of the child, or was in loco parentis status because of his involvement as the child’s perceived father for more than a year. The court then awarded shared legal custody and shared physical custody on a 50/50 basis to the two fathers.

The natural father appealed.

Florida De Facto Parents

I’ve written about parental responsibility in Florida before. Florida uses the parental responsibility concept. Generally, shared parental responsibility is a relationship ordered by a court in which both parents retain their full parental rights and responsibilities.

Under shared parental responsibility, parents are required to confer with each other and jointly make major decisions affecting the welfare of their child. In Florida, shared parental responsibility is the preferred relationship between parents when a marriage or a relationship ends.

The test applied to determine parental responsibility is the best interests of the child. Determining the best interests of a child is no longer entirely subjective. Instead, the decision is based on an evaluation of certain factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the child’s family.

Florida courts have considered the role of loco parentis, or psychological parents, like grandparents for instance, in a child’s life. Generally, in a dispute between a natural father and de facto parents, custody can be denied to the natural father only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the natural father abandoned the child, or is unfit, or placing the child with the natural father will be detrimental to the child’s welfare.

Heartbreaker in the Quaker State

On appeal, the Father argued that the trial court erred granting the mother’s boyfriend shared physical and legal custody of the child when the weight of the evidence was against shared custody.

The appellate court noted that in Pennsylvania, a natural parent has a prima facie right to custody, which will be forfeited only if convincing reasons appear that the child’s best interest will be served by an award to the third party.

The appellate court found no basis for changing the custody order because the family court judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, the need for stability and continuity in the child’s life was sufficient to overcome the presumption that custody be awarded to the natural parent. Because of the child’s “need for continuity”, and the fact that the two fathers co-parented well, the court affirmed the shared custody order.

The decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is here.

Comity and an International Divorce in Texas

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

International divorce cases may require recognition here, or comity, as one couple from Pakistan discovered. After a woman received nothing from her husband’s talaq divorce in Pakistan, she then sought a property division in a Texas divorce from her real estate developer husband. Is the Texas family court required to recognize the Pakistan divorce decree as valid?

Comity International Divorce

A Scam in Pakistan?

The former wife, Azhar, and her former husband, Choudhri, were married in Pakistan. At that time, Azhar lived in Pakistan and her husband lived in Texas. After obtaining her visa, she traveled to Houston where they lived together as husband and wife.

The Wife returned to Pakistan to renew her visa. Reports claim she was tricked into going back to Pakistan so her husband could take advantage of Sharia Law to divorce her. While she was in Pakistan, he initiated a talaq divorce, the results of which meant she got nothing from the marriage.

Texas Hold‘em

The Wife filed for divorce in Texas, and the Husband tried to dismiss the case. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the Husband’s motion to dismiss based on comity, finding:

“enforcement of the certificate of divorce issued in Pakistan would be contrary to Texas public policy and would, if enforced, violate the Wife’s basic right to due process.”

Around the same time, the former wife was also challenging the Pakistan divorce in the Pakistan courts. At first, the Pakistan trial court ruled in the former wife’s favor, declaring their divorce void. But the former husband appealed, and the Pakistani appellate court reversed and dismissed the wife’s case. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the high court affirmed.

Back in Texas, the trial court entered a new order recognizing the Pakistan Supreme Court’s judgment that the divorce was valid. The Texas court dismissed the wife’s divorce action, and dismissed her property division claim with prejudice.

The wife appealed, arguing the trial court should not have granted comity to the Pakistani divorce because she was not personally served, and was only provided notice five days prior to the divorce by publication in a local circular.

In some cases, American courts may defer to the sovereignty of foreign nations according to principles of international comity. But U.S. states are not always required to give full faith and credit to foreign country judgments. For instance, a U.S. court will often decline to recognize a foreign divorce judgment if it was obtained without due process.

On appeal the Texas court found the original order dismissing the Texas divorce was made prior to the Pakistan Supreme Court’s involvement. The second Texas trial order recognizing the Pakistan Supreme Court was deserving of comity, and the Texas appellate court affirmed.

The opinion is available from MK Family Law here.

Divorce, Family Law and Constitutional Rights

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Today is September 17th: Constitution Day. For anyone involved in divorce and family law cases, your Constitutional rights are always at risk. In New Jersey that was recently proved when a family judge restrained a woman from posting a video about her husband’s refusal to give her a religious divorce.

Divorce Constitution

Gotta Get a Get

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they created. Written 236 years ago, the U.S. Constitution is still the country’s most important legal instrument – even impacting people going through a simple divorce today.

For many Americans, religion plays an important part of finalizing their divorce. All three major monotheistic religions require a religious divorce to remarry within the faith. Without a religious divorce, a second marriage will not be recognized.

Agunot refers to Jewish women who are separated from their husbands but unable to obtain a legal Jewish divorce, leaving them barred from remarriage under Judaism’s adultery laws. One New Jersey woman denied a “Get” – a jewish divorce – decided to take matters into her own hands. She posted a video accusing her estranged husband of improperly withholding a get, and asking community members to “press” her husband to give the get.

After the video was made, the husband obtained a restraining order based on a domestic violence complaint alleging harassment. He testified that he received numerous phone calls from unknown numbers, a photograph of himself identifying him as a “get refuser” and calling on others to “tell him to free his wife.” Additionally, he was adamant that he was not a get refuser.

The trial judge found that the communication was “invasive” of the husband’s privacy, holding:

“one cannot hide behind the First Amendment when that communication is invasive of the recipient’s privacy.”

The trial judge entered a temporary restraining order against the Wife’s video and she appealed.

Florida and Constitutional Rights

I’ve written about the intersection of the U.S. Constitution and divorce cases before. This Constitution Day it is important to understand that family courts have a lot of power which can impact your constitutional rights.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution has an express right of privacy clause in it. Florida courts have interpreted the Florida Constitution to afford even greater privacy rights than those in the U.S. Constitution.

Accordingly, Florida courts have to carefully balance a parent’s constitutional right against the state’s interests. When the matter involves religious beliefs, family courts generally do not make decisions in favor of a specific religion over the objection of the other parent. The court should also avoid interference with the right of a parent to practice their own religion and avoid imposing an obligation to enforce the religious beliefs of the other parent.

First Amendment Gets Going

On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division held that the wife’s video was constitutionally protected speech. The appellate court vacated the temporary restraining order holding: a “general history” of violence was insufficient to vitiate First Amendment protections.

The video, whether viewed on its own or in the context in which it was disseminated, does not fall outside the First Amendment’s protection. Recall that the trial judge had concluded that the video was not protected by the First Amendment because members of the Jewish community would respond violently to plaintiff being identified as a get refuser.

However, the trial judge’s reliance on an unspecified general history of violent treatment to which get refusers were subjected was insufficient to render the wife’s video a true threat or an imminent danger to satisfy the incitement requirement.

To qualify as incitement and lose First Amendment protection a communication must be both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and . . . likely to incite or produce such action.”

The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division opinion is here.