Month: May 2023

Beautiful No Fault Divorce

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Divorce lawyers hear many reasons for filing for divorce. “My spouse is too beautiful”, however, is a new one. But it does not matter as most states abolished fault as a ground for divorce. But in some state legislatures there is an effort to overturn our system of no-fault divorce.

beauty no fault divorce

In the eye of the beholder

A prominent right-wing commentator, Steven Crowder, is making waves this month after he complained his ex-wife started the divorce process on her own. Crowder emphasized the divorce was against his will, and is blaming the no-fault system of divorce:

“Since 2021, I’ve been living through what has become a horrendous divorce. . . This was not my choice. My then wife decided she didn’t want to be married anymore. And, in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”

Crowder’s comments come on the back of recent proposals by state legislatures to overturn no-fault divorce laws on the books in Texas, Nebraska, and Louisiana. The repeal of no-fault divorce would hit Zambian husband, Arnold Masuka, hard.

Masuka has taken the extraordinary step of seeking the dissolution of his marriage because his wife is exceptionally beautiful.

This surprising revelation left officials and witnesses in awe at a local court in the Zambian capital city of Lusaka. The newspaper, Zambian Observer, reported that during the divorce proceedings, Masuka shocked those present in court when he candidly expressed to the judge that his wife, Hilda Muleya, possessed a beauty that had caused him countless sleepless nights.

The sheer allure of his wife had become an overwhelming source of anxiety for him, leading him to make this unconventional request. Masuka explained to the court that he lived in a state of perpetual fear, constantly worried about the possibility of losing his wife to another man.

Florida No-Fault Divorce

The official term for divorce in Florida is “dissolution of marriage”, and you don’t need fault as a ground for divorce. Florida abolished fault as a ground for divorce. Interestingly, given the recent attack on no-fault divorce, it was former Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce bill.

The no fault divorce law eliminated the need for couples to fabricate spousal wrongdoing in pursuit of a divorce; indeed, one likely reason for Reagan’s decision to sign the bill was that his first wife, Jane Wyman, had unfairly accused him of “mental cruelty” to obtain a divorce in 1948.

I’ve written about divorce and infidelity issues before. The no-fault concept in Florida means you no longer have to prove a reason for the divorce, like your wife’s exceptional beauty. Instead, you just need to state under oath that your marriage is “irretrievably broken.”

Before the no-fault divorce era, people who wanted to get divorce either had to reach agreement in advance with the other spouse that the marriage was over or throw mud at each other and prove wrongdoing like adultery or abuse.

No-fault laws were the result of trying to change the way divorces played out in court. No fault laws have reduced the number of feuding couples who felt the need to resort to distorted facts, lies, and the need to focus the trial on who did what to whom.

Lost in Lusaka

Masuka’s increasing fear of his wife’s beauty had grown so intense, that he found himself hesitating to leave his wife Hilda unattended. He stopped going to work, and was totally consumed by the nagging thought that his wife might be lured away by other suitors.

In Masuka’s eyes, Hilda, originally from Gokwe, Zimbabwe, was the epitome of beauty. Among all the women he had encountered in his life, none had captivated him quite like her. This powerful attraction had become both a blessing and a burden, fueling his insecurity and prompting him to take this unusual legal recourse.

As the court listened attentively to Masuka’s heartfelt plea, it became evident that his intentions were driven by genuine concern for his wife’s well-being. However, whether the dissolution of their marriage was a viable solution remained to be seen.

Ultimately, the fate of Arnold Masuka’s marriage rests in the hands of the court, which will consider the implications of his request for dissolution.

The Nigeria World article is here.

UCCJEA and Gender Dysphoria

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The UCCJEA, the scaffold of our interstate child custody system, has two dueling new exceptions related to child gender dysphoria. What will be the impact on interstate child custody lawyers with the latest UCCJEA changes sweeping the country?

UCCJEA Sex

An Increasing Health Care Concern

Children in the U.S. can identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth. The number of children identifying as gender nonconforming and transgender is growing.

Health technology company Komodo Health Inc., attempted to quantify the number of children seeking and receiving care by analyzing millions of health insurance claims. Between 2017 and 2021, the number of new diagnoses of children aged 6-17 with gender dysphoria increased by nearly 178 percent.

Of these cases, a smaller number of children with gender dysphoria are choosing medical interventions to express their identity. Appropriate treatment for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria is the subject of debate internationally, and not surprisingly, among different U.S. states.

Dysphoria in the UCCJEA

I have written and spoken on many issues related to the UCCJEA as a family law attorney. Next month I will be presenting an introduction to the UCCJEA for foreign lawyers at the IV Congreso Internacional de AIJUDEFA in Mexico.

The UCCJEA is a uniform act created to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with other courts in child custody matters. The UCCJEA also promotes cooperation with other courts and ensures that a custody decree is rendered in the state which is in a superior position to decide the best interest of the child. The UCCJEA helps to facilitate enforcement of custody decrees; and has the aspirational goal of promoting uniformity of the laws governing custody issues.

One of the ways the UCCJEA helped to avoid jurisdictional competition in child custody matters is by solving the historic problem of different courts issuing different orders covering the same child. Under the UCCJEA one state is a child’s home state, and the home state keeps exclusive jurisdiction to modify the custody arrangement unless, for example, the child is another state and there is an emergency.

uccjea

Dueling Banjos

Periodically, child custody disputes can become emergencies. The UCCJEA provides deliverance from such disputes by authorizing any state – even if it is not the home state of the child – to take temporary emergency jurisdiction to protect a child subject to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse.

California recently amended its version of the UCCJEA. California Governor Gavin Newsom – fresh from having visited Florida to poke fun of Gov. DeSantis – signed a bill expanding temporary emergency jurisdiction in California under the UCCJEA.

Effective this year, California courts are now authorized to assume temporary emergency jurisdiction of children in California, who are subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, “or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care.”

Florida recently amended its version of the UCCJEA. Gov. DeSantis – fresh from having visited California to poke fun of Gov. Newsom – signed a bill expanding temporary emergency jurisdiction in Florida under the UCCJEA.

Effective this year, Florida courts are now authorized to assume temporary emergency jurisdiction of children in Florida, who are subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, “or It is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child has been subjected to or is threatened with being subjected to sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures.”

The California Senate bill is here. The Florida Senate bill is here.

International Child Abduction Compliance Report

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Each year, a country’s compliance with laws governing international child abduction is evaluated in a report issued by the U.S. Department of State. These annual reports show Congress the countries determined to have been engaged in a pattern of noncompliance. They also show if any countries cited in the past improved.

Compliance Report

2023 Report

Under the Hague Convention, the U.S. State Department is tasked as our Central Authority. The Central Authority facilitates implementation and operation of the Hague Convention on child abduction in the U.S.

After passage of the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act, the State Department was later assigned the duty of submitting annual Action Reports on International Child Abduction to Congress on the specific actions taken in response to countries determined to have been engaged in a pattern of noncompliance.

In 2022, a total of 165 abducted children were returned to the United States.

The 2023 Annual Report is an overview of the Department’s efforts to support the resolution of international parental child abduction cases.

The Department also reports on their work with foreign governments and authorities to promote procedures to encourage the prompt resolution of existing international abduction cases. The aim is that, in general, international custody disputes should be resolved in the competent court of the country of the child’s habitual residence.

Countries which don’t meet their Convention obligations, or fail to work with the U.S. to resolve child abduction cases, can face “appropriate actions.”

Florida International Child Abduction

I’ve written and spoken about international child abduction compliance under the Hague Convention before. The Hague Convention seeks to deter child abductions by a parent by eliminating their primary motivation for doing so: to “deprive the abduction parent’s actions of any practical or juridical consequences.”

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

The Hague Convention is implemented in the United States through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. Then in 2014, the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act was signed into law.

Even if a country is a signatory country and treaty partners with the U.S., returning a wrongfully retained or abducted child may still be complicated because some signatory countries are not complying with the Convention. That is where the State Department’s annual reporting comes in.

ICAPRA increases the State Department’s annual reporting requirements. Each year, the Department not only submits an Annual Report on International Child Abduction to Congress, it submits another report on the actions taken towards countries determined to have been engaged in a pattern of noncompliance.

Don’t cry for me, Argentina

The State Department reports include both countries where there is a treaty relationship with the United States under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, and countries where no treaty relationship exists, such as Russia.

The 2023 Action Report reviews the results of cases which were resolved the previous year. Some of the countries in our hemisphere which failed to regularly implement and comply with the Hague Convention include Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Ecuador, Honduras, and Peru.

The Convention has been in force between the United States and Argentina since 1991.  In 2022, Argentina had continued to demonstrate a pattern of noncompliance.  Specifically, the Argentine judicial authorities failed to regularly implement and comply with the provisions of the Convention.

As a result of this failure, 50 percent of requests for the return of abducted children under the Convention remained unresolved for more than 12 months. Granted, there was only 2 abduction cases in Argentina. One case was resolved with the return of the child, and the other one is still unresolved after a year. Argentina was previously cited for demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance in the 2015-2022 Annual Reports.

ICAPRA also adds steps the U.S. can take when a country refuses to cooperate in the resolution of overseas abduction and access cases involving American children. The steps can include: a demarche (a petition or protest through diplomatic channels); public condemnation; delay or cancelation of official, or state visits; suspension of U.S. development assistance; and even the withdrawal or suspension of U.S. security assistance.

The 2023 Report is available here.

AAML, Trusts & Divorce

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

I was honored to be invited to speak at the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) Florida Chapter’s 45th Institute on Family Law on the topic of trusts and divorce. I spoke with co-presenters: AAML Fellow, J.J. Dahl, and estate and trust attorneys, S. Dresden Brunner, and Sarah Butters. The AAML Institute is the premier, advanced continuing education opportunity for family law in Florida.

Trusts and divorce 2

Trust Basics

Divorces typically involve the equitable distribution of marital property, the payment of spousal support, maintenance and alimony to a spouse, and child support for the children. Worryingly, trusts have increasingly become a problem in divorce proceedings.

Estate planners love to use acronyms to describe their estate planning tools: ILIT, QTIP, QPRT, SLAT, and of course, APT (asset protection trusts). An asset protection trust is just that, a trust designed to protect a donor-spouse’s assets from creditors, while still allowing some discretionary access to the assets for the donor.

By design, APTs don’t allow the donor-spouse to have complete access to the funds, and decision making about paying distributions is usually in the hands of an independent trustee.

Florida does not permit asset protection trusts. However, Florida residents create them in other states, most notably Nevada, and even in other countries.

Trusts can raise several issues when divorcing. Some types of trusts are created by third party grantors, while others are self-settled trusts. In divorces, one of the two spouses is the beneficiary, and may have other roles. The assets in third party trusts belong to the trust, not the spouse. These types of trusts are not usually subject to equitable distribution, but the income may be calculated for determining support. There is also the possibility that assets may be subjected to attachment by the court.

Trusts may be revocable and irrevocable. Irrevocable trusts are generally created by one of the spouses and may be marital unless solely separate funds were used to fund it. A key distinction of revocable trusts is that the grantor keeps control over the assets, and in a divorce, a court can order trust assets to be distributed.

Untrustworthy

Irrevocable trusts are not themselves marital assets subject to distribution, even if a spouse intentionally funds it with marital property. Trusts are governed by the probate code, and there is no corresponding ability to ‘pierce the veil’ in trust law as there is for corporations.

Trusts may also be an obstacle when trying to recover unpaid alimony and child support. This is where the different public policies supporting probate law and family law clash. People create trusts legally, for the purpose of protecting property and income for the beneficiary. Some trusts are created to protect beneficiaries from themselves. During a divorce, Family law seeks an equitable distribution of marital assets, not asset protection.

Trusts typically have spendthrift clauses to protect beneficiaries. A spendthrift clause prevents a creditor who is owed money by a beneficiary from forcing the trustee to pay over the beneficiary’s share of the trust.

In essence, as long as the trust assets are still held by the trustee, they are out of reach of the creditor. If not for spendthrift clauses, trust beneficiaries who owe creditors money could see their trust benefits attached by a court when trust funds are distributed.

Spendthrift clauses, which are an essential part of trusts, can be a huge problem in divorce. Former spouses may be owed alimony and child support by a trust beneficiary. In those cases, former spouses are considered creditors of the beneficiary who is obligated to pay. When alimony and child support are owed by a trust beneficiary, many factors will impact whether a court will be able to order alimony and child support to be paid from trust assets.

More about the AAML Florida Chapter and the Institute is available here

 

 

Divorce Waiting Period

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Many U.S. states, including Florida, have a waiting period before you can divorce your spouse. In India, the Supreme Court just ruled that it can enter a divorce without a waiting period in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Divorce Waiting Period

India Divorce Waiting Period

The Supreme Court’s judgment relates to a 2014 case filed in the top court, titled Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, where the parties sought a divorce under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

The procedure to obtain a divorce by mutual consent is laid down in Indian law, which states that both parties can file a petition for dissolution of their marriage by presenting a decree of divorce to the district court, on the grounds that they have been living separately for a year or more or that they have not been able to live together or have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage.

However, both parties seeking divorce have to wait between 6 to 18 months from the date on which they presented their petition to obtain the divorce decree. The waiting period for divorce is given so that the parties have ample time to withdraw their plea.

After the passage of the mandated period and hearing both parties, if the court is satisfied, it may conduct an inquiry and pass a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage with effect from the date of the decree. However, these provisions apply when at least one year has elapsed since the marriage took place.

Additionally, divorce can be sought by either spouse on grounds like adultery, cruelty, desertion, religious conversion, insanity, leprosy, venereal disease, renunciation, and presumption of death. In circumstances of exceptional hardship or depravity, a divorce petition may be allowed under Section 14, even before the lapse of one year since marriage.

Florida Divorce Waiting Period

I’ve written about divorce waiting periods, and your rights in divorce before. Like India and other states, Florida also has a divorce waiting period of sorts. Although it’s not as long as other states  or India’s six to 18 month policy. In Florida, no final judgment of dissolution of marriage may be entered until at least 20 days have elapsed from the date of filing the original petition for dissolution of marriage.

The thinking behind waiting periods in Florida reflects the protective regard Florida holds toward the preservation of marriage and a public policy that marriage is the foundation of home and family.

In some cases the waiting period is longer. For instance, no dissolutions in Florida are allowed in cases of an incapacitated spouse unless the party alleged to be incapacitated has been adjudged incapacitated for a preceding period of at least 3 years. However, the court, on a showing that injustice would result from this delay, may enter a final judgment of dissolution of marriage at an earlier date.

Patience is a virtue, impatience a vice

In India, the mandatory six-month waiting period under can also be waived by filing an exemption application before a family court in a motion for the court to pass a decree of divorce. The high court has ruled:

“Where there is a chance of reconciliation, however slight, the cooling period of six months from the date of filing of the divorce petition should be enforced. However, if there is no possibility of reconciliation, it would be meaningless to prolong the agony of the parties to the marriage.”

Accordingly, if a marriage has broken down irretrievably, the spouses have been living apart for a long time unable to reconcile their differences, and then they mutually decided to part, it is better to end the marriage to enable both spouses to move on with their lives, the court said.

While the parties can approach the family courts for initiation of divorce proceedings, this process is often time-consuming and lengthy, owing to a large number of similar cases pending before such courts. If the parties wish to opt for a divorce more expeditiously, they can approach the Supreme Court for the dissolution of their marriage.

The Indian Supreme Court also aims to clarify whether the application of its powers would extend to all divorce cases; and whether it could be used in cases where one of the parties is not consenting to the divorce. For this, the court appointed senior advocates for assistance in the case.

The Indian Express article is here.