Category: Child Custody

Autism & Custody

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Wednesday, December 2, 2015.

A father lost custody of his children, in part, because he refused to stop trying to cure autism through homeopathy. What happens when parents disagree over medical care?

As Canada’s National Post reports: the two children suffer from “severe and profound” autism spectrum disorder. They do not speak, are not toilet-trained or able to dress or feed themselves.

In October, the mother asked a court to stop the father from administering homeopathic treatments because he was “looking for a ‘cure’ for autism rather than trying to find a method of managing autism.”

Homeopathy is an alternative therapy that holds that diseases can be cured by giving patients remedies that cause the same symptoms as the original illness.

The Court found:

“Not only were these treatments not effective, but they had negative effects.”

The court also found that the father refused to administer prescribed antibiotics, and kept the child from his mother while attempting to treat the infection with homeopathic remedies. The child’s infection worsened.

The refusal to administer prescribed medication is serious. I’ve written about custody and medical decisions before. Often times it happens in the area of vaccinations.

In Florida, most parents enjoy shared parental responsibility, a relationship in which both parents retain their full parental rights and responsibilities. Parents are required to make major decisions jointly.

Issues relating to a child’s physical health and medical treatment, including administering medication, are major decisions affecting the welfare of a child.

When parents can’t agree, the dispute is resolved in court using the best interests of the child test. Determining the best interests of a child is based on an evaluation of statutory factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the family.

The National Post article is here.

Your Foreign Custody Order is not Enforceable Here

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Tuesday, November 3, 2015.

A Pennsylvania court refused to follow or recognize a foreign country’s custody order, instead allowing one of its courts to change custody. Are international child custody orders valid here?

The case of H.L.K. v. F.A.A. involved dual citizenships: the Mother was a U.S. citizen and the Father Saudi Arabian. They married in Pennsylvania in 1994, and moved to Saudi Arabia.

Three children were born, and all were dual citizens. In 2008, the Mother moved back to Pennsylvania, and filed for divorce. Before a court could enter the divorce, she reconciled, moved back to Saudi Arabia, and in 2012 divorced there.

Immediately following the divorce, the Mother was forced to leave Saudi Arabia without the children because she was no longer sponsored by the Father, and because of Saudi guardianship laws.

In June 2013, the Father let the children visit Pennsylvania for summer timesharing. The Mother kept them, and sued for custody in Pennsylvania. At the same time, the Father sued in a Saudi court, which awarded him sole custody of the children.

The Father then tried to have his Saudi custody order recognized in Pennsylvania to enforce it. The Mother objected. The Pennsylvania court sided with the Mother, and refused to enforce it.

Why? The Saudi Order states, in part:

First, the non-Muslim shall not have right of custody of a Muslim.

Second, custody of each girl who attains the seventh year of age is with her father.

Third, if either parent desires to live in a remote country, priority for child custody shall go to the father whether the traveler is the father or mother.

Fourth, the female after attaining seventh year of age shall have no choice and she should stay with her father till marriage . . . the father is often more careful in protecting his daughter.

The Pennsylvania court found the Saudi judgment (especially the highlighted portions) violated state public policy, and refused to register it under principles of comity.

Foreign laws are increasingly being challenged in the U.S. For example, Islamic and American laws sometimes clash as you could probably guess fromt he bolded language in the Saudi order.

I’ve written about the intersection of Family law and Islamic law before. In 2014, Florida passed a law which prohibits our state courts from basing a decision on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by the Florida or U.S. Constitutions.

The opinion is available here. Thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy for its analysis.

The Gossip Girl’s Custody Mistakes

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Tuesday, October 27, 2015.

Kelly Rutherford, the “Gossip Girl” actress, made mistakes in her divorce. She lost an international custody dispute, and now timeshares with her children in Europe. What happened?

I’ve written before about avoiding divorce mistakes. A recent Vanity Fair article reminded me of those posts. Vanity Fair details Kelly’s problems in a surprisingly favorable article.

Kelly had bad luck with marriage. She left her first marriage to a Venezuelan banker after he got sick from a heart condition. The marriage lasted 7-months.

Her second marriage to German businessman Daniel Giersch lasted longer, she filed after 28-months. She had two children with Daniel, and Kelly’s mistakes began almost immediately.

Daniel argued to a family judge that Kelly was excluding him from the children. This can be a big mistake when you’re trying to prove you facilitate a relationship with the other parent.

– The court found Kelly withheld news of their child’s impending birth, and when he asked to be at the hospital, she refused.

– Kelly left his name off the birth certificate, the “father” field was left blank.

– The court found Kelly “falsely represented” to a custody evaluator that she placed the Father’s name on the birth certificate when she hadn’t. Worse, she refused to add it when confronted with the issue in Court.

– The court found Kelly withheld the children for over a month, and unilaterally enrolled them in school.

– Kelly was found to be making negative remarks about Daniel in front of the kids, accusing him of “dealing arms and drugs”, being “homicidal”, and telling her son to “scream and call the police” if he was in an airport with his dad.

– In the courthouse, Kelly’s lawyer called the State Department to get the Father deported, promising to call off the arrest and deportation if the Father would agree not to have any visitation with his kids.

These actions are mistakes, as courts look at which parent will foster a meaningful relationship with the other parent in custody decisions.

This August, Kelly refused to return the children to Europe. By refusing to return them, Kelly placed the kids in a needless court hearing. A court in New York immediately returned them to their Father.

Kelly’s coup de grâce of mistakes? This is not a press statement you want to issue:

“What the judge did yesterday was shocking, illegal, and abusive to my children. Without any legal authority, a judge from the lowest ranking court in the state court system violated the highest ranking federal constitutional rights of my American citizen children.”

There is a lot you can learn from watching celebrity divorces. The Vanity Fair article is available here.

Update on Joint Custody

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Thursday, August 6, 2015.

Florida is not the only state looking to modify its custody laws. Add Florida to another 20 states which are currently considering measures that move their laws toward more equal custody arrangements.

As the Boston Globe reports, Massachusetts is considering changing its custody laws:

Battles over custody and child support are as old as divorce itself. But as parenting norms have shifted in the past half-century – the “Leave It To Beaver” setup giving way to one in which 71% of women work outside the home and more fathers are engaged in child care – lawmakers seem increasingly willing to consider that long-standing child custody statutes might warrant review.

Changes would make statutes align more closely with research suggesting children benefit from spending ample time with both parents. One study released earlier this year in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, found that children living in joint-physical custody arrangements exhibited fewer psychosomatic issues than those living with just one parent.

The movement has attracted critics. Groups expressed concern over blanket statutes guaranteeing parents a certain amount of visitation time. Instead, they argue, custody disputes should be handled on a case-by-case basis, always with a child’s best interests in mind.

It used to be that custody disputes fell under the “tender years” doctrine, a rule that a child’s best interest is to be placed with the mother when they’re young. Florida has abandoned the tender years doctrine.

In Massachusetts, the proposed legislation strongly encourages, but does not mandate, courts to grant shared custody in which a child would spend no less than one-third of the time with each parent.

I wrote about Florida’s efforts earlier this year to modify our child custody laws. At the time there were two competing bills. The Florida House bill would have required:

Approximately equal time-sharing with a minor child by both parents is presumed to be in the best interest of the child.

The other bill, which was in the Florida Senate, wrote:

Absent good cause, it is in the minor child’s best interests to have substantial time sharing with both parents.

A Utah law that went into effect two months ago requires that all qualifying noncustodial parents’ minimum visitation days increase from 110 per year to 145.

Two years ago, an Arizona law went into effect preventing courts from giving preference to either gender in custody cases.

The outcome in Florida is yet to be determined.

Does Cohabitation Increase the Risk of Divorce?

Posted by admin on

On behalf of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Sunday, July 15, 2012.

Child custody is not limited to divorce cases. Cohabitation, couples living together before marriage, has increased by more than 1,500% in the United States over the last 50 years. The rise of cohabitation, presumed to better your chances of staying married, may actually increase the risk of divorce.

In a nationwide survey conducted in 2001 by the National Marriage Project, then at Rutgers and now at the University of Virginia, nearly half of 20-somethings agreed with the statement, “You would only marry someone if he or she agreed to live together with you first, so that you could find out whether you really get along.” About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce.

However, a new study shows that couples who cohabit before marriage – before an engagement or other clear commitment – tend to be less satisfied with their marriages, and are more likely to divorce than couples who do not. The negative outcomes in these relationships are called the cohabitation effect.

The article can be found in the New York Times.

Whether you are ending a long term relationship – or marriage – complicated issues arise. This is especially so if children are involved, and one parent wants to move to another state. There is an alphabet soup of state and federal statutes – UCCJEA, FFCCSOA, and UIFSA – which can significantly impact where you can file or modify interstate child custody and child support orders.

Whether you are divorcing, or ending a long-term relationship, it is important you get expert advice on federal and state laws impacting these complicated interstate issues.

Vaccines & Custody: An Update

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Thursday, July 2, 2015.

Parents argue over vaccinating their kids. This has led to bitter custody battles because Florida allows exemptions from vaccines. California is now different. California has a strict new law on school vaccinations – it eliminates all religious exemptions.

As National Public Radio reports:

“The science is clear that vaccines dramatically protect against a number of infectious and dangerous diseases,” Governor Brown said in a signing statement. “While it’s true that no medical intervention is without risk, the evidence shows that immunization powerfully benefits and protects the community.

Starting July 1, 2016, all children enrolled in California public or private schools or day cares must be vaccinated against whooping cough, measles and other diseases, regardless of parents’ religious and other personal beliefs.

I wrote an article last year about custody rights and vaccinations in Florida. The issue is the intersection of parental rights and religion. Unlike the new California rule, Florida still provides for a religious exemption if vaccinations are in conflict with the religious tenets and practices of the child’s parent or guardian.

In California, it is being reported that “those who opt out will have to be home-schooled or enroll in an independent study program off school grounds.” KQED’s April Dembosky reported last week on the long history behind the anti-vaccination movement:

“From the moment the very first vaccine came on the scene, which was the smallpox vaccine, there has been resistance to vaccines and vaccination,’ says Elena Conis, a history professor at Emory University and author of Vaccine Nation: America’s Changing Relationship with Immunization.

Vaccine disputes are high stakes cases because of the public health issues involved. Americans are again getting sick and dying from vaccine preventable diseases which were once a thing of the past – including measles, mumps and whooping cough.

The CDC is reporting that during 2012, 48,277 cases of pertussis were reported to CDC, including 20 pertussis-related deaths. This was the most reported cases since 1955. The majority of deaths occurred among infants younger than 3 months of age.

There are only two vaccination opinions in Florida, and the facts in each are strikingly similar. In both cases, the parents shared parental responsibility. Both involved chiropractors as parents who were involved in their children’s health care.

Moreover, in both cases the health care professional parent opposed vaccinations. Ironically, the outcomes in the two cases were very different.

Vaccination disputes are interesting and high-stakes cases to watch for as the new school year approaches

Joint Custody Rights . . . in Saudi Arabia?

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Tuesday, June 2, 2015.

Saudi Arabian courts received 84,000 child custody and related cases in the past few months. The flood of new cases is due to a recent decision allowing divorced women custody rights. Joint custody? Hardly, but this may show a trend.

A Member of the Shoura Council said that litigation in family affairs matters is guaranteed. Independent judges, known as “implementing judges”, apply penalties on those who do not follow rulings ordered by the family affairs courts.

Closer to home, it’s been more than two decades since Massachusetts father, Daniel Sabbatelli, was locked in a contentious divorce that ended with him getting limited access to his three daughters. The emotional toll hasn’t diminished.

As The Daily News of Newburyport reports:

“The courts don’t treat both parents equal,” he said. “It’s winner-take-all.”

Sabbatelli, a Woburn electrical contractor, is one dozens of advocates now arguing that parents should be entitled to equal custody of their children.

Groups like the Boston-based National Parents Organization, to which Sabbatelli belongs, have thrown support behind legislation that requires family court judges to consider “joint custody” in most divorce cases, unless a parent is deemed unfit, along with a raft of other proposed changes to custody laws.

But the changes have plenty of critics:

“Every case is different,” said Fern Frolin, a divorce attorney with the firm Mirick, O’Connell, DeMallie and Lougee. “And this isn’t a battlefield between moms and dads, it’s about what’s in the best interests of the children.”

I’ve written about child custody reform in Florida before. Last month the Florida House and Senate each tried to pass separate bills to change Florida’s child custody laws.

The bills had very different language, but both would have dramatically changed the laws of custody in Florida if the Legislature had not closed early, and they had been signed by the governor.

Worldwide, equalizing child custody laws is a trend. This was not the first time this issue arose in Florida, and next year, anyone interested in child custody laws should keep their eyes on Tallahassee.

The Daily News of Newburyport article is available here.

Circumcision & Custody: An Update

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Tuesday, May 26, 2015.

Let’s cut to the meat of the coconut: what does a court do when parents disagree in a custody dispute over circumcising their child? Florida state and federal courts have recently been trying to answer that question.

Last year’s Palm Beach County case made international news, and I wrote about it then. The parents entered into a written agreement to circumcise their baby. Their agreement was later incorporated into a court order.

The father, Nebus, still wants the circumcision performed, but the mother, Hironimus, changed her mind. Now she wants to modify the agreement. Hironimus initially told the Father she didn’t want the child exposed to anesthesia.

After filing her initial complaint though, the mother obtained the support of Intactivists – a group which opposes circumcision – and the Mother’s complaint has grown into a general, anti-circumcision campaign.

The trial judge ordered the enforcement of the parties’ agreement, and the Mother appealed. After losing the appeal, the Mother filed a federal case in the district court, which the Mother later dismissed.

But, with her legal options dwindling, the Mother made a huge error: she stole the child, ignored a court order requiring her to appear in court, and refused to give her consent for the surgery to be performed.

An arrest warrant was issued, but she wasn’t located until May 14 at a Broward County domestic violence shelter where she was hiding with her son. She was put in jail for contempt of court.

Brought before the judge last week, Hironimus again declined to sign a consent form for the surgery, and she was advised she would remain jailed indefinitely.

After the hearing ended, she reconsidered, and signed the consent form. Though the signature solved a contempt charge against her, she still faces a criminal charge of interference with child custody.

The executive director of Intact America, which advocates against circumcision, said the images of a distraught mother signing the form to allow the surgery show how she was “bullied” into it and that she doesn’t truly give her consent.

It is important to note that the judge did not order the circumcision. Instead, the judge enforced the parents’ written agreement. The court enforced it by designating the Father to make the ultimate decision for the circumcision.

This is an important distinction, because if both parents decided not to circumcise their child, the court would not compel it. The court is merely upholding a run-of-the-mill settlement agreement after one parent reneges.

More information can be found in the Sun Sentinel article.

Do Rapists Have Child Custody Rights

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Friday, March 20, 2015.

In 31 states, a man who impregnates a woman through rape can sue her for child custody and timesharing rights. There are bills pending in Ohio and Pennsylvania addressing that issue.

According to an NPR radio station in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania State Senator Randy Vulakovich and Representative Joe Hackett are introducing the Rape Survivor Child Custody and Support Act in the Senate and House, respectively.

Under there bill, courts have the authority to terminate the parental rights of a father or mother convicted rapist. But at the same time, the rapist’s obligation to pay child support will remain.

I’ve written before about rape and custody. The issue of consent is important to the crime of rape, but is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and child support.

Each year, there are approximately 32,000 pregnancies resulting from rape, according to a 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Vulakovich says his bill will close a loophole in the law that is damaging to sexual assault survivors.

“If a victim of a rape decides to keep a child who was conceived because of the result of a rape, she could be forced under state law to constantly interact with a rapist on a regular basis if he demands visitation rights.”

Currently in Pennsylvania, a rapist’s parental rights are only terminated pending adoption of the child, in which case the offender is no longer required to pay child support.

“We’ve had calls from women who are exasperated,” Houser said. “The callers will feel like…’I’ve done everything right, I’ve done all the things I was supposed to do, and now I find out that he’s petitioning for visitation.'”

According to the most recent data, a 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, approximately 320,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape. However, roughly one third of those pregnancies are terminated.

Houser says there are no clear statistics on pregnancy from rape in Pennsylvania. She also said few rapists try to pursue their visitation rights. State courts have the power to prevent unfit parents from claiming their visitation rights for several reasons, including crimes against the other parent.

“This isn’t necessarily the result of egregious things happening on a regular basis here in Pennsylvania,” Houser said, “but it doesn’t matter if it’s happening to a lot of people or just a few. It shouldn’t be happening at all.”

Without such a law, woman can endure years of being tormented by an abuser,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida.

The article is here.

Mickey, Measles & Custody

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Wednesday, February 4, 2015.

The recent outbreak at Disneyland has resulted in more measles cases in one month than the typical number in a year, and has spread it to 14 states. This highlights the link between vaccinating children and custody.

Because of the return of vaccine preventable diseases – some of which were eliminated decades ago – a national discussion is occurring about vaccinating children.

But can the refusal to vaccinate impact your custody case?

I’ve blogged about vaccines before, not vaccinating a child can be detrimental:

– Contracting measles or whooping cough is harmful to a child.

– Public health and school officials send unvaccinated children home from school during outbreaks.

– Unvaccinated children are barred from birthday parties and play dates.

Why do a minority of parents not vaccinate? One reason is fear of autism. The anti-vaccination hysteria can be traced back to a paper by Andrew Wakefield published in the disgraced British medical journal The Lancet.

Wakefield claimed the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine was linked to autism. His study was later deemed “fraudulent” and Wakefield was stripped of his medical license.

But the damage was done. MMR vaccination rates declined and California officials have recently determined that the vast majority of those infected never received the MMR vaccine.

The minority of children who are not vaccinated have a big impact. The concept is called herd immunity. If vaccination rates are high, vaccinated people act as a barrier and reduce the risk of infection for people who can’t be immunized.

In Florida, there are two leading cases in which the issue over custody and vaccination was brought to trial and appeal. My new article briefly examines Florida’s parental responsibility statute, including the concept of ultimate authority.

The two Florida cases in which the decision to vaccinate a child was an issue brought to trial is also discussed, and the article traces the development of religion as a factor in parental responsibility cases in Florida.

The article can be read here.