Tag: Child Custody Tips

Who’s Your Daddy? Florida’s New Paternity Law

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

If it is a wise child that knows its own father, the Florida Supreme Court just created a new paternity law last week to help children know their true fathers. The court settled whether a biological father is prohibited from establishing his parental rights to his child if the child was born to a married woman.

Not Your Father’s Paternity Law

Perkins is the biological father of his daughter. Perkins and the child’s mother, Simmonds, engaged in a three-year relationship. Unknown to Perkins, his girlfriend was already married to another man.

When Perkins – the biological father – wanted to assert his child custody rights over his daughter, Simmonds and her husband, Ferguson, objected. Ferguson – the legal father – asserted his status as the child’s legal father– by virtue of his marriage to Simmonds – to block Perkins’ rights over his daughter.

Some interesting facts about the case:

  • Perkins was at the hospital for the child’s birth. Ferguson was not.
  • Simmonds declined to have Ferguson’s name listed as on the birth certificate. Simmonds gave the child Perkins’s last name and raised the child with Perkins.
  • Perkins and Simmonds lived together with the child.
  • Perkins has taken the child to doctor’s visits and enrolled the child in day care. Perkins regularly and voluntarily paid child support to Simmonds for the child.
  • The child knows Perkins as “daddy.”

So what’s the problem?

The problem in this case is that after Perkins filed a petition to establish paternity Simmonds moved to dismiss it, saying Perkins can’t establish paternity because of the common law presumption of legitimacy. That presumption is one of the strongest in Florida law.

Florida Paternity Law

I’ve written about paternity issues before. Sadly, for Perkins, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge ruled that it was bound by precedent to dismiss his petition.

In Florida, a putative father had no right to seek to establish paternity of a child who was born into an intact marriage, when the married woman and her husband object.

Although the trial judge held an evidentiary hearing and found that the facts strongly indicate that allowing Perkins to have “some involvement in the child’s life” would be in the child’s best interests, the trial court ultimately concluded that it was constrained by Fourth District precedent to dismiss the petition as a matter of law.

The Father of All Custody Conflicts

There’s been a conflict among Florida courts over this issue. Florida law presumes that the husband of the biological mother of a child is the child’s legal father.

This presumption is one of the strongest rebuttable presumptions known to law and is based on the child’s interest in legitimacy and the public policy of protecting the welfare of the child.

In Florida, many courts have held that a biological father has no right to seek to establish paternity of a child who was born into an intact marriage when the married woman and her husband object.

Some courts in Florida have gone so far as to suggest that the presumption of legitimacy may never be rebutted. While others have held that the presumption of legitimacy may be rebutted in certain, rare circumstances.

Twinkle in One’s Father’s Eye: New Paternity Law

The Supreme Court resolved the conflict and determined that the presumption of legitimacy does not create an absolute bar to a biological father’s right to seek to establish his paternity when the biological father has “manifested a substantial and continuing concern” for the welfare of the child.

The presumption of legitimacy is overcome when there is a “clear and compelling reason based primarily on the child’s best interests.”

So, for Mr. Perkins, the presumption of legitimacy has been found to be rebuttable by a biological father. Evidence that the mother’s husband has abused, abandoned, or neglected the child – although relevant – is not required to establish that it would be in the child’s best interests to recognize the biological father as the legal father.

The Supreme Court opinion is available here.

 

Joint Physical Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Former NFL wide receiver, Hank Baskett, answered his former Playboy model wife’s divorce petition last week, and is asking for joint physical custody of their two children. What is joint physical custody, and is it something you should ask for in Florida?

Penalty Flags

Baskett is a former wide receiver who played in the NFL for the Vikings, the Eagles and the Colts. While at the University of New Mexico, he was a leading wide receiver and earned all-academic honors.

Baskett married Playboy model Kendra Wilkinson in 2009. Wilkinson and Baskett were co-stars on Kendra, a reality TV series following Wilkinson’s life. They have co-starred on another show, Kendra on Top, since June 2012.

His wife announced her intention to divorce on Instagram. A few years ago, she received bad press when she criticized people who had a problem with a photo she posted to her Instagram account of her daughter, stating:

“Wow by my last post I just exposed all you sick f**ks… [m]an, this world is more f**ked up than I thought, I’ll go ahead and go back to my vacation while we run around naked n free.”

According to People, in the former NFL player’s filing submitted Friday, Baskett cited irreconcilable differences as the reason for the divorce after 9 years of marriage according to court documents obtained by The Blast.

Mirroring his wife’s filing, Baskett listed their date of separation as Jan. 1, 2018, and requested joint legal and physical custody of their two children.

Many people are surprised to learn when they file for divorce or custody in Florida that joint legal and physical custody is not available in Florida.

Florida Shared Parental Responsibility

I’ve written about child custody issues before. In 1979, the first joint custody statute was enacted in California. The joint legal custody law promoted more paternal involvement after divorce.

In 2008, Florida modified its custody laws to get rid of outdated and negative terminology about divorcing parents and their children to reduce animosity.

The law did that by deleting the definitions of the terms “custodial parent” or “primary residential parent” and “noncustodial parent” and creating a definition for the terms “shared parental responsibility, “parenting plan”, and “time-sharing schedule.

Shared parental responsibility, is similar to joint physical and legal custody, and is a relationship 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. In fact, courts are instructed to order parents to share parental responsibility of a child unless it would be detrimental to the child.

Florida’s public policy comes from the literature proving the importance of a father’s contributions to a child’s development and a child’s attachment to a father, gender roles within families are shifting, and the documented loss and alienation experienced by noncustodial parents and children.

Custody Touchdown

The former Playboy model’s filing came hours after she confirmed in an Instagram post that the couple had chosen to split.

“Today is the last day of my marriage to this beautiful man. I will forever love Hank and be open but for now we have chosen to go our own ways.”

The People article is here.

 

Extracurriculars and Child Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A contentious issue in child custody cases is a child’s extracurricular activity. The decision may be easy when the sport is badminton, but litigation is not out of bounds when the activity involves football – especially in a big football state like Florida.

Tackling Extracurricular Decision Making

As the New York Times reports, there are always questions regarding whether the child will participate in extracurricular activities. The typical questions involve which activities, who pays the costs, and scheduling the activity so it doesn’t infringe on the other parents’ timesharing are easy enough to punt.

In shared parental responsibility cases, the issue of extracurricular activities can be very divisive – especially when choosing an injury-prone sport like skateboarding and football.

How do courts tackle the issue?

Extracurricular activities are closely related to decisions about education and schooling, and the parent with sole, or ultimate decision-making authority over education, makes the final decision concerning extracurricular activities as well.

But in a shared parental responsibility case, the decision can be easily fumbled.

Florida Shared Parental Responsibility

I’ve written about parental responsibility choices before. 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. In fact, courts are instructed to order parents to share parental responsibility of a child unless it would be detrimental to the child.

Issues relating to a child’s extracurricular activities, including the decision to participate in dangerous sports, are major decisions affecting the welfare of a child.

When parents cannot agree, the dispute is resolved in court.

At the trial, the test applied 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.

A Custody Touchdown?

In the decade since scientists began to link football to long-term brain damage, the debate over the future of the sport has moved from research laboratories to the halls of Congress, to locker rooms and parents’ kitchen tables.

The growing number of disputes over the long-term consequences of football has put family court judges in the awkward position of having to pick sides on a hotly debated issue.

In most states, such as Florida, family court judges are charged with ruling in the best interests of a child’s health. In the case of sports like hang gliding or rock climbing, the dangers may be self-evident.

But the science around the long-term cognitive and neurological damage caused by football is still emerging.

Judges who side with parents trying to prevent their sons from playing tackle football end up endorsing the view that the sport is too risky, a stance that might be unpopular with voters who elect them.

Judges who side with parents who want their son to play, on the other hand, risk being accused of not being prudent enough if the boy is injured.

The New York Times article is here.

 

Child Custody and Choosing Religion

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The mother was Christian and the father a Muslim, but she converted to Islam when they married. After they separated, the mother reverted to Christianity. When parents share or have joint child custody, who decides the child’s religion? A New York appellate court just gave the answer.

Choosing My Religion

A Brooklyn couple divorced in 2009 with one child. Their settlement agreement gave them joint legal custody, and the mother had primary physical custody.

The agreement made them consult with each other about the child’s religion, but did not specify which religion the child would be raised. The mother taught the child Christian values and practices.

The child complained the father was pressuring her to adopt Muslim practices and threatened to abcond with her to his native Morocco if she failed to follow Muslim practices and customs.

The child asked the mother to call the police and school personnel. The mother filed for sole legal custody, and the father petitioned to enforce visitation and to enforce a purported oral agreement that the child would be raised as a Muslim.

Florida Custody and Religion

I have published an article on the intersection of religion and custody before, especially when that intersection relates to harm to the child.

For example in one area there is a frequent religious controversy: whether to give a child their mandatory vaccinations.  Usually, religion is used by the objecting parent as a defense to vaccinating children.

Whenever a court decides custody, the sine qua non is the best interests of the child. But, deciding the religious upbringing of a child puts the court in a tough position.

There is nothing in our custody statute allowing a court to consider religion as a factor in custody, and a court’s choosing one parent’s religious beliefs over another’s, probably violates the Constitution.

So, unless there is actual harm being done to the child by the religious upbringing, it would seem that deciding the child’s faith is out of bounds for a judge.

Ironically, that may not be the rule all over Florida. Different appellate courts in Florida have slightly different takes on the issue, and the question of whether a trial court can consider a parent’s religious beliefs as a factor in determining custody has been allowed.

The Brooklyn, New York case involved the modification of an existing joint custody order.

In Florida, the person seeking modification of custody must show both that the circumstances have substantially, materially changed since the original custody order, and that the child’s best interests justify changing custody. Additionally, the substantial change must be one that was not reasonably contemplated at the time of the original judgment.

Losing My Religion

Back in Brooklyn, the Family Court granted the mother’s to modify joint custody, and give her sole legal custody but granted the father liberal visitation, including on all major Muslim holidays.

The parties’ inability to agree on the child’s religion, the change in the child’s relationship with the father, her fear of his displeasure for not being a “true Muslim,” and her belief that he’d kidnap her to Morocco, constituted changes in circumstances.

The appellate court held that awarding the Mother sole decision-making authority with respect to religion was in the child’s best interests because the father’s actual or perceived insistence that the child follow Islam and threats to abscond to Morocco had a serious adverse effect on the child’s relationship.

The opinion in Baala v. Baala is here.

 

Child Custody: Do Criminal Minds Nest?

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Thomas Gibson, former “Criminal Minds” star, can celebrate Valentine’s Day with a new love interest. He and his former wife seem to be very involved parents though, because they have agreed to share child custody in an amazing way called “nesting.”

According to legal documents obtained by TMZ, actor Thomas Gibson, and his ex-wife Cristina Parker, reached an agreement in their divorce after a 21-year marriage. They are involved parents:

Being a dad is the greatest experience of my life.

According to TMZ, Thomas is paying $3,000 per month in child support for their three children, in addition to paying for their private school and extracurricular activities.

Interestingly, the couple agreed that Thomas to stays in the family’s San Antonio home every other weekend when he has the kids, and when he is not timesharing with them, Thomas stay’s in the guest house.

Nesting

The actor appears to have agreed to a ‘Bird’s Nest’ custody agreement. Nesting is a child custody arrangement where the children live in one house, and the parents take turns living in that house with the children – but never at the same time.

I’ve written about child custody issues before. Nesting is not common to agree to, and is not mandated by a family court.  Generally, both parents have to agree to nesting.

Simply put, nesting is when the mother leaves when the father comes home, and the father leaves when it’s the mother’s turn to come home.  The children remain in the house.

Florida Child Custody

Many people are surprised to learn that the term “custody” (whether joint or sole) are concepts no longer recognized in Florida. Florida replaced the “custody” term for the “parenting plan” concept in order to avoid labeling parents as “visiting parent” or “primary parent”. The ‘new hope’ of the change in law was to try and make child custody issues less controversial.

Under Florida’s parenting plan concept, both parents enjoy shared parental responsibility and a time-sharing schedule.

“Shared parental responsibility” means both parents retain full parental rights and responsibilities, and have to confer with each other so that major decisions affecting their child are made jointly.

A time-sharing schedule, as the name suggests, is simply a timetable that is included in the parenting plan that specifies the times, including overnights and holidays, that your child spends with each parent. However, “nesting” is not specifically defined in the statute.

The benefits of nesting are that the Gibson children don’t have to move from one home to another during custody exchanges because the parents will take turns living in the home where the children live full-time. The children have a much more stability.

Detractors argue that nesting is expensive because the parents need other places to live. This could mean that three homes are needed: one for mom, one for dad, and the children’s nest which is shared.

The TMZ article is here.

 

Equal Custody Presumption

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A Kansas legislative committee heard passionate testimony this week from people both for and against a bill that would require courts to order shared custody and parenting of children in divorce cases. What is the status of equal custody?

Kansas Equal Parenting Bill

Kansas Senate Bill 257 would create a presumption in divorce cases that children of the couple would spend roughly equal time with each parent, unless the parties have agreed to another parenting plan in advance.

If the parties have not entered into a parenting plan, it shall be presumed that a court determination of legal custody, residency and parenting time providing for a child’s equal or approximately equal time with each parent is in the best interests of the child.

Under the bill, this presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence, a high burden to prove in court.

The equal parenting bill also allows courts to make a different determination if they make specific findings of fact stating why equal or approximately equal time with each parent is not in the best interests of the child.

Florida Timesharing

I’ve written about Florida’s attempt to create a presumption of equal timesharing before. People are sometimes surprised to find out that Florida does not have an equal custody law.

Instead, Florida has a parenting plan concept which includes parental responsibility and timesharing. In Florida, courts order shared parental responsibility for a child unless shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.

The best interest of the child is the first consideration, and there are several factors judges evaluate to determine, under Florida law, what is in the child’s best interest.

Is a 50-50 Rule Good Policy?

Fifty-fifty timesharing between parents sounds like a great idea, and there are strong arguments for and against a presumption of equal timesharing.

On the one hand, an equal timesharing presumption promotes Florida’s existing policy of frequent contact after divorce, and puts the burden on the parent opposing equal timesharing, changing the dynamics of custody litigation.

However, requiring every family to have equal timesharing is like requiring every family to wear a size 4 shoe. Not every family fits. The equal timesharing presumption creates a uniform rule where the flexibility of ‘the best interest of the child’ is needed.

We’re Not in Kansas Anymore

Under current Kansas law, custody cases are governed by what judges determine to be in the best interest of the child, rather than equal custody. Changing that law is a heated debate.

Not surprisingly, the hearing drew a packed audience, who told about the difficulty they have had maintaining relationships with their children when they were allowed only limited visitation.

The Lawrence Journal World article is here.

 

Custody Wars

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Fans know Ewan McGregor as Jedi master Obi-Wan Kenobi. The Star War actor has reportedly filed for divorce from his wife of 22 years, and may now be facing a menacing custody battle. How is custody decided when spouses can’t agree to share the children?

Jedi Mind Tricks Don’t Work

Citing “irreconcilable differences” the former Jedi master has requested joint custody of the couple’s three minor children. Ewan has also reportedly said he was “willing to pay spousal support.

His wife however, Eve Mavrakis, was not so easily swayed. She immediately filed response in Los Angeles Superior Court. In her answer, Mavrakis reportedly is requesting sole custody of the children, and only offering visitation rights for McGregor.

Florida Custody

Questions about an award of sole custody or joint custody of children frequently comes up a lot. The subject is also a matter I’ve written about before.

Many people are surprised to learn that the term “custody” (whether joint or sole) are concepts no longer recognized in Florida.

Florida replaced the “custody” term for the “parenting plan” concept in order to avoid labeling parents as “visiting parent” or “primary parent”. The ‘new hope’ of the change in law was to try and make child custody issues less controversial.

Under Florida’s parenting plan concept, both parents enjoy shared parental responsibility and a time-sharing schedule.

“Shared parental responsibility” means both parents retain full parental rights and responsibilities, and have to confer with each other so that major decisions affecting their child are made jointly.

A time-sharing schedule, as the name suggests, is simply a timetable that is included in the parenting plan that specifies the times, including overnights and holidays, that your child spends with each parent.

Florida’s parenting plan concept has changed the sole custody term into “sole parental responsibility.” The term means that only one parent makes decisions regarding the minor child, as opposed to the shared parental responsibility terms, where both parents make decisions jointly.

The Phantom Menace

The couple reportedly separated in May 2017, but only announced they were breaking up in October as People magazine reported.  McGregor was spotted cozying up with his much younger “Fargo” co-star Mary Elizabeth Winstead in October. And, during McGregor’s acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards earlier this month he thanked the two women.

Not surprisingly, Winstead announced she was breaking up with her spouse too. Not that it matters, given the no-fault jurisdiction, but if the last Jedi’s force was awakened by a new relationship, there may be grounds for the divorce.

The Fox article is available here.

 

Hague Convention in Japan

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

James Cook wants his 4 kids back. His estranged wife, Hiromi Arimitsu, says they want to stay with her in Japan, and they’ve been fighting in Japanese courts for almost three years. Isn’t The Hague Convention supposed to make international custody cases easier?

Japanese Cooks

If child custody battles are messy and expensive when the parents live in the same city, they’re much worse when they live in different countries, and are fighting over where the children should live.

For three years of their lives, the Cook kids have not had their dad. Kids need their dad, they need both their parents. I can’t describe to you the hell that this has been.

Cook, who studied Japanese in college, and Arimitsu, a Japanese woman who attended a university in Minnesota, lived in the U.S. for almost the whole time they had been together.

Three years ago, Cook agreed that Arimitsu could take their 4 children to Japan for the summer – with a notarized agreement that she would bring them back. When that ended, they agreed that Arimitsu and the kids stay a little longer, while Cook looked for work.

By the end of the year, Cook realized his family wasn’t coming back. The problem: court officers failed to enforce the order, saying the children refused to be returned, and the Osaka High Court nullified the enforcement order under the grave risk of harm defense.

Hague Child Abductions

I have written – and will be speaking later this month – on international custody and child abduction cases under The Hague Convention.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is supposed to provide remedies for a “left-behind” parent, like Mr. Cook, to obtain the wrongfully removed or retained children to the country of their habitual residence.

When a child under 16 who was habitually residing in one signatory country is wrongfully removed to, or retained in, another signatory country, The Hague Convention provides that the other country: “order the return of the child forthwith” and “shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody.”

There are defenses though. For example, in the Cook case, the court considered whether there is a grave risk that the children’s return would expose them to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

Outside Japan, the grave risk exception is very narrowly drawn because the exception can swallow the rule, and also, there is a belief that courts in the left behind country can protect children – just as easily as Japan can.

Big in Japan

Many suspect Japan is not really compliant with The Hague. Japan signed the Convention in 2013 – and only because of international pressure.

Under their law, Japan expanded the grave risk exception by making it a mandatory defense. Japan also requires Japanese courts to consider more things when the defense is asserted, such as whether there is “a risk”, as opposed to a grave risk.

Japanese courts also can consider if it’s difficult for parents to care for a child – a factor outside the scope of the Convention – which allows Japanese parents to complain about the challenges of being away from home.

The U.S. has determined that Japan was one of just two “Convention Countries That Have Failed to Comply with One or More of Their Obligations under The Hague Abduction Convention.”

Enforcement is a big problem in Japan. Japan cannot enforce their orders. The law Japan passed to implement The Hague forbids the use of force, and says children must be retrieved from the premises of the parent who has taken them.

According to research, about 3 million children in Japan have lost access to one parent after divorce in the past 20 years – about 150,000 a year.

For now, that leaves James Cook, who has found work with a medical device company, sitting in Minnesota, having no contact with his kids.

The Standard-Examiner article is here.

 

Religious School and Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

When two parents with equal custody disagree about sending their kids to religious school, how does a court decide? A couple from Nevada just found out if courts must choose the religious school over the secular one.

Religious or Secular School?

A Nevada couple agreed to joint custody of their two children, to send their children to private school, and equally split the cost of private school tuition and costs for the minor children. But, they disagreed about which school.

The Father wanted his daughter to attend a religious private school, Faith Lutheran. He said it was in her best interest because she was used to private schooling, she wanted to enroll there, and it had a high college placement rate.

The Mother objected to her child receiving a religious education at Faith Lutheran. She argued that she should attend the local public school, Bob Miller Middle School, which was highly ranked for academics and closer to the daughter’s primary residence.

The trial court concluded that both schools were good, and didn’t make any findings that one was better, but chose the public school “because it was ‘taking into consideration the Mother’s religious objection.”

The mother appealed, saying her religious objection should categorically trump because courts can’t indoctrinate a child with their religious views, particularly over the objection of a parent.

Private School Tuition

I’ve written about the intersection of private school and child custody before. Very often the issue is should a parent have to pay for private school (religious or not).

Pursuant to Florida Statutes, a trial court cannot order a parent to contribute to private school expenses unless it first finds that:

(1) the parties have the ability to pay such expenses
(2) the expenses are in accordance with the customary standard of living of the parties, and
(3) attendance at private school is in the child’s best interest.

If parents are unable to reach an agreement with respect to the payment of tuition, a judge will review the evidence you present and make a decision.

If this becomes necessary, the judge will review all of the financial aspects of the case, including each parent’s income, the history of paying certain expenses and the schools themselves.

The Constitution and Religious Schools

Sometimes tuition cost is not the problem though, religion itself is. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected the mother’s argument:

“The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” Neutrality means that the court “may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion.”

The court can violate this principle of neutrality when it treats one parent’s religious objection as dispositive when deciding between a religious school and a nonreligious school.

In the Nevada case, the family court disfavored religion rather than acting neutrally toward it. In ordering that the daughter attend a nonreligious school, the only explanation the court provided was that it had taken into consideration religious objection.

However, there were no findings regarding the child’s best interest and appears to have treated the Mother’s religious objection as dispositive in an attempt to avoid constitutional issues related to religion.

In trying to steer clear of constitutional issues, however, the district court collided head-on with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by disfavoring religion.

Neutrality, under the Constitution means that the father doesn’t have a right to demand that his child go to a religious school and the mother have a right to demand that the child go to a secular school. Courts have to decide issues like this on a basis other than the school’s religiosity.

The article from Reason is here.

 

Rape and Child Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

As the Hollywood sex abuse scandal widens, another issue comes to mind: can someone convicted of criminal sexual misconduct get child custody of the offspring he fathers? It may seem like an unbelievable question, but a Michigan mother just found out it is very real.

In Sandusky, Michigan, a district court judge just stayed his order which granted an alleged rapist joint custody and parenting time as father of an 8-year-old boy after the judge learned details of the case.

According to USA Today, a standardized form was used in the original case the lawyer for the boy’s mother said. The boy’s mother had requested welfare benefits. To qualify for payments, she had to file a paternity complaint.

This young woman … completed and signed a paternity questionnaire in which she disclosed the alleged father’s name and address. She further signed an agreement to cooperate with pursuing paternity and signed a statement authorizing the disclosure of her address.

Federal law requires state departments of health and human services to establish paternity and pursue a child-support order from a court, Bob Wheaton, the Michigan department’s spokesman, wrote in email.

The department would need to be notified by the custodial parent of any reason to determine good cause not to pursue a child support order.

Rape Survivor Child Custody Act

This is actually a national problem.

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

This used to happen so much, I’ve actually written about this nationwide phenomenon of a rapist getting custody before.

Originally, in Pennsylvania, State Senator Randy Vulakovich and Representative Joe Hackett introduced the Rape Survivor Child Custody and Support Act in the Senate and House, respectively.

Congress also got involved. President Obama signed the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act into law as part of the bipartisan Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.

The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act boosts funding for states that allow women to petition for the termination of parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence that a child was conceived through rape.

Back in Michigan

The standard form that the boy’s mother was asked to fill out doesn’t have anywhere to state her concerns. The county is now reviewing its handling of paternity complaints.

The judge, Gregory Ross, scheduled a hearing after halting his September order. That order also had required the father to pay $346 a month in child support and maintain health-care coverage.

Christopher Mirasolo, now 27, of Brown City, Mich., pleaded guilty to attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct in the Sept. 6, 2008, assault of the woman, who was 12 years old when he was 19.

Sanilac County released the alleged rapist after 6½ months in jail. He also later pleaded no contest to third- and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct in a March 29, 2010, incident involving a 15-year-old girl, serving four years in state prison for that crime, and is a registered sex offender.

The USA Today article is here.