Tag: Child custody

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.

Religion Custody and Transgender Children

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Whether a parent’s religion and religious beliefs can impact their ability to exercise child custody over transgender children is in the news. In Maryland, a father’s strict religious beliefs clashed with his children’s sexual orientation so much, the court had to step in to resolve the issue.

custody transgender

Fatti Maschii, Parole Femine

A Maryland couple with two children divorced in 2012. As part of their settlement, the parents agreed to joint legal custody. The Mother was to have primary physical custody, and the Father agreed to visitation every other weekend.

In 2022, Mother filed for a protective order for herself and on behalf of her two children, then aged 15 and 12. The Mother alleged the Father had caused her and the children mental injury based on abusive texts and emails he had sent to them.

At the injunction hearing, the Mother testified her older son told her he believed he was transgender. The Mother denied steering him toward identifying as transgender, but admitted she actively supported him by arranging for therapy and attending meetings of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

When the child told his Father that he identified as transgender, the Father opposed his son’s decision and refused to call him by his preferred name. Then the child began engaging in the self-harming behavior of “cutting.”

The Father then texted his child:

“What is your email address? I’m sending you an email and I’m copying your mother and my lawyer. I’m t[ir]ed the BS manipulations. Your grandmother doesn’t call you S[.] and neither does either one of your aunts and uncle up here and for some reason my Christian beliefs are being attacked, so the intent is for a trial, so that everyone can understand what your mother that has manipulated a wedge after you and I had already came to an agreement [to call you a shortened version of your given name]. Thanks[.]”

Then the Mother testified that their second child, the younger of the two, told her he believed he was gay. The Father texted the younger child:

You can text me anytime. Just between us and call if you ever need to talk. I will tell you like I told you before—you are being heavily manipulated and influenced by your mother and sister. Son. Listen to your dad and our father who created us (God) in this matter. Please please do not allow these demons you are surrounded by influence you. Pray my son. For protection. I love you. Dad.

Father admitted: his relationship with his children is contentious, that he called the police after Mother took the children to a Pride Parade, and that he then called the Crisis Hotline and Legal Aid. He testified that he is concerned for his children’s souls and has no intent to harm them.

The trial judge found that, while the older child was “worried” he was not upset. However, the court found the younger child was “frightened” by Father’s behavior and “worries” that Father does not believe him about his sexual identity, believing instead that it has to do with Mother’s manipulation.

The court entered the protective order as to the younger child and denied the petition as to Mother and the older child. The Court prohibited the Father from abusing or threatening to abuse the younger child; from entering his residence; limited his visitation, and prohibited the Father from sending abusive texts about sexual orientation and/or religion. Father appealed.

Florida Child Custody

I’ve written about child custody and transgender issues before. Florida, unlike Maryland, does not have legal custody, but the parenting plan concept. For purposes of establishing a parenting plan, the best interest of the child is the primary consideration.

In Florida, the best interests of the child are determined by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family. Some of the factors a Florida court looks to include the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, and the mental and physical health of the parents. None of the statutory factors involve the gender or sex of the parent and child.

In Florida, the court must order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. Detriment to a child could take the form of child abuse.

Child abuse is a defined term in Florida. In part, child abuse can mean injury to the intellectual or psychological capacity of a child as evidenced by a discernible and substantial impairment in the ability of the child to function within the normal range of performance and behavior as supported by expert testimony.

Strong Deeds, Gentle Words

In Maryland, the primary goals of their injunction statute are preventative, protective and remedial, not punitive. A judge may issue a protective order if they find abuse. In Maryland, “abuse” of a child is defined as the physical or mental injury of a child under circumstances that indicate that the child’s health or welfare is harmed or at substantial risk of being harmed.

On appeal the Father argued there was insufficient evidence to find that he caused mental injury to his younger child, or that he did so intentionally. But the appellate court ruled it was the younger child’s fear regarding Father’s views about his sexual orientation – and the Father’s seeming inability to see that his views caused and could cause a substantial risk of harm to his son – that the trial court had attempted to address in its order. Accordingly, the trial court’s restraining order was affirmed on appeal.

The unpublished Maryland appellate court opinion is here.

 

Calling a Stepparent Dad

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

An important aspect of child custody arises when families reorganize, and whether it is okay for a child to start calling a stepparent “dad” and “mom”. In a recent Pennsylvania case the issue was whether a family judge can order the Child to only call her biological parents “Dad” and “Mom”.

Stepparent Name

Name Calling

A Mother and Father were married in 2012, welcomed their first and only child O.K. in 2013, and then separated five years later. Mother was a client assistant and later a stay-at-home Mom. She re-married her new husband, (the Stepfather), with whom she has two children.

In 2018, the couple agreed to a week-on/week-off shared custody schedule that continued until 2020, when the family court reduced the Father’s timesharing to the first, second, and fourth full weekends of each month during the school year.

In 2021 the Father tried to modify custody and return to a week-on/week-off shared physical custody schedule and sole legal custody as to educational decision-making.

At the modification trial, the Mother testified to having the Child baptized without notifying Father and contrary to his known wishes, and that she would not discourage the Child from calling Stepfather “dad” or “daddy”. The family judge found Mother’s actions were part of a pattern of to diminish Father’s place and authority in the Child’s life.

The family judge modified custody and returned the parties to a week-on/week-off physical custody schedule, denied the Father’s request for sole legal custody concerning educational decision-making, and importantly, held the Mother in contempt.

Mother moved to reconsider, asking the court to vacate the provisions compelling co-parent counseling and requiring the parties to correct the Child’s use of names like “Mom” and “Dad” for the parties’ significant others.

The trial court then granted Father limited sole legal custody to make medical decisions as to whether the Child receives the COVID-19 vaccination and any subsequent boosters of that vaccine and denied Mother’s emergency motion for reconsideration and injunctive relief. The Mother appealed.

Florida Parental Responsibility and Stepparents

I’ve written about parental responsibility in Florida before. In Florida, “custody” is a concept we have done away with. 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. In fact, courts are instructed to order parents to share parental responsibility of a child unless it would be detrimental to the child.

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 stepparent does not acquire all of the rights or assume all of the obligations of a child’s natural parent in Florida. Stepparents have the difficult task of raising a child that is not biologically or legally their own. Sometimes, stepparents are responsible for providing love, financial support, and supervision when there is an absentee natural parent. When a stepparent remarries and wants to have legal rights in connection with the spouse’s child, adoption is the right path.

The Constitution and Names

On appeal, the Mother argued it was wrong to restrict the child to referring only to her biological parents and “dad” or “mom” in that it violated the Child’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

In custody matters, the paramount concern is the best interest of the child involved. However, in cases raising First Amendment issues, a court has to examine the  record to make sure the judgment does not violate free expression.

Generally, content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional and are subject to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

While a state has an interest in protecting the physical and mental health of a child, that interest is not triggered unless a court finds that the restricted speech caused or will cause harm to a child’s welfare.

The family judge ordered:

“The parties shall not encourage the Child to refer to anyone other than the parties as Mother, Mom, Father, Dad, [et cetera.] In the event the Child refers to a party’s spouse or significant other in such a way, that party shall correct the Child.”

The court restricted the Child’s use of the terms “Mom,” “Dad,” to the Child’s biological parents. Accordingly, the order was a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny.

Father testified that the Child is calling Stepfather “Dad” or “Daddy,” a term that applied only to Father during the Child’s first five years of life – years during which Father testified he was the Child’s “stay-at-home Dad.”

Mother testified that it is “unreasonable” to expect the Child, at age 8, to call Stepfather by a name different from what her two younger half-siblings will use in the future.

The court held it was unreasonable for Mother to expect that Father share the title “Dad” with Stepfather, in light of evidence that Mother has acted to diminish Father’s role in the Child’s life, such as leaving him in the dark regarding a baptism.

The family judge’s imposing a restriction on the Child’s speech, did so in an attempt to further the state interest in protecting the Child’s mental and psychological well-being by maintaining and strengthening the strained relationship between Child and Father.

However, the restrictions were not narrowly tailored to further the state’s compelling interest without a finding by that the use of the term “Dad” or “Daddy” to refer to Stepfather caused harm or will cause harm to the Child.

Indeed, the text of the trial court’s order suggests that the trial court was concerned that the parents’ mutual ill-will and mistrust may have cultivated unhealthy bonds between the parents and the Child, not that the terms the Child used to refer to her parents and stepparents were central to that process.

Without a finding that the Child’s use of the terms “Dad” and “Daddy” to refer to Stepfather posed a tangible risk of harm to the Child, the appellate court was constrained to vacate the content-based restriction.

The opinion is here.

Pet Custody in Tennessee

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The issue of pet custody is increasingly becoming big news in many jurisdictions as people’s views of their relationships with pets change. A new proposed Tennessee pet custody bill could bring a pet custody and visitation law to the Smokey Mountains.

pet custody tennesee

Pet Custody at its Best

Generally, when couples divorce, current law has always been that pets are treated pretty much the same as ownership of your living room couch would be – or any other piece of property for that matter. There has traditionally never been a thing called pet visitation at common law.

Two Tennessee state lawmakers are now trying to change the traditional way of dealing with pets in divorce with some new legislation. According to reports, the new bill would allow a family law judge to determine pet custody based on what’s in the best interest for the wellbeing of a pet.

Tennessee HB467/SB568 essentially states that the family law court may provide for the ownership or joint ownership of any pet or companion animal owned by the parties, taking into consideration the well-being of the animal. If passed in its current state, the act would take effect July 1, 2023.

Tennessee Representative, Caleb Hemmer, a Nashville Democrat, said he tackled the issue because custody of a pet can be a deeply emotional issue.

“For many people, pets are like family members and even cared for like children. It only makes sense for courts to treat them the same way.”

Politicians began to research passing a bill after they personally lived through the painful experience of losing custody of the family dog during a divorce.

Florida Pet Custody

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

Pets are becoming a recognized part of the family. Some would argue they’re a modern couple’s new kids. About 15 years ago, states began to allow people to leave their estates to care for their pets. Recently, courts have gone so far as to award shared custody, visitation and even alimony payments to pet owners.

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.

According to a recent survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, about 30% of attorneys have seen a decrease over the past three years in pet custody cases in front of a judge.

Over the last decade, the question of pet custody has become more prevalent, particularly when it involves a two-income couple with no children who shared responsibility for, and are both attached to, the pet.

Smiling in the Smokey Mountains

The issue of pet custody is gaining traction around the U.S. and the world as pet ownership climbs. The COVID pandemic help to further propel pet ownership and this issue. A new Forbes Advisor survey found that an overwhelming majority of pet owners – about 78 percent – acquired their pets during the pandemic.

Already about five states and Washington D.C. have passed similar pet custody laws. The current bill proposal by Tennessee politicians Hemmer and Yarbro applies to any pet owned by a married couple.

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers has repeatedly reported that there’s been an ever increase in arguments over pet custody in recent years. Additionally, the drafters of the Tennessee bill want more jurisdictions to pass pet custody laws.

The Axios Nashville article is here.

Changing Gender and Child Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Florida courts do not weigh a parent’s gender when determining child custody. However, in some countries, gender matters. Why? Because the law can make a presumption that during a child’s “tender” years, around age four and under, the mother is awarded child custody. One father in Ecuador decided to tilt the odds in his favor by changing his gender.

Gender Custody

Paying the Cuenta in Cuenca

On the morning of December 30, 2022, in the dusty town of Santa Ana de los Cuatro Ríos de Cuenca, Ecuador, René Salinas Ramos decided to change his gender from male to female and fight for custody of his two daughters. Salinas had a major complaint about the country’s child custody laws. Namely, the laws gave more rights to the mother than the father.

“My actions are not against anyone in particular but against the system. Being a father in this country, Ecuador, is punished and seen only as a provider.”

The Father was interviewed by La Voz del Tomebamba radio. During the interview he showed his new country ID card, which has his new gender data, “FEMENINO.” However, his ID contains the same names with which he was enrolled with originally over 47-years ago.

While the ID card has his gender as “femenino”, he still identifies himself as a cisgender male. Ecuador passed a law in 2015 that allows people to legally change their gender on government-issued documents.

Florida Child Custody

I’ve written about child custody before. Unlike Ecuador for example, Florida does not apply the “tender years doctrine” anymore. Florida has the parenting plan concept. For purposes of establishing a parenting plan, the best interest of the child, not the gender of the parent, is the primary consideration.

In Florida, the best interests of the child are determined by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family, including the mental and physical health of the parents.

Some of those factors include the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, to honor the time-sharing schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are required, and of course, the mental and physical health of the parents. None of the statutory factors involve the gender or sex of the parent and child.

It is also the public policy of Florida that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate and to encourage both parents to share the rights and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing.

When it comes to the parents’ gender, Florida makes no presumption for or against the father or mother of the child or for or against any specific time-sharing schedule when creating or modifying the parenting plan of the child.

In Florida, the court must order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.

Género, patria y libertad!

According to Salinas, his daughters live with their mother in an environment in the midst of violence. These allegations of violence are reportedly denounced. Salinas boasts that now that he is a woman, he can be a mother and is on an equal footing to fight for the parental authority of his daughters.

“It is more than five months that I do not see my daughters. I can also be a mother, I know how to cook, give love, iron and other activities of a mother.”

However Salinas never explained what prevents Salinas from approaching the children. In the Father’s opinion, justice is biased in favor of women when it comes to parenting and, according to Salinas, to be on an equal footing, he no longer wants to be called dad, but mom.

“The laws say that the one who has the right is the woman. As of this moment, I am female. Now I’m also a mom, that’s how I consider myself. I am very sure of my sexuality. What I have sought is that I want to be a mother, so that I can also give the love and protection of a mother.”

Until this matter is resolved the children have to stay with their mother he told the media. The law is taking away our right to be parents and changing his official ID to show a new gender “is a proof of love.”

Salinas Ramos is reportedly the first man in Ecuador to use gender laws to gain the upper hand in a custody battle, and news of the gender change has set off criticism from transgender activists in the South American country.

Money may also be an issue. According to reports, the judicial system portal may reflect that the Father maintains a debt with his former and current spouse. This amounts to $10,766 for alimony.

Regarding the breach of this responsibility, Salinas justified that in the case of the current spouse he made an agreement, because he paid all the basic services and school obligations. Additionally, he mentioned a document signed by the mother in which she renounces the debt, but Salinas did not show it, and the document does not appear to be recorded in the computer system either.

Salinas hopes that the issue of the possession of girls will continue to be debated not only at the social level, but also in the Assembly. He acknowledged that after his gender change on the ID he has received calls for support from organizations and even politicians, but he does not want the issue to be mixed with the campaign and preferred not to approach them.

The La Voz Del Tomebamba article is here. (en Español)

Shucking Child Custody and Freedom of Speech

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and child custody rights are in for a shucking when an Indiana family court modifies a marital settlement agreement. Years after a divorce, one of the parents discovers religion. The parents end up back in court on a petition to modify custody and prohibit a parent from talking about religion.

Going Back To Indiana

The parents of a daughter were divorced in September 2012 after the trial court accepted the parties’ settlement agreement. Pursuant to their agreement, the parties shared joint legal custody of the Child, the Father paid weekly child support, the Mother was the Child’s primary physical custodian, and Father exercised parenting time.

Then in 2022, the Mother filed a petition to modify, asserting a substantial change in circumstances in that she and the Child changed churches, and she and the Child now attend Seymour Christ Temple Apostolic.

Since changing churches, the Child stopped painting her nails and now wears only long skirts. The Child attends church three times a week, on Sunday morning and Sunday evening for services and on Thursday night for youth group.

The Mother admitted the Child was baptized without informing Father until after the baptism occurred. Mother testified she wanted the trial court to modify the parenting time to eliminate the Father’s ability to question the Child’s religion or try to talk the Child into believing that there is no God.

The Father testified he is an agnostic. He denied telling Child “there wasn’t a God” and testified he had not tried to “convince her the church she goes to isn’t something she should be attending. He said he wanted Child to make her own choice about religion.

The judge conducted an in camera interview with Child, and concluded:

The Court finds that [Child] has made an independent well-reasoned decision about her faith, which should be respected and encouraged.

The Court awarded the Mother sole legal custody of the Child, primary physical custody, and ordered that the Father shall not discuss religion with Child. The Father appealed.

Florida Child Custody and Free Speech

I’ve written about free speech in family cases before. Family courts have a lot of power to protect children. Florida courts have to balance a parent’s right of free expression against the state’s parens patriae interest in assuring the well-being of minor children.

In Florida, there have been cases in which a judge prohibited a parent from speaking Spanish to a child. A mother went from primary caregiver to only supervised visits – under the nose of a time-sharing supervisor. The trial judge also allowed her daily telephone calls with her daughter, supervised by the Father, and ordered:

“Under no circumstances shall the Mother speak Spanish to the child.”

The judge was concerned about the Mother’s comments, after the Mother “whisked” the child away from the time-sharing supervisor in an earlier incident and had a “private” conversation with her in a public bathroom. The Mother was also bipolar and convicted of two crimes. The Florida appeals court reversed the restriction. Ordering a parent not to speak Spanish violates the freedom of speech and right to privacy.

Florida law tries to balance the burden placed on the right of free expression essential to the furtherance of the state’s interests in promoting the best interests of children. In other words, in that balancing act, the best interests of children can be a compelling state interest justifying a restraint of a parent’s right of free speech.

“Ope, sorry!”

On appeal, the Father argued the family judge erred when it modified custody based solely on religious beliefs and prohibited him from talking about religion with his Child.

In Indiana “religion” is not one of the statutory factors a trial court must consider when making a decision to modify child custody. Modifying custody based entirely on religion then – even if the Child expressed an interest in participating in religious activities at a church – was not a substantial change in circumstances to justify changing custody.

The appellate court also found the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – which prohibit the government from restricting expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content- was also violated.

In this case, the family court judge never found the Father was discussing religion with Child in a way that had a negative impact on her. The Mother testified Child “cries is withdrawn presents with a rash and/or hives, and her face is puffy” after visiting with Father. However, Mother did not specifically attribute Child’s reactions to discussions of religion between Father and Child.

The Mother did not testify about a specific instance during which Father spoke to Child about religion in general, much less a time when Father disparaged Child’s religious views or attempted to persuade Child there was not a God. For his part, the Father testified he never told the Child there was no God. In fact, he wanted the Child to make her own choices about religion.

Even if the Child had reported that Father was disparaging her religious views and telling her there was no God, the trial court’s total prohibition of Father’s right to discuss religion with Child is not narrowly tailored to further the State’s compelling interest in protecting Child’s welfare.

The family court judge’s order totally prohibiting Father from discussing religion with Child violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment. Because the appellate court reversed, it decided it did not need not address whether the order also violated his freedom of religion argument.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana opinion is here.

Sex Talk and Modifying Child Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

In the wake of a new Florida law protecting a parent’s rights not to teach sex education, comes a case in which too much sex talk ended up modifying one parent’s child custody. Recently, a Michigan family law case drew a line between educating your children about sex and inappropriate conversations.

Sex Talk child custody

The ‘Birds and the Bees’

The parents have four children: three daughters and one son, and they have been divorced since 2018. They were awarded joint legal custody of the four children with a split: One parent had the boy, and the other parent had the three girls

In 2021, Father asked to change legal residence, parenting time, and custody relative to EJ and JJ, requesting that the trial court award him primary physical custody of the two children and that the court change their legal residence from Petoskey to his home in Plymouth, Michigan.

The Mother opposed the motion. During an evidentiary the Father introduced several exhibits, including a recorded conversation between the Mother and the three daughters indicating that she had inappropriate conversations with the children, had difficulties controlling her anger, used vulgarities and profanity in conversations with the children, and consumed an excessive amount of alcohol during parenting time.

After the evidentiary hearing, the referee recommended that the trial court deny the motion. The Father filed an objection which was heard by the trial judge in a de novo hearing. The Father argued he was not given sufficient time to present evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof, that the referee should have found that there was a joint custodial environment, and that it was in the children’s best interests to change custody.

The trial court granted Father’s motion and awarded him primary physical custody. The Mother appealed.

Florida Modifying Custody

I have written about modification of child custody before. In Florida, during the initial child custody case, a family court must determine the best interest of a child based upon all of the factors listed in our child custody statute.

After determining the best interest of the child, and entering a child custody decree, Florida law grants continuing jurisdiction to the family court to modify the custody order but does not state the conditions necessary for modification.

Modification is based, in Florida, on the substantial change test. A party seeking a modification must prove a substantial and material change in circumstances, and that the best interests of the child will be promoted by such modification.

How Not To Teach Your Children

On appeal, the Mother argued the family court abused its discretion when it modified her custody. She argued under Michigan law, courts are not permitted to “modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.”

But at trial, there was evidence the Mother was having inappropriate conversations with the children about her sex life, wrestling with the children, negligently leaving her sex toy where one child and a friend found it, and was demonstrating she had an inability to control her anger and interact appropriately with the children.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the family judge. At the time of the trial, one child was only 11 years old and the other child was only 10 years old. There was a litany of evidence that the Mother was sharing her sex life details, making remarks about a date’s erectile dysfunction, raising her voice during a conversation with the children about sexuality, leaving a sex toy exposed, and allowing the children to be in the presence of a man she was dating who became intoxicated and acted highly inappropriately, and wrestling with the children after drinking.

The Michigan Court of Appeal opinion is here.

Child Custody and Trial by Combat

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

While most issues in child custody cases are settled, those which are not are decided in a bench trial – a trial presided over by a judge. Family cases are not generally tried by jury. One man, however, asked for a seldom seen alternative resolution for his case: trial by combat.

Child custody trial

Child Custody but with Honor

The father, in a motion he filed in court, asked the presiding family judge to allow him to fight his former wife and her attorney in a duel, so he can “rend their souls” from their bodies.

The father also asked the court to give him 12 weeks “lead time” in order to buy or forge two Samurai swords. The father wanted help resolving his dispute of reasonable telephone and video communication with the children. The father also asked for money from his ex-wife to pay for property taxes of their former house.

“Trial by combat was still regarded as a legitimate method for dispute resolution when the Constitution was ratified by the United States and by the original 13 colonies. To this day, trial by combat has never been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States.”

Court records in the case since the parties’ initial filing are filled with assertions by the father that his communication with the children is lacking when the children are with his ex-wife, who has primary physical care.

When asked, the father told the Des Moines Register that he got the idea after reading about a 2016 case in New York. Apparently, New York Supreme Court Justice, Philip G. Minardo, acknowledged in an order that, in theory, the court had the power to permit a trial by combat.

The New York Supreme Court considered the issue after a Staten Island lawyer asked the judge to authorize trial by combat. The request for trial by combat was sought to resolve a civil suit for damages. The movant felt trial by combat would clear the lawyer’s good name, after the lawyer was accused of helping a client fraudulently transfer assets.

Florida Child Custody

I’ve written about child custody before – especially about problems parents were having during the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. Unlike Iowa for example, Florida does not use the term “custody” anymore. Florida has the parenting plan concept. For purposes of establishing a parenting plan, the best interest of the child is the primary consideration.

In Florida, the best interests of the child are determined by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family, including the mental and physical health of the parents.

Some of those factors include the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, to honor the time-sharing schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are required, and of course, the mental and physical health of the parents. None of the statutory factors involve Samurai swords.

Till Death Do Us Part

In what can only be described as a shameful day for the entire legal profession, the ex-wife’s attorney chickened out:

“Although the respondent and potential combatant do have souls to be rended, they respectfully request that the court not order this done. We humbly request the court deny this motion, as the potentially life-ending ramifications surely outweigh the severity of the petitioner’s proposed legal remedy of trying to avoid responsibility for property taxes and to acquire additional telephonic communication.”

The family judge was not amused, temporarily suspended the father’s visitation, and ordered a psychological evaluation.

The evaluation determined he is not troubled, but has “adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features,” the father told he Des Moines Register. “It essentially says I’m not crazy, I just don’t like being denied access to my children,” he said.

The Des Moines Register article is here.

Child Custody and Transgender Identity

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A recent child custody case in Indiana tries to balance the parents’ constitutional rights to free speech and religion against a child’s transgender identity. The state of Indiana removed a child from the parents over how the parents dealt with their child’s transgender identity. Then, the Court of Appeals of Indiana was asked to weigh in.

Custody Transgender Identity

Custody in the Crossroads of America

The case started in May 2021, when the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report alleging that the mother was verbally and emotionally abusing her 16-year-old child by using rude and demeaning language regarding the teen’s transgender identity. As a result, the teenager had thoughts of self-harm.

Ten days later, DCS received a second report alleging both parents were involved in being verbally and emotionally abusive because they do not accept their child’s transgender identity — and the abuse was getting worse.

A case manager investigated, and reported the child had been suffering from an eating disorder. The other findings included that the parents had withdrawn the child from school and DCS was unaware of the intent to enroll the child in a new school; they had discontinued the child’s therapy; the child did not feel mentally and/or emotionally safe , and would be more likely to have thoughts of self-harm and suicide if returned.

DCS filed a petition alleging the child’s physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered due to the parents’ neglect and/or the child’s physical or mental health was seriously endangered due to injury by the parents’ acts or omissions.

The juvenile court issued an order finding that it was in the child’s best interest to be removed from the home due to the parents’ “inability, refusal or neglect to provide shelter, care, and/or supervision at the present time.”

At the close of a subsequent hearing, the court informed the parties that it would leave in place its earlier order prohibiting the parents from discussing the child’s transgender identity during visitation, found the child needed services and therapy, in which the parents were ordered to participate and ordered that the child would remain in the current home or placement with DCS supervision.

The parents appealed, claiming the order was clearly erroneous, violated their constitutional rights to the care, custody and control of their child, and violated their rights to the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.

Florida Child Custody

I’ve written about child custody and issues involving the constitution before, primarily between the parents. The case in Indiana however, is not between the child’s parents, but between the parents and the State of Indiana.

Other cases can involve disputes between parents over how to handle the social gender transition of a child. In Florida shared parental responsibility is the preferred relationship between parents. 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 health 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 based on an evaluation of statutory factors, and one equitable catch-all factor, affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the child’s family.

The statute authorizes one parent to have ultimate responsibility for certain decisions. For example, health care is an area of ultimate responsibility a court can award. When a decision on health goes to trial, the court grants one parent ultimate responsibility to make that decision.

Hoosiers or Abusers?

The Court of Appeals rejected the parents’ religious freedom arguments. The Father testified that the parents were not allowed to affirm their child’s transgender identity, or use their child’s preferred pronouns, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs.

But the appellate court found that the order was based on the child’s medical and psychological needs, not on the parents’ disagreement with the child’s transgender identity. Put differently, the child’s removal was not based on the fact the parents didn’t accept the child’s transgender identity, and their future reunification was not contingent on the parents violating their religious beliefs or being forced to affirm the child’s transgender identity.

Accordingly, the order did not impose a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion. Moreover, the appellate panel found that protecting the child’s health and welfare was a compelling interest justifying state action that is contrary to the parents’ religious beliefs.

The Court of Appeals also rejected the parents’ freedom of speech arguments. The trial court recognized that the child’s eating disorder and self-isolation were connected to the discord at home about the child’s transgender identity.

Accordingly, the trial court’s limitation on the parents from discussing the topic directly targets the State’s compelling interest in addressing the child’s eating disorder and psychological health, as opposed to the content of the parents’ speech itself.

The order was found to be narrowly tailored because it restricted the parents from discussing the topic with the child only during visitation. However, the order permitted the topic to be discussed in family therapy.

Limiting the parents to only discussing the issue in family therapy was seen to allow the family to work on conflict management, so that they will eventually be able to safely talk about it outside of therapy. Accordingly, the order restricting conversation of this topic outside of family therapy was a permissible prior restraint.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana opinion is here.

New Grandparent Visitation Law

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

After Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1119, a new grandparent visitation law becomes effective this month. Often denied any rights to custody and visitation, the new ‘Markel Act’ is a significant step towards increasing Florida grandparent visitation rights in some very narrow, and tragic, situations.

Grandparent Visitation

Dan Markel Tragedy

The Markel Act was inspired in part by the 2014 murder-for-hire of Florida State law professor Dan Markel. Professor Markel was killed by hitmen in his driveway after he dropped his two sons off at preschool.

At the trial for Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia in 2019, prosecutors claimed that Charlie Adelson – Markel’s ex-brother-in-law, arranged to pay $100,000 for the murder so that Markel’s ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, could get full custody of their two sons and relocate to South Florida.

Garcia was found guilty of first-degree murder and conspiracy but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on Magbanua. She was recently retried and found guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation to commit murder.

In April 2022, Charlie Adelson was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and solicitation to commit murder. Markel’s ex-wife Wendi and ex-mother-in—law Donna Adelson were also named as co-conspirators.

During the intervening years, Dan’s parents, the paternal grandparents of the two boys, have been denied any contact with their grandchildren.

Grandparent Visitation

I have written about how Florida courts have consistently held as unconstitutional statutes that have attempted to compel visitation or custody with a grandparent based solely on the best interest of the child standard.

The courts’ rulings are premised on the fact that the fundamental right to parent without intrusion by the government is a long-standing liberty interest recognized by both the United States and Florida constitutions.

However, a grandparent may be awarded visitation rights under very limited circumstances, such as when a child’s parents are deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state.

New Grandparent Visitation law

The Markel Act amends Florida law to create a rebuttable presumption for granting reasonable visitation with a petitioning grandparent or step-grandparent under certain circumstances.

Under the bill, if the court finds that one parent of a child has been held criminally liable for the death of the other parent, or civilly liable for an intentional tort causing the death of the other parent, a rebuttable presumption arises that the grandparent who is the parent of the child’s deceased parent is entitled to reasonable visitation with the grandchild.

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.

Specifically, the bill says that grandparents can petition courts for visitation with their grandchildren where the living parent was found culpable by a criminal or civil court for the other parent’s death.

“The tragedy of Dan’s murder was compounded by this cruel, unnecessary separation — but until now, Florida law gave his parents no recourse toward reuniting with their grandchildren.”

The new law became effective on July 1st. A copy is available here.