Tag: visitation

Travel Restrictions to Hague Convention Countries

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A recurring international custody problem is should a court place travel restrictions on parents who want to travel internationally to only travel to Hague Convention countries with the children? A married couple from China finds out the extent to which a family court can place such travel restrictions.

Travel Restrictions

China Visit

Zhenzhen Wang (the Wife) and Shengyi Ye (the Husband) were married in Iowa in 2008.  They share two children—a son and a daughter. In 2019, Shengyi took a job as a professor in China, while Zhenzhen and the children remained in Iowa.

In 2022, the wife and children visited the husband in China. One day while driving in the car, the parents started fighting, which resulted in the husband abandoning the wife and the children on the side of the road.  She took a taxi back to his apartment, where she discovered he had removed the children’s passports, travel documents, and birth certificates from her backpack.

Although he at first denied taking the documents, he later refused to give them back, preventing her and the children from leaving the country. It ultimately took Zhenzhen “six or seven months” to reorder all of the travel documents and return to Iowa.

When the wife and children returned home to Iowa, she petitioned to dissolve the marriage. Shengyi then filed a competing lawsuit in China, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Iowa court awarded her sole legal custody of the children. After considering his prior conduct preventing the children from returning to home to the U.S., and that China may not enforce a United States custodial order, the court required that the father have visitation with the children only in the U.S.

The court also provided him up to ten consecutive weeks of visitation with the children over the summer, and up to four weeks at a time should he travel to the United States during the school year. The husband appealed, arguing that he should be able to take the children to China for visitation.

Florida and the Hague Convention

I often speak and write about the Hague Abduction Convention and international child custody issues. The International Child Abduction Remedies Act is the statute in the United States that implements the Hague Abduction Convention.

Under the Act, a person may petition a court authorized to exercise jurisdiction in the country where a child is located for the return of the child to his or her habitual residence in another signatory country, so the underlying child custody dispute can be determined in the proper jurisdiction.

But it is important to know that the Convention applies as between contracting states only to wrongful removals or retentions occurring after its entry into force in those states. The accession will have effect only as regards the relations between the acceding State and such Contracting States as will have declared their acceptance of the accession.

In plain language, the Convention enters into force between an acceding State and a member Contracting State only when the Contracting State accepts the acceding State’s accession to the Convention.

Appellate Decision

The appellate court noted that limiting a parent’s ability to travel internationally with his or her children implicates heightened, and at times conflicting, interests. On the one hand, despite the virtues of our state, the court noted:

“[t]he world does not end at the borders of Iowa.”

Children should not easily be denied the opportunity to build meaningful relationships with a parent who resides outside of the United States or fully experience their dual heritage. On the other hand, there may be problems securing the return from a foreign country of a child to a custodial parent in the United States.

The danger of retention of a child in a country where retrieving the child is difficult, if not impossible, is a major factor for a court to weigh. Courts also consider other factors, such as the parent’s domicile, the reasons for visiting, the children’s safety, the age of the children, the parents’ relationship, the viability of bonds or other return measures, and the character and integrity of the parent seeking out-of-country visitation as gleaned from past comments and conduct.

The Iowa Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed. The appeals court noted that China is not a party to the Hague Convention, so the mother would have no recourse should the husband refuse to return the children to the United States.

The Court of Appeals of Iowa decision is here.

Divorce and Euthanizing the Family Pet

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

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

pet custody 2

Cruel and Unusual?

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

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

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

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

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

Florida Pet Custody

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

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

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

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

It’s Up to You New York

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The opinion is here.

Florida Grandparent Visitation Bill

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Good news for Florida grandparents. The Florida House recently passed a visitation bill with profound meaning for Florida grandparents who have become estranged from their grandchildren after a tragedy. A companion bill, SB 1408, is awaiting a final vote on the Senate calendar.

Grandparent Visitation

Markel Act in the House

Currently in Florida, a grandparent can only be awarded visitation rights with their grandchildren under extremely limited circumstances, such as when a child’s parents are both deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state.

However, when only one parent is deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state, the other parent must have been convicted of a felony or a violent offense in order for a grandparent to be able to petition for visitation.

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

HB 1119 dramatically changes the law of grandparent visitation in Florida. It expands the ability for a grandparent to petition for visitation rights of his or her grandchild in certain narrow circumstances.
The bill does this by changing Florida Statutes to create a rebuttable presumption for granting reasonable visitation with the petitioning grandparent or step-grandparent under certain circumstances.

If a court finds that one parent of a child has been held criminally or civilly liable for the death of the other parent of the child, 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 effort behind the bill, informally referred to as “The Markel Act” was inspired in part by the 2014 murder of FSU law professor Dan Markel, who was hunted down and shot in the head by a hitman shortly after dropping Dan dropped his two sons off at preschool.

Prosecutors have publicly identified Markel’s ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, as an alleged “co-conspirator” to the murder, along with her mother and brother. Law enforcement says Adelson’s motive was to relocate to South Florida amid custody battles with Markel. While Adelson family members have not been arrested yet, three others have — the hitman, who was found guilty and sentenced to life; his accomplice, who pleaded guilty and confessed who had hired them; and their intermediary, who faces a retrial in May.

The bill passed the House with a vote of 112-3.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

I have written extensively on grandparent visitation in Florida. In early common law, there was never a right to visitation by non-parents, and Florida has clung to that tradition. That is ironic, as a lot of elderly voters reside in Florida, and politicians have been trying to create visitation rights to grandparent voters here.

Beginning in 1978, the Florida legislature started making changes to the Florida Statutes that granted enforceable rights to visit their grandchildren.

The Florida Supreme Court built a massive wall blocking Florida grandparent visitation rights, explaining that parenting is protected by the right to privacy, a fundamental right, and any intrusion upon that right must be justified by a compelling state interest. In Florida, that compelling state interest was harm to the child:

“[W]e hold that the [s]tate may not intrude upon the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.”

Not too long ago, the Florida Supreme Court held that under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act any custody determination or visitation determination – including grandparent rights – are protected and enforceable under the PKPA. And, to the extent that the PKPA conflicts with Florida law, the PKPA controls under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution because it is a federal law.

Senate Grandparent Visitation

The Senate companion bill unanimously cleared its committees and heads next to the Senate Floor. Both bills have bipartisan support. Specifically, the Senate Bill creates a presumption that a court may award a grandparent reasonable visitation with a grandchild in cases where the court has found that one parent has been held criminally or civilly liable for the death of the other parent of the grandchild unless not in the child’s best interest.

For five years, while the wheels of justice turned, Markel’s parents, Ruth and Phil, were kept from contact with their grandsons. As Ruth commented:

“We have profound gratitude for the Florida House, in particular Speaker Chris Sprowls, Rep. Jackie Toledo, and the other co-sponsors, for their vision and leadership. There’s nothing more important to us than leaving a record of how deeply we’ve tried to reconnect with our grandsons. Out of our tragedy, we hope to create something meaningful for other families to visit their grandchildren. Today marks a powerful day in this journey.”

Toledo tried to downplay the impact on parent rights by commenting that the Senate was not looking at ways to dismantle the rights of parents but to correct the problem in law when one parent retains custody even when implicated in the death of their co-parent.

Justice for Dan, a grassroots group of friends and allies, praises Speaker Sprowls, the bill sponsors, and members for their action for what it deems a clear message: murder can’t be a solution to custody battles.

The Florida Politics article is here.

Your Nanny Could Be Entitled to Custody and Visitation

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A married high school teacher in Vermont recently learned that the troubled student she and her husband took in, and who helped with nanny duties, could be entitled to custody and visitation of her child as a ‘de facto’ parent. How did the Vermont Supreme Court just decide the issue?

de facto parent 2

Half Baked Parents

A 5-year old boy is the biological son of a Mother and Father. The Mother is a 41-year old high school teacher who was pregnant with a child. The Plaintiff (Student) was a female high-school student from an abusive household who always relied on the Mother for moral support.

When the Student turned 18, she was kicked out of her own home, was welcomed into the Mother and Father’s home, paying $100 a month for utilities and helped with chores. Two weeks after moving in, the Student left to attend college in northern Vermont and returned on the weekends.

The Student and the Father started a romantic relationship, which turned into a polyamorous sexual relationship involving the Mother: they slept in the same bed and of course, got matching tattoos.

The Mother and Student went to the Mother’s prenatal visits, she was present for the baby’s, J.F., birth, and even cut the umbilical cord. But unbeknownst to the other two, the Mother went to a divorce lawyer.

The Father later found evidence the Mother was having an affair. As retaliation, the Father and Student took the Mother’s phone, her high-heeled shoes – calling them her “whore shoes”— her makeup, and used FBI interrogation methods such as sleep deprivation on the Mother.

After the Mother filed for divorce, the Student sought custody as a de facto parent when the Mother would not allow her to see the baby.

Florida De Facto Parents

I’ve written about various custody issues involving non-biological parents before – in Florida it has typically meant grandparent visitation rights. Often times people who are not married, not adoptive parents, and not biological parents, are involved in raising a child. When relationships sour, the non-parent seeks visitation and timesharing of a child that’s not really theirs.

Florida’s rules regarding visitation and timesharing are governed by statute. And by its explicit provisions, the statute applies only to parents’ visitation rights and does not extend to nonparents.

There are a few Florida cases that have applied the law to hold that nonparents are not entitled to visitation. Because of these cases, non-parents do not have standing to even ask the court for visitation and timesharing.

The role of the de facto parent is very fragile. The Florida Supreme Court, relying on the constitutional right of privacy, has unequivocally reaffirmed adoptive or biological parents’ right to make decisions about their children’s welfare without interference by third parties.

The distinction between “adoptive or biological parents” is critical in Florida. The law is clear: those who claim parentage on some basis other than biology or legal status do not have the same rights, including the right to visitation, as the biological or legal parents.

A Chunky Monkey Decision

Back in Vermont, after extensive hearings, the family court judge refused to find the Student was a de facto parent, and the Student appealed, ending up in the Vermont Supreme Court.

The high court upheld the family court judge, who found that the Student failed to prove her role in the family was more than that of a nanny. Simply taking care of the baby when mother was at work, not on weekends, vacations, or during the evenings or overnight was not enough.

The court also rejected the Student’s argument that she was a de facto parent because she didn’t hold out J.F. as her own child. A few Facebook posts over the course of four years was not considered enough.

Finally, the court concluded that continuing the relationship was not in J.F’s best interests because of the controlling nature of the Father’s and Student’s relationship with the Mother. Getting the Mother suspended, taking away her shoes and the sleep deprivation techniques, all had a negative impact on the child – causing difficulty sleeping, constipation, and bedwetting.

Additionally, the court was concerned that the Student having report the Mother to the school and getting her suspended from her job, meant that a continuation of the Student’s relationship with the child could result in continuing control over the Mother, and that control was not in the child’s best interests.

The Vermont Supreme Court decision from Reason.com is here.

Grandparent Custody Goes to Federal Court

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A rare grandparent custody and timesharing case ends up in a federal court after the child in question filed a temporary restraining order to prevent county child services from sending him to Florida to live with a father he claims he’s never met.

Grandparent Custody

The Ruckus in Columbus

“John Doe” is a thirteen-year-old boy in the temporary custody of Franklin County Children Services. He had been living with his mother in Ohio, but Children Services suspected that he was being abused or neglected. So, Children Services filed a case in Ohio state court to have Doe removed from his mother’s home. The court ordered Doe removed, and it is now presiding over the resulting custody dispute.

During the proceedings, the state court gave Children Services custody of Doe. Children Services then placed him with his maternal grandmother, who he has had a relationship with for much of his life and who also lives in central Ohio. A Guardian Ad Litem, who filed a report, recommend placement with his grandmother.

The child claims he has had no contact with his father from the time he has a baby until after the case was filed, that his father has a criminal record and has two family members who died from drug overdoses. He has expressed fear of his safety if made to live with his father, as well as fear of traveling to Florida at this time during the COVID-19 pandemic, and wishes to remain with his grandmother.

However, Child Services decided the child should be put on a plane to live permanently with his father in Florida, for reasons unknown to him, with whom, as best he can recall, he has not had a relationship for his entire life.

The child then filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, and sought a temporary restraining order (a TRO) claiming he was denied procedural due process and first amendment retaliation claims. The trial court granted his motion.

Children Services appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and moved to stay the injunction pending the appeal.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

I have written extensively on grandparent visitation in Florida. In early common law, there was never a right to visitation by non-parents, and Florida has clung to that tradition. That is ironic, as a lot of elderly voters reside in Florida, and politicians have been trying to create visitation rights to grandparent voters here.

Beginning in 1978, the Florida legislature started making changes to the Florida Statutes that granted enforceable rights to visit their grandchildren.

The Florida Supreme Court built a massive wall blocking Florida grandparent visitation rights, explaining that parenting is protected by the right to privacy, a fundamental right, and any intrusion upon that right must be justified by a compelling state interest. In Florida, that compelling state interest was harm to the child:

“[W]e hold that the [s]tate may not intrude upon the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.”

Recently, the Florida Supreme Court held that under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act any custody determination or visitation determination – including grandparent rights  – are protected and enforceable under the PKPA. And, to the extent that the PKPA conflicts with Florida law, the PKPA controls under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution because it is a federal law.

The Buckeye Way

The Sixth Circuit rejected Children Services’ arguments that the district court should have abstained in favor of state proceedings:

Children Services filed the case to remove Doe from a potentially abusive home, and “the temporary removal of a child in a child-abuse context is … in aid of and closely related to criminal statutes.”

But removal proceedings are not at all “akin to criminal prosecution” as far as the child is concerned. And here, it is the child who has filed the federal lawsuit. That difference matters, because the Court has described proceedings in this second category as those that are “characteristically initiated to sanction the federal plaintiff.”

That does not describe this case, where the federal plaintiff is not an abusive parent, but a child. In the absence of full and thorough briefing, we will not broadly construe the Younger categories to apply to this different situation—especially given the Court’s instruction that Younger “extends to the three ‘exceptional circumstances’ [it has identified], but no further.”

Another argument by the agency was that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments, but the court held it has “no application to judicial review of executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency.”

The court found that the child was not challenging a state court judgment; he was challenging the decision of Children Services, an agency of Franklin County, Ohio.

The court also rejected Children Services’ argument that it should get a stay because it’s likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal:

The states’ interest in resolving child-custody disputes is exceptionally strong, and federal court involvement in custody proceedings will almost always be inappropriate.

Finally, the court cautioned all district courts against entangling themselves in this area of traditional state concern.

The 6th Cir. Opinion is here.

 

Unorthodox: Religion, Divorce and More Good Coronavirus Info

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Religion and courts don’t mix. However, judges are sometimes asked to order a parent to enforce religious issues when timesharing. That just happened in Brooklyn, and the case involves ordering an atheist father to follow religious laws. There’s also some good coronavirus information out there.

Divorce Religion

Brooklyn 2020

During any relationship, a parent is free to choose how strictly to enforce the other parent’s religion. Sure, feeding your Jewish child Cuban croquetas may lead to a divorce, but your spouse can’t report you to the police for not eating kosher.

But how about after a couple files for divorce? When the parents have divorced and entered into a settlement agreement about religious matters, for example, some religious restrictions may be enforceable in court despite the separation between church and state.

Recently in Brooklyn, a couple practiced Satmar Hasidic Judaism, the same sect in the Netflix series “Unorthodox.” In the Brooklyn case, the Father went “unorthodox”, but continued to dress as a Hasidic Jew. After the divorce, a family court awarded the mother sole custody with the father getting parental access.

The father was ordered to give the children kosher food and make “all reasonable efforts to ensure that the children’s appearance and conduct comply with the Hasidic’ religious requirements of the mother and of the children’s schools as they were raised while the children were in his custody.

Florida Religion and Divorce

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

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

One of the earliest Florida case in which religion was a factor in deciding parental responsibility restricted one parent from exposing the children to that parent’s religion.

The Mother was a member of The Way International, and the Father introduced evidence that The Way made the Mother an unfit parent. He alleged The Way psychologically brainwashed her, that she had become obsessed, and was neglecting the children. The trial judge awarded custody to the Mother provided that she sever all connections, meetings, tapes, visits, communications, or financial support with The Way, and not subject the children to any of its dogmas.

The Mother appealed the restrictions as a violation of her free exercise of religion. The appellate court agreed, and held the restrictions were unconstitutionally overbroad and expressly restricted the Mother’s free exercise of her religious beliefs and practices.

Following that, and other decisions, Florida courts will not stop a parent from practicing their religion or from influencing the religious training of their child inconsistent with that of the other parent.

When the matter involves the religious training and beliefs of the child, the court generally does not make a decision in favor of a specific religion over the objection of the other parent. The court should also avoid interference with the right of a parent to practice their own religion and avoid imposing an obligation to enforce the religious beliefs of the other parent.

Do the Right Thing

The Brooklyn case went back to the family court, and after a hearing was held, the mother conceded that the father was not really preventing the children from practicing their Judaism during his timesharing.

Instead, the mother’s complaint was that the father himself was not complying with Hasidic religious requirements in the presence of the children while he was timesharing with them, and that didn’t comply with the religious clause.

After the hearing, the family court attempted to enforce the religious upbringing provision of the judgment by ordering the father – during his timesharing – to “conduct himself in accordance with the cultural norms” of Hasidic Judaism established by the parents during the marriage.

The court then directed that the father’s behavior and conduct when in the presence of the children “must and should be consistent with the cultural norm . . . established by the parents.”

The father appealed from that part of the order directing him to comply with the cultural norms of Hasidic Judaism during his timesharing. The appellate court reversed.

By directing him to comply with the “cultural norms” of Hasidic Judaism during his timesharing, the family court ran afoul of constitution by compelling the father to himself practice a religion, rather than merely directing him to provide the children with a religious upbringing.

While the court referred to the “cultural norms” by which the children were raised, the testimony at the hearing made clear that the “cultural norms” were really the religious requirements of Hasidic Judaism, which was unconstitutional.

Good Coronavirus Information

Green spaces, parks, and boardwalks are too crowded — making it impossible to maintain the minimum 6 feet of social distancing recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention without exposing yourself or your family to the coronavirus.

Tech can help avoid those areas and crowds if you absolutely must leave your shelter. Here are some tools that can help:

  • Strava, the activity-tracking app, can help you find alternative routes for running, walking and riding.
  • AllTrails identifies lightly treaded trails nearby.
  • Before your next grocery run, consult Google’s popular times to see if it’s crowded. A pink “Live” indicator is a good representation of how many people are there right now.
  • If you aren’t sure what 6 feet looks like, bust out the Measure app on your iPhone or Android device.

The Reason article is here.

 

Coronavirus makes Child Custody Tricky and More Good Information

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Home schooling and being quarantined for weeks, the coronavirus pandemic is causing chaos for everyone. But for parents who are divorced or separated, child custody is even more tricky. There’s also some good information about coronavirus.

Coronavirus Custody

Parenting in the time of the Coronavirus

Courts are open, our office is open (remotely), and we are handling new divorce cases and child custody matters. And what we’re seeing are recurring problems during the coronavirus crisis with alimony and support payments, and especially sharing the children.

Courts may be open, but there is definitely a backlog with remote courts, and courts are handling emergencies first. That means many parents may have to hammer out their differences largely without the help of a judge.

As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, across the country, many family courts are closed or considering only emergency cases, such as those involving domestic violence and restraining orders.

Some jurisdictions, like Texas, require that existing custody agreements be followed even when schools are closed. (Families can get help from marriage and family therapists and professional mediators.)

Florida Child Custody

I’ve written about child custody issues before. In 2008, Florida modified its child custody laws to get rid of outdated and negative terminology about divorcing parents and their children to reduce animosity.

Florida 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.

But the “best interest of the child” is not an empty slogan. In Florida, how you act during the coronavirus can impact a judge’s decision. In determining the best interest of the child, a court has to consider things like a parent’s facilitating and encouraging parent-child relationships, honoring the time-sharing schedule, and being reasonable when changes are required.

Coronavirus Custody Concerns

Do not be surprised if the parents who aren’t cooperating during the coronavirus crisis find that the other parent uses what happens in court at trial.

In a few weeks or months, family courts are going to re-open, and there will be some accountability for the actions parents are taking now.

Enhancing risk and damaging your co-parenting relationship, those are things that are relevant to how the court. views your parental status.

Coronavirus Good News and Information

Good information? How about social distancing tips from a hermit? Billy Barr is the only resident of Gothic, Colorado, and he has tips on social distancing:

  • Keep track of something. Each day, Barr tracks the weather for a number of groups including the Colorado Avalanche Information Center.
  • Keep a routine. Barr wakes up around 3:30 a.m. or 4 a.m., and files weather reports to different agencies.
  • Celebrate the stuff that matters, rather than the stuff you’re supposed to celebrate. Barr has mostly ditched holidays and birthdays, but he does celebrate Jan. 17, when sunrise goes back to what it was on the solstice.
  • Use movies as a mood adjuster. When Barr is really stressed, he’ll might watch an animated movie, something cute and funny. Movies like “Pandemic” he passes on, but; The Princess Bride’ is a favorite.

The Minnesota Public Radio article is here.

The Wall Street Journal article is here.

Happy Thanksgiving

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The divorce and family law offices of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. will close at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, November 27 for the Thanksgiving holiday. We will re-open at 9:00 AM on Monday, December 2, 2019. We wish you and your family a safe and happy Thanksgiving holiday.

Happy Thanksgiving

Before Thanksgiving’s arrival is the time to resolve child custody and timesharing problems so you can enjoy your turkey dinner with minimum stress for you and your children. Below are suggestions to make your Thanksgiving visitation issues a little easier:

Alternate. Some families alternate Thanksgiving every other year. If you get the kids for Thanksgiving this year, next year will be the other parent’s turn. Having a regular plan to fall back on can eliminate the potential for what is fair.

Be flexible. An easy Thanksgiving schedule for everyone may require some changes from the normal visitation schedule.

Be respectful. You may not want to be friends anymore, but you need to figure out how to communicate with your ex without all the emotional baggage.

Don’t mix issues. Do not bring up unrelated issues which could make a problem free Thanksgiving dinner impossible. Set aside your differences until after the holiday season.

Pick your battles. Thanksgiving may be more important to you than Easter is to your ex-spouse. Don’t fight just for the sake of fighting.

Protect the children. Your children’s memories of Thanksgiving should be about great food and family fun. They should not be forced to witness you and another parent arguing.

Plan. Start talking about the holiday visitation schedule sooner rather than later, the longer you wait the harder it can be.

Thanksgiving can be stressful. But the weather has cooled and the kids are on vacation. Try to make the holidays the best time of year.

 

 

Pet custody is going to California

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Pet custody is closer to becoming a reality after California passed a law making pets community property but letting judges decide who gets to keep them. What is Florida’s law on pet custody?

Pet Custody

California Dreaming

All the leaves are brown, and the sky may be grey, but California just began a new era for how pets are treated after a divorce. A new law passed on Thursday makes sure pets are seen as more than just property when it comes time to split up assets in a divorce.

According to the San Diego Tribune, Assembly Bill 2274 will ensure care of a pet is taken into consideration both while divorce proceedings are underway and after they’re made official.

With the new law, a person can petition the court for sole or joint ownership based on care of the pet, which is defined to include “prevention of acts of harm or cruelty” and “the provision of food, water, veterinary care and safe and protected shelter.”

The law also adds a new ability for a person in the divorce to request an order that would require one person in the marriage to care for the pet prior to the divorce becoming final.

Florida Pet Custody

I’ve written on the development of pet custody cases and statutes before. Pet custody cases are becoming more and more prevalent around the country. That is because state lawmakers and advocacy groups are promoting the notion that the legal system should act in the best interests of animals.

Pets are becoming a recognized part of the family. 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.

Accordingly, Florida courts have not or cannot undertake the same responsibility as to animals.

I Remember California

The law in California used to be like Florida, viewing pets as property to be argued over in the separation of assets.

“There is nothing in statute directing judges to treat a pet differently from any other type of property we own, I know that owners view their pets as more than just property. They are part of our family, and their care needs to be a consideration during divorce proceedings.”

Now, rather than seen as a valued property item or dollar amount to be divided, the well-being of the pet will get more consideration.

California Calling

Supporters of the law hope the new law will lead to fewer homeless animals. But not everyone is happy. The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists opposed it, saying divorces already face significant delays and issues of contention in court, especially when it comes to children.

“By adding in sole or joint ownership of pet animals as a determination courts can make in divorce proceedings, the already backlogged family court proceedings may become even more delayed as judges consider the myriad factors that come into play when making decisions about community property division and child custody.”

The San Diego Tribune article is here.

 

Hollaback Girls Mediate Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Singer, Gwen Stefani and her ex-husband, Bush lead singer Gavin Rossdale, are trying to reduce the ‘misery’ of ‘people at war’ and mediate their child custody problems years after finalizing their divorce. But, how does a court resolve child custody disputes like this?

custody

The Chemicals Between Us

A source tells E! News the pair are “going to mediation” because of disagreements regarding their three son’s upbringing. They don’t agree on custody and the time the kids are spending with each of them.

Since Gavin recently finished his tour with Bush and will be home more often, he wants more time with their three sons. However, the source says, “Gwen believes that she provides a consistent living environment and that the kids should be with her the majority of the time.”

“They are older now and taking their school work and activities seriously. She thinks Gavin still very much lives a rock star lifestyle and it’s in the kid’s best interest to be with her.”

More importantly, the source says, “She wants to raise the kids a certain way and it’s very challenging because Gavin has different priorities.”

The Little Things of Florida Custody

I’ve written about child custody issues before. 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 creating new legal concepts such as “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 children.

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 children’s timesharing are major decisions affecting the welfare of children. 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.

For these parents, courts will want to know how long the children have lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining that continuity. Where the parents live is also very important, especially with school-age children.

Also, what are the home, school, and community records of the children, and which parent provides a consistent routine for the children, such as discipline, and daily schedules for homework, meals, and bedtime.

Everything Zen

Following their split in 2015, the boys have spent a majority of their time with Gwen in Los Angeles while Gavin has toured with Bush and completed a brief stint as a judge on The Voice U.K.. Gavin touched on this when he talked to The Sun’s Fabulousmagazine.

“It was weird because I had to go and make a home from scratch that could compare to the great one they already have. That was the challenge for me as a dad.”

Gwen has since found love with country singer Blake Shelton, who gets on very well with the boys. The couple has even taken vacations with the children together.

The E! News article is here.