Total Divorce Blog

A recent Associated Press story detailed the difficult circumstances surrounding many U.S. military personnel who are deployed to active duty and lose custody of their children as a result. The story examined the loophole with a federal law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which is intended to protect active military personnel during deployment. For example, this federal law provides a minimum 90-day delay for civil court actions and administrative proceedings. While active military personnel can not be evicted or lose their property from creditors during deployment, they may lose custody of children whom they were granted following divorce.

The story described how many ex-spouses of military personnel have sought custody following deployment and how these temporary changes have been made permanent by family court judges, who have argued on behalf of the “best interests of the child” in making these determinations. In coming to this determination, the courts often consider factors like stability for the child and who has been his or her primary emotional provider. These factors obviously create a problem for enlisted servicemen and women when they are called to serve their country.

The story detailed the case of many military personnel, including Iowa Guardsman Mike Grantham, who have lost custody of their kids following deployment. Before reporting for duty in August 2002, Grantham arranged for his two children to live with his mother. Grantham had raised his two kids following his 2000 divorce from his wife Tammara, who requested custody after he was deployed. While not returning for a year, Grantham was stunned when his ex-wife was ruled the primary physical custodian of his children. After an appeals court sided with him, Grantham was struck down by the Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled that Tammara was “presently the most effective parent.” Grantham said in the story that he now has visitation rights with his children that reflect what his wife used to have before he was deployed.

While this problem has certainly affected both male and female military personnel, the AP story attempted to explain the problem in numbers. The Department of Defense reported that more than 74,000 (or 5.4%) of active military personnel are single parents while more than 68,000 Guard and reserve members are also single parents. While military and family law experts did not have specific figures for military personnel who have lost custody of their children following deployment, the story indicated how the problem could become even more prevalent, especially when considering that divorce among military men and women has been on the rise the last couple of years.

With that said, some states have decided to not wait for a change to the federal law and are rather doing their own part to protect military personnel from losing custody of their children. A 2005 California law states that permanent changes in child custody or visitation can not be justified by a parent’s absence due to military duties. Michigan and Kentucky followed with laws stating that temporary custody changes for activation purposes must return to their original agreements once deployment ends. The story added that legislators in Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas have proposed similar laws, and we’ll keep you updated on any more developments with this issue.

An interesting story in this weekend’s Daily Herald detailed a proposed Illinois law that would take advantage of modern technology and better allow divorced parents to communicate with their children, especially when one parent lives out of state following the divorce. Specifically, this proposed Illinois child visitation law would recognize virtual visitations via email, instant messaging and video conferencing. These online visits would not replace actual contact between a physically-distant parent and his or her children but would rather be supplemental to required physical contact. Under this proposed Illinois law, these meetings could either be court-ordered or voluntary; regardless, judges could not use virtual time as a reason to approve custody relocation requests. The story added that Wisconsin is the only other state to have a similar law in place.

Proponents of this Illinois child visitation law point out many positive aspects of recognizing online visits. While saying that there is no substitute to the nuclear family in the story, Kane County Associate Judge James Hallock expressed his opinion that online visits are a more simple way to mend the relationships between children and the far-away parent, especially when considering travel considerations and other costs. Others have said that online visits allow children to develop more personal relationships with their non-custodial parent by actually seeing his or her face during a conversation.

Critics of this proposed Illinois child visitation law worry whether many families know this type of technology exists. As for those parents who do, opponents question whether they could abuse such a law and use online visits as a means to skip out on in-person visits. These opponents worry that children would be crushed and extremely disappointed if a parent did this to them after sustaining and building relationships online following a divorce.

The Daily Herald story detailed that this Illinois visitation proposal is currently being considered by the state Senate after already passing in the House without any opposition. The story added that seven other states are taking a look at a very similar concept. We’ll keep you updated on any more developments with this proposed Illinois law.

Late last week, the Georgia House struck down a proposal that would extend the waiting period to obtain a divorce in the Peach State to 120 days. Specifically, an Atlanta-Journal Constitution story detailed that the House rejected this divorce waiting period amendment to House Bill 369, a measure dealing with Georgia child custody proceedings. Senator Mitch Seabaugh had added this proposal to HB 369 late Thursday before the House stripped it out of the bill, which was approved by a whopping 138-1 vote on Friday afternoon. Current Georgia divorce law mandates a waiting period of 30 days to obtain an uncontested divorce.

The Atlanta-Journal Constitution story detailed how Seabaugh has been pushing for a longer waiting period for couples with children to divorce in Georgia for the past two years. After a similar proposed Georgia divorce law cleared the Senate in 2005, it was rejected in the House last year. Prior to its removal from HB 369, Seabaugh had said that such an amendment extending the Georgia divorce waiting period was not about ideology or politics but rather about the well-being and common good of kids and couples.

Apparently, the Georgia House did not see so when stripping this amendment, which would have also required a divorcing couple with children to attend an educational workshop detailing the effects of divorce on children. These Georgia divorce courses would have been taught by marriage and family therapists, social workers or professional counselors.

Georgia is not the only state to recently consider extending the waiting period for a divorce. Legislators in Tennessee and Alabama have recently considered similar legislation. Frequently visit The Divorce Blog for the latest updates on these and other proposed divorce laws throughout the country.

Michigan State Representative Glenn Steil Jr. has recently introduced legislation requiring judges to order joint custody during most child custody disputes in the state. Steil has said that parents are not treated equally in too many divorce cases and added that Michigan’s current policy in determining custody is outdated, wrongfully assumes that sole custody is in the child’s best interests, and does not promote the development of strong relationships with both parents.

Specifically, House Bill 4564 would order Michigan courts to grant joint custody unless:

• a parent is determined by a court to be unfit, unwilling or unable to care for the child; or

• a parent moves outside the school district where his or her child attended the previous year and is unable to comply with the child’s school schedule without interruption.

This proposed Michigan child custody law would mandate that children live with either parent for substantially equal periods of time. Parents would also share in important decision making regarding their child’s best interests.

A South Bend Tribune story said that current Michigan laws do not mandate joint custody and that these decisions are rather agreed upon by the parents. The story added that judges make final custody decisions during disputes by considering 12 factors, including the child’s school record, the mental and physical health of both parents, and their ability to provide a stable and loving environment.

Steil has championed this legislation based in large part on his own experience with joint custody. Steil came to a joint custody agreement during his divorce. While Steil is in favor of this proposed Michigan child custody law, others are worried about its possible ramifications. Some domestic violence groups have said that victims could be susceptible to more violence from an ex-spouse when picking up or dropping off their child.

With this legislation, Michigan joins Minnesota as Midwest states to recently consider granting joint custody to parents during divorce cases. We’ll keep you updated on the latest developments with these proposed Michigan and Minnesota child custody laws.

A bill addressing the threat of parents abducting children during Kansas divorce or child custody proceedings is waiting for a signature from Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Last Friday, the Kansas House of Representatives followed the state Senate’s January passing of this legislation with a whopping 123-0 vote of approval. While this bill would not provide any new legal remedies, it would at least provide courts with factors to consider and determine whether the threat of parental abduction is credible in Kansas child custody cases, according to a Lawrence Journal-World story.

This legislation would let courts consider whether one parent has threatened to abduct a child or already sold a house, refused Kansas child custody orders, applied for a passport or done other specific things, and then allow judges to act in the best interests of the child. Specifically, this legislation would spell out what judges could do when this threat of parental abduction during Kansas divorce or child custody cases does exist. Citing a few examples, a judge would be allowed to impose travel restrictions, prohibit the removal of the child from Kansas, order for the child’s return to the state, and put restrictions on custody and visitation rights. This legislation would also allow judges to issue a warrant rather than a court order for the abducting parent to immediately return the child to Kansas.

This bill was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws with the hope that it would be adopted in all states. Nebraska and South Dakota have already enacted this legislation. In addition to Kansas, legislatures in Colorado, Connecticut, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas and Utah are considering this bill. Stay updated on any developments with this legislation in Kansas and any other states right here at The Divorce Blog.

On Wednesday, the Iowa Senate approved a bill which would require state courts to honor and enforce civil rulings by the Meskwaki tribe, including issues like divorce and child custody. As part of the agreement under Senate File 430, the court of this sovereign tribal nation would recognize the decisions of Iowa courts in personal injury, divorce and other civil issues involving Indians and non-Indians. This bill would not apply to criminal cases.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal said in a story in The Des Moines Register that state courts should recognize and honor the tribal court’s decision out of respect to this tribe. He added that the legislation would clear up confusing questions of bigamy in cases in which an Indian gets a divorce from the Meskwaki court and then goes somewhere else and remarries. Iowa Senator Keith Kreiman added that the bill would allows those people who believed that they weren’t treated fairly in tribal court to file an objection in an Iowa court as long as they prove that they were not given enough time or opportunity to defend themselves in tribal court.

Other Senators are worried about the possible ramifications of this legislation. Senator Larry McKibben said in the story that he respects the Meskwaki tribe but does not feel that this legislation adequately addresses the rights of Iowans. Lobbyist Jim Carney clarified such opposition by detailing its implications for anyone who does business with the tribe. He said that whenever people sign a contract, whether for a phone, cable or banking company, there is a clause which says the law applies. He wondered if this law would apply when dealing with the tribe since Meskwaki tribal court judges interpret both written and unwritten laws in relation to its own tribal norms, customs and practices when coming to decisions.

This Iowa legislation passed the Senate with a 27-20 vote. It now moves to the state House. Stay updated on the latest developments with this legislation right here at The Divorce Blog, and learn more about the Meskwaki tribe at The Native Blog.

Just last week, The Divorce Blog detailed a proposed Minnesota child custody law which would require judges to presume joint physical custody at the beginning of these cases. You can now add Maryland to the list of states considering similar legislation for this major issue in many divorces. A Cumberland Times-News story details how the proposed Maryland child custody law would require courts to consider joint legal and physical custody to each parent in temporary or physical custody cases.

However, unlike the Minnesota child custody legislation which says that judges do not have to necessarily consider awarding 50/50 joint custody, this Maryland child custody legislation would mandate that judges consider approximately equal amounts of time to each parent during these types of cases. If the court finds this arrangement not appropriate, the judge would have to determine custody and explain the rationale behind his or her decision in writing.

A hearing on this Maryland child custody legislation was held before the House Judiciary Committee last Thursday. The Cumberland Times-News story detailed how several letters addressed to its editor revealed a concern that women get preferential treatment in child custody cases. Delegate Kevin Kelly said in the story that while he supports this bill which would seem to address this concern, there are “very vocal opponents” of it in the state’s General Assembly.

Kelly then gave this Maryland divorce legislation, like its equal joint custody stipulation, a 50/50 chance of passing the House Judiciary Committee. We’ll keep you updated on the latest developments with this Maryland child custody legislation and the previously-detailed proposed Minnesota child custody law.

Minnesota divorce legislation would change how state courts initially examine child custody by presuming that divorced parents share physical custody of their children. A Minnesota Public Radio story details how state courts have traditionally awarded physical custody to one parent, typically the mother, based on the belief that children need stability and should not be shuttled back and forth. Senator Tom Neuville has sponsored divorce legislation which he feels would dispel this notion during divorce cases.

Neuville says such antiquated notions have sent the wrong message that a father is less of a parent and ultimately caused some children to miss out on relationships with their dads. Under Neuville’s Minnesota divorce legislation, judges would not necessarily have to grant joint physical custody in every case but would have to begin with this premise, with exceptions including prior domestic or child abuse. The bill does not detail a specific division of parenting time, but does say that it doesn’t have to be 50/50.

Minnesota and its courts define child custody in two ways – physically and legally. The parent with legal custody makes decisions on education, medical care and other big issues in the child’s life. The MPR story says that judges typically look at 13 factors to determine what’s best for the child, including the proximity between the child and parents, the child’s preference and much more.

Opponents to Neuville’s Minnesota divorce legislation feel that judges should solely rely on these 13 factors when determining child custody. Minnesota family law attorney Pamela Waggoner expressed her belief in the story that judges should not have to start with any type of presumption. Another divorce attorney, Barbara Aaby, disagreed. She said in the story that it is now an exception rather than the rule for fathers not to expect shared physical custody. Aaby added that this presumption is in the best interests of the child.

We’ll keep you updated on the latest developments with this Minnesota divorce legislation.

While a divorce can be especially hard on children, a Jerusalem company is trying to make the process a lit bit easier with a computer game that aims to help kids cope with this major change in their lives. Zipland Interactive says that its new computer game, Earthquake in Zipland, is the first-research based game to tackle the problems that children may encounter following a divorce.

The game begins in Zipland, a small paradise kept together by a zipper which is supposed to represent the marriage of the island’s King and Queen in the story and the user’s parents in reality. When an earthquake separates Zipland and leaves the King and Queen on two different islands, the game’s main character “Moose” attempts to build a new zipper and bring everything back to the way it was. However, Moose realizes during his adventures that this is not possible and thus helps children playing the game deal with a wide variety of emotional issues surrounding divorce, including anger, guilt and this fantasy to reunite parents.

The creators of Earthquake in Zipland say the game uses techniques and insights from various fields, including child therapy and clinical psychology, to help kids deal with their parents’ divorce. Intended for ages 9-12, this innovative game is also recommended for therapists and school counselors. Watch an Earthquake in Zipland demo. As for parents who may be interested in using this game as a means to help their children following a divorce, they can learn more about it with this Parent’s Guide.

Indiana police believe that a plane crash killing a father and his child daughter earlier this week was caused by the man’s bitterness about his divorce last year. 47-year-old Eric Johnson crashed the single-engine Cessna plane that he was piloting on Monday into his former mother-in-law’s house, killing himself and his 8-year-old daughter Emily. An Associated Press story detailed that Johnson had obtained his pilot license last November, the same month in which his divorce with his wife of 12 years, Beth, was finalized. The couple had gone through a bitter divorce in which Beth obtained a restraining order last July.

Both Eric and Beth Johnson shared custody of Emily, alternating weekends. When Eric did not bring Emily to school on Monday, Beth filed a missing persons report before learning of the crash. Vivian Pace, the mother of Beth and owner of the house in which the plane crashed, said in the story that her daughter reached Eric Johnson on his cell phone shortly before the crash. Pace said that Eric told Beth that he had their daughter, and that she was not going to get her. Pace also detailed a claim that Beth could hear Emily in the background asking for her mother to come get her.

Indiana State Police 1st Sgt. Dave Bursten said that accounts of the plane’s movements before the crash and the fact that it crashed into Pace’s house raised some serious questions. While police are investigating the case a suicide and homicide, investigators are going to also examine whether mechanical failure was a factor in the crash.

Pace alleged that Eric Johnson did not want the divorce and even tried to convince Beth to not go through with it last summer by threatening her with a gun while Emily was with relatives in Iowa. While Beth obtained a restraining order on July 14, 2006, police did not disclose the reasons for it. One neighbor of the couple said that police cars were parked outside of their home for several weeks last summer. We’ll keep you updated on the latest developments surrounding this disturbing story.