I thought that all states in the U.S. followed separation of powers in their government. Apparently, one Missouri state legislator thinks otherwise. He wants to impeach Circuit Court Judge Christine Hutson for her actions in giving a father, Brent Vance, custody of three of his six children, ages 14, 12, and nine.

This divorce case has political overtones since Claire Noland, who filed for divorce in 2005 against Vance, is the daughter of a former Republican state Senator who ran for Congress against a Democratic opponent who was supported by Judge Hutson. Rep. Lembke has railed against judges and has introduced a constitutional amendment giving the Missouri Senate an advisory role in judicial appointments.

I don't think the impeachment resolution is warranted. Judge Hutson's visitation orders were apparently violated by the mother since the father saw his children for only thirty minutes in a two-year period. The judge found that the children "have been alienated from their father by their mother."

This is a serious finding by the judge, who found that Claire failed to produce "any credible evidence of abuse" which she alleged. After hearing from 17 witnesses, the judge followed the custody advice of the children's attorney who believed the older children, aged 19, 18 and 16, were influencing the younger children against their father.

This is a messy divorce, now under appeal. Impeachment is meant for cases of dereliction of duty, crimes, and misdemeanors. Here the judge did what was best for the children's welfare. It was proper to award custody to the parent who will more likely allow contact with the other parent.

This judge should not face any impeachment hearing. The Legislature should not interfere with the operation of divorce courts. What do you think?

Click here for more.

I've wondered in amazement why some orthodox Jewish husbands are stubbornly reluctant to grant their wives a religious divorce, a get. It could be a power struggle, a control issue or disbelief that the woman stood up to the guy in asking for her freedom.

Jason Moscovitz of Montreal refused a divorce for 15 years after the Canadian civil divorce. Without the get, a religious woman can't remarry in the Jewish faith.

The Canadian Supreme Court upheld the lower court award of $47,500 to Stephanie Burker, the wife, for violating a civil contract to grant her a religious divorce. Moscovitz is again challenging section 21 (1) of the divorce law, claiming it discriminates against his religion and also violates separation of church and state.

Experts agree that the Supreme court will not rehear the case, which was a 7/2 decision. It is clear to me that the penalty clause does not discriminate against his religion since it applies to all religions where spouses refuse a religious divorce. Here Moscovitz already granted the get after a 15 year delay. Perhaps he is wishfully thinking that he can inflict more harm.

Orthodox women, in my opinion, already suffer unequal treatment in securing a religious divorce. Only men can grant a get and a man may remarry after a civil divorce, even if the wife refuses to accept the get. But if women remarry without a religious divorce and have children, the children are viewed as illegitimate, and therefore cannot marry under Jewish law. These women who enter a new relationship and marry without a get, are considered as adultresses and cannot marry under the religious rules.

read more »

I strongly believe there is something wrong with Saudi Arabian Islamic law. I just came across a very strange and disturbing annulment which shocks my common sense.

A Saudi marriage was forcibly annulled, in absentia, when a judge granted the annulment request from some of the wife's family because she married a man beneath her tribal status.

According to Saudi law, a woman must have permission of her family to marry. In 2003, Fatima received her father's consent to marry her husband, Masour, but her half-brother and other relatives persuaded the father to give them power of attorney to file for an annulment. Unknown to the couple, the case slowly proceeded through the courts and in February 2006, police served the divorce papers showing an annulment, granted nine months earlier.

Under Saudi law, the couple could no longer live together. Fatima went to her mother's home with her two children, aged two and four months. After three months, the couple took up residence in a distant city to live in anonymity. Police found and jailed the family. Fatima decided to stay in jail with her infant son and after nine months moved to an orphanage facility.

The husband's appeal to the court was denied in 2007 and now Fatima has appealed to King Abdullah asking for reversal of the court ruling. I am appalled that a marriage can be annulled for these reasons. It sounds to me that Saudi family law has run amuck. Breaking up a marriage is not compatible with the preservation of family life as advocated by Islamic tradition.

It's doubtful that authorities will intervene in what is considered a private family matter. If the King does not reverse this case, Fatima has threatened to take her own life. Womens' rights are trampled in Saudi Arabia. We in the west do not get it. What do you think?

Click here for more.

I was reading a passionate and painful letter to the editor from a divorced father complaining about the "standard visitation rights" granted him. This dad sees his children every other weekend and every Wednesday night for two hours.

Living two miles away from his ex-wife and their kids, he requested more equal time for visitation. Why did the court decide that visits every other weekend are adequate? Why not every weekend?

Apparently, this guy did not want the divorce and bitterly faults no-fault divorce and the Florida family court system. I strongly support no-fault divorce but that shouldn't preclude reasonable non-custodial parent visitation. It appears that the parents were unable to come to court with a fair visitation agreement, so the judge applied standard visitation rights.

He's correct that visits every other weekend doesn't provide the opportunity to build a meaningful relationship with his kids. School night visits, which usually take place from 6-8 p.m., may interfere with homework or extra-curricular activities. The judge demands that he show "a substantial change in circumstance" to warrant additional visitation time.

This judge is being inflexible and bureaucratic. If he hasn't done anything wrong, this father should be able to make a reasonable request for modification. Children need and want the presence and support of both parents.

If hard feelings and rancor were not present, the split couple should have been able to reach a reasonable and equitable agreement regarding the children. This is an example of the all too common practice of women punishing their ex-husbands, just because they can.

This dad, if he is supporting his children financially, should be allowed to support them with a solid, stable, continuing relationship. Without more information, we can't explore why the mother and court are being hardnosed about additional time for visits. What do you think?

read more »

The Canadian Supreme court issued a landmark ruling which establishes precedent for the state to intervene into religious divorce matters. The court ordered an orthodox Jewish husband to pay damages to his former wife for reneging on a promise, made in their 1980 civil divorce, to give his wife a religious divorce, called a get.

This decision could help other Canadian Jewish women who are also marginalized by husbands who refuse a religious divorce. Without a get they cannot remarry in the Jewish religion, and subsequently, can have no more children. The decision will also impact other religions as well.

I fully support the reasoning of the Supreme court but as an American, I worry about that line of separation of church and state. How far can a secular state court go in meddling with religious divorce?

In this case, the court claimed it was only penalizing a breach of a contract which related to a religious issue. If the promise for a get was not part of the case, I don't think it would have been proper for the court to enforce the issuance of a religious divorce. It acknowledged that the infringement upon the husband's religious freedom was inconsequential compared to the wife's loss and suffering.

The husband did relent and agreed to the divorce in 1995 but she opted to continue her action for damages. She originally sued for $1,350,000 including loss of consortium. This amount was unjustified and unreasonable. She was awarded $47,500 for the 15-year breach.

Boundaries for court interference into religious affairs have been widened in a democratic country. It remains to be seen if this is a positive development which could be followed elsewhere. I worry about the consequences of court intervention into religion.

Click here for more.

In November, I wrote about a divorceés appeal to prevent her ex-husband's bankruptcy trustee from seizing her share of their marital home. Wendy Haines won her appeal to the British Appeals Court, which ruled that she wouldn't have to give up her share of the proceeds from the sale of the family home.

After their divorce, David Haines petitioned for bankruptcy. The trustee claimed that the transfer of the sale proceeds of the marital home defrauded David's creditors and was void. I'd written that I thought the High Court judge was wrong in awarding the trustee Wendy's share. If this decision was allowed to stand, it would place all property settlements in jeopardy where an ex-spouse files for bankruptcy.

Wendy does not have to help payoff her ex-husband's creditors by relinquishing part of her divorce settlement. The Court of Appeals reversal of the High Court's decision assures that divorce court settlement agreements could not be undone because one spouse becomes bankrupt. I rooted for Wendy, who now can enjoy a "clean-break divorce."

Vindictive spouses, by deliberately creating huge debts, can defeat a divorce property settlement agreement. In this case, with a 10-year-old child, Wendy needed a financial settlement after divorce which could not later be nullified by a bankruptcy trustee. Divorce actions need some closure and predictability.

The trustee is appealing to the House of Lords, the British court of last resort. I hope the Lords refuse to accept the case, or if they do, will affirm the Appeals Court holding.

Click here for more.

I wonder why multimillion dollar men often refuse to pay their former spouses maintenance and child support ordered following a divorce. Some guys become so vindictive that they are determined to make the life of their ex hell, just because they can afford to do so.

I read in The Guardian that for over eight years, Iqbal Mubarik, owner of a world- wide jewelry enterprise, has been able to thwart numerous court orders for a lump sum payment nearly £5 million (around $10 million) to his former wife. Mubarik's wealth is tied up in trusts, making it difficult to enforce the court orders.

It's puzzling to me that the British family court is unable to enforce their divorce orders. Instead of bringing finality, they are peppered by continuous court filings and appeals. Mubarik has spent £2 million (around $4.5 million) attempting to avoid paying his former wife.

Because of the legal complications, the British government is paying over £30,000 ($65,000) in legal aid to protect his two minor children's interest in the family trust. It's ludicrous that public money is used to protect children of millionaires. The wife, to date, has collected only £266,000 (about $450,000) due to the forced sale of some of the ex's property. He's also in arrears in paying £14,000 a month (around $30,000) for maintenance and legal fees.

The judges have taken notice of this protracted case and the attendant costs. They noted that Mubarik, with world-wide interests, is able to escape paying British taxes. I can't believe the court does not have the requisite tools to bring this charade to an end. This case is making a mockery of the British family justice system. This is a form of legal aid for the rich.

I think that U.S. courts would take more decisive action. What do you think?

Click here for more.

I could hardly believe the recent ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court that a divorced man must continue to pay his ex spousal support, even though he's now disabled. Upon further exploration, I found the reasoning for this extraordinary decision. Arizona law disallows changes to court approved divorce decrees "which say changes can't be made later."

Why would anybody freely agree to a clause which precludes any changes in alimony? Did he not have an attorney to protect his interests? Should he not have thought about what would happen if his income was diminished or if he became incapacitated so that he couldn't work? We don't know the payment amount nor the duration of the alimony payments.

Even lower Arizona courts were ambivalent about the issue. The trial judge refused to end the spousal support, but the Court of Appeals said changes could be made because of extraordinary circumstances. The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court which proclaimed, "no changes means no changes." I was unsuccessful in checking the background of the parties and wonder how the court could enforce payment if he had little income.

Most states allow modification for either child or spousal support orders if there are financial changes of either party. Arizona would normally allow modification unless there is a specific prohibition on modification in the divorce decree order.

I would like to know more about the background and condition of this disabled man. I will continue to search. Please standby.

Click here for more.

I was shocked to read about a recent divorce situation in Ireland. There is no finality to a divorce in Ireland, where courts may re-open and re-negotiate divorce financial settlements if the assets of the bread winner increases after the divorce.

In this case, the wife was ordered to pay a lump sum of over ₤2 million — around $4 million — to her ex-husband, despite their full and final settlement of divorce six years ago. The court said the husband was not properly provided for since her business assets skyrocketed to more than ₤15 million, or $30 million.

Final settlement agreements have no effect when one of the parties acquires wealth, even years after the settlement or divorce. In an earlier case this year, a husband who divorced in 2000 must pay his former wife an additional ₤2 million, representing monetary gains from the recent sale of his business. "Ex-partners have an obligation to support their spouses for life," said the judge.

Irish divorce laws differ from those in Britain and the US. Divorce only became legal after a 1995 referendum amending their Constitution which recognizes the "family as the basis of social order, possessing rights and guarantees of protection by the state." Former family bread winners can expect court orders increasing maintenance or the division of property.

I find a problem that these agreements are never final. This is an unjust imposition on the former breadwinner who cannot move on or establish a new family. US courts do allow for modification of support orders based on job loss, health problems, or increased income of the support recipient. I do not feel comfortable ordering the supporting spouse to pay additional monies due to increased value of their business, years after a final separation or divorce agreement.

read more »

Wendy Haines, a British divorcee, was awarded the marital home in her February 2006 divorce. Unfortunately her ex-husband David filed for bankruptcy and in December, the trustee made claim to 50 percent of the interest in the house. It looks like Wendy is going to lose half of the house already awarded to her by the court.

The challenge was based on the presumption that David fraudulently disposed of assets in order to defeat his creditors. Although this was likely not the case, the Appeals court ordered Wendy to turn over half of the funds from the sale of the house, which was sold to pay for the current litigation.

The trial court, in awarding Wendy the house, noted that the Haines family had an extravagant life style in buying the home, farm, horses, cars and living beyond their means. Wendy has appealed to the High Court of Appeals.

If this decision is allowed to stand, bankruptcy trustees will have a field day overturning final divorce decisions in which the debtor's property has been transferred to the former spouse within a potential timeframe of up to five years.

This common law is also followed in the US. Trustees can set aside property settlement orders of divorce courts where a spouse has incurred substantial debt. Often, disgruntled exes will go off on spending sprees to deliberately defeat the division of matrimonial property. In the US, property transfers made within one year of the bankruptcy filing can be recovered by trustees. Any property transferred for less than assumed fair value may be challenged for up to six years.

read more »