Judge Allows House to Be Divided--Literally

Recently a New York divorce Judge ruled that a bickering New York couple may have a dividing wall constructed inside their home as part of an acrimonious divorce. Chana and Simon Taub, both 57, have endured two years of divorce negotiations, but neither is prepared to give up their Brooklyn home. Both feel they are entitled to live in the home and neither are willing to give it up. Despite owning another home two blocks away. Eventually, after negotiations led nowhere, a New York Judge ordered that the partition wall be built inside the house.

The wall divides the ground floor of the house, and keeps husband and wife penned into separate sections on different floors.
One door linking the rival sections of the house is barricaded shut to prevent any accidental contact between the pair.

While this situation is extremely unusual it appears to work, for the time being, for this particular couple. In Iowa a couple may request that real property, usually farm land or other undeveloped parcels of land, to be partitioned as part of a divorce settlement; however, I have yet to find any Iowa authority supporting the New York Judge's decision.

Ontario Court Rules Child Has 3 Parents

Last week, a 5 year-old Ontario, Canada boy became a son to three parents: a father and two mothers. The boy has been raised by his biological mother and her partner but his father has been involved in his upbringing since birth. The partner was given parental status by the Ontario Court of Appeals last week.

The mother's partner said the ruling eliminated the possibility that she could lose any legal relationship to the boy if her partner died suddenly. This case is the latest of a series of legal actions expanding the rights of same-sex couples on Canada.

The Court found that Ontario's family legislation, which dates to 1990, does not reflect current social or reproductive realities and they used the court's general power to act as guardian for minors to grant her request. For the full article click http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/americas/12canada.html?ex=1169701200&en=c35e3a1bf9eacb23&ei=5070&emc=eta1

International Adoption Mayhem

"During the two weeks that Marino and Debbie Prozzo welcomed a Ukrainian orphan in their home, they fell head over heels for a 7-year-old child they may never be able to adopt. While the Prozzos were giving Alona Malyovana her first bubble bath, teaching her to use the remote control, and buying her a pink velvet dress trimmed in bunny fur, the chaotic system of adoption in Ukraine was growing more chaotic. The director of Ukraine’s new Department for Adoptions resigned, leaving the fate of the nation’s 90,000 orphans in limbo. A new application process required foreign families to quickly update security clearances and other time-sensitive information. Prospective parents anxiously scanned the State Department’s Web site and bulletins from the embassy in Kiev for clarification of rules and rumors.

Hosting programs, like the one that brought Alona to an American family this Christmas, showcase older children, generally from orphanages in former Soviet bloc nations. The programs have long been hailed as an effective marketing tool by adoption experts, who say 8 of 10 families would not adopt these children without a trial run. In the largely unregulated world of international adoptions, these programs often lead to happily-ever-after, but sometimes end painfully. Ukraine and Russia place formidable obstacles in the path of parents, among them inaccurate information about children’s availability and health status. Multiple families can wind up competing for the same child. And children themselves know they are auditioning for what the industry calls their “forever families.” Then there is an entrenched system of favors — requests for cash or gifts from facilitators, translators, judges and others who handle the mechanics of adoption overseas.

Conditions in both countries have grown so unsettled, some agencies have suspended hosting programs, and the debate is growing about the ratio of risk to reward leaving adoptive parents saying "Now what?" To read the entire article click http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/us/13orphan.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A Good Settlement-Give up 60%

A good settlement is where each side gives up 60%.

The parties in a divorce case should always strive for some form of settlement. It is a rare occasion when a client wins everything s/he wants and is overjoyed that s/he took their case to trial. Especially when kids are involved.

The Courts in central Iowa requires that the parties submit to mediation. And for good reason: Children almost always come out better from a settlement and you avoid seeing one side, or sometimes both sides, devastated by a ruling from a Judge who more than likely doesn't know you. Mediation allows the parties to maintain control over their case and makes the outcome more acceptable and liveable for the parties. Even if the court your case is pending in does not have mandatory mediation the Court will often entertain and grant an application for an Order to Mediate.

If you don't or won't come to an agreement, the judge will for you. And chances are, neither side is going to be happy with the order of the court. Work with your lawyer and your soon-to-be ex-spouse and make every possible effort to settle your case.