In Texas, a unique divorce case is raising the attention of lawmakers, all the way up to the attorney general, who has made the claim that one can’t get a divorce in a state that doesn’t recognize the marriage to begin with.

The Austin-American Statesman is reporting that Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, taking advantage of that state’s law legalizing gay marriage. After they were married, they returned to their home in Austin, where they adopted a child and carried on with their life.

The couple was separated almost a year ago, however, and now they have found themselves in court to determine the terms of their divorce. Whether or not they can even get a divorce, however, is under dispute from some Texas lawmakers.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott intervened in the case, in which, according to the couple’s lawyer, a judge had agreed to grant the couple a divorce and ordered that they put that agreement in writing for the court to sign later. This ruling was the culmination of a two-day hearing to determine custody of their child and separation of property.

After the judge granted the divorce, Abbott filed a petition to intervene. He notes his opinion that rather than granting the divorce, the judge should instead declare that the marriage is void. A spokesman for the Attorney General said in a statement that the State maintains that the Court has no legal authority to grant this divorce, and as a result, the State must intervene in this case to defend the Texas Constitution.

In essence, Abbott’s position is that the case could be resolved sufficiently by voiding the marriage, rather than granting a divorce. Or as his representation put it, the parties can achieve a legal termination of their Massachusetts marriage, through an enforceable judgment.

We never asked them to grant us a same-sex marriage, said Naylor in response to the intervention. We only asked them to legally recognize that we needed a divorce.

Abbott has intervened in such cases before, as in the case of two men who wanted a divorce in Dallas County. The judge in that case determined that the prohibition on same sex marriage violated the right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. Abbott appealed that ruling, and the case is still pending.

The judge in the current case brought up the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the laws or public policy of the other states. Abbott argued that this clause would not come into play in the case.

Texas is among the states that passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman. In 2005, the Texas legislature passed it with a majority of 76 percent.

Massachusetts passed the law allowing same-sex couples to marry in November of 2003, in a decision by the highest court in the state.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

In Chicago, an ugly divorce and custody battle has turned into a dispute over a child’s exposure to various religions.

Joseph Reyes, a 35-year-old law student, and his estranged wife are in a heated debate about which religious experiences their child can be exposed to, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

On Tuesday, the child custody case made its way to court, as Reyes was arraigned in a Chicago court. The charge was that he violated a temporary restraining order dictating that he could not expose the couple’s 3-year-old daughter to a religion other than Judaism. Reyes’ estranged wife is the one who ordered the restraining order.

Reyes did not deny taking his daughter to a Catholic cathedral in mid-January. Reyes, who is Catholic, was accompanied to the cathedral by a local television news camera crew.

The couple is in a fierce dispute about whether or not they agreed to raise their child in the Jewish faith. Reyes has argued firmly that they never agreed to such a provision of child-rearing, nor did they keep kosher or observe the tenets of the faith, and that they only went to synagogue together with their daughter.

Joseph Reyes had converted to Judaism after the birth of their daughter, though he had returned to Catholicism when the couple separated. Rebecca Reyes was not present at the hearing, and her attorneys did not wish to make a statement about the case.

According to court records, Rebecca Reyes filed the restraining order in question after Joseph sent her a photo of their daughter at her baptism at Queen of Martyrs Catholic Church.

I sent her pictures which she took as malicious, said Joseph outside of the courtroom. He offered that he sent the pictures merely to share his daughter’s experience getting dressed up and enjoying the occasion.

Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan approved the restraining order, however, and an appellate court threw out Joseph Reyes’ appeal. When he and his attorneys appeared in front of Judge Jordan again, they requested that a new judge be assigned to the case. Judge Jordan granted that request.

If Joseph is found to be in violation of the temporary restraining order, he could be sentenced to six months in jail and a $500 fine.

Joseph Reyes had a lot to say about the situation, even as his estranged wife chose not to publically discuss it. This is, in her mind, more about control, he said. He went on to explain that he converted to Judaism because of pressure he felt from his wife. When it came to his daughter’s religious upbringing, he was conflicted, but felt pushed by his wife.

Rebecca pushed me in the direction of waiting to come by it on her own, he said. On the decision to raise their daughter in a Jewish household, he said Maybe Rebecca decided unilaterally, but I never signed on to that.

Rebecca Reyes currently has sole custody of their daughter, and Joseph Reyes takes her every other weekend and every Thursday evening. The divorce case in ongoing.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

A man currently on trial for allegedly killing his wife after she served him divorce papers recently took back his murder confession.

Werner Lippe had married his wife Faith in 1990. According to an Associated Press article, Werner and Faith began to argue tremendously during the later years of their marriage.

Lippe allegedly had their 15-year-old son tape arguments he had with Faith in order to use them against her in the divorce proceedings.

Faith eventually served her husband with divorce papers. The two scheduled a meeting between them and their attorneys to hammer out the details of child custody and alimony. Both were issues that neither agreed upon.

But before they could have their meeting about the divorce proceedings, Faith went missing.

On October 3rd, Faith had missed several of her appointments. Werner later said the he saw her drive away in a SUV but he could not tell who was driving the vehicle.

Faith never came back home that evening and Werner became concerned. He visited a friend the next day and asked about the proper amount of time before a missing person’s report can be filed.

Later that day he called 911 and advised the police that Faith was missing. The police searched the Lippe household, but found no evidence of foul play.

It wasn’t until later that Werner confessed to his wife’s murder. He was speaking with his friend, James Learnihan, when he said he burned his wife’s body in a barrel he kept at his home.

But Learnihan was wired and police got a taped confession from Lippe.
Once the police confronted Lipped about the tape, he confessed again.
Shortly after his arrest, he changed his story. Lippe said that the he was scared of his friend and thought he was being framed. He only confessed again to the police because they were not listening to his pleas of innocence.

If convicted, Lippe faces 25 years in prison. Lippe had two previous marriages that both ended in divorce and neither lasted over two years.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Kate Walsh, famous actress on TV shows such as “Private Practice” and “Grey’s Anatomy,” recently finalized her long divorce battle with her husband of 14 months Alex Young.

The two married in September 2007, enjoying their marital bliss for a little over a year, until they separated in November 2008.

The New York Daily News reported that Young filed for divorce from the star citing “irreconcilable differences,” but no other details were given. The two agreed to keep most of the details regarding their divorce confidential.

In the beginning, the divorce proceedings appeared to run smooth. It looked hopeful that this Hollywood couple was going to split amicably. When they broke the news of their divorce to the public, they released a statement saying that they would remain friends even after the divorce was final.

But even though they started out with good intentions, true colors showed when the couple had to split their assets, decide who gets what and determine if any alimony would be paid. The big issue occurred when Walsh decided she did not want to pay Young, a top-ranking executive at 20th Century Fox, any alimony.

Young then requested to know the value of Walsh’s contract with ABC in hopes that it would help him obtain spousal support. But the judge overseeing the divorce proceedings denied Young’s request for alimony.

But Walsh and Young eventually came to a settlement to finalize their divorce. Young will receive a cash settlement of $627,000 and half of the residuals for work performed by Walsh during their marriage. Residuals are payments made to Walsh for replays of her television shows. And Walsh gets to keep the house, some bank accounts and a piano.

In a bizarre twist, the two will split the remaining assets by simply flipping a coin. According to a USA Today article, the settlement agreement stated that, “one half of the community property furniture and artwork to be divided by alternating picks after the flip of a coin to determine who will pick first.”

At least they avoided any child custody issues as the couple has no children together.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

In a divorce case that sounds like something out of a detective novel, a judge recently determined that the private detective hired by a man to follow his wife was a legitimate part of the divorce process.

According to the story in the New York Law Journal, the Orange County, New York, man hired the private investigator to follow his wife to a hotel, where she was having an affair with a priest. The husband gave the recording to the church where his wife worked, and she was forced to resign.

At the urging of the church, the man turned over the recording of the event to the court. The wife in the case claimed that by hiring the detective her husband had violated an order of protection that prohibited him from going to her home or her workplace.

Family Court Judge Debra J. Keidaisch disagreed with that opinion, however. The judge claimed that the husband in the case reserved the right to collect evidence enabling him to defend himself in the divorce case.

“The hiring of a professional licensed private investigator in a matrimonial action to gather evidence is for a proper and legitimate purpose,” Judge Keidaisch wrote in her opinion.

When the woman filed for divorce in November of 2008, her husband offered the counter-allegation that his wife had been having an affair. In early 2009, the court issued the order of protection that kept him from coming within 1,000 feet of his wife’s home or workplace, except to go to church or for court-ordered visitation. The court order was entered without finding any fault with the husband.

The decision in the case stated that the husband’s private investigator followed his wife to a motel, where he recorded the liaison between her and who the decision labeled “Priest L.” This priest had been assigned to the church where the wife was working. This priest also regularly said Sunday Mass while the wife, husband and their daughter were in attendance.

After he heard the news about his wife, the husband was unable to take communion because he was so distraught. He told the news to another priest, but he was so embarrassed that he asked that priest not to reveal the news to the monsignor. Only after the monsignor arrived at his home did the husband give up the DVD of the encounter between his wife and Priest L.

The wife did not contest the affair. She did, however, make the claim that her husband had disobeyed the court order. She also said that he was not legally obligated to release the DVD to church officials, which in effect led to her necessary resignation.

“Under the circumstances, the hiring of the private investigator, in and of itself, was not an unlawful intrusion upon the rights of the wife secured by the order of protection,” the decision continued. In other words, the husband was not simply required to accept the claims of his wife that she had discontinued her affair with the priest.

In addition, the judge said that handing over the DVD was not harassment, because the father still had contact with Priest L. at church, which qualified as a legitimate and justifiable reason to release the video.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

When Tetyana Nikitana was shot to death recently as she left the school where she was a teacher, the suspect, according to police, was her former mother-in-law. Nikitian, 34, was a mother of two and an immigrant from the Ukraine living in Utah.

According to the Deseret News, the suspect in the shooting is 70-year-old Mary Nance Hanson, the mother of Nikitana’s ex-husband, Dan Jankowski. Police stated that Jankowski was not a suspect in the case, nor was a he a person of interest. “He is just a relative of the suspect,” said Lt. Don Hutson told the Deseret News

Police are still hoping to piece together the case, and determine the motives that Hanson may have had for such a gruesome act. Hanson was the one who called 911 after the shooting.

A study of the divorce record between Nikitana and Jankowski revealed the couple’s tumultuous divorce after six years of marriage, filled with fear and animosity. In those records, starting in 2005, Nikitana stated that she feared for her life and those of her children at the hands of her husband.

Jankowski, on the other hand, filed a large volume of divorce records the belief that his then-wife was attempting to frame him with domestic abuse. He was also very concerned that Nikitana would leave the country with the couple’s two children. That fear led to a dispute over the children’s passports.

There were hundreds of pages of divorce records filed by the couple. The records covered the more typical issues that arise in a divorce, like child custody and finances, but, according to the Deseret News, disputes seemed to range into less conventional territory. There were arguments over playground equipment, gold crosses for the kids, wooden plates. There were also much more serious issues, including suggestions of child neglect, threats and domestic violence.

The divorce was filed in 2005, yet the dispute was still going on through December of 2009.

Police obtained a warrant to search the home shared by Hanson and Jankowski. In an interview with KSL in Salt Lake City, Jankowski said that he did not know why his mother would want to kill his ex-wife, and that he had had concerns about the state of her mental health in the past. Jankowski also spent a large amount of time, even hours, talking to police.

“I had no idea she was going to do anything like this,” Jankowski said about his mother, Mary Hanson.

Jankowski and Nikitana got a bifurcated divorce in early January of 2006, which meant that the union was dissolved but that they still had to figure out certain legal decisions. In August 2005 and January 2006, Nikitana tried to get protective orders against her husband, claiming, according to the Deseret News, that “her husband forcefully picked her up and threw her onto the floor in front of the children, leaving bruises and red finger marks.”

Jankowski firmly denied these allegations.

Nikitana had faced scrutiny from the Division of Children and Family Services when, in 2003, she faced a charge that she had left her children in a car alone while she went to a beauty salon. The case was resolved after DCFS visited their home and found it clean and the children healthy.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Some states require a legal separation before a couple files for divorce. This gives the couple time to think about the divorce and determine their ultimate goals and to do what is best for all parties involved.

However, living apart often means a couple’s expenses double. With the tough economy, some couples are unable to fill the separation requirement.

Now, some legislators are starting to take a different look at this required separation. They want to determine if there are less expensive ways to fulfill the current legislation without breaking the bank.

According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland legislator and attorney Luiz Simmons recently proposed a law that would allow couples seeking divorce to live in the same residence for a year.

That catch is that while the couple lives in the same home, they cannot engage in sexual relations with one another.

Current Maryland law states that any couple filing an uncontested divorce must go through a one year separation before the divorce can be finalized. During the separation, the couple must split and live in separate households.

Simmons said that when both members are forced to live a part for a year, they can become more financially stressed. And if children are involved, then the expenses could significantly increase.

But if the couple is allowed to remain in the same household and refrain from sex, then they will have the emotional separation without the added stress of making additional payments.

Skeptics of the proposed legislation raise the concern how the courts will determine that the couple abstained from sex for a full year.

But that would be an issue even if the couple lived apart for a whole year and some say that will be up to the courts to decide.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

The Washington Post recently reported that U.S officials have been concerned with issues of international child custody disputes. They say these issues affect up to 75 American couples.

U.S officials said that as parents of different nationalities divorce, issues arise when one parent decides to take their children out of their natural born country and back to the parent’s native country.

In September, 2009, U.S citizen Christopher Savoie was arrested in Japan when he attempted to take his children back to the United States without his ex-wife’s consent.

The Japanese government did not charge Savoie with child abduction. They let him return back his home town in Tennessee, but his children remained in Japan.

Prior to Savoie’s retrieval attempt, a court hearing in the U.S. determined that he would get full child custody of the couple’s children.

But after the decision was made, his ex-wife took their children back to her country of Japan. This was a violation of the U.S. court’s child custody decision.

In Japanese law, only one of the parents is allowed to have full child custody after a divorce. In most cases, it is the mother who receives custody.

The fathers then have little if any access to their children until they are adults.

Since the Savoie situation, the U.S. has been determined to work out an agreement on child custody with Japan.

They believe that if an agreement could be reached, then both parties would benefit and all the parents’ rights would be protected. It would also stop parents from taking action on their own to take their children back.

U.S. officials recently met with a Japanese Foreign Ministry team in attempts to resolve the issue. They requested that Japan sign a treaty from the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

The treaty states that child custody decisions made by the country where the children were born should remain intact. It also protects the rights of both parents in child custody issues.

Japan has not yet signed the treaty. They argued that the treaty does not protect the rights of Japanese mothers in cases where they might flee from an abusive relationship with their foreign ex–husbands.

At this point, it appears no agreements have been reached but U.S. officials hope to come to a positive conclusion.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Custody battles are never pretty, but one case in Sarasota, Florida, is a regular zoo. And that doesn’t mean the throngs of cameras and onlookers that showed up at the courthouse.

The hullabaloo in question surrounds Eli, an 11-month-old who weighs thirteen pounds, wears a diaper and when he leaves the house is led by a leash. Eli is, if you haven’t guessed it yet, a chimpanzee, and he’s at the center of a legal case out of Florida that brings to mind a comedy more than it does a serious case.

But chimpanzee handler Virginia “Gini” Valbuena is completely serious, as a Missouri man attempts to challenge her ownership of Eli.

James “Mike” Casey wants the court let him try and legally prove that Eli came from his chimpanzee ranch, and that he should be returned to his possession. The court case centers around whether or not there should be DNA testing to determine who Eli’s primate parents are, thereby determining his origins.

The DNA testing technique would be similar to those used in paternity cases among humans.

Casey ran the chimpanzee ranch with his ex-wife before the two went through a bitter divorce. If Casey can prove that Eli came from his ranch, then he can prove also that the chimp was taken from the property unlawfully. The Sarasota Herald Tribune, which is covering on the case, reported that the chimp is worth $65,000.

Valbuena, on the other hand, contends that Eli came from a California wildlife park. She lives in the Sarasota area with the chimp, and claims that she is raising and training him on behalf of a Hollywood company.

Adding to the strangeness of the case, Valbuena has requested the right to bring Eli into the courtroom with her. She claims that she cannot find a qualified chimp-sitter to ensure that he is safe and healthy at her home. Eli requires care around the clock. According to the Herald Tribune, Valbuena has noted that despite his hairy body, huge ears and protruding mouth, no one would notice the difference between him and an 11-month-old baby unless they looked closely.

Valbuena’s attorney has said that Eli would not be any more dangerous than the guide dogs and service animals that people regularly bring into the courtroom. She claims that the chimp is as helpless as a human infant, especially when he is on a leash. Valbuena also noted that Eli enjoys kissing and cuddling.

The judge in the case, Circuit Judge Charles Roberts, has yet to rule on whether Eli will be making a personal appearance in the courtroom.
Casey and his representation are seeking a DNA custody test that is similar to those conducted in paternity cases, which is a unique occurrence according to attorneys who spoke to the Herald Tribune.

Casey claims that there is enough evidence to justify the testing, including Valbuena’s business relationship with his ex-wife, and Eli’s age and appearance.

The only way to be 100 percent certain of the provenance of the animal is for this court to order a DNA test to be taken and compared with samples from the purported parents, attorney Jason Wandner wrote in a motion.

It is illegal to own a chimp as a pet in Florida, though Valbuena claims to have a license as a professional exhibitor.

The judge ultimately denied the claim to test Eli’s DNA. He did not, however, count out a future test, once more information was gathered.
Eli has yet to offer his opinion of the custody case.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Divorce for most is a complicated matter with judges, courts and attorneys to determine who gets what. But the divorce process might prove a little more difficult for international relationships because different countries have different laws.

Take Europe for example—a continent rich with different cultures and countries right next door to each other. Many feel international divorce is an important issue to tackle.

According to an Associated Foreign Press article, the European Union (EU) wants to create a law to govern such international divorces.

The EU was developed to create standardized laws for different countries who joined the union. It now consists of 27 member nations across the continent.

Of these 27 member nations, there are over 350,000 international marriages in a year—170,000 of those ends in divorce.

Only 10 member nations agreed to set up a unified divorce law among the organization. So the group intends to use their concept of “enhanced cooperation” in order to pass a law into the EU’s legislation.

This concept of “enhanced cooperation” was created by the EU’s 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam. This allows eight of the member states to apply EU laws to it members of the organization and to proceed without the opposition’s consent. This occurs if the group at large cannot unanimously agree on the legislation.

The 10 states that are in favor of the law include: Austria, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Spain and Romania.

Some of the countries that oppose are Britain, Finland and Sweden.
Those who oppose have said they might be open to the idea of common divorce laws amongst the organization. But their main issue was the group of 10 invoking the “enhanced cooperation.” Some feel that it should only be used sparingly and for very important issues.

Supporters hope a common divorce law will create less confusion with divorce proceedings as EU members have inconsistent marriage and divorce laws. They hope to determine which nations’ laws should be applied when citizens of two different member states want to get a divorce. They also said it will help settle important issues such as division of assets and child custody.

Supporters said that their goal is not to divide the EU, but to have all members join together to determine a common divorce law.

Copyright © 2009 TotalDivorce, Inc. (as licensee). All rights reserved.