The Catastrophic Illinois Divorce
Divorces often cost way too much. Having practiced Family Law in Illinois for over three decades, I fully understand that the process in the Illinois Court system of divorcing and reaching custody determinations often takes too long, and costs the divorcing parties too much. I work hard to keep costs down for my clients, but I still feel that the present system promotes delay, stress and cost for families. The process itself is highly inefficient. Divorce cases are filed, and the courts set lengthy periods in which the opposing parties appear for status dates and then finally to set case management schedules. Then there is the endless process of discovery including Marital Interrogatories and lengthy and cumbersome Requests to Produce Documents, subpoenas of bank and credit card records that the parties won't produce voluntarily, depositions, motions, hearings over temporary issues: all of this activity which is billed to the client by the hour. If the case can't settle, the next step is a pretrial conference where the lawyers meet with the judge while the clients wait out in the courtroom. If no settlement is agreed to, the judge sets a case-management conference, which is the final step onto the road to trial preparation. Finally, months later, the trial date, whereupon the judge usually will attempt a final pretrial conference in chambers and the lawyers and judge work toward settlement with the judge's input. The lawyers then go out into the courtroom hallway and work with their clients under the pressure of the trial setting and try to settle the case. Some lawyers are now engaging in various cooperative divorce strategies where they proactively work together with their clients towards the goal of a constructive settlement to avoid a needless trial. Since Mr. Stein wrote the lawyer's guide to divorce settlement agreements, he is known for skillfully reaching a good settlement for his clients.
Virtual Visitation
"Virtual visitation" is a term that is gaining relevance in Illinois divorces. It refers to using online video conferencing applications like SKYPE to create a visual and audio connection by which physically distant parents can connect online with their children. A recent New York divorce case granted a mother's request for permission to move with her children to Florida, despite the fact that the children's father would continue to live in New York. As a condition of the removal order, the mother had to agree to allow the children to visit with their father via SKYPE, an Internet service that allows for live videoconferencing. The New York judge noted that economic conditions justified the move, as the parents' house was underwater, employment prospects were dim, and the mother had supportive family in Florida. Unlike certain other states, Illinois law disfavors removal of children, but Illinois judges do grant removal petitions if they feel it would be in the children's best interests. If you are facing the possibility that your spouse may try to remove the children from Illinois out of state, on the pretext that there is family or friends in some other state, aggressively defending removal is critical. While SKYPE has been a boon to facilitating enhanced contact between nonresidential parents and children within Illinois, it should never be strongly considered a substitute or factor in a child removal case.
The Art of Negotiated Settlements
No one wishes to spend a lot of money on his or her divorce. This statement has always been true for most families, and it's even truer today as Illinois families struggle with houses "under water," and employment opportunities lessened by the economic collapse. One good way for litigants to avoid spending a lot of money on their divorce is to make a sincere effort to avoid contested court litigation and a final trial on the divorce issues. Trials, as you might imagine, take a lot of attorney preparation time and actual court time. Trials are expensive.
To avoid trial the effort must be made to negotiate a settlement. Reaching settlement is desirable, but many people find that when they are dealing with issues of custody, spousal support, and division of property, that reaching settlements is difficult. Having had many years of experience as a divorce and custody trial lawyer, I have developed some key points for success through negotiating settlements. Here are some of them: 1. Know your true goals and be aware of what you really need from the settlement. 2. Know your opposition. No one knows your spouse and his or her predispositions and deal points better than you. As your attorney, I know the case, the law, the judge's positions on the relevant matters, and the negotiating abilities of opposing counsel. We work together as partners to set goals and achieve them in negotiation.
3. Prepare for the negotiation... point by point. Be ready to have command of all necessary financial and child custody facts. 4. Anticipate reactions, objections and responses. Be ready with counter-proposals to address objections or stalemates in the negotiation. 5. Prepare options rather than ultimatums. Successful negotiations usually do not include ultimatums. When negotiating, it is important not to set "take it or leave it" positions, as these positions psychologically set a benchmark that the opposing party then uses to negotiate against you. The best deals are made gradually, with concessions structured into the negotiation, with the end goals kept firmly in mind. Some parties in divorce end up in a costly trial only because their lawyer could not find a means to conduct a successful negotiation. My goal with my clients is to use the art of negotiation to help them achieve their goals, while at the same time, saving them the cost and expenses of a trial, when possible.
Do NOT sign that agreement!
More often than not, I have people come in for a consultation with signed Marital Settlement Agreements and/or Parenting Agreements. The usual question that is asked is whether or not there is anything that can be done to modify or set aside those contracts. When it comes to divorce proceedings, under most circumstances, especially within a few months after the ink is dry, the answer is going to be "no". There are no rights to setting aside or rescinding an agreement because it is a bad deal. Once you sign an agreement you are going to be stuck with it absent a showing of some fairly serious fraud or duress or, in the case of custody, child support or modifiable spousal support a showing of a substantial change of circumstances. Therefore, the best course of action is to have a family law attorney read through your agreement BEFORE you sign it to ensure that you are not signing something that you should not.
Divorcing parties must consider retirement, regardless of their ages.
Decisions made during a divorce will have long-term consequences on the divorcing parties' financial security. Even though many divorcing couples do not consider themselves near retirement age, issues concerning their future retirement should be taken into account during the divorce process. Any divorce settlement agreement should protect each party financially well into the retirement years. In particular, there are several areas that should be specifically addressed during a divorce. These include:
• Beneficiaries. Divorcing parties should consider changing the beneficiaries on all accounts and insurance policies. Failing to do so may result in your ex-spouse being entitled to your assets.
• Consider your financial future. Estate planning is always a smart move. This is true especially if children are involved. Without careful planning, your ex-spouse could end up with control of your estate.
• Consider the necessity of all types of insurance. These include not only health insurance, but disability, property and life insurance. Also, for those divorcing parties who expect to receive child support or alimony, a life insurance policy can ensure that those payments are made in the event of the death of the paying spouse.
• Carefully scrutinize all retirement accounts. Pension plans, 401(k) plans and IRAs must be considered during the divorce process. Dividing each type of retirement account can be tricky, however, as each is governed by its own set of rules.
• Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). A QDRO is a court-ordered division of certain retirement accounts, such as federal pensions. Without a QDRO, a spouse's interest in the other spouse's retirement account will not be protected, and can potentially be lost. QDROs are very complicated and knowledgeable counsel can help ensure that each spouse's interests are protected.
Illinois couples facing divorce should seriously consider the long-term consequences of all of the financial decisions that they will make during the divorce process. Whether retirement is a long way off or just around the corner, the financial decisions made during a divorce will have a lasting impact.
Retirement Plans in Divorce - Problems with QDROs.
A Qualified Domestic Relations Order or QDRO is a legal tool used to divide retirement accounts. Specifically, it is a court order signed by a judge, which directs the plan administrator of the husband's or wife's pension or 401(k) to distribute a portion of those funds to the other spouse. The transfer is accomplished without implicating any penalty or tax payment requirement. The legal ins-and-outs of drafting a valid QDRO can be tedious and complicated, which is why some divorce attorneys outsource the handling of QDROs to QDRO specialists. Other attorneys prefer to draft and submit QDROs on their own. Either option, of course, is fine, assuming that all the legal QDRO requirements are met. Retirement plan administrators are not allowed or required to follow the terms of any court order purporting to assign retirement benefits unless it meets the requirements of a QDRO. Surprisingly, the most common shortcoming in most QDROs is a failure to clearly specify the amount or percentage of the benefit that should be paid to the alternate payee (the non-employee spouse). If it is less than clear as to the amount or percentage, a plan administrator will reject it. This problem often crops up when the participant spouse is not fully vested in his or her employee benefit plan. If the QDRO divides the participant's interest in the plan by percentage but fails to reference the amount of the vested interest as compared to the unvested portion, the QDRO is ambiguous and will be rejected. A similar problem will occur if the participant has taken a loan from his or her 401(k). A QDRO that is unclear as to whether the division is to be a percentage of the full vested account balance or the actual value of the investments will also be rejected. Another common QDRO problem is an improper requirement that the plan provide any form of benefit not otherwise provided for. A simple example of this is when a plan is invested in an investment that is closed to new investors and the plan itself does not allow for in-kind distribution. The QDRO cannot require the plan administrator to do something otherwise prohibited by the plan itself. The passage of time can also create problems with the approval of a QDRO. There is no time requirement for the submission of a QDRO following a divorce; however, a delay of any length can increase the risk of problems. If the participant takes a significant distribution from the plan prior to approval of a QDRO, tracking down and collecting the funds after the fact may be difficult or impossible. While almost every divorce attorney has a QDRO horror story or two, trouble can be easily avoiding by communicating closely with the plan administrator throughout the QDRO process and being vigilant about the approval process following your divorce.
Judge cites breast cancer as major concern in child custody dispute.
A recent child custody case has captured the attention of the nation as family law expert's debate what role a parent's physical health should play during a child custody debate. The case involves a mother with Stage 4 breast cancer, which means that her cancer is relatively advanced and requires aggressive treatment. Last April, a family court judge ruled that the mother's condition justified moving her children out of state to live with their father in Illinois. Prior to the ruling, the 5- and 11-year-old children were living with their mother in North Carolina. However, the mother of two currently has no job and must make frequent trips to the doctor's office to receive treatments for her breast cancer. In light of these facts, the judge decided that it would be in the best interests of the children to relocate them to the Chicago area where their father reportedly has found a stable job and home. Defending her decision, the judge noted that the mother's condition is life-threatening and opined that the children should have time to build a relationship with their father in order to prepare for the worst-case scenario. In addition to the mother's health, the judge also considered testimonies suggesting that the woman left her children with their grandparents while she maintained a long-distance relationship with a married man. In her brief, the judge listed additional hesitations about the children's security in addition to her other concerns. The judge offered to create a joint custody arrangement should the mother also choose to relocate to Chicago. However, the woman claims that it would be impossible for her to leave her doctor and cancer support system in North Carolina without compromising her health. This case raises the question: should a parent's potentially terminal illness be allowed to influence their claim to custody over their children?
Athletes consider support modifications as NFL dispute drags on.
Many of the people following the National Football League's contract dispute can cite a few of the potential consequences should the league's owners and players fail to reach an agreement. Play might be disrupted next season, stress and frustration could motivate some athletes to consider moving to a different team, and players could stop receiving paychecks until a labor contract can be created. However, one potential consequence of the NFL dispute which has not received much attention from sports commentators and fans is the effect this situation could have on the women and children who depend on NFL athletes for child and spousal support payments. During the divorce process, most couples will arrange for one of the spouses to receive either child or spousal support payments. It's not uncommon for divorce court judges to reward some individuals with both these payments, especially in cases where the higher-earning spouse does not receive primary custody of the couple's children. These payments ensure that divorced individuals and their kids can make a smooth transition from a two-income household down to a single-income home. Some estimates claim that around 80 percent of professional athletes pay some form of child or spousal support, often to several different families. However, if NFL players stop receiving their paychecks due to the current contract dispute, they will be eligible to petition for child and spousal support modifications. If approved by a family law judge, a modification can change the amount of support an individual is required to pay in order to represent a shift in their financial situation. According to some reports, many professional athletes are already taking legal steps to prepare a modification petition in case the NFL conflict drags on. Players in the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League may also be consulting modification attorneys, as similar disputes are likely to strike their organizations in the coming months.
Experts link divorce rate to US economic health and stability.
A survey of divorce attorneys and others in the family law field revealed an interesting connection between America's slow economic recovery and the number of couples looking to end their marriage. A study conducted by the Financial Times cites a number of expert testimonies which all point to one, overwhelming trend: the more the economy improves, the more likely people are to get a divorce. It's hard to argue with the fact that the divorce process can be expensive. Not only does it occasionally involve extensive litigation, but families are also faced with the move from a two-income household to a single income home. Even in the best scenarios, seeking a divorce often forces ex-spouses to tighten their belts-at least for a little while. It appears that during the worst moments of the most recent US recession some people's belts simply could not get any tighter. During 2009, the divorce rate dropped for the majority of the US population and many family law lawyers reported less incoming business related to divorce cases. However, this trend has turned around in recent months, as several attorneys are now hustling to keep pace with the amount of cases demanding their attention. However, some attorneys claim that, as business increases once more, several traditional divorce arguments have changed. For instance, because the housing market remains unstable, occasionally a couple's house can end up being more trouble than it's worth. The Financial Times reports that some family law judges cannot decide if awarding the house to a specific ex-spouse should count as a financial boon or burden. Considering people's apparent willingness to remain in an unhappy union for financial reasons, it will be interesting to see if divorce rates continue to fluctuate along with the country's economic ups and downs.
How divorce affects your taxes.
Everyone knows ending a marriage is an emotional and difficult process. And if you're recently divorced, you now have the added challenge of figuring out a more complicated tax situation. Make some common mistakes, and you could end up paying more than you need to. Money Magazine interviewed Edward I. Stein for an article entitled Dealing The Tax Man Out Of Divorce. Here's some current advice if you are separated or thinking of divorce. If your divorce (or legal separation) is not final by December 31st, the IRS will consider you married for the entire year. This means you can file your taxes with your spouse, provided you're still getting along well enough to do so. Your second option is to take the Married Filing Separately option. This one will cost you since Uncle Sam won't allow you as many tax breaks. But if you're worried your ex will owe the government money - maybe he works for himself and doesn't make estimated payments through out the year - this may be a good idea. No matter what you do, call the IRS to see if you and your spouse owe back taxes (plus interest and penalties) from previous years. You'd be surprised how many partners keep this sort of information from the other person in a marriage. If you do owe money, you'll want to make sure that issue gets discussed and settled during your divorce negotiations. Whether you're separated or divorced you'll want to make sure you claim as many tax breaks as you're entitled to. If you're the primary caregiver of the children, ask your accountant if you can claim Head of Household status. You may also be able to claim the Child Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Credit. If you're divorced on or before December 31st, you can file your taxes for that year as a single person without any penalties. Again, if you are your child's primary caregiver, you should claim the Head of Household status. If you and your ex have joint custody, you'll need to check your agreement to see which tax breaks you get to claim. Here's some good news: If you receive child support the IRS will not tax this money. Spousal support, however, is another story. Maintenance "alimony" is treated like income. So Uncle Sam does tax it. But you can - and should - put some of this money toward IRA contributions, even if you're not working. Sure you won't have as much cash to spend now, but you'll thank yourself later when you have a retirement account to dip into.
Israel - Religious courts assert authority over dissolution of civil marriages
Three recent rabbinical court rulings have asserted far-reaching and controversial authority in divorces of couples married in a civil ceremony. The Interior Ministry requires Jewish couples to provide proof of divorce from a rabbinical court to get their divorce registered, regardless of how they married. But a recent ruling by the Netanya Rabbinical Court stated that in such cases, the rabbinical court also has authority in matters of child support, custody and joint property. Jewish law recognizes civil unions, it said, and therefore may also discuss their dissolution. The ruling contradicts a 2006 High Court of Justice decision that if the divorcing couple wed in a civil ceremony, all such matters must be handled by civil rather than rabbinical courts, since the latter "deny the property-related manifestations of their married state," as then-Supreme Court President Aharon Barak put it. Two other rabbinical courts, in Tel Aviv and Haifa, went even further, saying they were authorized to discuss conditions set by the husband for divorce, just as they do in religious divorce cases. In the Haifa ruling, issued in November, the husband - who is allegedly violent toward his wife - did not want the divorce. The court therefore refused to dissolve their civil marriage. The Netanya court heard the case of a Jewish couple that married in Cyprus in 1998 and now has two children. Unusually, the husband began divorce proceedings in the rabbinical court rather than a civil one, and also asked it to rule on child support and property division. The wife objected, but the court sided with the husband and heard the case. According to Prof. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, head of Bar-Ilan University's Rackman Center for the Advancement of Women's Status, the rabbinical court judges "are bringing tens of thousands of couples who chose not to marry through the Chief Rabbinate under their control." In contrast, Prof. Eliav Schochetman, a lecturer in Jewish law at Sha'arei Mishpat college, termed the move positive, saying that far from denying women's rights, the rabbinical courts are treating women married in civil unions as married women in every respect. But Halperin-Kaddari called that view "naive." The 2006 High Court ruling essentially adopted the view of the Rabbinical Court of Appeals that civil marriage had some standing in Jewish law, but could be terminated by rabbinical courts in a fairly simple process. However, the justices continued, rabbinical courts could not discuss other divorce-related issues, such as child custody or property, lest the husband seek to exploit provisions of Jewish law that favor the man in order to deny the woman her rights. The Netanya Rabbinical Court based its ruling on what is termed "custom of the state," referring to a 16th-century point of Jewish law that dealt with women forced to convert to Christianity who then married other forced converts. This concept held that even though these were essentially civil marriages, the women nevertheless had property rights, just as they would in a Jewish marriage. Batya Kahana-Dror, who heads Mavoi Satum, a group that assists women who are denied religious divorces, responded to the rulings by calling for an overhaul of Israel's marriage and divorce laws. "Once again, we see that civil marriage is not immune to the rabbinical courts," she said.
Cooperative Parenting Speeds Recovery from Grief
Trying to cut their losses and regain control of their lives, separated spouses can behave irrationally and desperately, harming the children they love. Though they are rare, the most tragic examples of divorce-triggered trauma can end in suicide, or even murder. Less dramatic painful incidents occur daily in millions of families with children, largely because of grief. Moms and dads bicker at exchanges of the children, argue about their kids' activities, and embarrass their sons and daughters by leaving each other hateful messages. While not physically violent or outright abusive, too many parents unintentionally harm their children while trying to diffuse their own frustrations. Divorce affects nearly half of all American families. But the fact that it is so common does nothing to ease the pain of dismantling an intact home.
Consider the following losses caused by separation:
* Loss of a lover and companion
* Loss of a parenting partner
* Loss of the unified family
* Loss of mutual friends
* Loss of identity as a spouse
Though some men and women rebound reasonably well to these losses, five to ten percent continue in horrendous high conflict and another twenty percent grieve in other damaging ways. These men and women, now separated "coparents" of their children, act out personally, socially, and legally, often clogging court dockets with litigation, hoping to fend off grief by fighting legal battles. One powerful antidote to the anguish lies right in front of divorced parents who are able to readjust their thinking. The healing process can start immediately with simple recognition of the importance of transforming bad personal relationships into good parental ones. By letting go of blame and accepting the need to learn to work together without living together, parents can stop the waves of grief, which, unheeded, can clash and swell almost daily, for years.
Parents who cling to anger because of their grief seem to enjoy behaving selfishly while rationalizing obvious moves of self-interest, which hurt the children. Neutral outsiders who observe such callous actions are often appalled by the lack of sensitivity parents show for their children's feelings. Claiming there is just "no way" to develop a different parenting style with an ex who they see as the source of the problem, fathers and mothers resistant to recovery think it is right to perpetuate hostility. The art of successful co-parenting, like the art of parenting itself, lies in learning to interact with another person in a special, effective way. This time the relationship is with the child's other parent - and the best analogy is that of a business partner relationship. It can take enormous commitment, but salvaging the parental bond by developing respect and empathy for a former spouse can counteract grief and neutralize the sense of loss. The three important steps below pave the way for building the business co-parenting relationship. Instead of dwelling on your own losses: Admit that the other parent is grieving too, and identify that grief to yourself. Put yourself in your ex-spouse's shoes, and imagine how he or she feels. Learn to communicate rationally with your ex, practicing patience and compassion as you relate. Co-parenting education is a very new field, emerging as a cultural response to the disastrous divorce epidemic of the past forty years. Most states now require parents to attend basic classes to learn that grief is a natural response to divorce, but many distraught parents are too emotional to understand or accept mourning as the real culprit. Thus, they continue to compete or battle each other in anger, and children in one out of five divorced families suffer from poor co-parenting. One answer is more divorce education for these mothers and fathers, and more promotion of harmony in parental interaction. The bottom line is that parents and children can be happy again after recovery from grief caused by divorce. When active mourning has been put behind, and when the adults have found balance in how they relate, waves of rage and sadness may still ebb and flow, but the destructive acting out will be over. No longer letting the tow of grief pull them under, healed moms and dads learn to trust each other again, and even celebrate the new co-parental relationship. Most importantly, they can relax in their roles as parents, knowing they have given back to their boys and girls the peaceful childhood they deserve.
International Child Abduction - Parental Tug Of War
International family law is expanding as people travel more and spend time with and marry people from different countries. International personal relationships produce an abundance of conflict and litigation. It is hard enough for people to live together when they share a similar background, but it is far harder when they are from different countries, cultures, religions, ethnicities, educational experiences, languages, traditions, and family structures. The resulting pressures may become especially acute when international couples have children and disagree about such matters as child-rearing methods, the role of in-laws, proper education, religious issues, and ultimately the desire of one of them to take the children "back home" to his or her country of origin. When international personal relationships dissolve, the legal work is often extremely challenging. The financial aspects of international family law disputes are often complex and difficult to resolve. But when children are the subjects of such disputes, the challenges are often greater and the emotions generally run far higher. Simply put, money can be divided but children cannot. Divorcing parents who stay in the same town can often make sensible arrangements to share the parenting of their children, and if they cannot, a local court can issue appropriate orders and also enforce them as needed. But when the parents cannot even agree on which country to live in, that is when the litigation really heats up. I have represented several parents who lived in desperate fear that the other parent will abduct their child to another country and that they will never see the child again. I have also represented many parents who desperately want to "go home" with their child to their country of origin. When an international client asks as basic a question as, "What law governs our case?" the answer may well be far from clear. We must often advise that it will depend overwhelmingly on which court--or courts--will have jurisdiction over the case. Although the courts in the state in which the child is currently located have exclusive custody jurisdiction from their own perspective, if the child is taken to visit another country, the courts there will often have jurisdiction under the local law of that country to determine what is best for the child. In addition, these cases often have a strong international law component: More than 80 countries, including the United States and most developed countries, have adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which requires that children who have been "wrongfully taken" or "wrongfully retained" overseas should normally be returned promptly to their country of habitual residence. In practice, international child custody cases often yield complex and messy conflicts between the laws and courts of different countries, demonstrating serious clashes of societal views about culture, religion, gender roles, parental rights, and children's rights, as well as of the role of the legal system in intervening in disputes about children. An increasing number of cases involve the prevention of international child abduction. Let's assume that a lawyer receives a frantic call from a client somewhere in the United States, who tells you, "I'm sure my spouse is about to take our child to India or Japan or China or Colombia or England or Germany or *** and they will never come back. Please help!" What does the lawyer do? The lawyer's initial advice may well be purely practical. It will be designed to prevent the immediate threat. Some issues to cover are: The passport issue. Most likely the lawyer should talk about how to secure the child's passport. The lawyer might discuss the location of the other parent's passports (recognizing that it is that person's property). The lawyer will need to alert the client to the fact that control over passports does not create complete security because many foreign consulates issue renewal passports or other travel documents to their own nationals, without requiring the consent of the other parent and frequently even in the face of a U.S. court order. The lawyer should discuss how the U.S. State Department's Office of Children's Issues might help ensure that no new U.S. passports are issued. The lawyer should talk about how to track the child's whereabouts. Who can watch the child? Should you alert school authorities? What about placing a GPS tracking device in the child's clothing or cell phone? What about alerting the police or hiring a private investigator?
Perhaps the client should contact the airlines to discover if the other parent has bought airline tickets for the child. Perhaps the client should write to and/or email the airlines to demand that they prevent the child from boarding. The lawyer should discuss whether the client should contact other family members about the issue and what to say to them. The lawyer should advise the client how to instruct the child as to what to do in case of an emergency. The lawyer should advise your client about collecting and securing evidence for a potential court hearing. The lawyer may well want to secure an emergency restraining order very promptly from the court. An initial temporary order should be easy to secure, but it will be far more difficult to keep such an order in place over the long term or to ensure that it has sufficient teeth to be effective. The United States has no exit controls, with certain exceptions, and a mere court order will not trigger the kind of effective checks that other countries have in place to prevent children from being taken out of the country by one parent or family member. Ideally the short-term solution should be to gain sole custody for the client and to require that any access by the other parent be strictly supervised. The long-term burden will be strongly on the client to present compelling evidence sufficient to justify what the court will likely see as extraordinary relief. That evidence must be of two distinct types. First, the must establish that the other parent represents a serious risk of being an international child abductor. Second, the lawyer must show, if appropriate, that the foreign country's legal system will not return an abducted child at all or will do so only after great delay and expense. There will be a significant interplay between these two factors. The more that you establish a strong likelihood that the other parent will abduct the child, the less evidence you should need that the country in question presents a high degree of risk. So if the potential country is one such as England or New Zealand, which have strong and effective laws and systems in place to return abducted children, the lawyer will likely need very strong evidence of an anticipated abduction. Conversely, if the country presents an obviously greater risk of not returning an abducted child (think Japan or Venezuela), much less evidence of the likelihood that the particular parent will be an abductor should be required. The evidence concerning the specific parent should focus on establishing as many of the so-called risk factors as possible. These factors are well established and have been codified in the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA). The most compelling evidence would be clear proof of a threat to abduct. Surprisingly, some parents make explicit threats in emails. More typically the lawyer will need to build a circumstantial case based on such factors as the parent having moved money overseas, vacated a residence, made international job inquiries, retained few ties to the United States, or kept strong connections to the foreign country and community, or being disdainful of the United States. In order to show that the foreign country's legal system will not return an abducted child at all or will do so only after great delay and expense, the lawyer will start with the Hague Convention. It will be highly significant if the country has not signed the Convention or if the United States has not accepted its accession. However, just because a country has signed the Convention does not mean that it will enforce it. As a signatory, Mexico is obliged to return abducted children promptly; in reality, it does not do so, as the U.S. State Department has repeatedly reported. Likewise, just because a country has not signed the Convention does not necessarily mean that it will not return abducted children. For example, Singapore has not yet acceded, but its courts follow the spirit of the Convention. Frequently the lawyer will need to ask the court to consider and evaluate the real facts as to a country's legal system. Generally speaking, U.S. judges are extremely uncomfortable evaluating another country's legal system and predicting the results that may be expected of a case overseas. Although such reluctance is perfectly understandable, it must be overcome. It is absolutely essential in this area that judges should not shirk from their responsibility to judge whether or not a child is likely to be returned from abroad if a parent or others in his or her family decides to keep the child in that country. How does the lawyer prove that a foreign country's legal system in international child custody cases is ineffective, corrupt, or slow? How does the lawyer establish the extent to which the courts in another country will recognize and enforce foreign--and especially U.S.--judgments, particularly in the family law area? Or the extent to which discrimination--sexual, religious, ethnic, or national-- might impact the issue in the courts of that country? The lawyer must present expert testimony to convince a court that it is both appropriate and necessary for it to act as a judge of the legal systems in place in other countries?