I do, and I also remember thinking I had never heard of such a heartless act. Recently, I followed up on this story to see what happened to the little boy in this heart-wrenching story.

You may recall that Torry Hansen from Shelbyville adopted Arytom Savelyev, who she renamed Justin Hansen, from a Russian orphanage. In April of 2010 her mother, Nancy Hansen, delivered 7 year-old Arytom to the airport for a flight back to Moscow. The Hansens’ conduct spurred international anger, but no criminal charges were ever pursued.

A month later Washington adoption agency, the World Association for Children and Parents, filed a civil lawsuit against the Hansens for child support and sought to be appointed as temporary guardians of the young boy. They became involved out of frustration that no one was investigating the abandonment and endangerment of Arytom.

Local officials said there was no crime committed in their jurisdiction and therefore, no criminal charges. A Russian Court later pronounced an order that Ms. Hansen pay $2500.00 a month in child support.

The civil lawsuit brought by the adoption agency came to light when Judge Lee Russell in Tennessee ruled in November 2011 that the media could have access to the trial proceedings after the Hansons’ attorney tried to obtain an order barring the media and requesting a sealing order.

The trial is scheduled for May 2010. Meanwhile, Arytom was without a stable home until recently. He is now living with his new foster mother, teacher Vera Yegorova and her 16 other foster children under the auspices of SOS Children’s Villages. The Villages are in 133 countries and began in Austria in 1949.

His mother reports he is now doing well in school and has adapted to his new home and siblings. Ms. Yegorova learned of Arytom’s plight through the media noting that her foster son has never mentioned the traumatic events to her or acknowledged that he speaks English.

After this incident Russian barred American adoptions and has only just recently opened the door again for Americans to adopt Russian orphans.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

In a 2010 decision by Judicial Hearing Officer Stanley Gartenstein of Nassau County, New York, Supreme Court Officer Gartenstein wrote:

“After a long and bitterly contested trial, this complex litigation may best be summed up as a well-crafted but legally bankrupt claim of “sudden poverty”, a disease which seems to infect matrimonial litigants with particular frequency.”

“Apart from the time, effort and expense to which he has put his wife to penetrate the smoke-screen he has so skillfully created– and we must give him credit for that–his schemes are a house of cards constructed by a self-indulgent individual intent upon his own gratification at the expense of all of those innocent persons who have given of themselves to him and had a right to expect more.”

I’d love to hear a judge in Vancouver tell it like it is, like Officer Gartenstein. Bravo!

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Crystal Harris from San Diego was violently sexually abused by her husband who was imprisoned for his crimes against her. To her dismay and consternation, Ms. Harris was victimized a second time by a family court judge who ordered her to pay support and court costs to her abuser.

The Assemblywoman said “Victims of violent sex crimes already suffer physical trauma, fear and an assault on their privacy and dignity.” To make them pay alimony is “cruel and makes a mockery of the intent behind the laws…”

In the early 1900′s in Canada and Great Britain, women who committed adultery were not entitled to spousal support based on a system of fault. Today, spousal conduct does not come into play in decisions regarding alimony.

The California bill is supported by the San Diego District Attorney’s office and is receiving bilateral legislative support. This bill may signal a return to fault-based considerations in the area of spousal support.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

And who are they? An organization founded to “Preserve the Memory of the Grand Army of the Republic and our ancestors who fought to preserve the Union 1861-1865″.

The Sons of Union are hosting a program in Nashville Tennessee this month that will explore how Lincoln’s divorce practice impacted who he was as a leader and offer a glimpse of the society he lived in.

Researcher Stacy Pratt McDermott found that between 1837 and 1861 Lincoln and his three law partners handled 131 divorce cases in 17 Illinois county circuit courts. The state of Illinois was one of the first in America to grant divorces, make custody orders and provide alimony for women.

Grounds for divorce in Illinois included desertion, adultery, habitual drunkenness, repeated cruelty, impotency, bigamy, and felony conviction.

One case in particular reveals Lincoln’s approach to the business of divorce, which he apparently disliked but considered a necessary evil. In Rogers v. Rogers Lincoln was retained to act for Sam Rogers who sought a divorce on the basis of his wife’s desertion and her adultery. Lincoln persuaded his client that he didn’t need to rely on two grounds for divorce and recommended the divorce proceed under the ground of desertion.

The reason Lincoln chose not to pursue a divorce on the basis of adultery was to avoid any unnecessary embarrasment to his client’s wife. His sensitive approach, however, backfired, as his client was ordered to pay $1000.00 in alimony to his wife. Had he also plead adultery, his client would have paid nothing or a nominal amount.

Fortunately for his client Lincoln was able to reverse the alimony ruling and undoubtedly learned a lesson in the process.

Lincoln was not only a great leader and an advocate for the abolition of slavery, but was a sensitive, pragmatic man who practiced law for 25 years. While he handled railroad cases, tax cases and murder cases, his “bread and butter” was divorce law.

Historians now rank him among the top three United States Presidents and his Gettysburg Address on liberty, equality and democracy is one of the most often quoted political speeches.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

This is Heidi’s second marriage. When she and Seal met she had just split from another boyfriend and was carrying his child. Later Ms. Klum gave birth to three more children with Seal, who she said was an amazing father who always put her and the children first.

Vancouverites may recall that Heidi and Seal announced their engagement in December 2004 in ski resort Whistler, and married in 2005 in Mexico.

The couple was also well-known for throwing an elaborate party each year on their wedding anniversary to recommit to one another. Seal once remarked that it was liking getting married again every year.

Their uncoupling is just another sad example of celebrity marriage. The real losers here are their four young children.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Yes, it’s true that it hasn’t always been this way. In the early 1980’s a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Messier v. Delage held strong to the philosophy that the obligation of support between ex-spouses “should not continue indefinitely when the marriage bond is dissolved,” and decried the notion that “one spouse could continue to be a drag on the other indefinitely; acquire a lifetime pension as a result of the marriage; or luxuriate in idleness at the expense of the other.”

The support noose got even tighter in 1987 after a trio of cases made their way up to Canada’s highest court. In Pelech v. Pelech, Caron v. Caron and Richardson v. Richardson the Court determined that spouses who had signed agreements dealing with spousal support could not easily shake loose of them.

The test to challenge an agreement to obtain support, to increase support, or to extend support required the applicant spouse to show there had been a radical change in circumstances causally linked to the marriage.

The first part of the legal requirement, establishing that a change was radical, was relatively easy. If a wife agreed to take no support and later became fully disabled it was not difficult to characterize the change in her ability to work as radical.

More stringent, however, was the additional requirement that the radical change be attributable to the marriage. So, for example, if a wife signed a separation agreement that gave her no spousal support because she was fully self-supporting, and she later became disabled from an illness that did not manifest itself until after the divorce, her financial need could not be linked to her marriage.

For women who found themselves in this situation, their only hope was family support, welfare, or a second marriage. Meanwhile, the federal government overhauled the Divorce Act 1968 and replaced it with a new Divorce Act in 1985. The new model for support became an analysis of the economic advantages and disadvantages suffered by both spouses from the marriage or from the breakdown of the marriage. The stage was now set for a groundbreaking Supreme Court of Canada decision.

In 1992 the support pendulum swung hard in the opposite direction with a case that involved a spousal support payment of a mere $100.00 per month. In Moge v. Moge the Supreme Court of Canada introduced a new way of thinking about spousal support with a support rationale that was based on compensation to a spouse, instead of just a consideration of “means and needs”.

In this ground breaking decision the Court directed judges to explore the economic consequences of divorce with a greater focus on women’s work at home as mothers and wives and the aftermath of staying at home, while their husbands worked.

The Court recognized that women in this position typically had no job skills, limited opportunities for education, and no pensions, savings, or health benefits.

Fast forward to 2006 when the federal government introduced Canada’s Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, a further move to a more generous system of spousal support. The Guidelines provided a scheme to ensure that supported spouses received support that was up to 43% of their partner’s gross income. They also set a formula to determine how long support would be paid.

The upshot was that spouses who were married for 20 years or more typically received indefinite support that could be reviewed or varied if there was a material change in circumstances. Spouses in marriages under 20 years would receive support equivalent to the length of their marriage, also subject to variation if the supporting spouse could show a material change in circumstances.

While this analysis is a simplification of the Guidelines, there could be no doubt that women benefitted and men were burdened with higher support payments paid for a greater length of time.

In recent cases in British Columbia, men seeking to decrease their support have only been mildly successful, while most obtain no relief at all.

Last month the Supreme Court of Canada reinforced their model of generosity in L.M.P.v. L.S. where they decided that spouses receiving support pursuant to an agreement were not necessarily bound by the terms of their agreement because recipient spouses may have been under intense emotional strain at the time they negotiated their agreements.

As a result of this decision husbands in Canada can now wave good-bye to well-established principles of certainty and finality when they settle support issues.

Hearkening back to my original point, the Canadian trend in spousal support in no way resembles the burgeoning alimony reform sweeping through the United States. In fact, Canada continues to move in a direction that will eventually financially cripple husbands, particularly those that pay both child support and spousal support.

Yes, we need alimony reform but we are unlikely to get it anytime soon.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

The husband defended his position by telling the Court that the “cold ones” had been bought for him by friends, however, the Magistrate rejected his evidence. The wife had testified that the only time her husband was given beer as a gift was each Christmas.

But beer drinking was not the only issue that led to the Court’s decision. The Magistrate noted the husband had “dissipated very substantial amounts of money” on alcohol, marijuana and gambling during the marriage which drained money from the pool of assets owned by the parties.

The notion of accounting for monies spent during a marriage has not found favour in British Columbia. A leading Court of Appeal decision eschews “a roving commission” to analyze and calculate the spending habits of happily married couples. Nonetheless where money disappears towards the end of a marriage, particularly where a separation has already been contemplated, the court will intervene to protect the spouse who has been deprived of a portion of the family assets.

While it may be unfair to ignore evidence of unwarranted spending by one spouse during their marriage, the rationale is sensible. Our government/courts have no business dissecting the actions of married couples who operate with free-will. It is when a marriage fails that “Big Brother” steps in.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

That question was initially answered in 2004 by a judge in Toronto who refused to grant a divorce to a lesbian couple on the basis that the Divorce Act only applied to spouses who were defined in the Divorce Act as either a man or a woman married to each other. The Canadian couple in question had married on June 18, 2003 but separated five days later, having lived together for 10 years before their nuptials.

Later in 2004 a higher Ontario court overruled the earlier decision and pronounced the first same-sex divorce in Canada and in the world.

The Court held that the definition of spouse in the Divorce Act was unconstitutional and discriminatory and ruled that the legislation must be read to include same-sex couples.

Fast forward to the most recent same-sex divorce dilemma which unfolded in Ontario this week. You may recall the influx of gays and lesbians to Canada to exchange marriage vows after same-sex marriage was legalized.

One of those couples recently sought a Canadian divorce in Ontario. The couple, who live in Florida and England, were met by an argument brought by lawyers from the Department of Justice, that their marriage was not valid in Canada unless it was also valid in Florida and England. Of course, we know that neither Florida or England have legalized same-sex marriage.

Their reaction? You’re telling us this now! But there was still more. Canada’s Divorce Act requires one of the spouses to reside in Canada for one year prior to the granting of a divorce. This would also be tricky for couples who only came to Canada to marry and never contemplated a year of residence in Canada to obtain a divorce.

The barrage of questions posed by the media swarm included whether the Department of Justice’s legal argument reflected government policy and had this policy been surreptitiously changed by the government to thwart the rights of foreign couples who married under Canada’s same-sex marriage laws?

Interesting questions but not the right ones to ask. The answer to the Department of Justice’s legal position is found in a complicated area of law referred to as “conflicts of law”, where rules involving foreign jurisdictions, foreign law and foreign litigants have been formulated to assist in resolving the thorny issues raised by inter-jurisdictional legal questions.

The short answer is that the legal position espoused by the Department of Justice has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with well-settled international law.

It should have been apparent to foreign couples marrying in Canada that their marriages were fraught with problems. The dismay expressed by the media and critics of the Harper government over this non-issue reinforces the notion that a little legal knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

A new study from the University of Arizona reveals that the risk of premature death is 23% higher in divorced people than those whose marital bonds are still intact.

The research involved more than 6.5 million adults in eleven countries, over a time span of 27 years. To ensure accuracy, the research was statistically controlled for age, smoking, weight and medical conditions, allowing only the effects of divorce to be measured. Breaking the data down into gender, divorced men were at a substantially higher risk than divorced women.

Professor David Sbarra, who led the study, left open the issue of cause and effect. Does divorce lead to poor health or does poor health lead to divorce? He noted that further research is required to determine how divorce affects us biologically.

I can hear people saying “If I had stayed with my husband/wife I’d be in the grave by now!”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

My top three family law stories in Canada in 2011 are:

1. Polygamy in Bountiful

Bountiful looks like any other idyllic southeastern town in British Columbia, particularly if that community consists of radical fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy. Their leader Winston Blackmore, linked to the infamous Warren Jeffs, is reputed to have 25 wives and 101 children.

Attorneys-General in B.C. had been concerned about what was going on in Bountiful for decades as rumours of sexual exploitation of minors, coercion and human trafficking surfaced. But legal opinions provided to the government by several of B.C.’s top legal minds convinced the government that religious freedom under Canada’s Charter of Rights would trump the illegal practice of multiple wives.

Finally, the government decided that the polygamy question had to be dealt with and in a groundbreaking decision in November 2011, the British Columbia Supreme Court held that while religious freedom was infringed by the law against polygamy, it was justified to protect vulnerable women and children.

2. Canada’s Bondage Judge

Madam Justice Lori Douglas learned in 2011 that she would be the subject of a public judicial inquiry to determine her fitness to remain as Associate Chief Justice, Family Division of Manitoba’s Queens Bench. The story of the judge and her divorce lawyer husband, Jack King, was splashed online and in newspapers beginning in 2010 when a divorce client of her husband’s revealed that Mr. King had tried to arrange a sexual liaison between him and Judge Douglas several years earlier.

The unsavory events leading to the inquiry unravelled last fall when Madam Justice Lori Douglas stepped down from her post in the wake of a complaint from Alexander Chapman, age 45, originally from Trinidad, who retained Mr. King to act for him in his divorce proceedings in 2002.

At the time, Ms. Douglas and Mr. King were partners at a prestigious Winnipeg law firm. Mr. Chapman alleged that after Mr. King completed his divorce, King befriended him and tried to persuade Mr. Chapman to engage in a sexual tryst with his wife, Ms. Douglas.

Mr. King gave Mr. Chapman photographs of his wife and a password for an internet site called Darkcavern.com, that caters to those who have an interest in inter-racial sex. The pictures of Judge Douglas portrayed her nude, except for bondage regalia, and in other more explicit sexual acts

When Mr. Chapman complained to Mr. King’s law firm in 2003, King paid Mr. Chapman $25,000 in exchange for Chapman’s agreement not to sue him or the firm and to destroy the photos. King resigned from his firm after the payment was made.

Unfortunately for Judge Douglas, Mr. Chapman ignored his agreement to remain silent about the racy events and delivered the photos to the Law Society and the CBC. The inquiry promises to be both titillating and embarrassing, the question being: Can Judge Douglas survive this intrusion into her personal life and does it affect her professional duties?

3. Landmark Ban of Anonymous Sperm Donors

Men in British Columbia who might have altruistically donated sperm to an infertile or same-sex couple may wish to think twice in light of last year’s landmark B.C. Supreme Court decision, (Pratten v. British Columbia 2011 BCSC (656)) which banned the practice of anonymous sperm donation, a first in North America.

The possibility this new law will be adopted throughout Canada is far from remote, since the basis for the decision was that adopted children have the right to obtain information about their biological parents, but children born of artificial insemination do not. The court found the distinction was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The court’s decision in Pratten v. British Columbia refocuses the attention away from the rights of parents to avail themselves of reproductive technology, without consideration of the consequences for their offspring, to the recognition that children, whose biological fathers are sperm donors, have the right to know their biological heritage.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang