Sentences with phrase «under a custody court»
Under a custody court order, my ex-wife and I used to split the cost.
http://childcarelaw.org/ Not exact matches
He also argues that parents exercise certain «sole and inviolable» lawmaking powers over their children in the areas of custody, care, upbringing, discipline, and education, which the Supreme Court has acknowledged in many cases under the due - process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
PC Andrew Birks, who is under investigation regarding a man who died in custody, is at the High Court... More
Under District of Columbia law, custody of any child (ren) of the marriage may be granted jointly or to either parent by court decision (order).
Under Maryland law, custody of any child (ren) of the marriage may be granted jointly or to either parent by court decision (order).
Courts in many states have shared this reluctance to divide custody, declaring that divided custody is to be avoided as not in the best interests of the children and that it will be sanctioned only under exceptional circumstances.
This court historically has opposed divided custody, «except under the most unusual circumstances.»
Here you will find tips on what to do if the other parent doesn't fulfill his or her obligations under your parenting agreement or violates a court order related to custody or visitation.
In Iowa, if a couple (married or unmarried) has children in the family under the age of eighteen, the courts will play a role in making decisions related to child custody.
Under Alabama law, a court may consider an award of joint custody, whereby the parental rights of both parties remain intact, with one parent as the primary custodian of the children and the other as the secondary custodian.
The courts in these cases noted that, under certain custody arrangements, non-custodial parents may have visitation schedules that rival those of the custodial parents and at a similar cost.
Rawlings and his men were arrested and held in military custody pending a date to be interrogated under military court martial.
Posted Thursday, June 21st, 2012 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Legislation, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific 7 Comments»
Posted Monday, October 4th, 2010 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Guardians Ad Litem, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Posted Sunday, September 20th, 2009 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
The Washington court found, inter alia, that Egyptian family courts apply specific Sharia law rules to child custody cases, under which a Muslim mother is disqualified from custody if she does not raise the child as a Muslim and / or if she does not comply with Muslim religious requirements or if she remarries or moves away from the father's domicile.
Posted Tuesday, June 15th, 2010 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Contempt / Enforcement of Orders, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific, Visitation
Posted Wednesday, June 20th, 2012 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Posted Sunday, April 24th, 2016 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public
Procedurally, the correct test was whether the court should transfer the case under the provisions of the federal Divorce Act, which allows for the transfer of divorce proceedings where there is a custody application.
Posted Thursday, January 30th, 2014 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific 4 Comments»
Posted Sunday, January 2nd, 2011 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Jurisdiction, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys 10 Comments»
Posted Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Jurisdiction, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Posted Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Jurisdiction, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys 3 Comments»
Having a second hearing after a guardian has investigated and discovery has been conducted allows the court to determine how accurate the submissions at the initial hearing were and how well the child (ren) are doing under the initial custody order.
Posted Saturday, July 4th, 2015 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Under this section of the act, the court can prohibit a party from changing a child's name as an incident of custody.
Posted Tuesday, August 12th, 2014 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys 8 Comments»
Under Kansas law, when a parent has legal custody (meaning, the right to make important decisions about a child's life) or physical custody (the child lives with that parent some or all of the time), or when a parent has a right to parenting time (visitation), that parent can't just move away with the kids without the other parent's permission or court approval.
Posted Thursday, January 30th, 2014 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
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.
The Second Department ruled that, in any event, Ontario's Hague return order meant that Ontario had deferred jurisdiction to New York and that substantial evidence was available in New York so that, even if the six month rule had not been satisfied, a New York court had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under Domestic Relations Law Sec. 76.
Posted Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
The mother brought the child back to New York but asked the New York court to dismiss the New York custody action on the ground that New York was not the «home state» of the child under the UCCJEA.
In a child custody proceeding, each party must give information under oath in the first court document filed, or in an attached affidavit, as to the child's present location, all places where the child has lived during the last five years and the names and addresses of the persons with whom the child has lived during that period.
Posted Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific 6 Comments»
Posted Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Guardians Ad Litem, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys 10 Comments»
[228] In making a custody order under s. 16 (1) of the DA, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that person to act as a parent of a child (s. 16 (9)-RRB-.
Posted Saturday, November 14th, 2009 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Guardians Ad Litem, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific 1 Comment»
On the legal custody issue, the Court of Appeals agreed with my client that the family court erred in finding he did not have final decision - making authority under the previous order, finding that the old order «implicitly granted him final decision - making authority by virtue of granting him primary legal custody.&rCourt of Appeals agreed with my client that the family court erred in finding he did not have final decision - making authority under the previous order, finding that the old order «implicitly granted him final decision - making authority by virtue of granting him primary legal custody.&rcourt erred in finding he did not have final decision - making authority under the previous order, finding that the old order «implicitly granted him final decision - making authority by virtue of granting him primary legal custody.»
Additionally, in making a custody order under s. 16 (1), the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact (s. 16 (10)-RRB-.
Posted Saturday, October 6th, 2012 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Guardians Ad Litem, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys 160 Comments»
Posted Friday, October 8th, 2010 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Guardians Ad Litem, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific 1 Comment»
Posted Saturday, November 14th, 2009 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Guardians Ad Litem, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
Posted Wednesday, July 29th, 2009 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Law and Culture, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Posted Thursday, August 27th, 2009 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific 3 Comments»
Posted Thursday, January 17th, 2013 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Guardians Ad Litem, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys 2 Comments»
Posted Saturday, December 4th, 2010 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Miscellaneous, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific 2 Comments»
Posted Friday, October 8th, 2010 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Guardians Ad Litem, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
As a matter of first impression, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) New Hampshire had continuing exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the post-divorce parenting matters.