Sentences with phrase «under child custody laws»
Under child custody laws, the family courts have jurisdiction over child custody cases.
http://www.divorcesource.com/
Under child custody laws, the family courts have jurisdiction over custody cases and award custody based on the best interests of the child.
Under child custody laws in Michigan, joint custody is seen as practical and desirable since this is crucial in a continuing parent - child relationship even after divorce.
Under child custody laws in Indiana, the courts consider a number of factors to determine whether joint custody is realistic and attainable.
Under child custody laws in Mississippi, the court can not make presumptions.
Under child custody laws in Kentucky, there are three basic custody options: single parent custody, joint custody, and a de facto (see Third Party custody) custody.
Under child custody laws in New York, the family courts must weigh all relevant factors that could affect the child's welfare.
Under child custody laws in New Hampshire, joint legal custody, wherein both parents share joint responsibility for all parental rights and decisions, is deemed beneficial for the child.
Not exact matches
Under the law, within 72 hours of their capture, children from Central America must be transferred from immigration detention to the custody of the Department of Health & Human Services.
Child custody decisions under no - fault laws often bring unexpected results.
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).
Under South Dakota law, a parent who has been convicted of domestic violence, child abuse or assault is not fit to have 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.
As used in this paragraph, a «Covered Borrower» means any person who, at the time such person becomes obligated on a loan transaction or establishes an account for consumer credit, satisfies the requirements under any one or more of the following classifications, or is otherwise under applicable laws deemed to be a «Covered Borrower» under the Military Lending Act, 10 U.S. Code Section 987: (a) An active duty member of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force or Coast Guard, or a person serving on active Guard and Reserve duty (a person described in this clause (a) of the definition of «Covered Borrower» is hereinafter referred to as a «Service Member»); or (b) Any of the following persons, relative to a Service Member: (1) The spouse; (2) A child under the age of 21; or (3) If dependent on the Service Member for more than one half of such person's support, any one or more of the following persons: (i) A child under the age of 23 enrolled in a full time course of study at an institution of higher learning; (ii) A child of any age incapable of self support due to a mental or physical incapacity that occurred before attaining age 23 while such person was dependent on the Service Member; (iii) Any unmarried person placed in legal custody of the Service Member who resides with such Service Member unless separated by military service or to receive institutional care or under other circumstances covered by Regulation; or (iv) A parent or parent - in - law residing in the Service Member's household.
An essential element of any case under the Convention is that, «pursuant to the laws or regulations of the state of habitual residence, said removal or retention breaches the rights of custody with respect to the child attributed to the petitioner.»
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
Posted Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Continuing Legal Education, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific No Comments»
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»
The first, Tribal Law, Indian Child Welfare Act, and Custody, looks at the highly publicized California case in which a 6 - year - old girl named Lexi was removed from her foster home under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 and sent to live with relatives in Utah.
Posted Friday, July 27th, 2012 by Gregory Forman Filed under Adoption / Termination of Parental Rights, Child Custody, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions
Posted Tuesday, May 5th, 2009 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
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
Thus, the Convention requires the left - behind parent to establish that the child was taken from the «habitual residence» and that the parent had «rights of custody» under the law of that jurisdiction.
In a nutshell, a Hague Convention application may be made when a child is taken or retained across an international border, away from his or her habitual residence, without the consent of a parent who has rights of custody under the law of the habitual residence, if the two countries are parties to the Convention.
This agreement is known as joint legal custody and under Oregon law, it means that parents will be sharing decision - making responsibilities for a child.
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
Either spouse can apply for a divorce under Canadian law, or for property division, spousal support, or child custody.
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.
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
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»
The first, Tribal Law, Indian Child Welfare Act, and Custody, looks at the highly publicized California case in which a 6 - year - old girl named Lexi was removed from her foster home under the Indian Child -LSB-...]
Any parent, guardian or person having custody or control, or providing supervision, of any child under the age of twelve years who knowingly fails to report the disappearance of such child to an appropriate law enforcement agency shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
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»
Filed Under: Alimony, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Child Custody, Collaborative Divorce, Collaborative Law, Divorce - General, Divorce Tips, Mediation, Practical Advice Tagged With: Alienation of Affection, Alimony, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Collaborative Divorce, Collaborative Law, custody litigation, Custody, Collaborative Divorce, Collaborative Law, Divorce - General, Divorce Tips, Mediation, Practical Advice Tagged With: Alienation of Affection, Alimony, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Collaborative Divorce, Collaborative Law, custody litigation, custody litigation, divorce
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»
Posted Monday, June 15th, 2009 by Gregory Forman Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific No Comments»
Posted Wednesday, July 29th, 2009 by Gregory Forman Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
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»