Sentences with phrase «parent by court decision»

Under Maryland law, custody of any child (ren) of the marriage may be granted jointly or to either parent by court decision (order).

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).

Not exact matches

Although a court will generally respect the decisions reached by the parents as to the upbringing of their child, a court will not support the following parenting plans:

Little by little, court decisions are changing laws and in some states, it is now legal to have up to three parents for a child.

If one parent in a joint legal custody arrangement takes decision - making powers away from the other parent (perhaps by making unilateral decisions about a child's education), the other parent can go back to court to get a judge to enforce the joint legal custody order.

For unmarried parents involved in a custody dispute, options for the custody decision are largely the same as those for divorcing couples — child custody and visitation will be resolved either through agreement between the child's parents, or by a family court judge's decision.

A 2013 decision by the Dominican Constitutional Court determined that several hundred thousand residents of the Caribbean nation born to undocumented immigrants are not citizens — even if their parents arrived as far back as 1929.

The supreme court, in a 6 - to - 3 decision, upheld a county district judge's finding in March 1983 that a group of parents violated the state's compulsory - attendance law by sending their children to a school established by the Calvary Baptist Church in Charles City.

5) Procedural Due Process is the principle that students with disabilities and their parents have the right to be informed of changes to their educational plan, to participate in the decisionmaking process surrounding the design and updating of those plans, and to protest any decisions that are adverse to their right to a free, appropriate public education by going to an administrative hearing and then to appeal to a court any adverse judgment.

This is improbable because since 1986 (Witters v. Washington) the Court has adopted guidelines that allow indirect aid to parochial schools as long as the aid is appropriated neutrally and results from independent decisions by parents who select those schools.

That law has four key provisions: 1) every child, no matter how disabled, has a right to a free and appropriate education, which can take place in either a public or private setting; 2) an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) must be designed for each child in consultation with his or her parents; 3) the child should be educated in the «least restrictive environment»; and 4) parents can object to the educational provisions for their child by requesting a «due process» hearing with an independent hearing officer, whose decisions can be appealed to the courts (see sidebar).

Fidelia Muralles, a mother of four who was active with Parent Revolution in its attempt to take over South Los Angeles» 20th Street Elementary School, said she was saddened and disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision.

The federal appeals court in St. Louis — directly contradicting a two - year - old decision by its counterpart in Boston — has upheld a Minnesota law allowing parents of private - school students to take state income - tax deductions for tuition and other expenses.

I finished my brief talk by mentioning that in the 2002 Zelman v. Simmons - Harris decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld voucher programs under the Constitution's Establishment Clause, because voucher money goes to the parents, not to the religious school.

The Department for Education (DfE) has said it disagrees with «some aspects» of the court's decision last month to rule against education secretary Nicky Morgan in a judicial review brought by six parents, but has not said which.

Brown v. Board was a landmark decision made possible by the courage and moral leadership of grassroots activists, parents and students on the ground as well as the Supreme Court justices who wrote the unanimous decision.

Yet, in spite of all of the drama that has occurred in the time since the ruling, a number of individuals — from parents to politicians to members of the media — have inexplicably opined in letters - to - the - editor, blog posts and the like that the fateful decision made by four of the seven justices on the State Supreme Court would not hurt the charter school movement in Georgia nor stifle the progress that has been made to give parents and students quality public school choice options.

The Supreme Court, in its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision upholding affirmative action, and in Justice Breyer's dissent (joined by three other Justices) to its 2007 Parents Involved in Community Schools decision, cited the Civil Rights Project's research.

By Christopher Magan Twin Cities Pioneer Press «Attorneys for parents challenging Minnesota teachers union laws asked an appeals court panel Wednesday to overturn a lower court's decision to... Learn More

The district's decision was challenged in the courts by the parents who asserted that the child's progress in his current setting was sufficient.

In speaking about a shoplifting civil recovery letter that had been sent by a lawyer acting for a retailer to the parent of a teenager, Justice Jewers stated in a 1996 Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench decision (B. (D.C.) v. Arkin (1996), 138 D.L.R. (4th) 309):

(2) «Sole custody» means a person, including, but not limited to, a parent who has temporary or permanent custody of a child and, unless otherwise provided for by court order, the rights and responsibilities for major decisions concerning the child, including the child's education, medical and dental care, extracurricular activities, and religious training.

The Court's decision is astonishing for its failure to criticize the mother's conduct in abducting the child in the first place and for its failure to address the fact that the Article 13 (b) exception should not be invoked when the abducting parent is the one who creates the risk by refusing to return with the child.

Sole parental responsibility is where one parent's ability to participate in the major life decisions of the child will be limited by the court.

The BC Court of Appeal decision of Clayton v Markolefas 2002 BCCA 435 stands for the proposition that a natural child of the testator, who has been adopted by another parent, is NOT entitled to inherit from the estate of his intestate natural parent.

A parent who does go to court over an issue already decided by the parenting coordinator will have to contribute to the other parent's costs of responding to the application, and must accept the risk that the court will agree with the coordinator's decision.

Parenting coordination provides an alternative dispute resolution process whereby an impartial third person called a parenting coordinator assists the parties in developing or implementing their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of disputes in high conflict cases, providing education and making recommendations to the parties, and, with the prior consent of the parties and approval of the court, making limited decisions within the scope of the order of Parenting coordination provides an alternative dispute resolution process whereby an impartial third person called a parenting coordinator assists the parties in developing or implementing their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of disputes in high conflict cases, providing education and making recommendations to the parties, and, with the prior consent of the parties and approval of the court, making limited decisions within the scope of the order of parenting coordinator assists the parties in developing or implementing their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of disputes in high conflict cases, providing education and making recommendations to the parties, and, with the prior consent of the parties and approval of the court, making limited decisions within the scope of the order of parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of disputes in high conflict cases, providing education and making recommendations to the parties, and, with the prior consent of the parties and approval of the court, making limited decisions within the scope of the order of referral.

He strongly felt that divorce did not belong in the court system: decisions about where children should sleep at night should be made by the parents, and discussions of financial issues should happen around a private conference room table rather than in a public courtroom.

The act made it more difficult for grandparents to receive court - imposed visitation by creating a presumption in favor of a parent's decision, enhancing the burden of proof on the grandparent and acknowledging a parent's fundamental right to parent his or her child.

March 28, 2001)(court distinguished Troxel by finding that Louisiana's statute is more narrowly drawn, noting that «the statute's grant of visitation does not contemplate a significant intrusion upon the child's relationship with the other parent or interference with said parent's fundamental right to make child - rearing decisions.»).

If parents can not agree then one of them can apply to the court for a judge to make a decision, although we encourage parents to try mediation or negotiation supported by solicitors before taking such a formal step.

What we learn from this case is that, while a trial court can use information provided by an expert witness as evidence as to what may be in a child's best interest, it must still independently make the decision regarding what custody arrangements are in the child's best interest after providing both parents an opportunity to present evidence at a trial.

Today, the Supreme Court issued its long - awaited decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, which ruled that use of race by public school systems as one factor in assigning students to school is unconstitutional.

Child custody, known as time - sharing in Florida, is a complex decision made by family courts involving a combination of time - sharing (visitation) schedules, parenting plans, and child support payments.

Can courts delegate actual judicial decision - making functions to Parenting Coordinators, in order to by - pass the need to repeatedly bring parenting - related disputes back before tParenting Coordinators, in order to by - pass the need to repeatedly bring parenting - related disputes back before tparenting - related disputes back before the court?

You may have been faithfully paying child support and spending parenting time with your child since birth, but you have no legal rights until they are established by a court order granting you legal decision making, custody, and parenting time.

keeps parents out of court by resolving parenting disputes as they arise, either by the parties» agreement or the decisions of the parenting coordinator.

That's the lesson to take from a recent Superior Court decision, which sets out an all too familiar scenario involving the child of an elderly person who does not have much involvement in their parent's lives but becomes suspicious about the way their assets are being handled by a third party.

Both parents are immediately bound by the judge's decision, although the parties can ask the judge to reconsider his or her ruling and they can also appeal the judge's ruling to Second District Court of Appeal.

Parenting coordination is a court ordered, child - focused dispute resolution process in which a Parenting Coordinator is appointed to assist high conflict parties by accessing and managing conflicts, redirecting the focus of the parties to the needs of the child, and educating the parties on how to make decisions that are in the best interest of the child.

where the children will primarily live, how often each parent will see the children, what schools and extra-curricular activities the children will attend, etc.) can often be more flexible and beneficial to the children than decisions imposed by the Court or a private arbitrator;

This case demonstrates that the court can view warnings given by manufacturers as the most significant factor in considering the reasonableness of the parent's decision, rather than the parent's own judgement.

A Loudoun County Circuit Court upholds defendant school board's redistricting decision against a challenge by parents unhappy with the change required by the revised attendance zones.

[33] It is clear from the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Shaw v. Arndt 2016 BCCA 78 that the factors described in Farden are not «iron - clad» requirements that must be met by older children who propose to pursue education with financial assistance from their parents.

In the recent case of Charlie Gard, who a court has decided can be removed from life support following a fight by his parents to take him to the US for treatment, protesters have gathered outside Buckingham Palace, in London, to oppose the court's decision and all in all, «show Charlie love».

Social workers ought not to have been surprised by the seven - judge decision in Re J (Children)(Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria)[2013] UKSC 9, where the court repeated its established view that a child should not be taken away from the care of a parent if there is merely a possibility that the parent has harmed another child in the past.

The decision issued by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Hope Hyslop last week is the latest in an increasing number of family law disputes where one of the parents has proposed using online software such as Skype when seeking to move with their children a great distance from their former spouse.

«Appeals court will reconsider homeschooling ruling»: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides a news update that begins, «A state appeals court has agreed to reconsider its decision last month that barred homeschooling by parents who lack teaching credentials, raising the possibility that the judges will change a decision that has infuriated homeschool advocates nationwide.

Factors considered by the court when awarding custody may include the age of the parent and child, the physical and mental condition of each parent and child, the relationship existing between each parent and each child, the needs of the child, the role played by each parent in the upbringing and caring for the child, the home where the child will live, and the child's wishes if the child is of sufficient age, intelligence, and maturity to make such a decision.

Q: But isn't withholding clearly relevant information from the Court in order to «not prejudice» the narcissisic / (borderline) parent's case for custody actually prejudicing the decision against the normal - range parent (kinda putting your finger on the scale a little bit by withholding relevant information from the Court)?