Sentences with phrase «parental responsibility for their child from»

A mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child from birth.

Not exact matches

In what may prove reassuring for those who wish to shift the argument from self or government censorship to parental responsibility, the poll showed that a majority of parents (63 percent) monitor what their children watch either «frequently» or «occasionally,» with 82 percent of parents of younger children (ages 2 - 11) supervising the youngsters» viewing.

The movement has formally gone from a position of opposition to vaccines to one of parental choice — although surely schools, with responsibility for children's wellbeing, should advocate vaccination.

Consent for a child to travel abroad should be obtained from the other parent or anyone else who has parental responsibility for the child (e.g. a grandparent with a child arrangements or special guardianship order).

By s 85 (1), a child in the position of this case could not be removed from the UK unless the applicants had parental responsibility for her under s 84.

Although the local authority might have the statutory power under s. 33 (3)(b) to prevent M from calling the twins «Preacher» and «Cyanide», there was a small category of cases where, notwithstanding the local authority's powers under s. 33 (3)(b), the consequences of the exercise of a particular act of parental responsibility were so profound and had such an impact on either the child his or herself, and / or the Art. 8 rights of those other parties who shared parental responsibility with a local authority, that the matter must come before the court for its consideration and determination.

Lindsay also advises clients regarding private law proceedings including Parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps and Specific Issue Orders as well as applications for Leave to Remove from the jurisdiction.

However, in England and Wales children can not be moved from their country of residence without the consent of everyone who holds parental responsibility for them, or with court's permission.

If you are concerned that the other parent may try to abduct your child or permanently remove him / her from the UK, we can apply to the court for a Prohibited Steps order, a Residence order and / or a Parental Responsibility order as is most appropriate to your case.

-- Enabling parenting coordination by agreement or court order; — Amending the Commercial Arbitration Act to address family arbitrations; — integrating reproductive technologies into determining a child's legal parents; — Replacing the terms «custody» and «access» with «guardianship» and «parenting time»; — Defining «guardianship» through a list of «parental responsibilities» that can be allocated to allow for more customized parenting arrangements; — Extending the legislative property division regime to common - law spouses who have lived together for two years in a marriage - like relationship or who are in marriage - like relationship of some permanence and have children together; — Excluding certain types of property (e.g. pre-relationship property, gifts, and inheritances) from the pool of family property to be divided 50 - 50; and — Providing that debts are subject to equal division.

In this aspect women in particular (thanks to Gardners sterotyping) are told to leave their abusers and are supported therein, but as soon as it happens and they are fighting for sole parental responsibilities to protect their child from exploitation and as a proxy for continued abuse, they are labeled «mother gaters» or alienators.

Adoption permanently transfers all the legal rights and responsibilities of being a parent from the child's birth parents (or anyone with parental responsibility for the child) to the adoptive parents.

Proof of the biological parent's abandonment of the child and «intent to reject parental responsibilities» is necessary for the transfer by the judge of parental rights and responsibilities from the biological parent to the adopted parents.

If the court determines that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child, it may order sole parental responsibility and make such arrangements for time - sharing as specified in the parenting plan as will best protect the child or abused spouse from further harm.

If a parenting order has been made that provides for a child to spend time with, live with, communicate with a person, or a person is to have parental responsibility for a child, then it is an offence to send the child from Australia without an order of the Court or without the consent in writing of the person in whose favour the order has been made.

FAMILY LAW — APPEAL — INTERIM PARENTING — Where there is nothing anomalous about the primary judge finding, by virtue of s 61DA (3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(«the Act»), that it would «not be appropriate» to apply the presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility, while going on to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility ¬ Where it can be seen that the primary judge addressed what was necessary from s 65DAA of the Act, given the parameters of the dispute, and how the parties» respective cases were presented — Where the primary judge adequately and appropriately considered what she is obliged to in determining where the best interests of the children lie, bearing in mind that that consideration is framed by the parameters of the issues in dispute, and how each party has presented their case — Where there is no merit in the grounds of appeal ¬ Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW — CHILDREN — With whom a child lives and spends time — Best interests of the child — Whether either the mother or the father presents as an unacceptable risk to the children — Where the father asserts that the mother is an unacceptable risk to the children — Where the father opposes orders for the mother to spend time with the children — Where each party seeks sole parental responsibility — Where equal shared parental responsibility is untenable — Where the ICL recommended a three month suspension of the children's time with the father — Meaning of «meaningful relationship» — Where the mother recognises that it is in the best interest of the children to have a meaningful relationship with the father — Where a meaningful relationship has been established between the mother and the children — Where the father does not consider that the children would benefit from a significant and substantial relationship with thCHILDREN — With whom a child lives and spends time — Best interests of the child — Whether either the mother or the father presents as an unacceptable risk to the children — Where the father asserts that the mother is an unacceptable risk to the children — Where the father opposes orders for the mother to spend time with the children — Where each party seeks sole parental responsibility — Where equal shared parental responsibility is untenable — Where the ICL recommended a three month suspension of the children's time with the father — Meaning of «meaningful relationship» — Where the mother recognises that it is in the best interest of the children to have a meaningful relationship with the father — Where a meaningful relationship has been established between the mother and the children — Where the father does not consider that the children would benefit from a significant and substantial relationship with thchildren — Where the father asserts that the mother is an unacceptable risk to the children — Where the father opposes orders for the mother to spend time with the children — Where each party seeks sole parental responsibility — Where equal shared parental responsibility is untenable — Where the ICL recommended a three month suspension of the children's time with the father — Meaning of «meaningful relationship» — Where the mother recognises that it is in the best interest of the children to have a meaningful relationship with the father — Where a meaningful relationship has been established between the mother and the children — Where the father does not consider that the children would benefit from a significant and substantial relationship with thchildren — Where the father opposes orders for the mother to spend time with the children — Where each party seeks sole parental responsibility — Where equal shared parental responsibility is untenable — Where the ICL recommended a three month suspension of the children's time with the father — Meaning of «meaningful relationship» — Where the mother recognises that it is in the best interest of the children to have a meaningful relationship with the father — Where a meaningful relationship has been established between the mother and the children — Where the father does not consider that the children would benefit from a significant and substantial relationship with thchildren — Where each party seeks sole parental responsibility — Where equal shared parental responsibility is untenable — Where the ICL recommended a three month suspension of the children's time with the father — Meaning of «meaningful relationship» — Where the mother recognises that it is in the best interest of the children to have a meaningful relationship with the father — Where a meaningful relationship has been established between the mother and the children — Where the father does not consider that the children would benefit from a significant and substantial relationship with thchildren's time with the father — Meaning of «meaningful relationship» — Where the mother recognises that it is in the best interest of the children to have a meaningful relationship with the father — Where a meaningful relationship has been established between the mother and the children — Where the father does not consider that the children would benefit from a significant and substantial relationship with thchildren to have a meaningful relationship with the father — Where a meaningful relationship has been established between the mother and the children — Where the father does not consider that the children would benefit from a significant and substantial relationship with thchildren — Where the father does not consider that the children would benefit from a significant and substantial relationship with thchildren would benefit from a significant and substantial relationship with the mother

FAMILY LAW — CHILDREN — Best interests — Where both parents seek sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with them — Where the respondent mother believes the child would settle down and accept the arrangement if the court ordered for the child to spend no time with applicant father — Where the court has a statutory mandate to make parenting orders with the child's best interests as the paramount concern — Where there is little doubt that the child would benefit from having a meaningful relationship with both parents — Where the child's clear views that he does not want to spend time with the respondent mother should be given significant weight in the circumstances — Where the child is of an age, maturity and intelligence to have principally formed his own rationally based views — Where the court is satisfied that it is in the child's best interests for the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility to be rebutted — Where the respondent father is to have sole parental responsibility and the child is to live with him — Where the applicant mother is permitted to attend certain school and sporting events of the child — Where the child should be able to instigate contact with the respondent mother as he considers appropriate to his needs and circumstances — Where the orders made are least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child — Where the child is to have the outcome of these proceedings, the effect of the orders and the reasons for judgment explained to him by an expert as soon as reasonably practical.

In some families accomplishing basic instrumental tasks like the provision of food and shelter may be difficult; other families may accomplish instrumental tasks but may have problems with developmental tasks (for example, those surrounding the departure of the last child from home); other families may have coped resiliently with basic and developmental tasks, only to be knocked sideways by a hazardous event, such as major parental illness or redundancy, or sudden care - giving responsibility for an extended family member.

If a spouse has children and wishes to relocate abroad with his or her children then English law states that the spouse will need to obtain permission from everyone who has parental responsibility of those children before leaving the country or to apply for an order of the English court.

If a child has been taken out of the country for more than 28 days without consent from those who posses parental responsibility, or a consenting order from the courts is breaking the law.

For parents who get along reasonably well (at least for the sake of the children) the change in the statutory language from «custody» and «visitation» to «parental responsibilities» and «parenting time» will make little differenFor parents who get along reasonably well (at least for the sake of the children) the change in the statutory language from «custody» and «visitation» to «parental responsibilities» and «parenting time» will make little differenfor the sake of the children) the change in the statutory language from «custody» and «visitation» to «parental responsibilities» and «parenting time» will make little difference.

This is the part of the law (Section 20 of the Children act 1989) that says Children's Services should look after a child when there is no - one with parental responsibility for the child or when the person caring for the child is prevented from caring for them, for whatever reason.

This letter should be sent to parents and others with parental responsibility by Children's Services when they have held a legal planning meeting and they think that they are likely to apply to court for a care order to remove the child from home, but have decided to give the parents / others with parental responsibility a last chance to sort out the problems they think are impacting on the child safety and welfare.

If social workers don't think it is safe for the child to return home after 72 hours, they can only continue to keep the child away from home if the court makes an EPO or the parents or others with parental responsibility agree to their child being accommodated.

From a socio - cultural viewpoint, cognitively responsive behaviours (e.g. maintaining versus redirecting interests, rich verbal input) are thought to facilitate higher levels of learning because they provide a structure or scaffold for the young child's immature skills, such as developing attentional and cognitive capacities.9 Responsive behaviours in this framework promote joint engagement and reciprocity in the parent - child interaction and help a child learn to assume a more active and ultimately independent role in the learning process.10 Responsive support for the child to become actively engaged in solving problems is often referred to as parental scaffolding, and is also thought to be key for facilitating children's development of self - regulation and executive function skills, behaviours that allow the child to ultimately assume responsibility for their well - being.11, 12