Sentences with phrase «parenting arrangement exists»

A finding that a shared parenting arrangement exists does not automatically dictate a deviation from the Table amount of child support.

Anahita Tajadod one of our passionate BC Shared Parenting Tax Deduction Lawyers explains that a shared parenting arrangement exists where both parents spend 40 % or more of the time with a child.

Not exact matches

extend the existing right for an employee to request flexible working arrangements to new groups of people, for example parents of older children and carers of sick and disabled adults.

If the other parent doesn't agree, you can request a court to hold a hearing, where you can lay out your justification for altering the existing child support arrangement.

Stand for Children exists to challenge the conventional power arrangements of the K - 12 public education system, organizing parents at the grassroots level to advance a school reform agenda.

This is because parents are reluctant to change their existing childcare arrangements until they can see that a new setting is established and viable.

(1) the temperament and developmental needs of the child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; (3) the preferences of each child; (4) the wishes of the parents as to custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child's siblings, and any other person, including a grandparent, who may significantly affect the best interest of the child; (6) the actions of each parent to encourage the continuing parent child relationship between the child and the other parent, as is appropriate, including compliance with court orders; (7) the manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents» dispute; (8) any effort by one parent to disparage the other parent in front of the child; (9) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child; (10) the child's adjustment to his or her home, school, and community environments; (11) the stability of the child's existing and proposed residences; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, must not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interest of the child; (13) the child's cultural and spiritual background; (14) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected; (15) whether one parent has perpetrated domestic violence or child abuse or the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or between the parent and the child; (16) whether one parent has relocated more than one hundred miles from the child's primary residence in the past year, unless the parent relocated for safety reasons; and (17) other factors as the court considers necessary.

Thereafter, existing Child Support Agency cases will be gradually closed and by around 2018 they will all have extinguished with the resident parent having the option to apply to the Child Maintenance Service or to go for a consensual arrangement.

the existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;

Most family law issues can be resolved with the CFL approach including issues regarding parenting and / or custody and access; spousal and child support; property and the family home and changes to existing arrangements.

It is essential that a parent applies to court to vary an existing court order regarding parenting arrangements if there is a valid reason why your child does not want to see the other parent.

[13] He considered (1) the existing shared parenting arrangement and the relationship between the children and Ms. G; (2) the existing shared parenting arrangement and the relationship between the children and Mr. S; (3) the desirability of maximizing contact between the children and both parents; (4) the views of the children, which had not been canvassed; (5) Ms. G's reason for moving; (6) the disruption to the children of a change in custody; (7) the disruption to the children consequent on removal from family, schools, and community; and (8) various other factors, such as Mr. S's economic stability, the importance of the paternal grandparents, the location of the proposed residence at Moyie Lake on a leased lot at an RV park, the girls» relationship with Mr. G and his children, and Ms. G's inflexibility.

Thinking of family law dispute resolution as family restructuring rather than family breakdown allows «family» to be treated as an organic whole that changes and evolves over time as new family members are added through birth, adoption, marriage and remarriage; as parents separate and the family transitions into new domestic arrangements; and, as existing family members are subtracted through abandonment, estrangement and death.

In such cases courts must give careful scrutiny to all of the circumstances before deciding; this includes examining the existing parenting / financial arrangements and support network, and how those will change either the benefit or detriment of the child.

A general definition was developed in several decisions by the California District Courts of Appeal, in the years following Burgess holding that a shared custody arrangement exists if the noncustodial parent had physical custody at least 40 % of the time.

When circumstances change making their existing custody arrangement no longer reasonable, either parent can file a motion asking the court to modify it.

Having parents break up is difficult enough for children; judges are very reluctant to force additional trauma by radically changing an existing custody arrangement.

De facto custody is the arrangement that exists at the time parents separate.

If parents request joint custody, Michigan judges are obligated to order it, unless some circumstance exists that would make such an arrangement harmful to the child.

Post judgment modifications most often occur after one party relocates, changes jobs, experiences a change in income or is dissatisfied with an existing and unworkable parenting time or visitation arrangement.

The court will only modify a custody order upon a demonstration of a material change of circumstances, which means that the existing custodial arrangement is no longer in the best interests of the child, such as when a serious health problem prevents a parent from taking care of a child.

If an existing parenting order no longer reflects current arrangements for a child or the other party can not reasonably comply you can ask the court to make an order to vary the existing order.

This would seriously affect the children's relationship with their other parent, so the existing parenting plan or custody arrangement would require tweaking to accommodate such a move, if the court allows it at all.

Technically, co-parenting exists with any parenting arrangement, regardless of its formal designation.

The Minnesota Supreme Court, in Larson v. Dunn, 460 N.W. 2nd 39, 45 - 46 Minn. 1990, rejected an appellate court's creation of the «Intentional interference with custody rights» noting that «children can be devastated by divorce» and that «the law should not provide a means of escalating intrafamily warfare» but that other remedies exist when a parent or other relative interferes with custody arrangements, and that «creating a tort of this nature is the job of the legislature, not the court.»

A noncustodial parent may believe that the existing arrangement is workable despite relocation.

The pressure is often applied to a non-custodial parent, usually the father, despite the fact that they may have a very compelling case for a shared parenting (50/50 child custody) or a change in the existing child custody arrangement.

«While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court....

Generally, those factors include the parents» wishes and ability to provide for the child, in addition to the current child custody arrangement and the child's existing relationship with each parent.

For most parents, joint and shared custody existed prior to the marital breakdown and it seems unreasonable that this arrangement should change with divorce unless there are logistical and / or other extenuating issues.

The existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;

(1) the temperament and developmental needs of the child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; (3) the preferences of each child; (4) the wishes of the parents as to custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child's siblings, and any other person, including a grandparent, who may significantly affect the best interest of the child; (6) the actions of each parent to encourage the continuing parent child relationship between the child and the other parent, as is appropriate, including compliance with court orders; (7) the manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents» dispute; (8) any effort by one parent to disparage the other parent in front of the child; (9) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child; (10) the child's adjustment to his or her home, school, and community environments; (11) the stability of the child's existing and proposed residences; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, must not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interest of the child; (13) the child's cultural and spiritual background; (14) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected; (15) whether one parent has perpetrated domestic violence or child abuse or the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or between the parent and the child; (16) whether one parent has relocated more than one hundred miles from the child's primary residence in the past year, unless the parent relocated for safety reasons; and (17) other factors as the court considers necessary

The possible sanctions include: compensatory time with the children; economic sanctions for costs incurred by the non-violator parent due to the other parent's custody or parenting time violation; modification of the existing transportation (pick up / drop off arrangements)-- including changing the exchange location to a public place; ordering counseling for either or both of the parties and / or the children at the expense of the violator; ordering a temporary or permanent modification of the parenting time and custodial arrangement if under the circumstances this relief is in the best interests of the children; ordering the violator to participate in a community service program; incarceration of the violator with or without work - release; issuance of a warrant to be executed if the violator persists in failing to comply with court orders; any other appropriate equitable remedy.

It is an impossible ideal, unrealistic, ignores any conflicts that exists between the parents, and assumes such an arrangement could work.