Sentences with phrase «parents going to court»

We believe a greater shared understanding of rights and responsibilities of both parents (and their children) will reduce the likelihood of parents going to court.

«The number of parents going to court on their own, without any representation, has rocketed over the last year for all sorts of reasons.

Above all, remember that it is deeply damaging for children when their parents go to court.

First of all, remember that it is very damaging for children when their parents go to court.

This means that if the paying parent goes to court, the judge will take the initial stance that the underemployment is a way to shirk the child support order.

This means that if the paying parent goes to court, the paying parent will have to present evidence to show that the parent isn't trying to avoid the obligation and that the reason the parent isn't working harder is involuntary and outside the parent's control.

In 1999, research indicated that mothers received custody 91.2 percent of the time when parents went to court over...

If this parent goes to court to ask for a modification of the parenting plan, he or she will almost certainly be denied their request, since they have not met the criteria the court requires for a change to be made.

If a parenting plan breaks down, parents can return to re-mediate the plan or a magistrate will see the efforts made so far, if parents go to court.

It also informs them of what may happen, how their parents may choose to deal with things, what will happen if their parents go to court, and who they should go

In 1999, research indicated that mothers received custody 91.2 percent of the time when parents went to court over their children.

Not exact matches

And of those, only 5 were unresolved (plus a sixth that went to court), all Christian, meaning treatment continued when doctors wanted it stopped based on parents hope for divine intervention.

Some children in their 20s have gone to court to sue their parents, alleging that they were not raised properly, were mistreated as children, and as a result suffer from poor self - esteem.

Matters rapidly deteriorated thereafter with the elected (i.e. non-Foundation) parent governors, supported by the VPAG, seeking a Judicial Review through the Courts, and now, after that having been dismissed, going to the Supreme Court.

This can be done by doing anything from making sure the other children of the family are being taken care of when the parents and victim have to go to court, to helping connect the family with a qualified trauma therapist.

She has already appeared in court six times, and now that she has moved her family from Philadelphia to Palo Alto, Calif., to be closer to Dave's parents, the proceeding is going to be that much more difficult.

Grandparents who go to court to take grandchildren away from their parents face a daunting task because there is an assumption that children should be with their parents.

If parents wish to regain custody, they must go to court.

If it is a less serious crime, then the lesson graffiti, possession of marijuana or alcohol they are probably going to be given a citation and you as a parent is given a citation and two of you are going to go to court together.

Therefore, it is generally more rare for the court to split the children, with one or two kids going to each parent.

If there's a child welfare investigation or they go into court, the parents are going to be blamed for all the kid's problems whether their violence originally caused the issues or not.

In particular, let the people closest to you know what is going on and encourage them to speak openly and honestly about your parenting abilities when interviewed by child protective services or court personnel.

If a parent KNOWS his child has not formed an attachment to him, yet going to court will mean he has to prove an attachment: he might settle for what the child is actually used to.

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.

A group of public school parents has gone to court in hopes of prying from New York State money that they say they were promised for improving their schools.

Dwight is now the owner of the building and he may be letting this power go to his head; Andy is courting Erin, who is dating Gabe; Jim and Pam are struggling with being new parents; and a parade of ghosts of girlfriends past haunt Michael, leading to his final days at Dunder Mifflin.

District officials have gone as far as taking parents of delinquent students to court, and some parents have received jail time.

So the parents went back to court, and a judge ruled again in their favor.

Second, it gave parents and schools the right to go to an administrative hearing (and then on appeal to courts) on any issue related to the child's right to a free, appropriate education in the least restrictive setting.

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.

Washington — Parents who win special - education disputes with school districts can not be awarded attorneys» fees if their cases do not go to court, a federal appellate court has ruled.

The court's refusal without comment to hear the appeal in Evans v. Jenkins (Case No. 07 - 1210) means that the parent's suit will go forward on a First Amendment retaliation claim.

Edley has complained, according to the San Francisco Chronicle (February 14, 2007), that parents and the public can not get in the courthouse door to argue that officials are failing to live up to the obligations of education statutes: «If the state fails to enforce environmental regulations against a polluter, members of the public can not only go to the ballot box, they can also go to court.

As the CCJEF v. Rell goes, on appeal, to the Connecticut Supreme Court, it is good to know that the federal government, at least for now, is standing up for Connecticut students and their parents.

Parent Revolution went to court to quash that process; district officials reviewed the petition signatures and declared many of them invalid.

Additionally, the court held that the benefits stemming from the deduction go to the parents of the children, not the schools they choose.

A group of parents and their children are to go to court to challenge the government's decision to exclude non-religious world views from the new religious studies GCSE.

They had gone to the capital to court lawmakers, but despite a boisterous showing by parents, there seemed to be little clarity about the future of their schools.

With a court ruling last week permitting the vote to go forward, parents who signed the petition last winter now have the chance to cast a ballot on the charter school operator they want to take over their neighborhood school next fall.

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.

Outraged, the parent union went back to court, arguing the district deliberately defied the judge who validated the charter petition.

Just think of all the things that a union boss has to be concerned with — denying parents more power in choosing what kind of school their kid goes to, attempting to personally destroy reformers, petitioning the courts in an attempt to keep parents and taxpayers in the dark about how effective teachers are, etc..

«Lawmakers Brace for Lawsuit Over School Funding,» Colorado News Agency (12/11/09) «Keeping the Call in the Right Venue», The Denver Post (10/27/09) «Lawsuit Over State's School Funding as Inadequate Far - Reaching», The Denver Post (10/25/09) «Court Allows Schools Trial», The Denver Post (10/20/09) «Court Rules Parents Can Sue Colorado for Low School Funding, The Durango Herald (10/20/09) «Ruling Lets School Funding Case Go to Trial», The Denver Daily News (10/20/09) «High Court Revives Lobato «Adequacy» Suit», Education News Colorado (10/19/09)

Pointing out that «states with constitutional provisions similar to ours have uniformly rejected the notion that schools are not aided by tuition payments,» the court in this case rejected the argument that the voucher payments merely represent indirect aid to private schools because they go to students and their parents, who then make the payment to the schools.

Why were special education services allowed to get so bad that parents had to go to the Supreme Court to get a private school to address their child's needs?

With Court Win, «Parent Trigger» School Reform Moves to Crucial Vote With a court ruling last week permitting the vote to go forward, parents who signed the petition last winter now have the chance to cast a ballot on the charter school operator they want to take over their neighborhood school next Court Win, «Parent Trigger» School Reform Moves to Crucial Vote With a court ruling last week permitting the vote to go forward, parents who signed the petition last winter now have the chance to cast a ballot on the charter school operator they want to take over their neighborhood school next court ruling last week permitting the vote to go forward, parents who signed the petition last winter now have the chance to cast a ballot on the charter school operator they want to take over their neighborhood school next fall.

But now, Parent Revolution Deputy Director Gabe Rose, who was in court today, tells us that the district will have to go back and re-verify all 275 signatures «in the least restrictive manner possible» by April 1.

If not, the parents are ready to go to court.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Zelman v. Simmons - Harris that school - voucher programs are consistent with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause when they serve a secular purpose and are neutral with respect to religion, and when aid goes to parents, who then choose where their child attends school.

AB 1575 would address issues raised in the lawsuit by establishing uniform complaint, hearing and audit procedures for students and parents looking to challenge fees and receive reimbursements, rather than them having to go through a costly, drawn - out court case.