Not exact matches
Well I sometimes use the Christian label so as not to be oppressed
by people like you — for example, when filling out religious
preferences for organizations like the Boy Scouts.
Reflect on this a little: Many of the inspirations of the threefold system of political economy derive from evangelical inspirations such as personal creativity, personal responsibility, freedom, the love for community through association and mutual cooperation, the aim of
bettering the condition of every
person on earth, the cultivation of the rule of law, respect for the natural rights of others, the
preference for persuasion
by reason rather than
by coercion, and a powerful sense of sin.
There are online sites that cater to hookups, sure, but there are also online sites that cater to
people looking for long - term relationships.What's more, many
people who meet in the online sites that cater to hookups end up in long - term relationships.But the fear that online dating is changing us, collectively, that it's creating unhealthy habits and
preferences that aren't in our
best interests, is being driven more
by paranoia than it is
by actual facts.
Someone seeking «Mexican restaurants,» for instance, would arguably be
better served
by results reflecting
preferences of
people in the same neighborhood.
By using the initial survey you have all completed, as
well as the cupid
preferences users submit, it will offer you the exact type of
persons you are looking for.
Your matches will be based on
people with similar
preferences to you as
well as filtered
by geographical region.
There's no
better way to connect with
people who share your mindset and
preferences than
by signing up to a website built around exactly that.
(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.
Hughes»
preference was for an intimate lunch attended
by 38 individuals whom he felt were those «most important in his and Helen's lives: family and the
people who were both colleagues and friends,
people who knew him
well enough to affectionately call him Ted.»
(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