Sentences with phrase «prior arrangements for the child»

Please make prior arrangements for the child as we have to put a single bed in the unit to accommodate your child.

Not exact matches

A homeless child who designates the school district of current location as the district of attendance and who relocates to another temporary housing arrangement outside of such district, or to a different attendance zone or community school district within such district, shall be entitled to maintain the prior designation to continue attendance in the same school building until the end of the school year and for one additional year if the year constitutes the child's terminal year in such building.

The bedroom has 1 double bed, and additional mattresses can be laid for 2 children by prior arrangement.

Guests can bring along 2 additional mattresses for children by prior arrangement.

Bonny Beach Haven offers: 3 Queensize En - suite Guestrooms (NRMA 4 Star Rating) Accommodation for up to 7 people total Private Access for Guests Separate Guest Lounge & Indoor / Outdoor Dining Areas Panoramic Coastal Views Swimming Pool Wireless Internet & Austar TV Short Walk to Surf Beach, Shops & Hotel Bistro Friendly Service, Reasonable Rates & GREAT PACKAGE DEALS Children by prior arrangement

When you are getting divorced in Florida, the State recognizes the importance of the needs of the child and has strict rules in regards to the parenting arrangements that all parties should be aware of prior to filing for divorce.

Prior to filing for custody in court and during litigation, each parent must allow the other parent access to the child and refrain from withholding contact, even when there is no court - approved custody arrangement in place.

The custodial parent has an obligation to provide disclosure: Similar obligations to disclose financial information prior to commencement of court action are placed upon recipients of child support where a child support order has provided for special or extraordinary expenses, where undue hardship was invoked, where unusual debt loads were considered, where special custodial arrangements were in place, or where incomes are over $ 150,000.00.

Further, as respecting possible modification, because of past issues of the defendant failing to comply with orders of the court; providing token compliance with orders of the court while ignoring the spirit and intent of the orders (including the orders dated December 1, 2010); the defendant's lengthy pattern of contemptuous conduct; the expenses and financial waste caused by the defendant; the substantial financial drain on the resources of the plaintiff and the guardian ad litem caused by the defendant; the pattern of parental alienation; prior false reports of abuse and / or neglect to governmental entities; and the need for repose on the part of the minor child, it is anticipated that in addition to satisfaction of the foregoing conditions, no modification motion is permitted to be filed by defendant regarding the sole physical and / or sole legal custody arrangements, except in the case of the plaintiff's total and permanent disability as determined by the Social Security Administration, unless the following conditions are satisfied...» Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr, 2011 WL 1566201 at * 4 (Conn.Super.).

So far from these topics being off - limits, any MHP seeking appointment in a court case needs to fully inform the parties prior to their consent [123], of information about the following kinds of potentials for bias and agenda: whether the MHP has been married or divorced, and how many times, and under what kinds of circumstances, and how the MHP currently feels about those events; whether, if divorced, the MHP went through litigation over custody or property, and such details as whether the MHP had problems paying or receiving child support, as well as the custody arrangements of the MHP's own children and how these worked out and everyone's feelings about them; the MHP's own personal experience taking care of and spending time with children, within and without the scope of «parenting», and with regard to parenting, whether that was parenting as a primary caregiver, married or single parent, with or without household and third party help, or as a working parent or stay - home parent, and for how many children, and for how long, and the outcomes from all of that; i.e. how much time has this person actually spent caring for children on his or her own, and how well did this person's own family systems function, and is this person in fact an «expert» in creating a functioning family and raising happy, healthy, successful children with good outcomes, nay «best» outcomes, thoroughly well - adjusted and having reached the very pinnacles of their innate potential.

Prior to Stahl and others deciding to tout parallel parenting as a viable custody arrangement for children post-divorce, it generally was assumed to be harmful, and considered to be an indication of the failure of joint custody.

In making an equitable apportionment of marital property, the family court must give weight in such proportion as it finds appropriate to all of the following factors: (1) the duration of the marriage along with the ages of the parties at the time of the marriage and at the time of the divorce; (2) marital misconduct or fault of either or both parties, if the misconduct affects or has affected the economic circumstances of the parties or contributed to the breakup of the marriage; (3) the value of the marital property and the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, preservation, depreciation, or appreciation in value of the marital property, including the contribution of the spouse as homemaker; (4) the income of each spouse, the earning potential of each spouse, and the opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets; (5) the health, both physical and emotional, of each spouse; (6) either spouse's need for additional training or education in order to achieve that spouse's income potential; (7) the non marital property of each spouse; (8) the existence or nonexistence of vested retirement benefits for each or either spouse; (9) whether separate maintenance or alimony has been awarded; (10) the desirability of awarding the family home as part of equitable distribution or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the spouse having custody of any children; (11) the tax consequences to each or either party as a result of equitable apportionment; (12) the existence and extent of any prior support obligations; (13) liens and any other encumbrances upon the marital property and any other existing debts; (14) child custody arrangements and obligations at the time of the entry of the order; and (15) such other relevant factors as the trial court shall expressly enumerate in its order.