In cases where parents have joint legal custody and one of those parents desires to change custody, the burden of
proof falls upon him or her.
Not exact matches
This may be partly because the moderns had some success in undermining confidence in the classic
proofs by their criticism without winning any lasting confidence in their own, but the main cause is not any defect in the
proofs for the existence of God, at least in the classic
proofs, but the general discredit which has
fallen upon all systems of thought which ante-date the last century.
There seems to be a succession of experiences, but (if the succession is a continuum) there are no single experiences» (M, 286); (2) that Peirce «
fell into a subtle but complete mistake» when he held that since «continuity leaves open possibilities which discontinuity excludes... the burden of
proof is
upon discontinuity» (MR, 467 - 68); (3) that «he could not, in the continuum of becoming which he posited, give meaning to the idea of a definite single event» (M, 287).
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, McEachern CJ stated that «no doubt Aboriginal activities have
fallen very much into disuse in many area», but concluded that because the onus of
proof rested
upon the Crown to show abandonment, «it would be unsafe and contrary to principle to apply the principle of abandonment to such an uncertain body of evidence» [69] McEachern CJ also observed that many «do indeed still hunt and fish and pick berries in season», and the «Court can not permit the Crown to pounce too quickly when there are gradually changing circumstances by treating every absence as an abandonment» [70].