Sentences with phrase «weight as a court order»

If the agreement is not filed with the court, there is no record of it and it does not have the same weight as a court order.

Provided it is registered, it carries the same legal weight as a court order (which is where the courts say how a couple should divide their property and assets) and can be enforced in the same way.

Not exact matches

In order to solve the problem, Burberry put all their weight behind aggressively rebranding themselves as a high - end luxury clothing brand, even courting such noteworthy celebrities as Emma Watson for advertising campaigns.

Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II «natural born citizen» based on the Kenyan / British citizenship of Barack Obama's father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a «citizen» born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to «support and defend the Constitution of the United States» as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II «natural born citizen».

FAMILY LAW — CHILDREN — Best interests — Where both parents seek sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with them — Where the respondent mother believes the child would settle down and accept the arrangement if the court ordered for the child to spend no time with applicant father — Where the court has a statutory mandate to make parenting orders with the child's best interests as the paramount concern — Where there is little doubt that the child would benefit from having a meaningful relationship with both parents — Where the child's clear views that he does not want to spend time with the respondent mother should be given significant weight in the circumstances — Where the child is of an age, maturity and intelligence to have principally formed his own rationally based views — Where the court is satisfied that it is in the child's best interests for the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility to be rebutted — Where the respondent father is to have sole parental responsibility and the child is to live with him — Where the applicant mother is permitted to attend certain school and sporting events of the child — Where the child should be able to instigate contact with the respondent mother as he considers appropriate to his needs and circumstances — Where the orders made are least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child — Where the child is to have the outcome of these proceedings, the effect of the orders and the reasons for judgment explained to him by an expert as soon as reasonably practical.

The main purpose of the Act is to amend the Adoption Act 2010 to provide: • that married parents may place a child for adoption, on a voluntary basis, in circumstances where both parents place the child for adoption and where both parents consent to the making of the adoption order; • for revised criteria so that where an application to adopt a child is made in respect of a child who is in the custody of and who has had a home with the applicants for a period of at least 18 months, and where that child's parents have failed in their parental duty towards that child for a continuous period of not less than 36 months, the High Court may dispense with parental consent and authorise the Adoption Authority to make an adoption order in respect of that child; • that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration in relation to any matter, application or proceedings under the Adoption Act 2010 and that the views of the child shall be ascertained by the Adoption Authority or by the court, as the case may be, and shall be given due weight, having regard to the age and maturity of the cCourt may dispense with parental consent and authorise the Adoption Authority to make an adoption order in respect of that child; • that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration in relation to any matter, application or proceedings under the Adoption Act 2010 and that the views of the child shall be ascertained by the Adoption Authority or by the court, as the case may be, and shall be given due weight, having regard to the age and maturity of the ccourt, as the case may be, and shall be given due weight, having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

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.