One way parents can increase their child's chance of succeeding in school is to forget a good relationship with his/her teacher. Parents magazine published an article, Be an A+ Parent by Nancy Seid, which gives several practical tips toward that end.
For information on Arizona Child Custody issues contact NRG.
Thanks to Ben Stevens at South Carolina Family Law Blog.
Continue Reading...New York has continuing jurisdiction over a custody dispute involving a child who, at the time his father retained him following visitation, had lived in Norway with the custodial mother for two years, the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, has decided in EB v. EFB, N.Y. Sup. Ct., No. 9159/02, 1/4/05.
Addressing for the first time application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act in a case where the underlying custody order was issued prior to the Act's effective date and the modification request was made after such date, the court rebuffed the mother's contention that Norway has home state jurisdiction under the Act's predecessor, the UCCJA. It said that because the father remained in New York following the parties' divorce and issuance of the custody order, the state retained jurisdiction
Continue Reading...The following article discusses the movement to pass legislation in all 50 states mandating a presumption of 50/50 custody.
Food for thought?
By Lynne Gold-Bikin
A movement by fathers' groups and their current wives to have every state legislature mandate a presumption of 50/50 custody for all children as a starting point in every contested custody case has created a new area of family law. If you inquire about the rationale behind this movement, the groups will respond that they have a constitutional right to raise their children and, further, that this presumption will alleviate all custody problems. Further, they say, the "best interest of the child" standard is bogus and is just used to deprive fit parents of their rights. Other arguments made by these dads include: the criteria used to award custody are unconstitutionally vague; there are no scientific data to support the continued use of the "best interests" standard, and the standards are arbitrarily utilized. If the legislatures would only mandate a presumption of 50/50 custody at the outset, these groups claim, there would be no interparental conflict, no wasting of family resources, and no shattered lives.
Continue Reading...In a federal diversity action where the father fails to establish any credible evidence to remove jurisdiction, jurisdiction will be returned to the child's home state. See, Melnick v. Melnick, 04 Civ. 5993, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, November 15, 2004.
In Melnick, the parties were divorced in Connecticut in 1997. There was one minor child of the marriage and the parties had continuing disagreements regarding the father's visitation rights with respect to the minor child. A supplemental visitation agreement was drafted in 2003 under the supervision of the Connecticut Family Court. Thereafter, the father relocated to New York, and filed an action in the New York courts, claiming the mother continued to violate the parties' visitation agreements. The mother removed the matter as a diversity case to the federal courts. The federal court dismissed the case and remanded it to the Connecticut courts. It held that the father's complaint was insufficient to find that any of the father's causes of action were rooted in New York. It considered that the parties were divorced in Connecticut, and the subject minor child's home state continued to be Connecticut. The father's complaint only alleged, in conclusory terms, without much empirical evidence, that there was any connection to New York. The mother did not dispute that the father was entitled to remove the child to New York for the purpose of temporary visitation.
A Texas court erred in designating Illinois as the home state of a divorcing couple's child, who had not spent six consecutive months in the latter state at the time of the divorce, the Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District, held Feb. 10th in Nagubadi v. Nagubadi, Tex. Ct. App., No. 13-02-621-CV, 2/10/05.
The Court found that the parents and child were all living in Texas when the mother filed for divorce but that by the time the final decree was entered the mother was completing a two-year medical residency program in Dayton, Ohio, and the father was living in Chicago.
This week, in Hicks v. Hicks, a Pennsylvania appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying a mother the right to baptize her 9-year-old daughter over the objection of the child's father. In doing so, the Court reversed the trial court order barring either parent from unilaterally baptizing the child and authorizing her to make her own choice at age 13.
To read the full opinion, click here.
In Weesner v. Johnson, Ark. Ct. App., No. 04-784, 1/19/05, it was held that the trial court erred as a matter of law in assuming jurisdiction over the custody aspect of a divorce case where the parties' child had never lived in Arkansas.
At trial, the resident father, who had requested custody in his divorce petition, acknowledged that the child had been born and resided in California, and said that the mother and child had also lived in Arizona and Nevada for brief periods. The mother, however, moved for a dismissal of the custody matter and submitted an affidavit maintaining that while she and the child had moved around the state, they had always resided in California. (The parties had separated prior to the child's birth in 2001.) The trial court held that it had custody jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
Examining the the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the Court held that Arkansas clearly did not have home state jurisdiction because the child had never lived there. Likewise, the Court found that the father could not rely on significant connection jurisdiction, because the child had absolutely none with Arkansas. Further finding that this case did not present the situation in which another state declines jurisdiction, the Court also rejected the father's reliance on the UCCJEA provision under which Arkansas retains jurisdiction if no court of any other state would have jurisdiction.
Of note, the Father appeared without an attorney. Probably not the best idea when faced with a UCCJEA issue.
In In re Ashley D., 2005 WL 45052 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)(01/11/05), Mother appealed from the juvenile court's order which terminated legal guardianship for her daughter, Ashley D. (born in 1991), as well as any remaining jurisdiction over Ashley's case. Ashley also separately appealled the order. On appeal, Mother and Ashley did not contest the order terminating guardianship, they only challenged the termination of California jurisdiction, with deference to pending juvenile dependency proceedings in Oregon.
In doing so, Mother and Ashley asserted that the juvenile court erred in terminating California jurisdiction over the dependency proceedings arguing that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam.Code, § 3400, et.seq.), Oregon erred in adjudicating a petition for juvenile dependency concerning Ashley because California already had jurisdiction. Mother and Ashley further argued that the California juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating California's jurisdiction and deferring the matter to Oregon after granting the Oregon Department of Human Services's (ODHS) Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition terminating legal guardianship and California jurisdiction.
The California Court of Appeals foundthat there was no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment holding that the record sufficiently supports a reasonable finding that allowing Ashley's juvenile dependency matter to continue in Oregon, where she had been living for at least four years and had been the subject of juvenile dependency proceedings there for almost three years, was appropriate and in Ashley's best interest.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals, in Davidson v. Coit, Miss. Ct. App., No. 2002-CA-01570, 2/1/05, ruled that a custodial mother's exposure of her daughters to her lesbian lifestyle and her failure to take them to church were properly considered by a trial court in changing custody to their father.
While acknowledging that the divorce court was aware of the mother's sexual preference when it originally awarded her custody (and that the fact that she was a lesbian would not support modification), the court found that the evidence buttressed the father's contention that her post-divorce conduct was detrimental to the children. It also found that in awarding custody to the father the trial court did not err in taking into account the fact that the mother did not take the children to church When the parties divorced in 1997, they were granted joint custody of their two daughters, with the mother having primary physical custody. In 2001, the father filed for modification, asserting that the children (then ages 7 and 9) had been exposed to the mother's lesbian lifestyle and that her live-in girlfriends and the maternal grandmother were raising them.
Continue Reading...The Arkansas Court of Appeals, in Weesner v. Johnson, Ark. Ct. App., No. 04-784, 1/19/05) ruled that the trial court erred as a matter of law in assuming jurisdiction over the custody aspect of a divorce case where the parties' child had never lived in Arkansas.
At trial, the resident father, who had requested custody in his divorce petition, acknowledged that the child had been born and resided in California, and said that the mother and child had also lived in Arizona and Nevada for brief periods. The mother, however, moved for a dismissal of the custody matter and submitted an affidavit maintaining that while she and the child had moved around the state, they had always resided in California. (The parties had separated prior to the child's birth in 2001.) The trial court held that it had custody jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
Continue Reading...By Jeremy D. Morley
International marriages and personal relationships place special demands on family lawyers whose clients require dependable advice about complex international family law issues. This has led to an increasing role for international family law counsel.
Today, it would hardly be unusual for an American man and a French woman living in New York to marry in Bermuda, move from New York to Singapore on business, own real estate in Canada and a business in England, and have children in school in Switzerland. If they separated and one spouse unilaterally returned with the children to live in New York, both parties might well require legal advice regarding many matters, each of which might have a significant international component, concerning divorce, custody, equitable distribution, child support, spousal support and child abduction.
Continue Reading...There may soon be a change in visitation rights when Virginia couples file for divorce.
A bill in play at the General Assembly would take away a judge's power to establish a parent's visitation schedule. Some Virginia parents believe the current system is unfair. Parents spoke out Wednesday, saying they want a new law to establish fair visitation guidelines for parents going through divorce. Proponents of the bill say it would also drastically reduce attorney's fees. The bill would establish guidelines for judges during divorce proceedings.
Continue Reading...Service members with children, who are minors, are required to have a family care plan. A family care plan designates who will take care of a service members' children while the service member is deployed. However, it is very important that service members with children know that a family care plan has no legal authority outside of the military, and this can be a big problem if you deploy and leave your child with anyone other than the child's other biological parent. If you and the other biological parent are fighting over custody of the child, a family care plan alone will not prevent the other parent from taking the child while you are deployed.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
How can we help?
All inquiries will not be treated as confidential or privileged, and any email communications may be disclosed to other persons without regard to confidentiality considerations. If you must send us confidential or proprietary information please clearly indicate so and we will make every effort to treat it that way.
