Search for: "Franklin v. Children and Families First" Results 1 - 20 of 132
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2013, 5:00 am by K.O. Herston
Huffman (herstontennesseefamilylaw.com) Criminal Contempt Reversed in Franklin Post-Divorce: Knellinger v. [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 10:14 am
He's since been charged with rape, a felony of the first degree in Ohio.Columbus police were made aware of the girl's pregnancy through a referral by Franklin County Children Services that was made by her mother on June 22, Det. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 12:00 am by Sex Offender Issues
REHAL In 1982, Arnold Friedman, a retired school teacher, began teaching computer classes to children in his family's home in Great Neck, New York. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 5:30 am by K.O. Herston
Related articles Children’s College Expenses Disputed in Brentwood Divorce: Hill v. [read post]
9 Mar 2019, 8:33 am by Joel R. Brandes
During his first eight months in the United States, M.D. established close ties with his family—especially his grandmother and aunt. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 1:05 pm
  Here's the first opinion published this afternoon (right after the one I mentioned earlier today):"The mother has three adoptive children: Serenity (born in 1993), Genesis (born in approximately 2002), and Ari (born in 2013). [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 5:24 am by David Kopel
The targets were Catholic and Lutheran schools that taught religious subjects in the family language of immigrant children, rather than in English. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 2:00 am by koherston
Rutherford (herstontennesseefamilylaw.com) Domestic Violence Leads to Change of Child Custody in Franklin Divorce: Jacobsen v. [read post]
To ensure that his family would, in the future, be judged on merit and not by name, his father changed their family name to Yorker. [read post]
24 Dec 2022, 8:10 am by Joel R. Brandes
Additionally, the Family Court properly included the children as protected persons on the order of protection, as the evidence demonstrated that doing so was “necessary to further the purposes of protection” (Family Ct Act § 842[l]; see Matter of Lengiewicz v. [read post]