Search for: "Matter of Parental Rights as to NJ"
Results 21 - 40
of 211
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2012, 3:40 am
Terminating parental rights without any compensating benefit, such as adoption, may do great harm to the child originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on May 14, 2012. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 10:57 am
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.M., __ N.J. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 10:15 am
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) governs the termination of parental rights in the “best interests of the child. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 6:00 am
NJ’s age of consent is 16, but if the victim is under 18, it is still sexual assault if the actor is related to the victim (e.g. a cousin), is responsible for the victim’s supervision or discipline (e.g. a teacher), or is the victim’s parent/guardian. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 2:56 pm
A legal analysis of the rights involved in this matter unquestionably begins with an understanding of In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (1988). [read post]
20 May 2013, 3:05 am
The NJ Appellate Court issued an unpublished decision in the matter of L.A.B. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 7:26 am
As I anticipated in a prior blog about general vaccinations, the hot topic is now how a COVID-19 vaccination status impacts parental rights. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 8:50 am
Second, the Legislature did not intend for this type of procedure to lead to the termination of parental rights under the New Jersey Artificial Insemination statute N.J.S.A. 9:17-44, and therefore the parental rights of the donor in this matter will not be terminated. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 5:15 am
[E]vidence may well support the termination of parental rights that occurred in this matter. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 1:50 pm
The Supreme Court has held that this liberty interest requires a State to prove the grounds for termination of parental rights by “clear and convincing evidence. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 9:19 am
There is no basis to carve out of the right to parental autonomy the decision to submit child-custody and parenting-time matters to arbitration. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 11:28 am
In contrast, “[t]he focus of a termination [of parental rights] proceeding is the `best interests’ of the child. [read post]
12 May 2010, 4:37 pm
/Matter if K.A.N., J.B., and K.B., ? [read post]
25 Apr 2023, 1:11 pm
In many jurisdictions, there is a public policy supporting joint legal custody, meaning that regardless of parenting schedules, and absent exigent circumstances, under joint legal custody both parents have a right to participate in major decisions regarding the child’s health, education, and general welfare. [read post]
7 Jun 2016, 3:00 am
Experience Matters Peter Van Aulen has more than 23 years of experience as a New Jersey divorce attorney. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 1:14 pm
Although the surviving parent obviously has first right of custody of children, they may not even want custody.8) Make sure the trustee for any funds designated for your children is the right trustee.9) Have your attorney prepare a prenuptial agreement, if you decide to get married.10) In New Jersey, if you are married and living with a spouse, under certain instances the surviving spouse has a right to elect against the will. [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 9:40 am
Div. 2012), A-4608-10T1, July 23, 2012: A defaulting party’s opportunity to challenge evidence at a proof hearing, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, “is especially critical where the interests at issue are fundamental, as with parental rights. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 8:33 am
" A parent of a decedent would lose all right to intestate succession and all right to administer the estate if: The parent refused to acknowledge the decedent or abandoned the decedent when the decedent was a minor by willfully forsaking the decedent, failing to care for and keep the control and custody of the decedent so that the decedent was exposed to physical or moral risk without proper and sufficient protection, or failing to care for and keep the… [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 11:44 am
O’Brien argued that her dismissal constituted a violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech because (1) her comments addressed a matter of legitimate public concern, i.e., school discipline, and (2) because her comments were made on her private Facebook page, they were protected speech. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 11:44 am
O’Brien argued that her dismissal constituted a violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech because (1) her comments addressed a matter of legitimate public concern, i.e., school discipline, and (2) because her comments were made on her private Facebook page, they were protected speech. [read post]
