Search for: "Child v. Social Security Administration" Results 441 - 460 of 544
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jan 2011, 11:25 am by Tana Fye
Problem            In 1978, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act to address the “alarmingly high percentage of Indian families […] broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies and institutions,” as well as the fact “that the States, exercising their recognized jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings through… [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 12:09 pm by James R. Marsh
The Social Security Administration denied her claim, and Ms. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 10:23 am by The Legal Blog
Here, there is a legitimate interest of the child in the knowledge of his true parents. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 2:20 am by traceydennis
R (Child Poverty Action Group) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2010 UKSC 54; [2010] WLR (D) 322  ”The only right to recover overpaid social security benefits paid according to an award was that conferred by s 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 which provided an exhaustive scheme for dealing with all overpayments made pursuant to benefit awards and applied only where there had been misrepresentation or… [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 4:58 am by NL
The only mechanisms for recovery are those set out in section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 4:58 am by NL
The only mechanisms for recovery are those set out in section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 4:00 am by Rosalind English
The Child Poverty Action Group (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Appellant) [2010] UKSC 54 – Read judgment / press release The Supreme Court has ruled that where benefits are overpaid as a result of a mistaken calculation, the department responsible cannot claim these amounts back via the common law route of restitution; the Secretary of State’s only recourse is via Section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 3:22 pm by Stephen Page
The Tryons refused to take part in the family report process (where a psychologist or social worker interviews the family to assess what is in the best interests of the child) without having their lawyer present. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm by Rosalind English
 With human health at the apex of this system, the assessment of the measures adopted to secure any of these aims is not, as Lord Steyn suggested in R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532, a ”one size fits all” test. [read post]
21 Nov 2010, 5:10 pm by Law Lady
Department of Children And Families ,(Fla.App. 4 Dist.)Government - Agency was not required to pay any fees for establishment of special needs pooled trust for developmentally disabled teenager.In a matter of first impression, the District Court of Appeal of Florida has held that the Department of Children and Families, as trustee of a master trust into which a developmentally disabled teenager's Social Security disability benefits were paid, was not required to pay any… [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 10:57 am by Roshonda Scipio
. : Columbia University Press, c2010.Constitutional LawKF228.G528 J64 2010Gibbons v. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 2:14 pm by Roshonda Scipio
Administrative LawKD4882 .P76 2010The regulatory enterprise : government, regulation, and legitimacy / Tony Prosser.Prosser, Tony.Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2010.AfricaHQ1798.5 .S89 2010Beyond women's empowerment in Africa : exploring dislocation and agency / Elinami Veraeli Swai.Swai, Elinami Veraeli.New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.Banks and BankingHG1811 .D38 2010Banking on the future : the fall and rise of central banking / Howard Davies, David Green.Davies, H.… [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 8:15 am by McNabb Ferrari, P.C.
Army officers; eight former law enforcement officers; one administrative examiner in child support matters; one employee from the Social Security Administration; and 30 civilians. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 6:39 pm by Eric S. Solotoff
  In fact, the Child Support Guidelines includes, but is not limited to 23 possibilities for income, as follows: a. compensation for services, including wages, fees, tips, and commissions; b. the operation of a business minus ordinary and necessary operating expenses (see IRS Schedule C); c. gains derived from dealings in property; d. interest and dividends (see IRS Schedule B); e. rents (minus ordinary and necessary expenses - see IRS Schedule E); f. bonuses and royalties; g. alimony… [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 10:00 pm by froomkin@law.tm
Ten Reasons Why You Should Teach Here — And Three Why You Shouldn't (v. 4.0) 1. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 12:21 pm
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has issued two decisions just two days apart in favor of employers sued for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)OSHA issues rules governing whistleblower complaint procedures under various statutesLittler Mendelson PCThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will issue three interim final rules that outline the procedures for handling retaliation complaints under the whistleblower provisions of the Surface… [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 7:22 am by Glenn Reynolds
They boasted loud and often that Republicans were losing the country because of their unpopular decisions to go to war in Iraq, establish new national security protocols, lobby for Social Security reform, stress border security, etc. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 4:26 am
In fact, disclosure of statutorily confidential information, or failure to take reasonable security precautions that leads to such disclosure, is a misdemeanor under state social service provisions.Nevertheless, the Circuit Court concluded that the gag orders clearly aim at speech that is of considerable importance to the public. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 5:05 am by Robert A. Epstein
  There, the Appellate Division found that the trial court erred by retroactively modifying the payor spouse's child support obligation to June 2005, the month in which he was declared disabled by the Social Security Administration, rather than as of the date of the payor's motion to modify his support obligation in October 2008. [read post]