Search for: "Child v. Child"
Results 5061 - 5080
of 31,261
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2011, 1:27 pm
But in United States v. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 6:44 am
Davila v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 4:51 pm
In Adoptive Couple v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 1:33 pm
Wilson v. [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 11:00 pm
”Florida mode: activated.# # #DECISIONMatter of Nancy A. v Juan A. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 4:00 am
”As for the purported travel restrictions, the AD1 agreed that it was up to the State Department (not the courts) to remove any restrictions on his passport, so that the father could return to the United States.Apparently, his arguments didn’t travel well, either.# # #DECISIONVelin M. v Bermet T. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 9:00 am
Best Interests of the Child and the Dublin System (C-648/11) (European Law Blog, Aug. 2013) [text] - EU Court of Justice ruling on MA & Others v UK (C-648/11). [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 12:05 pm
In United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 8:52 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Family Opinions Body: SC18934 - Barros v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 5:00 am
” While there is a presumption that access is appropriate, even when that parent is imprisoned, that assumed fact is rebuttable if it can be shown that the interaction would be “harmful to the child’s welfare or not in the child’s best interests. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 10:57 am
Burns v. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 10:00 pm
”That essentially estopped that.# # #DECISIONMatter of Jemelle S. v Latina P. [read post]
1 May 2023, 11:00 pm
C. v J. [read post]
5 Aug 2021, 12:03 pm
Kyllo v. [read post]
4 Mar 2022, 7:00 am
” Bruni v. [read post]
4 Mar 2022, 7:00 am
” Bruni v. [read post]
6 May 2006, 8:54 pm
Soiseth, 2006 BCSC 652, contains an in-depth analysis of the affect of evidence of an illegal scheme is admissible to rebut a presumption that when a parent contributes funds to a child to purchase property in the child's name the parent intends to make a gift to the child. [read post]
15 Oct 2016, 7:00 am
Ernest Alvarado v. [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 2:42 am
In Quiroz v. [read post]
