Search for: "In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. M. S. and A. M. A., Parents"
Results 41 - 60
of 145
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2023, 10:23 am
The Supremacy Clause tells state judges they are "bound" by federal law notwithstanding contrary provisions of state law, but that's also true of state legislative and executive officials even though they're not expressly mentioned. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 1:20 pm
I’m not going to analyse the merits of that particular case in this post. [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 9:01 pm
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Opinion in In re Paternity of F.T.R. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 3:50 pm
Family & Children’s Soc’y of Elizabeth, 72 N.J. 127, 132 (1976). [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 6:53 am
After finalizing the settlement deal on behalf of their minor children the parents apparently had a change of heart. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 6:53 am
After finalizing the settlement deal on behalf of their minor children the parents apparently had a change of heart. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 12:28 pm
I/M/O W.R. and L.R. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 4:00 am
Some may say that considering the safety and well-being of a client’s children and the victim are in the abuser’s best interests. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 7:47 pm
" "You're not really going to raise children in the city are you? [read post]
6 Aug 2023, 5:40 am
August 2, 2023Appellate Division, First DepartmentAge 29 Law allows unmarried children through age 29, regardless of financial dependence, to be covered under a parent’s group health insurance policy In B.D. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 2:40 pm
The judges who made the orders genuinely thought the orders were in their best interest, made in good faith and after conscientious application of s1 Children Act 1989 (in which the welfare of children is paramount). [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 11:58 am
Parents of children covered by welfare are eligible for the state-federal health program only if they make no more than $188 a month for a family of three. [read post]
16 Apr 2023, 10:29 am
In accordance with Re S, there should be no default position, or requirement for ‘compelling reasons’, in such cases. [read post]
9 Aug 2023, 1:03 pm
” In re Custody of McCuan, 531 NE 2d 102 – Ill: Appellate Court, 5th Dist. 1988 “In view of [one spouse’s] much greater ability to pay, we think it was an abuse of discretion to make [the other spouse] pay most of the [children’s] attorney’s fees” In re Marriage of Kennedy, 418 NE 2d 947 – Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist. 1981 Guardian Ad Litem fees seem to have no limit beyond what the… [read post]
16 May 2023, 12:01 am
And it's not so much a matter of accessibility as it is really thinking about what do we need to do to make sure that the technology is useful? [read post]
28 Apr 2012, 3:24 am
Secondly, I’m one of the children that has been through the family justice system due to separated parents. [read post]
10 Dec 2011, 3:14 pm
Nevertheless the judge let the matter run. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 1:57 pm
(Indian Child Welfare Act – Private Severance)In the Matter of L. [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 12:18 pm
Instead, what is needed is a drilling down to the specifics, not generalised assumptions about the impact on children of publication or assertions that welfare is just more important. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 5:44 am
Contrary to the recommendation of the Review, the Government has chosen to give the matter further consideration, believing "that legislation may have a role to play in supporting shared parenting".Well, I don't want to dash anyone's hopes, but I think it may be somewhat optimistic to expect any such legislation to have any significant impact upon the outcomes of future children cases. [read post]
