Search for: "In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. A., Child"
Results 1121 - 1140
of 2,361
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jan 2017, 1:57 pm
(Indian Child Welfare Act – Private Severance)In the Matter of L. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 12:51 pm
(Indian Child Welfare Act - Private Severance)In the Matter of L. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 6:53 am
[T]his lack of authority over the minor’s property rights means that parents, generally, do not have the legal authority to settle or compromise a child’s claim or to waive substantive rights without court approval. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 6:53 am
[T]his lack of authority over the minor’s property rights means that parents, generally, do not have the legal authority to settle or compromise a child’s claim or to waive substantive rights without court approval. [read post]
21 Jan 2017, 2:11 pm
Obama's presidency. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 12:10 pm
Department of Justice to intervene more aggressively in suits involving Indian tribes, especially in Indian child welfare matters. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 4:03 pm
The court heard an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to allow reporting of information about a person named in open court, but not charged with any offence, nor a witness or party to the case, in which seven people were convicted of serious sexual offences – including rape and conspiracy to rape children, trafficking and child prostitution. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 5:34 am
This week on the podcast: indefinite detention, lying child-welfare workers, and the SEC’s unconstitutional ALJs. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 12:35 pm
Hall (with one concurrence that did not disagree with Pryor’s analysis). [read post]
7 Jan 2017, 8:26 am
French’s occur in the dissent: “And despite the dissent’s inclination to walk in lockstep with the federal courts on constitutional matters, we have repeatedly recognized that the Ohio Constitution contains greater protections than the federal Constitution in certain instances. [read post]
2 Jan 2017, 1:17 pm
It could be argued that: Defendant’s actions were not willful or sufficiently negligent or flagrant; Defendant was not a caregiver with responsibility for child’s welfare; Defendant used reasonable effort to protect the child from abuse or neglect; The incident was the result of an accident or misunderstanding; Defendant reasonably believed someone else was watching the child; The harm suffered was not reasonably foreseeable. [read post]
31 Dec 2016, 12:35 am
The Family Court confirms the intention to divorce after 3 months has passed since the couple received its guidance on divorce if the parties have any child to take care of, and 1 month if not. [read post]
31 Dec 2016, 12:35 am
The Family Court confirms the intention to divorce after 3 months has passed since the couple received its guidance on divorce if the parties have any child to take care of, and 1 month if not. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 4:41 pm
The court used examples that employees should be permitted to take “a brief walk – five minutes out, five minutes back,” take care of personal matters like “pumping breast milk… or completing a phone call to arrange child care. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 8:36 am
As in the criminal court, the Family Court has to ensure fairness for both parties (Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights, Overriding Objective Family Procedure Rules), but here also in the context of prioritising the welfare of any child involved (section 1 Children Act 1989). [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 9:47 am
One of these is the matter of making decisions regarding the children’s welfare. [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 6:24 am
He is also a popular speaker for the American Bar Association's General Practice Section and Law Practice Management Section.Since 1985, his primary concentration has been on litigation matters. [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 11:33 am
If your divorce involves matters related to child custody, contact the Texas attorneys at the McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200. [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 11:03 am
“It’s déjà vu all over again. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 6:06 am
It noted the “fundamental reason” for applying the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test as given by the ECtHR Grand Chamber in Stec: that “[c]hoices about welfare systems involve policy decisions on economic and social matters which are pre-eminently matters for national authorities” (at [32]). [read post]
