Search for: "Parent v. Parent"
Results 1501 - 1520
of 22,576
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2021, 5:54 am
From Burch v. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 4:10 am
In Arcella v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 10:23 am
In its decision this month in Vaysburd v. [read post]
12 Sep 2023, 5:06 am
Unfortunately, this newfound freedom sometimes goes too far and without parental supervision, kids may push boundaries that can lead to trouble. [read post]
25 Jan 2019, 4:33 am
It remains the case that the former case of Jordan v. [read post]
26 Aug 2008, 7:49 am
Harris v Perry and Another Court of Appeal “A judge imposed an unreasonably high standard of care in holding that children playing on a bouncy castle hired by parents for a children's party required uninterrupted supervision. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 8:05 am
In Pulliam v. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 8:55 pm
In Smith v. [read post]
27 Nov 2010, 4:04 am
As noted in the unreported (non-precedential) opinion in the case of Weiss v. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 1:30 am
” Armbrister v. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 10:43 am
These statistics will lead me into lots of different directions in my posts this month, including a discussion of my upcoming co-authored book, Red Families v. [read post]
7 May 2010, 9:20 am
” Baures v. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 4:30 am
Facts: Mother and Father are the never-married parents of Child. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 4:30 am
Facts: When Mother and Father divorced, they entered an agreed parenting plan designating Mother as the primary residential parent of Child and awarding Father 100 days of parenting time. [read post]
Child Custody Agreement Vacated for Lack of Factual Findings in Savannah, TN: Stricklin v. Stricklin
30 Sep 2015, 4:30 am
The parenting plan awarded Father 150 days of parenting time “on all his days off. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 8:50 pm
WOOD v. [read post]
8 Jul 2021, 1:17 pm
The complaint (full text) in Scarpo v. [read post]
29 Dec 2022, 4:05 am
In Hordyk v. [read post]
31 Oct 2020, 5:22 pm
In Reynolds v. [read post]
16 Apr 2015, 7:35 am
Nebraska and Pierce v. [read post]
