]In the case of Hart v. Hart, Michael Robert Hart (Father) was granted sole legal and primary physical custody of the minor children he shares with Kari Rose Hart (Mother) with an additional order that Mother’s time with the children be supervised. This order a divorce in 2003 at which time Mother was awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the children, followed by her remarriage and relocation with the children to Texas in 2005, Father’s relocation for 6 months to be near the children in Texas, Father’s return to Arizona after not finding steady employment, Mother’s separation from her new husband and subsequent move to an apartment with the children (that resulted in a change of schools). Father filed a petition for mediation …show more content…
In a contested custody hearing, the court must make specific findings regarding all relevant factors and the reasons that make it in the best interests of the children (Section 25-403(B)). Failure to make the necessary findings equates to an abuse of discretion. The Arizona Court of Appeals, in reviewing the decision of the family court do not find reference to any of the ten enumerated factors required to be addressed per statute. Relevant facts are noted, but no findings of fact are made regarding the applicable factors: 1) wishes of both children and parents regarding custody, 2) interaction and relationship between children and each parent (and in this case, paternal grandmother as Father lives in her home and will rely on her to provide care), 3) adjustment of children to home, school and community, 4) physical/mental health of children and parents, 5) which parent is more likely to provide frequent and meaningful contact with the other parent, 6) which parent has a history of providing primary care, 7) the presence of coercion/duress in obtaining custody agreement and 8) whether there were any false reporting of child abuse or neglect. While evidence was present regarding several of the factors, the family court did not document the weighing of statutory factors with findings (which is required by statute). Thus, it can be presumed that, had they done so, it may have resulted in a different
Facts: Plaintiff Donald Eschbach and Defendant Rite Eschbach were married in 1963 and divorce in 1979 the courts granted Plaintiff Eschbach the divorce on the basis of the couple lived separate and apart pursuant to a separation agreement for one year. The custody of the couple three children was granted to the mother to an oral stipulation of the parties entered in the minute of the court at inquest of the hearing held on January 1979. The stipulation, which also provided visitation rights for the children’s father, was incorporated but not merged in the judgment of the divorce.
In the United States today more than one-half of all marriages end in divorce. The purpose of this paper is to examine the reason why women have typically received custody of the children far more often than the fathers. In order to better understand child custody one must first examine how fathers have often times been left out of the picture, and conversely why mothers have had such hard times raising children on their own. This paper will first examine the perspective of a father who has lost custody of his children.
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
The areas in which these reforms should occur are twofold. One argument that Judge Ross raises repeatedly is that measures should be taken to insure the sustainability of Family Court employees through more manageable caseloads. The necessity of this change is evident in countless examples of children suffering as a result of constantly changing, thin-spread, staff. In one particular instance, a six month child abuse case is adjourned because they “don’t have the medical records” in time (128). The second argument that can be implicitly made based off of Judge Ross’s expressed frustrations is that, if given the proper time for consideration, there should be more room for consideration of circumstance in Family Court. From a legal standpoint, there is substantial evidence for the validity of a common law approach to Family Court over the traditional civil law. Judge Ross establishes that ideally “In each case to protect children, to assure due process, to remain neutral until the facts are established, to apply common sense and sound judgment within the framework of the law in making decisions—the Family Court judge’s charge lies quite outside the arena of public policy, comment, and debate” (104). However, as seen in many of his cases, the combination of the overflowing workload and an inability to apply proper consideration to any given circumstance makes it impossible for the pre-existing
In the past recent years, we have heard in the news around cases involving assault and battery cases involving professional athletes or other celebrity figures, however, it is “not uncommon in the sport and recreation environment for a person to be harmed as a result of another’s intentional conduct, both on and off the “field of play” Cotten & Wolohan, p. 214). Nonetheless, it is important to understand that the term “liability” is often not limited to athletes-as-combatants. For example, in Law for recreation & sport managers uses an example from page 215 that discusses a youth football game regarding how a referee was attacked by three coaches and also was tackled by a 14-year-old player, resulting in charges of felony battery. Thus, Hamakawa remarks to say, ”recreation and sport managers should be aware that their organizations are not immune from incidents involving participants, parents and other spectators, coaches, and officials, security
The opinion of the court determined that “a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth mother—perhaps contributing to the mother’s decision to put the child up for adoption—and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother’s decision and the child’s best interests.” Brown, nor his family, made an effort to be a part of the child’s life before the adoptive couple filed paperwork; therefore, the destruction of an Indian family would not be relevant in the decision-making
The family discussed includes a father (M.M.) age 27, a mother (J.M.) age 25, and an infant son (J.L.M.) age four months. M.M. and J.M. are the biological parents
New York Family Courts’ power to issue special findings orders is widely recognized. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed this Court’s power to make special findings orders when it reversed a Family Court’s denial to issue such an order in an appropriate case. See Trudy-Ann W. v. Joan W., 2010 NY Slip Op 03946 (May 4, 2010); see also In re Antowa McD., 50 A.D.3d 507 (1st Dep’t 2008). Additionally, in 2008, the Chief Administrative Judge of the United Court System of New York issued a memorandum that emphasized the appropriateness of the Family Court to make special findings orders in any proceeding that falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. See Memorandum from the Honorable Ann Pfau, Chief Administrative Judge, to Judges and Clerks of the Family Court (October 8, 2008) (“Juveniles may be eligible to apply to federal immigration authorities for SIJS where, in any category of court proceeding, a State court has determined that...
Sally Bright (Petitioner) filed for divorce against John Bright (Respondent) and received temporary custody of their 14-year-old daughter, Chastity. The courts ordered that John receive visitation rights every weekend after requesting he requested custody. Both parties still want custody of their child.
American Psychological Association (1994). Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
The Louisiana courts have remained conveniently silent regarding de facto, or psychological, parentage in their legislation and case law. In Gill v. Bennet, a grandmother appealed a lower court ruling, claiming she was the “psychological parent” of her grandchild because of a guardianship order from an Indiana court. The court noted there are no cases or statutes expressly addressing de facto parents in Louisiana. There have been custody and visitation cases regarding claims of “psychological parent” by grandparents, which resulted in the development of La. Civ. Code Art. 136 and La.R.S. 1344. The court proceeded to address her appeal as a grandparent, or third party seeking custody from a natural parent. The court upheld the trial courts ruling awarding joint custody to the parents of the child, naming the father domiciliary parent, declining to acknowledge the grandmother as a de facto parent, but awarding her visitation under La. Civ. Code Art. 136 because “extraordinary circumstances” existed.
Joan B. Kelly, P. (2014). The Determination of Child Custody in the USA . Retrieved from http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/library/spca/docs/The%20Determination%20of%20Child%20Custody%20in%20the%20USA.pdf
Hunt, 973 N.E.2d at 1. In Hunt, Hunt was dating Reynolds, who lived with her three children, for four and a half months. Id. at 1. Reynolds disciplined her children by spanking them lightly and allowed Hunt to do the same. Id. Reynolds took her child J.M. to the hospital because of bruising on J.M. body as a result of Hunt’s conduct. Id. at 2. The court held that the trial court did not err by omitting the jury instruction to classify Hunt as in loco parentis. Id. at 5. The court reasoned that because several people assisted Reynolds with her children, the children were enrolled in daycare, and the relationship was brief, Hunt is classified as an “occasional babysitter”. Id. at
A second alternative decision would have been that the mother stay within the state of Colorado. In this instance she may have been able to somehow earn custody of her two children back. Due to her violating the court’s orders she may not even have the right to unsupervised visitation. The courts will be very cautious of allowing her to have any custody at all after her decisions. Attorneys must remember to base their professional decisions off of the standards set to them in their codes of professional conduct.
DSS was designed to place administrative assistance in small western school districts in 1997. There were three founding members whose goal was to help school districts that had limited staff to deal with certain administrative issues such as labor agreements and procurement systems. The company has grown to remain a viable business it must expand its book of business. The company had focused its attention on increasing small school districts as potential clients. But know they want to develop products that would encompass both the small and large school district. As the company tried to expand their business they found that their corporate structure needed to change to better address the needs of its clients. With change sometimes brings