]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
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.
Rule: 1. Justice White, speaking for the majority believes that the decision in this case is similar to Bell v. Burson, in which held that the state could not deprive a person of there drivers license pertaining to a speeding violation without a hearing. He stated: "The states interest in caring for Stanley’s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanley’s unfitness solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove. 2. They concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody. Denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. 3. The rule of law that justifies the holding of the case is: "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state may neither supply nor hinder" (Prince v. Mass.). 4. "The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.
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
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.
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...
I chose to write about State v. Williams. This case recently received a great deal of media attention, as Marcellus Williams was scheduled to be executed despite new DNA evidence casted doubt on his involvement in the murder of Felicia Gayle. The following is a synopsis of the case, and procedural history to-date.
Must an employee have the power to tangibly affect the employment status of the victim in order to be considered a supervisor for purposes of employer liability for racial harassment in the workplace?
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
Findings amongst marriages and cohabitation that end in dissolution have shown custody and access disputes to be the “single biggest issue in civil law” (Roesh, Zapf, Hart, 2010). The role of forensic psychology regarding this issue is seen in the form of parenting capacity evaluations, otherwise known as child custody evaluations. Although many dissolved marriages or relationships end without the need of such evaluations, it is important to understand the current practices regarding custody cases and the evaluations provided by forensic psychologists in these cases. Currently, the dominant doctrine is the “best interest of the child” principle (Roesh et al., 2010). In an attempt to evaluate what is essentially in the "best interest of the child" evaluators may use methods including interviews, to parent and child, as well as a variety of psychological tests. This paper will further explore what is necessary for child custody evaluations and the role evaluators play in these cases.
The appeal judge agreed that two more years of spousal support was appropriate. The judge’s reasoning was that Ms. Aspe’s financial struggles were not related to the marriage or divorce, but that she needed a period of time to become self-sufficient and financially stable. This is seen in many cases where the female stayed at home to care for children and is in need of extra time to find work and stability. This is similar to the Moge v. Moge
Child custody laws, stigmas against parents based on gender, and how the process of deciding custody has undergone much reform over the years leading to its current form. Such a complicated issue creates many obstacles for judges to come to a conclusion on a custody case. Kramer vs Kramer gives an inside perspective on the challenges that both family involved, and the court must face. Kramer vs. Kramer throws the audience into an emotion filled journey to grant custody to the most capable parent after the Kramers undergo a divorce. The film demonstrates how stigmas against parents, and the unlawful ness of prior custody laws did not put the child's welfare at the forefront, something that is the primary element in custody laws.
The Supreme Court had to look into the reason the South Carolina executed the case and then come to a decision if the right choices was made. If the Supreme Court did not see the verdict as being the correct one, they have the power to override it. The first case was given is that Dusten Brown decided that Christy Maldonado should have full custody of Veronica, who was not yet born (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl). Then Dusten said “he relinquished his parental rights only to Christy” (Totenberg). South Carolina court system was also notified that Dusten was a member of the Cherokee Nation, Christy tried to verify Dusten’s involvement but made mistakes in the information about him. Therefore the paperwork could not be found by the Cherokee Nation. Veronica was not listed either to be of Native American descendants, but instead be of Hispanic descendants. Christy had trouble supporting Veronica and her other children so she turned to adoption and found the Capobiancos. When the ICWA found the paperwork the case was brought to the court. Then the court decided Dusten was part of the ICWA therefore he was correct and had the Capobiancos hand over Veronica (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl). Then the Capobiancos with the help of Christy appealed to the Supreme Court and got the justified verdict. The Supreme Court had to review the case work. The first item the Supreme Court had to decide was if
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
H.L.A Hart said that judges have a strong discretion in deciding cases especially in ‘hard cases’. Hard cases are a general name for those cases where the law is unclear or ambiguous as to whom the judge should rule due to a lack of relevant precedent. The ideal of the so called "hard case" defined by H.L.A Hart depose the pure positivists doctrine that judicial decisions cannot be the mechanical "slot machine". Boumediene v Bush was a hard case because habeas corpus was a rule in United States Constitution. And desired results can be attained from pure reference to case law and legislation to where a judge has to interpret statutes and therefore apply 'creative legislation' in which they constitute new law through extra-legal standards due
These individuals already have an established relationship with the child and the distance from the immediate divorce may be able to provide the child with a balance in perspective that makes