Buencamino V. Noftsinger Case Study

Mr. Simpson, a minor resident of California, is seeking to inherit from the estate of Mrs. Sweeney, decedent and resident of California at time of death, under the doctrine of equitable adoption. Mrs. Sweeney is the widow of Sam Sweeney (hereinafter called “Mr. Sweeney”), and the mother of Hannah Sweeney (hereinafter referred to as “Hannah”), the biological daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sweeney (hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Sweeney’s”). Simpson interview, pg 3. In 2008, the Sweeney’s obtained formal custody of Mr. Simpson from the San Diego, Superior Court in California. Id. at 7. Mr. Simpson was eight at the time of obtaining custody. Id. at 4. The custody agreement awarded sole custody of Mr. Simpson to the Sweeney’s. During the time Mr. Sweeney was alive, Mrs. Sweeney attempted to talk Mr. Sweeney into formal adoption of Mr. Sweeney numerous time to no avail. Id. at 4. Mr. Sweeney did not believe in formal adoption of children, but nevertheless he continued to care for Mr. Simpson as he was his own child. Id. Mrs. Sweeney also spoke with an attorney about adoption while Mr. Sweeney was still alive. Id. at 5. During this time the Sweeney’s fed, clothed, and provided a home for Mr. Simpson without the financial support of others. Id. at 6. Mr. Simpson also went on vacations and took part in events, such as family pictures, that would form a familial relationship, and Mrs. Sweeney wore a “mothers ring” with Hannah’s and Mr.

Rinaker vs Superior Court case is a juvenile delinquency proceeding minors, Christopher G. and Huy D, are charged with committing vandalism. Minors were allegedly convicted with throwing rocks at Arsenio Torres’s car. Torres later brought a civil harassment case against the minors, which began the process of mediation in an effort to resolve the civil harassment action.

That case was made insufficient because the father never had full custody of the child so therefore he could not begin to influence her own

Identify and investigate these contemporary issues relating to family law and evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses to these issues

This was a child abuse case where a Dodge County father and the live-in girlfriend he

Client’s parents were never married and ended their relationship when her mother was still pregnant with her. The client has 6 siblings. She has not had contact with her father and does not know where he is located. Her mother has refused to discuss him with her. Her mother has had several different live-in boyfriends. Client and her siblings have been in foster care on

Again, Section 24 authorizes the court to determine immediate “removal of a child from his home for the only reason to protect the child from serious abuse or neglect.” See Care & Protection of Robert. According to G.L. c. 119, Section 1, the court must “take into account the presumption that a child’s best interests generally are best served if the child is able to remain with her natural

In the year of 1836, the Court of Appeals of Virginia came to a decision in the case of Burley v. Griffith. This dispute began when Luke Griffith feared that one of his most valuable slaves, William Lee, was at risk to escape and flee the commonwealth of Virginia. Griffith’s suspicions and unease pushed him to place this particular slave in the Ohio County Jail under the custody of Sheriff Burley for safekeeping. This right to hold slaves in jail was granted in a statute that was passed nearly 12 years earlier in the state of Virginia. Griffith brought 3 counts against Burley in the Circuit Superior Court of Law and Chancery for Ohio County. One count stated that Griffith’s slave escaped due to negligence in the care of Burley. Another count

The Supreme Court was faced with a unique paradox during the case Salazar V. Buono; in which their ruling had to coincide with the establishment clause in the first amendment, while avoiding the dissenting opinions of thousands of veterans and their families they threatened to insult with their decision. In 1934, the VFW commissioned a white cross to be constructed on an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve. In 1999, the plaintiff, Frank Buono, requested for the NPS to tear down the cross on the grounds that it was in severe violation of the Establishment Clause. The ensuing mess and final ruling seemingly defined the distinction between governmental and religious separation, while also confirming Congress’s

Frontiero v. Richardson case occurred in 1973, putting it in the middle of the second wave of feminism. This was a time of women’s marches and advocates for equal rights. Opposed to the first wave of feminism the second wave was more inclusive to women of color. Most likely because it was happening at the same time as the Civil rights and Chinco movements. Along with this, the second wave focused more on equality in the workplace and reproductive rights, whereas the first wave was more focused on voting rights. During this time period, the Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan was popularized encouraging women the challenge the “homemaking rules” and the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) was formed. Along with this, the Equal Rights Act (ERA) was passed just one year before in 1972. Overall the 1960s and 70s were a time of great progression for equal rights.

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

EREPORT # 19021 stated the following: The incident happened last night, 2/8/2016. Destiny's mother has "taken off" as evidenced by empty drawers and closets. Destiny stayed home alone all night by herself. The concern is that Destiny is not supposed to be alone with her dad, per DHS. Dad never came home last night, but the concern is 1) dad comes home and she is alone with him or 2) dad doesn't come home and she is alone again by herself all night. I found out abou the situation because the teacher told me. estiny disclosed to her teacher about being home alone, mother "taken off" and that dad may come home and she has to be alone with him. During the Summer of 2014, father sexually abused her. The prior abuse/neglect was reproted but I do

In Reel v. Harrison, 118 Nev. 881; 60 P.3d 480; 2002 Nev., “First Judicial District Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that § 125C.200 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by restricting a custodial parent's fundamental right to travel. The trial court also concluded that even if § 125C.200 was constitutional, the mother was still permitted to relocate the minor child to New Jersey, based on the career and educational opportunities available... and the ability to maintain reasonable visitation with the father”.

A precedent case very similar to this case is the Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 University of Michigan Law School case. In this case the University of Michigan claimed that they had a good enough reason to discriminate based on race in order to obtain the educational benefits to have a diverse law school program. The court believed the law schools reason was good enough to justify the racial discrimination. The University argued that the reason for the interest in attaining diversity for its own sake. The second is an interest in attaining educational benefits that alleged flow from diversity. Diversity is needed in any institution. Grutter even acknowledge that diversity creates racial balancing. The law school was interested in assuring a certain

The applicant and respondent have filed for divorce in 2015 but kept living together until the respondent left voluntarily in April 2016. The court gave a previous order regarding custody and parenting time to their son, Brookston Torko Ball, age 2. Due to miscommunication in both parties and the respondent leaving home, the applicant Jamie Elizabeth Torok is claiming sole custody of Brookston and for an order that the respondent’s access to Brookston be supervised. The respondent Jason Andrew Ball filed an answer claiming for joint custody and shared week-about access to Brookston.