Child Custody In The 1970's

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

     According to many the custody of a child should be determined with the best interest of the child in mind. However, it is not easy for a

According to Encyclopedia: Child Custody (2003), “ Application of the best interests of the child criterion implies that the court's decision will provide the very best possible solution for the child.”

There are actions taken within the courts and there is a sense of understanding that all decisions made regarding couples separating are to be done with the child as the focus- something which satisfies CROC. Unfortunately, as seen from above, the actual nature of protection of children in such situations is questionable ground and instead provides a more adequate than an exemplary form of

However, divorce remained a difficult concept. Established in the 1950s, family court dealt with divorces, child custody, marriages, and other domestic issues. In the 1970s states began enacting the no-fault divorce, which did not require that a husband or wife place a reason for divorce on each other, but allowed the couple to split merely because they did not work out. With divorce rates rising, the government established the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act in 1968, which every state adopted by 1981. The act deterred parents who had not received desired custody of the child from taking said child across state lines and appealing to a different state court in hopes of a better custody agreement. The Parent Kidnapping Act in 1980 strengthened the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. While these reforms benefited both men and women, women received greater benefit as they have historically faced more difficulties in carrying the power needed in order to win domestic court

Family law is the most complex aspect of the Australian legal system as it is constantly under review and reform pursuing to adopt society’s continual change in values and principles. The changing of laws in an attempt to be parallel with society is a strenuous process. Nevertheless, legislations are reflective of contemporary society’s values and ethics. Numerous legal issues arise in regards to family including, same sex relationships, domestic violence and divorce ideally on the best interest of the child, where family laws have been imposed to protect individuals and aim to achieve justice.

In 1997 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) created the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to replace the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), which was created in 1968. Like the UCCJA, the new and improved UCCJEA served the purpose of “deter[ing] the removal or kidnapping of children, eliminat[ing] interstate jurisdictional competition, and prevent[ing] states from relitigating custody decisions from other states.” (Ehrlich, p. 411) Since its creation, the UCCJEA has been a major go-to reference for Courts in all states except Massachusetts and Vermont, who have not yet adopted said act, when considering the technicalities of jurisdiction for child custody cases.

Lee County DHR’s testimony revealed that the case with the non-custodial parent (NCP), Mr. Harley, begin back in 1992 when the custodial parent(CP), Wanda Marshall, applied for services to establish a paternity order, income withholding (IWO), and medical. An order was establish and the NCP was paying. On July 9, 2008, the CP requested enforcement; DHR took legal action and filed contempt against the NCP because he had not made a payment since April 2008. The NCP appeared in court and paid $400.00; the court dismissed the review because an IWO had been mailed and payments was been received through the IWO. On November 5, 2010, a contempt action was filed again, due to the NCP not paying since August 2010. On January 5, 2011, the NCP

Compare and contrast the different state statutes presented in the text (MD, NV, AZ and Nebraska) along with CA (infliction of “unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering,” CO (injury or threat thereof to child’s life or health,” and MO (creating a “substantial risk to a child’s physical, mental, or emotional health or

Mr. Ray’s testimony revealed that on March 20, 2014, he was ordered to pay child support of $438.00 per month to the custodial parent (CP), Monique McGraw, beginning April 1, 2014. In an additional to the $438.00, he was ordered to pay $5,108.00 in retroactive child support for May 2013 to March 2014. He allowed DHR to take the retroactive pay out of his Thrift Savings Plan. He continued to pay the $438.00 monthly for child support until June 14, 2015, until he received a judgment for his social security benefits. The CP received $987.00 a month from social security for the child, Braylen Ray. He is still responsible for paying to DHR $1,226.89 with $357.14 in interest and $869.75 in arrears. On July 23, 3015, his state tax refund of

The parties to this action were granted a FINAL JUDGMENT OF PATERNITY (“FJP”) (See EXHIBIT A) on August 7, 2014. The Final Judgment made determination of child support “based on the W-2 introduced into evidence and imputing minimum wage for the father[.]” Moreover, the mother testified as to her income to be of $3,266.67, which the court used for the calculation of child support, and this Court imputed an income of $1,374.53 to the father.

According to a study that was published in the Behavioral Science and the Law academic journal titled “Psychological Effects of Custody Disputes on Children”, both adults and child involved in the child custody process are affected by custody process and “that symptoms of the psychological sequelae can persist for years, with sufficient severity to require psychotherapy or medical treatment” (Wolman & Taylor, 1991, p. 406). Thus, the importance of a good custody evaluation arises, as it will determine the future of the children and the parents. In order to produce a relevant evaluation, the evaluators need to follow The American Association (APA) ethical guidelines and instructional suggestions (Horvath et al., 2002, p.557). Evaluators

The debate of a child’s involvement in divorce and child custody mediation is one that involves “family empowerment” and comes at a time when children “experience considerable modifications in the construction of their family unit.” It is then at the mediator and the family’s discretion the degree to which children are involved in the process. It is the mediator’s role to ensure both parents have their input on this decision.

Gather information about the other party or caretaker or to transmit documents, information, or personal possessions;

-Many of these sorts of laws went throughout the first half of the 20th century. The best interest of the children standard did not come into effect in child custody hearings until well into the 20th century and the divorce laws for women were very, very strict.