Husband And Wife Had A Child Together

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.

Child custody have been an issue for many years but no clear rules have been established until approximately in the 1970’s. In the early colonial years, the arrangement was unappealing to children and their mothers and possibly doing psychologically damage. Luckily, history has evolved and children’s well-being has become a priority in divorce cases.

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

With fault based divorce in the 1960s, child custody depended primarily on the child’s age. If the child was under seven years old, also known as the ‘tender years,’ the mother would receive physical custody. This was because of the belief at the time that women are good caregivers and it was their job to take care of the children at home. However, if the children were older, custody would be granted to the parent of the same sex. Sometimes judges would also award custody of children dependent on martial or sexual conduct of the spouses. When custody was awarded in this way, the presiding judge could be more focused on the rights of the parents than what is best for the child in that situation. Either way, it was quite noticeable that child custody was based on the judge and their opinion, which could change from case to case.

Christopher Lambesis (Father) and Erin Lambesis (Mother) were divorced in 2013. In the divorce decree, Father was ordered to pay Mother $100 per month for child support for the two minor children. In October 2014, Father filed a Petition to Modify Child Support. Based on his own calculations using the Parent’s Worksheet for Child Support, he requested Mother pay him $100 per month. Mother requested a hearing in response including her own calculations indicating that Father should be paying her $123 per month. An evidentiary hearing was held and the court ordered Father to pay mother child support amounting to $149.30 per month. Father filed a Motion for a New Trial stating that he was not provided with documentation regarding Mother’s financial status in a timely manner and that the family court’s child support obligation calculations were incorrect. Mother filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The court denied Father’s request for a new trial and granted Mother’s request for attorney fees. Father filed a motion to reconsider the allocation of parenting time coordinator’s fees. This motion was also denied. Father appealed the court’s decision.

Arlen is required by his divorce agreement to pay alimony of $2,000 a month and child support of $2,000 a month to his ex-wife Jane. What is the tax treatment of these two payments for Arlen and Jane?

In In re Marriage of Granger, 197 Ill. App. 3d 363 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. 1990),

Lee County DHR’s testimony revealed that the case with the non-custodial parent (NCP), Felton Harley, Jr., 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 established and the NCP was paying child support. On July 9, 2008, the CP requested enforcement; DHR filed contempt against the NCP because he had not paid a child support 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 the payments were being received through the IWO. On November 5, 2010, a contempt action was filed again, due to the NCP not paying child support since August 2010.

Petitioner married Marianna Packard on November 22, 2008, and they have separate residences until purchasing the house for $203,500 in Tarpon Springs, Florida on December 1, 2009. Mrs. Packard owned and resided in a residence in Clearwater, Florida from April 1, 2004 to November 17, 2009. Petitioner rented a dwelling in Tarpon Springs, Florida, and he does not own the residence during the three years before December 1, 2009. Petitioner and Mrs. Packard

Mr. Conklin’s legal representative revealed through the testimony of the non-custodial parent (NCP), James W. Conklin, that he was divorced from the custodial parent (CP), Kathleen Conklin, in 1989 in the Circuit Court of Madison County. He stated that the documentation presented as Conklin Exhibit 5-Payment Record Letter from the Common Wealth of Virginia Department of Social Service Division of Child Support Enforcement shows as of May 10, 2004 on the NCP’s account the amount of arrears, a record of payments, and charges. The document indicates that the NCP was behind $3,548.49 as of May 10, 2004; the NCP was paying child support. The youngest child was Jason, date of birth May 7, 1985; by May 10, 2004, he reached the age of 19. The

Elmore County DHR’s testimony revealed that based on the request for a hearing that the non-custodial parent’s (NCP) attorney sent, the agency is under the impression that the NCP’s attorney is of the opinion that the court findings is that the arrears could not be determine; dismiss the arrears. The custodial parent (CP), Tracey Boozer, applied for services on June 10, 2014. At that time, the agency completed an Affidavit of Past Due Support based on the divorce and the courts payment record. The agency filed a contempt action with the court against the NCP. On October 27, 2014, the court referee ruled that it was unable to determine the arrears. The order quoted “Arrears are unable to be determined after testimony.” Afterward, through

By means of applying the UCCJEA to a particular child custody case, one can look at the family of John and Suzy Johnson, and their one-year-old son, Joe. The Johnson family has resided in Virginia for all of little Joe’s life; Joe was even born in Virginia. However, recently John and Suzy have separated. Upon separating, John has decided to move to Texas and

Ronit Rosenberg Maximov is seeking an appeal to the family court’s decision to reduce and reallocate temporary family support paid by Eitan Maximov

Sally Bright (Petitioner), filed for divorce and custody of 14 year old daughter, Chastity. John Bright (Respondent) also requested custody. The court ordered temporary custody of the minor child to Petitioner and visitation with Respondent every weekend. Petitioner will be moving to another part of the country to take a job.