Lee County DHR Case Summary

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

Did the union violate Title I, Section 101(a) of the Landrum-Griffin Act in this case? If so, what should be the appropriate remedy?

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.

Agreement was granting him the “Exclusive” right to vacation with the children and preference in odds years (2015 being the odd year). Moreover, the father did not know if his proposed order or this of the opposing counsel would be signed by the honorable Judge Bernstein when he left to Orlando with the children. Nevertheless, the order was signed in December 21, 2015 and was not entered in the system until December 24, 2015. Subsequent to this signing, the father was never served with the order. The Father left to Orlando Florida on December 27, 2015 and, by that time, he had not been served with the signed order of the Honorable Judge Bernstein. Neither the Court System nor the Mother’s attorney serve the father with the court order and

We are writing in response to our summons package that we received on June 20th 2017. As it states on page two of the summons yes we did enter into a contract with Nusenda for a new camper that at the time financially we thought we were able to commit to. But it became reality shortly after that it was going to be more difficult than we both anticipated. After being late with a payment here and there because of when payday would come around didn’t work with Nusenda and they were quick to load on the late fees and to push the calling daily and to mail out daily reminders to us till it all became too much. We were struggling to find the money to make some sort of payment to stop Nusenda from all their attempts to collect and still put food on our table for us and our four children.

On petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States court of appeals for the fifth circuit

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

Many observers in Williamson County wondered if the matter would end there. Rarely have Texas prosecutors had to answer tough questions about their conduct, even in the wake of wrongful convictions. But in February, Judge Harle ruled that the investigation conducted by Michael’s lawyers suggested that there was probable cause to believe Anderson had broken the law in failing to turn over evidence that was “highly favorable” to the defense. Harle recommended that the Texas Supreme Court launch a court of inquiry to look into the matter. A week later, the Supreme Court concurred with Harle’s findings and ruled that an inquiry should proceed. Anderson would have to answer for his alleged misconduct.

Reporter stated the following: The incident is ongoing according to patient, Christie Sewell. Christie states residing with her spouse and 13 year old daughter Skylar. Also in the home is Christie's elderly mother. Christie states that she has been an alcoholic for some time, but the past few weeks have been bad (alcohol consumption).

On 04/03/2018, SI Koval reviewed a notice of entry of order by the District Court Family Division Clark County, Nevada dated 02/23/2018. The order was regarding the order of termination of parental rights from Ms. HUSSMAN for Hadleigh. The order further

TOWANDA, PA (WENY) - The man charged with killing a husband and wife in a drunk driving accident in Bradford County in 2013 has been found guilty.

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

The first case that was presented involved a man that was currently incarcerated in the Vanderburgh County jail. The inmate was able to plead his case, telling the judge that he was not able to work because he was injured, and therefore had no income to pay for child support. After looking at the past payments the inmate made through the court, it revealed that before he was incarcerated he had made one payment to the child’s mother. He claimed that he was out of work because he had broken his leg, but failed to provide an statements from his employer stating he was either let go or not able to work because of an injury. All payments had stopped for whatever reason. The judge found the inmate in contempt of court for failure to obey a court order. He could not prove to the judge that he deliberately disobey the court’s order to pay child support. In the end, the judge found him irresponsible and sentenced him to 90 days in jail along with a $1000 fine. After he was sentenced, he was escorted out of the front of the courtroom by the bailiff.

This case study looks at the challenges faced by Matt Hayes, executive director of Riverview Regional Medical Center (RRMC). Previously named as “The Holy Name of Jesus Hospital”, the facility was owned and operated by Catholic nuns. The Hospital Management Associates (HMA) bought the facility in August 1991 and modify the name to Riverview Regional Medical Center. Hospitals that were taken over by HMA upgraded to state-of-the-art facilities that provided high quality medical care. RRMC run numerous private practices throughout the city and shared common medical staff with their chief opponent, Gadsden Regional Medical Center (GRMC). However, the common staff from the Emergency and Radiology department were not shared. Over the past years, RRMC has been facing multiple challenges concerning the different services provided by the facility (Swayne, Duncan, & Ginter, 2013).

The non-custodial parent (NCP), Mr. Tate’s testimony revealed that he was assessed arrears and DNA testing back in 2005 for his son, Diego. It was ordered in court that he would pay $50.00 a month until the arrears were paid. In October 2015, he returned to court for a modification. He thought the arrears were paid and satisfied; unaware that the money was still being payroll deducted from his paycheck. Then he received a letter from DHR stating that he had no arrears. After that letter, he received another letter stating that he owed $4,500.00 in back child support. When he contacted DHR in referencing the $4,500.00, he was told it was for the arrears; the $50.00 was never deducted from his paycheck. He contacted the payroll division of his employer to get verification of the money being deducted from his paycheck, which showed that he had paid $5,375.00; he emailed the information to the child support caseworker (CSW), Ms. Guyton, she had her supervisor to review the information. He was told that the arrears and DNA testing was satisfied; he did not owe DHR anything, and they did not owe him. He stated he wanted to know if he paid too much money for back child support.