Issue: Ariela is seeking child support from Tim for their 16-year-old. Tim is alleging that Ariela having full custody would not be the best for her. Statement of Facts: Tim alleges that Ariela is giving the child more "freedom" than their agreement. In doing so the child now wishes to live with the mother full time. Ariela now seeks child support. Tim says that Ariela has been pulling the child's attention away from him through text messages and phone calls. Along with needing her to come over for various things while the child is at Tim’s house. Ariela did not inform Tim of a drug and criminal activity occurrence in the past. There have been other occurrences that the child engaged in other activities that Ariela did not deny. Since 2013 …show more content…
This includes physically, mentally and emotionally well-being. As to the change in child support being petitioned, the judge can determine if one or both parents needs to pay child support, and then subtracting the smaller amount from the greater and the parent with the greater amount paying the difference. 750 ILCS 5/510 Modification and termination of provisions for maintenance, support, educational expenses, and property disposition states that an order may be modified if there is a change in the circumstance of the original order. In our case, the child would now like to live with the Ariela full time, even though Tim does not believe this to be for the child’s best interest, modifications can be made. 750 ILCS 5/602.5 Allocation of Parental responsibilities states the court will determine if one or both parents will have decision-making responsibilities. The responsibilities are in Education, Health, Religion, and Extracurricular activities. Under section (4)(C) the court will consider many factors, one being the wishes of the child. This will all be according to the best interest of the child and does not mean that both parents will be involved in all the decisions. It could be one parents makes all the decisions, there are multiple ways that it can be …show more content…
With this being said, it is possible for restrictions to be in place with the allegations of abuse against Ariela. The court may also put restrictions on Ariela since in Section (ii) of 750 ILCS 5/103.10 also states that if a parent interferes with the other parent’s access to the child there may be restrictions put in place. 750 ILCS 5/602.7 Allocation of parental responsibilities: parenting time is bases of the best interest of the child. Parenting time will include the wishes of the parents, and the child (depending on their age), along with the amount of time the parent has spent taking care of that child, adjustments to school, home and community, and the child's needs. In our case, the 16-year-old wants to live with her mother, Ariela. But if the judge finds in not in her best interest, he can overrule this and order the child to live with Tim.
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 judge to make such an important decision in such a short amount of time with limited information. Smith (2004) stated that, the simple fact of being a mother does not indicate a willingness or capacity to render a quality of care different than that which a father can provide. Some might argue that what Reynolds (2004) calls deadbeat dads, or in other words fathers who refuse to pay their child support, are often times confused with Turnips, who are ex-spouses who can not afford to pay child support. One example of a turnip is a father who is in prison; he is obviously not making money while he is on the inside. Now an example of a deadbeat dad is when the father is enjoying all the finer things in life and he cannot reach far enough into his...
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.
In conclusion, nothing stated above favorable to Mrs. Green or Mr. Green is bound to the courts. In determining child custody and child support for the parties involved, the courts will use their discretion in determining what is in the best interest of the children (Kelly Green, age 14, and Moss Green, age 10) involved. The court should evaluate Kelly's opinion concerning custody in deciding what's best for both children. Also, the court will study Mr. Green's employment status and history, as well as Mrs. Green's, in determining the child support order. All in all, the court will use its discretion in weighing all of the facts pertaining to this situation and rule in favor of the children's best interest. Thus, in the situation at hand, the courts can rule in favor to Mr. Green or Mrs. Green or a combination of the two.
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
Ms. Triplett’s testimony revealed that she has not received child support payments. The amount owed to her is a little over $2,000.00. She stated she has been trying to rectify the issue; no success. She stated she wanted to make sure she is being fully serviced by the Child Support Office and that her needs and her child’s needs are being met appropriately.
Copyright (c) 1999 West Virginia Law Review West Virgina Law Review, Winter, 1999, 102 W. Va. L. Rev. 477, 13457 words, STUDENT WORK: Changing the Law in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings: An Improvement on Improvement Periods?, Morgan E. Persinger
Dave found employment in Kansas City shortly after the wedding and moved in with Denise. With no court order in place, Maria stopped allowing Luke to stay with Dave for his week once he relocated. Maria told Dave that Kansas City was too far to be taking him, just in case something happened such as if he were to get sick and need to go to the hospital, then if Luke was in Kansas City it would be too far for Maria to be there for him. Maria offered to let Dave visit Luke at her home when he was in Springfield, or take him in Springfield for a few hours, but not to let him go to Kansas City. Since there was no court order Dave was unable to do anything about the stipulations that Maria had made, so he filed a Petition for Determination of Father Child Relationship, Child Custody, Support and Visitation, to establish a parenting plan that allows him frequent and liberal visitation with Luke that will be court ordered, so that Maria can no longer deny him time with their
1) What are some of the risk factors in the scenario that might make child abuse more likely in Hailey's situation?
...e best interest of their children. It’s not the amount of child support that is being paid that is important while you are doing the best you can for your children and supporting them the best way you can. Enforcing child support and having greater punishments are not just to make the nonpaying parents lives more difficult but to ensure a better life for their children.
Before the 1800’s, children were looked upon as only property. During this time, if a couple were divorced, the children would go directly to the father, because “women were not permitted to own property” (Costanzo & Kraus, 2012). This was practice in child custody was known as “the legal doctrine of Pater familias” (Costanzo & Kraus, 2012). However by the 1800’s thoughts on child custody had changed to what is known as “best interest of the child standard” or BICS (Costanzo & Kraus, 2012). BICS is pretty self-explanatory; its meaning is that the thoughts and feelings of a child or children caught in a divorce were taken into account over those of the adults involved in the case. The child (ren) was at that time placed within the best situation. Since not everyone was in agreement over what is for the best of a child or children caught in a divorce, once again things regarding child custody changed.
Children are just as human as adults and want their views to be considered when a decision is taken in their respect. Article 12 in the UN convention, Rights of the Child, states that children have all rights to express their view when decision made is affecting their lives (Birnbaum and Saini, 2012, p.405). But when it comes to deciding the custody of the child during a divorce, most of the time opinion of the child is not addressed. In recent years, there have been growing concerns about children 's participation in such custody proceedings. However, stakeholders have differing opinions on whether a child 's preference should be conveyed in the court or not. Some stakeholders have advocated against child’s participation in family law disputes
However, in a New York case, Moe v. Dinkins, involving a 15 year old girl name Maria Moe, and an 18 year old boy name Raoul Roe, who had a baby tried to get married without receiving the consent from Maria’s mother. The statute stated that consent is needed by both parents for a minor to be married. Maria argued that his restriction is against her constitutional right to get married because she will never receive consent from her mother because giving consent would go against her mother’s of personal interest. The The Court concluded that the New York parental consent requirement is rationallyly related to the State’s legitimate interest in mature decision-making with respect to marriage by minors; therefore the parental consent requirement does not violate Maria’s constitutional
Johnston, J. "The alienated child: A new formulation." Family Court Review. 39 3, 2001. 249-267
Once upon a time, a traditional family structure was created by one man marrying one woman and procreating. Within the last few years, this has begun to change. Family structures are now being changed and created through divorce and remarriage, same-sex partners, and single-parents. When the leaders of these family structures can no longer co-exist, divorce or separation comes. If children are involved, a custody agreement needs to be arranged. A custody agreement never seems to be black and white especially with new family structures evolving. When it comes to same-sex parents, how are children supposed to split their time equally? The traditional belief of a child needing a mother and a father no longer applies in these relationships. This can be very hard on a child especially if the parents cannot agree, and it turns into a custody battle. Children are torn between the parents and many psychological issues evolve. Child custody battles are usually never easy on a child because they can create emotional conflict, academic stress, and other social related stress factors.
"Our Family Wizard - Child Custody, Parenting Time." Divorced Parents and Teens -. The Our