Shannon Howley American Legal System Professor Eyler Final draft Of Case Brief October 22,2017 Case: Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56N.Y. 2d 167 (1982) Facts: Plaintiff Donald Eschbach and Defendant Rite Eschbach were married in 1963 and divorce in 1979 the courts granted Plaintiff Eschbach the divorce on the basis of the couple lived separate and apart pursuant to a separation agreement for one year. The custody of the couple three children was granted to the mother to an oral stipulation of the parties entered in the minute of the court at inquest of the hearing held on January 1979. The stipulation, which also provided visitation rights for the children’s father, was incorporated but not merged in the judgment of the divorce. Over the course of the next year indicated a …show more content…
The courts modified the judgment and order that youngest child remain with the mother because there was nothing to suggest the defendant has anything but a fit parent towards the youngest child. The father seeks custody of the youngest child. Wife appealed from the judgement of Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, N.Y., Morrie Slifkin, J modifying a judgment of divorce by awarding custody of the parties’ children to the husband. Procedural History The Supreme Court, Appellate, second division modified the the judgment and ordered that the custody of the youngest child remain with the mother. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jasen,J; held that after the custody of the two older children had been awarded to the husband, it was appropriate for special term to award of the youngest child to the husband in the light of the younger child’s ambivalence as to which of her parents she would prefer to live with and her strong preference to live with two older
Consider your and the court’s response to the above question. Would your decision be different if it could be shown that, in a certain small,
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
For the purpose of the paper, I will summarize the facts and leading events of the case of Elenita L and Romer N. Fajota. As reading through this trial I discovered that judges don’t always make the right decision for families or individuals. Likely in this case it is presentably true. Elenita and Romer got married in June 2005 and have three minor children together. As their marriage progressed, in the beginning of the year 2006, Romero became physically violent against Elenita. Romer committed various acts of violence against her and stated in court that it continued “even while pregnant with their second child”. But however, from 2006 to 2008 the violence continued against Elenita and her children. As the domestic violence continued, Elenita filed a
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
As a judge in Family Court, his objective is ultimately to rule in the best interest of the child. In fact, he asserts that “The phrase ‘best interests of the child’ appears several dozen times in New York State laws governing support, custody, visitation, adoption and protection of children” (21). As Judge Ross sees it, “Being a judge isn’t about sending messages. A judge applies the facts to the law. And that’s all…” (126). This is problematic as, in Family Court, the judge is dealing with personal matters such as custody cases, parental rights termination, child placement, juvenile offenses, and other familial indiscretions. Judge Ross himself recognizes that “No legal principle, and certainly no amount of written words, however, provide better guidance as to a child’s best interests than good common sense” (21). Because of the purely logical nature with which his position requires him to approach cases and the fact that he has too many cases to adequately address them, Judge Ross is forced to become numb to the atrocities he encounters daily. In the rest of the book, this sort of disconnect is best depicted through Judge Ross’s personal experiences. At one point, he recalls his decisions to remove children from homes, describing images of crying children and parents, and refusing reflect on
Article 42A.1°1- This article relates to the "natural and imprescriptable" rights of all children. It also continues to mention that the state, albeit as far as practicable, will vindicate the rights of all children. G v An Bord Uchtála2 was a case relating to Article 42.5°3 (which will now be deleted and replaced), related to the "natural and imprescriptable" rights of the child which will now be protected under Article 42A.1. This case which concerned the rights of an unmarried mother saw the Supreme Court trying to expand the rights provided for under the now replaced article with no real continuity. The previous article relating to this placed no real emphasis on State intervention except in exceptional circumstances which will now be changed following the addition of the amended articles. Another interesting aspect of this amended article is the reference to "all children". Previously marital families enjoyed a specific set of rights and it was permissible to discriminate in favour of marital families in some cases. This discrimination arises from the protection offered under Article 41.3.2°4,_________________________________________________...
To a certain extent I can agree to the Supreme Courts rule in who gets custody of the children. The mother of the two children did give them up without thinking of the consequences of her actions. The ICWA however has helped many people in their cases and selected rulings. Although we cannot reverse the past, there is still ways we can incorporate our support in correcting the way the system works.
...ating her pregnancy . . . we have long upheld parental involvement statutes,” (law.cornell.edu, 2012), also from the majority opinion. Based on these beliefs and similar antecedent cases, the Court unanimously decided that the bill did not need to be shot down. Instead, they simply remanded the lower courts to determine the original legislative intent (renewamerica.com, 2012).
In child custody cases, the goal of the court is to resolve the disagreements in regards to the “parenting plan” between the parents. As stated, every child, parent, and situation is different. When a child is developing, the needs of the child might change accordingly (Mercer, 2009). I...
Eventually they got a divorce and began battling over who will have custody of the child. The father eventually got custody of the child due to his wealth. He threatened to discard the child’s trust bond as a way to get the wife to give in to giving him custody of their child. Here the father used his financial power to gain custody of the child. According to family.findlaw.com, the parent that gains custody has to be financially, mentally and physically stabled. I believe that the father was wrong for attempting to have custody of the child because he knew that she could not stand a chance against him because she could not provide for their child. The husband scooped so low to threaten to discard their child’s trust bond to the point that she had no choice than to make sure her child’s future is secured. On the mother’s behalf, in order for her child to have a better future, she made the sacrifice to lose custody. She knew that she could not have given the child what the father could. If the father cares so much about the child, why would he threaten to discard his child’s trust fund? It is simple, some parents use vengeance as a way to get back at the other
In retrospect, joint custody causes children to obtain the best childhood possible and also provides stability within the mental and physical aspects of a child’s family
The Supreme Court had to look into the reason the South Carolina executed the case and then come to a decision if the right choices was made. If the Supreme Court did not see the verdict as being the correct one, they have the power to override it. The first case was given is that Dusten Brown decided that Christy Maldonado should have full custody of Veronica, who was not yet born (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl). Then Dusten said “he relinquished his parental rights only to Christy” (Totenberg). South Carolina court system was also notified that Dusten was a member of the Cherokee Nation, Christy tried to verify Dusten’s involvement but made mistakes in the information about him. Therefore the paperwork could not be found by the Cherokee Nation. Veronica was not listed either to be of Native American descendants, but instead be of Hispanic descendants. Christy had trouble supporting Veronica and her other children so she turned to adoption and found the Capobiancos. When the ICWA found the paperwork the case was brought to the court. Then the court decided Dusten was part of the ICWA therefore he was correct and had the Capobiancos hand over Veronica (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl). Then the Capobiancos with the help of Christy appealed to the Supreme Court and got the justified verdict. The Supreme Court had to review the case work. The first item the Supreme Court had to decide was if
Hunt, 973 N.E.2d at 1. In Hunt, Hunt was dating Reynolds, who lived with her three children, for four and a half months. Id. at 1. Reynolds disciplined her children by spanking them lightly and allowed Hunt to do the same. Id. Reynolds took her child J.M. to the hospital because of bruising on J.M. body as a result of Hunt’s conduct. Id. at 2. The court held that the trial court did not err by omitting the jury instruction to classify Hunt as in loco parentis. Id. at 5. The court reasoned that because several people assisted Reynolds with her children, the children were enrolled in daycare, and the relationship was brief, Hunt is classified as an “occasional babysitter”. Id. at
Several studies have been done to decipher which custody situation provides the most security and stability for children of divorced families, but it remains that each situation is unique and the individuality of the child(ren) must be the top consideration in making these arrangements.