In the instant case, Mother contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the lower court’s conclusion that Mother was unfit to have a continued parental relationship. The Department and the children, however, assert that the evidence was sufficient for the court to find that Mother was unfit to parent the children, and that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional so as to justify the termination of her parental rights. For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Department and the children. “In reviewing a juvenile court’s decision with regard to termination of parental rights, we utilize three different but interrelated standards.” In re Adoption of Ta’Niya C., 417 Md. 90, 100 (2010).
“When the appellate court scrutinizes factual findings, the clearly erroneous standard of [Rule 8-131(c)] applies. [Second,] [i]f it appears that the [court] erred as to matters of law, further proceedings in the trial court will ordinarily be required unless the error is determined to be harmless. Finally, when the appellate court views the ultimate conclusion of
…show more content…
The circuit court found that the Department had offered Mother significant services to help facilitate reunification, including consistent contact with Mother, transportation subsidies, housing subsidies, providing referrals to various treatment programs and facilitating visitation options, among many other things. The circuit court further found that Mother had completely failed to comply with her case plan that she had entered into with the Department by failing to complaint parenting classes, and failing to visit the children. Indeed, in her brief, Mother does not appear to challenge the circuit court’s conclusions with respect to the FL § 5-323(d)(1)
The Court ruled for the juvenile, stating that his rights to due process were indeed violated according to the Fourteenth Amendment. “The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Oyez, n.d.). The Court analyzed the juvenile court's method of handling cases, verifying that, while there are good reasons behind handling juveniles in a different way from adults, adolescents seeking to settling delinquency and detainment cases are qualified for certain procedural safeguards under the Due Process Act of the Fourteenth
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
It supported the view in Tasmania that an appellate court should consider the Evidence afresh when reviewing a trial judge’s ruling. There was no dispute in this issue where both the parties in this case concurred to the approach taken. Therefore, it can be said that the reasoning of Underwood CJ in L v Tasmania and Basten JA (in dissent) in Zhang was accepted.
INTRODUCTION/ASSIGNMENT:Denise Morgan has requested that our office represent her in a family court matter addressing the modification of a child support order. The supervising attorney asked that I review the facts of the case and the legal authority provided to determine strengths and weaknesses of Ms. Morgan’s case and if the Motion to Vacate requested by Mr. Morgan will be granted by the court, applying only the law provided, not to include any outside research.
The best interest of a child should be achieved when a court determines custody. In Hunsberger v Hunsberger, where both the father and the mother were seeking a sole custody of their child who was five-year-old boy, the father filed for divorce after knowing that his wife was seeing another man, and both of them agreed to have a split custody. After filing for divorce, they continued living together until the mother voluntarily gave possession of the residence to the father. After the factors for custody determination stated by IN Code § 31-17-2-8 were examined, the trial court held that the sole custody was given to the mother. However, the father appealed to the court of appeals claiming that the court abused its discretion. The court of
In their jurisdictional statement and brief in the Court, appellants do not urge upon all of the points passed upon by the Supreme Court of Arizona. They urge that we hold the Juvenile Code of Arizona invalid on its face or as applied in this case because,
Up until the past year or so I was sure that I was going to pursue the path of Family Law once I became an attorney. As a result, I spent a great deal of my time reading over the Maine Revised Statutes to get a better understanding as to what a Family Law attorney would deal with day in and day out. While reading, I immediately became very interested in 19-A M.R.S. §1803; I was unaware that such a law existed, and I was quite surprised that it was in existence. After spending a considerable amount of time analyzing the pros and cons it carries with it, I eventually found that 19-A M.R.S. §1803 is an excellent law as a whole. I came to this conclusion based upon my personal opinion that it is very important for a child to have a relationship with it’s immediate family members while growing up, as long as it does not put the child in harms way.
In a contested custody hearing, the court must make specific findings regarding all relevant factors and the reasons that make it in the best interests of the children (Section 25-403(B)). Failure to make the necessary findings equates to an abuse of discretion. The Arizona Court of Appeals, in reviewing the decision of the family court do not find reference to any of the ten enumerated factors required to be addressed per statute. Relevant facts are noted, but no findings of fact are made regarding the applicable factors: 1) wishes of both children and parents regarding custody, 2) interaction and relationship between children and each parent (and in this case, paternal grandmother as Father lives in her home and will rely on her to provide care), 3) adjustment of children to home, school and community, 4) physical/mental health of children and parents, 5) which parent is more likely to provide frequent and meaningful contact with the other parent, 6) which parent has a history of providing primary care, 7) the presence of coercion/duress in obtaining custody agreement and 8) whether there were any false reporting of child abuse or neglect. While evidence was present regarding several of the factors, the family court did not document the weighing of statutory factors with findings (which is required by statute). Thus, it can be presumed that, had they done so, it may have resulted in a different
Stanley v. Illinois has been applied to an incarcerated woman’s right to raise her own child the same as Stanley did. Although the case occurred years ago, it still applies to all people having the right to raise their children. This however seems contradictory because it is protecting the incarcerated woman’s rights more so than it is protecting the rights of the father who is not incarcerated.
Civil Courts prefer to remain impartial towards parental religious beliefs and practices when determining what is in the best interest of a child. Yet, case law makes it clear that the religious practices of the parents and the proposed course of religious education may become relevant factors for the court to consider in determining custody or visitation. Recent statistics indicate that the divorce rate in the United States has reached fifty percent and shows no sign of decline. Polls show that Americans are become more religious and that bi-religious marriages are on the rise. When the parent informs the attorney that the opposing party will attempt to use his or her religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation to discredit the case, the practioner would state that there is no place for marriage in a best interest hearing and that judge would not tolerate such irrelevant evidence. However, the reality is that religious practice may become a relevant factor and to simply dismiss the possibility of religious attack may be detrimental to the parent in any effort to obtain custody or unrestricted visitation. Religious freedom is a sacred ideal in the United States and the protection of those rights is crucial. Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that the “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Every parent is entitled to an objective and bias-free custody or visitation trial. When the opposition’s pleading are filed with critics of the parent’s religion, negative comparisons to cults and other pejorative and conclusory statements, the parents involved will not be able to get a fair hearing. As one court succinctly states “intervention in the matters of religion is a perilous adventure upon which the judiciary should be loath to embark.”
The standard of review for both of the issues in this appeal is de novo. We explain below why that is so.
Child custody is a difficult and sensitive matter. During the disputes people go through multiple interviews, background checks, and other privacy invading matters. Child custody evaluations are need when parents are divorcing. This is all done in order to obtain custody of one or more children. The children do not have to be the parents biological children in order to be able to fight for custody of the child. In the evaluations multiple factors are taken into consideration. Through the entire process the most important aspect about the outcome of the evaluations, is that the child’s best interest is always the main factor. Child custody evaluations attempt to investigate and find the best situation for the child between the parties fighting over custody.
The first court session that was observed was about a young mother who appears to be in her twenties, her son was taken away from her when he was an infant. The reason why he was taken away because of abuse and the mother drug addiction, the court has given this young women many chances to change her life around. The first order that was given to attend parenting class, pay child support, and to be drug free. The mother had a total of two years to comply with any of the order that the judge has given her, however the mother did not comply. In result the young mother is in danger of losing her parental rights. Therefore if the parents show no concern for their child chances are the child will place with a family who provides and show adequate
I also believe that it important to point out the principle of justice in regard to this case. The principle of justice, which promotes equity and fairness among patients, is actually being dismissed (Veatch, Haddad, & English, 2010, 98). If the medical professionals do consider the mother and fetus to be two separate individuals, they must apply the principle...
Today's parenting has also played a key role in revision of the legal system as it relates to family law. Due to the increasing amount of child abuse cases, there has been a great amount of emphasis placed upon the disciplinary actions of parents today. In today's society with drug abuse being more prevalent and single family households becoming more common, the pressures of child rearing have dramatically increased.