Jurisdictional Issues The return of an abducted child The Hague Convention requires you to file a petition in the State where the child is located The organized family law Bar must become more proactive in the legislative process. Too much, we have allowed private lobbying groups to speak for the family law bar. Experience has shown clearly that those organizations, and their representatives, have political and personal agendas considerably beyond looking out for equity, impartiality, and logic in family law. The parties were divorced June 1974. The decree indicated that custody would be determined later after an evaluation was conducted. The decree did not specify how expert opinions were to be received or whether the parties had waived cross-examination of the experts, what rebuttal evidence could be adduced, nor the time or manner in which the issue of child custody would be brought before the court for its final consideration. In November 1974, the district court apparently decided that it had waited long enough for a  psychiatric report on the wife’s behalf, and of its own motion awarded custody of the children to their father by way of minute order. The minute order was later formalized by "Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of Divorce," which was prepared and submitted ex parte by the husband’s counsel. First, the Missouri definition recognizes that "joint physical custody" could exist even if parents do not have an equal time share. The FLS asks the Supreme Court to clarify that an award of joint physical custody should not be an option the trial court may consider unless some objective minimum time threshold is established. B> If counsel determines that there is a danger of harm to the child (or others), or of flight by the abducting parent to avoid return of the child, the Hague Convention specifically authorizes the obtaining of "provisional remedies."1 Not all cases require an emergency pickup. The attorney must determine whether or not the court can be persuaded that an emergency exists which will justify such a warrant for emergency pickup. Facts that might justify the request would include a history of domestic violence, information that the child might be in danger with the abducting parent, or a history in which the child has previously been successfully hidden from the left behind parent. statutes already presume a contribution to some of the child’s expenses by the minority time-share parent during visitation, or joint custody. That is one reason guideline support is already lower than necessary to adequately support children, as set out above. Congress may will decide, as it has in the Civil Service and Foreign Service contexts, that more protection should be afforded a former spouse of a retired service member. This decision, however, is for Congress alone. . .¡¡. in no area has the Court accorded Congress greater deference than in the conduct and control of military affairs. A mistake frequently made in the course of negotiation or litigation is the effort to compel (or trade assets in order to receive) beneficiary status for a former spouse in a member’s Veteran’s Group Life Insurance (VGLI, previously known as National Service Life Insurance, or NSLI), or its active-duty counterpart, Serviceman’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI). After marriage, the parties purchased a house holding it as joint tenants. At trial, the husband testified that the wife had repeatedly stated to him that, in the event of a divorce, she did not want to receive any of the property he had before marriage. The wife did not in any way deny having made the statements. When the divorce was granted, the district court, permitted the husband to back out the separate property funds he paid toward the purchase of the house held in joint tenancy with the balance of the equity being divided equally between the parties. 4. A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of this chapter if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding. The organized family law Bar must become more proactive in the legislative process. Too much, we have allowed private lobbying groups to speak for the family law bar. Experience has shown clearly that those organizations, and their representatives, have political and personal agendas considerably beyond looking out for equity, impartiality, and logic in family law. In the decade following Mansell, the focus shifted from looking for "indemnification" or other language that such recharacterization is prohibited, to looking for some language indicating that recharacterization is permitted, and requiring reimbursement of the former spouse unless the member has been required to reimburse the former spouse for all sums his actions caused to be redirected from the former spouse back to him.7 P> Cost of living adjustments seem to cause great difficulty to many practitioners and judges, and even to some actuaries. They are a valuation factor, however, that must be taken into account in dividing military retirement benefits. Simply put, a cost of living adjustment ("COLA") is an increase in the sum of a retirement intended to fully or partly offset the effect of inflationary or other changes in the cost of living. After distinguishing the doctrine of equitable adoption as used in Frye for child support from its use in establishing legal custody, the Court reversed and held that "for purposes of determining legal parentage in a custody dispute between biological and nonbiological parents, Hermanson holds that NRS 126.051 is the applicable statute." Id. at 289.  SPAN> Vincent L.G v. State Divorce. of Child & Family Servs., 92 P.3d 1239, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (July 12, 2004) After nearly 2 ½ years of attempts to return the children to the parents, the DCFS petitioned the district court to terminate the parental rights. After conducting a termination proceeding, the district court issued an order terminating both parental rights. The father appealed arguing that NRS 128.109(2) was unconstitutional as it infringed on his substantive due process rights. The statute established a presumption that children who have been placed outside of their homes for 14 of 20 consecutive months have their best interest served by parental termination. The argument was also made that clear and convincing evidence did not support the termination of their parental rights and that termination of their rights was not in the children’s best interest. The fourth scenario imposes the SBP premium payment entirely on the member, by increasing the spousal share to 26.7380%.2 The former spouse remains over-secured, as above. The entire premium falls to the member, who still has the free survivorship on the spouse’s life. Shifting the premium in this way is analogous to making a spousal support award. Both sides have an interest in getting a written order on file with PERS to ensure option selection and direct payment are as intended, but the complexity of drafting an order that precisely satisfies both the former spouse’s hypothetical award-upon-eligibility, and the member’s actual schedule, with all COLAs, is enormous. The less certain the language, the less certain that PERS will honor it, but as recent history has shown, we cannot even be certain what rate of COLA increase will be applied in future years, since the future inflation rate cannot be known. The survivor of a member who died while still on active duty is not necessarily excluded from receiving SBP benefits. The Finance Centers will honor a member's election to treat a former spouse as the SBP beneficiary if the member died after: (1) becoming eligible to receive retired pay; (2) qualifying for retired pay but not yet having applied for or been granted that pay; or (3) completing twenty years of service, but not yet completing ten years of active commissioned service needed for retirement as a commissioned officer. The procedural requirements are the same as in other cases. You can find Jurisdictional Issues Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection After Retirement CSRS expert lawyer Domestic Violence Las Vegas family law expert Actual Policy Based Comparison of Calculations The Marren and Page Case List McGuinnes McGuinnes Blaich v Blaich and Potte Nevada divorce and family law The Marren and Page Case List Harris v Harris Libro v Walls and Love v Love Money from People in the Military What Can and Cant Be Done Section IV Subs Jurisdictional Issues available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Modest Proposal for the Supreme Court re Family Law Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar The Marren and Page Case List Sertic v Sertic Military Reservists The Marren and Page Case List In the Matter of Parental Rights as to Carron The Marren and Page Case List Guardia v Guardia Hamlett v Reynolds Why those seeking a Nevada divorce should choose a board certified family l Reciprocal Links: Jurisdictional Issues Jurisdictional Issues Jurisdictional Issues Jurisdictional Issues

Jurisdictional Issues Jurisdictional Issues