 
|
The Marren and Page Case List Finley v Finley
Learn more about The Marren and Page Case List Finley v Finley.
Interpretation of Court Rules65279;The Court concluded that the Frye doctrine of equitable adoption, and "the myriad of other psychological theories of parentage that the parties mention in order to determine paternity" were inapplicable.Id. at 1406. The Court noted that NRS 126.051 provided for a rebuttable presumption, and was the statute to be applied. The Court reversed the order finding the husband to be the father of the child, and remanded for further proceedings, noting that the joint legal custody order was also reversed. 4) If a prima facie case is made for deviation in either direction, determine whether the benefit that would be enjoyed by the deviation-seeking party and the child is greater, lesser, or the same as the detriment that would be suffered by the other party and the child. Only where the benefit is greater than the detriment - usually measured by comparison of household income - would the deviation be granted. B> The logical ramifications of existing case law creates some situations for which there just is no guidance. For example, in the situation in which there is a divorce, but the member continues working after he is eligible to retire, the former spouse is entitled under the Gemma/Fondi/Sertic line of authority to the benefits she would have received if the member had retired. Presumably, that includes cost of living adjustments. In 1965, the father and mother had two children together in New Jersey. The children were left with the father and his wife. Eventually, the mother met and married a man in Nevada. Then, the mother felt able to care for her children. She and her husband went to New Jersey, recovered the children and returned with them to Nevada. The father and his wife filed a complaint in a New Jersey court seeking custody. Based upon ex parte affidavits and without any hearing or notice an "Order to Show Cause" required the mother and her husband to deliver the children to the father in New Jersey. Copies of the "Order to Show Cause" were delivered to the mother and her husband, together with copies of the complaint. Then a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" was filed in Nevada alleging that the father was entitled to custody because of the "Order to Show Cause." a) Where a party has custody or visitation of a child or children for more than 90 days of the year, as such days are defined in subdivision G 3 (c), a shared custody child support amount based on the ratio in which the parents share the custody and visitation of any child or children shall be calculated in accordance with this subdivision. The presumptive support to be paid shall be the shared custody support amount, unless a party affirmatively shows that the sole custody support amount calculated as provided in subdivision G 1 is less than the shared custody support amount. If so, the lesser amount shall be the support to be paid. For the purposes of this subsection, the following shall apply: 65279;The Court concluded that the Frye doctrine of equitable adoption, and "the myriad of other psychological theories of parentage that the parties mention in order to determine paternity" were inapplicable.Id. at 1406. The Court noted that NRS 126.051 provided for a rebuttable presumption, and was the statute to be applied. The Court reversed the order finding the husband to be the father of the child, and remanded for further proceedings, noting that the joint legal custody order was also reversed. 65279;If the designation of a former spouse as beneficiary is made by a member, it technically is to be written, signed by the member, and received by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service within one year after the date of the decree of divorce, dissolution, or annulment.i" At the time of the election, the member must submit a written statement to the appropriate Service Secretary. The statement must be signed by both the former spouse and the member, and state whether the election is being made pursuant to the requirements of a court order or a written voluntary agreement previously entered into by the member as a part of or incident to a divorce, dissolution, or annulment proceeding. If pursuant to a written agreement, the statement must state whether such a voluntary agreement was incorporated in, ratified or approved by a court order. There was significant confusion in prior years; eventually, the Tax Court ruled that a community property share of the retirement to the former spouse, whether received from the government or the member, was income to the former spouse.2 This was consistent with the position evolved within the IRS that classified payments of military retirement benefits as not qualifying under section 1041.3 Finally, many courts appreciate counsel’s filing (or attaching to the Petition as an exhibit) a proposed Order Directing Return of Minor Child, as the form of order required will not be known to courts new to such matters. Having such a proposed order prepared and attached can even allow all requested relief to be granted at the very first hearing, in some cases, without any further delay; some Hague Convention cases can be resolved in a day or two between initial filing and final orders. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court cited to Lombardi v. Lombardi, 44 Nev.314, 195 P. 93 (1921), wherein the husband expended his separate funds to improve his wife’s separate real property and it held there that, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the title to the improvement followed the land. The Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that it saw no reason to consider the monies paid by the wife as a loan. B> Pursuant to NRS 125A.275, when the judges of two States in which simultaneous proceedings are pending confer to determine which court will proceed, the court "may" allow the parties (and thus counsel) to participate in the communication.1 This does not apply to preliminary communications to set up times for the substantive discussion, etc.2 A record must be kept of any substantive communication, and if they are not allowed to participate in it, they must be permitted to present facts and legal argument to the Court before any decision as to jurisdiction is made.3 P> One important clarification in the new Act, is applicability of the UCCJEA to international cases. NRS 125A.225 provides that "A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a State of the United States for the purpose of applying NRS 125A.305 to NRS 125A.395." In other words, a Court is required to treat the child’s residence in another country precisely the same as it would treat the child’s establishment of a different home State. This will usually be a straight-forward factual inquiry. However, certain scenarios can create legal uncertainty, as in the case of a left-behind non-custodial parent who has little contact, or no physical or legal custody, of the child at issue. The Hague Convention also makes an explicit distinction between rights of custody and rights of access, which "include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence,"1 but which do not give rise to a right to seek return of the child to the left-behind parent’s country.2 The mother and father divorced in 1987 when their child was one. The mother had primary custody; the father had visitation one week per month, and was to pay support. He paid the support for six months, and exercised five of six weeks of available visitation. Between 1988 and 1992, there was only one visit by the father, and the last phone contact was in April 1991. For the three years prior to the 1992 trial, the father called the mother once or twice per year, but never requested to speak with the child. He also sent only $60 in support during that time, and only after he found out that the mother had requested termination of his parental rights. The district court terminated the father’s parental rights. Other courts have expressly found that reimbursement is required, whether or not there was any kind of indemnification or safeguard clause in the underlying decree.3 Instead, it would seem to make more sense to inquire into the economics of the question, and in the absence of some compelling reason to do otherwise, provide the insurable interest security that is the SBP to the spouse with the larger insurable interest to be secured. This serves the interest of securing to each spouse to the original divorce their respective rights to the benefit stream divided upon divorce, unaffected by decisions the other makes, whether to marry, divorce, live, or die.12 SPAN> 125.460, which seeks to ensure that a child maintains frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with both parents, and recognizes that parents may have joint physical custody without having an exactly equal time share. However, the definition lends itself to vagueness and the Court should give guidance as to when an unequal time share may be characterized as one of joint physical custody. You can find The Marren and Page Case List Finley v Finley Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection Las Vegas family law expert Family Court The Marren and Page Case List Harris v Harris Libro v Walls and Love v Love CSRS expert lawyer Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar The Perversion of Bureaucratic Priorities Money from People in the Military What Can and Cant Be Done Section IV Subs Nevada divorce and family law After Retirement The Marren and Page Case List Davis v Davis Primm v Lopes and Mason v Mason The Marren and Page Case List Finley v Finley available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map The Marren and Page Case List Oren v Deptartment of Human Resources Nevada family law appeal lawyer Military Reservists Concepts in the UCCJEA Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar The Marren and Page Case List Choate v Ransom and Braddock v Braddock Introduction to Nevada alimony and spousal support law |