 
|
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA
Learn more about Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA.
The UCCJA sets out four grounds for finding original jurisdiction The Parenting Kidnaping Prevention Act addresses the continuing interstate custody jurisdiction problemsMs. Rivero then requested that the district court judge recuse herself. When the judge refused to recuse herself, Ms. Rivero moved to disqualify her. The Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court denied Ms. Rivero's motion for disqualification, concluding that it lacked merit. The district court later awarded Mr. Rivero attorney fees for having to defend Ms. Rivero's disqualification motion. A military couple was married in Florida, where their first child was born, and moved to Nevada by reason of military transfer in 1991. Their second child was born in Las Vegas. In 1995, the mother filed for divorce; in 1996, they were awarded joint legal and physical custody, with the mother receiving temporary primary physical custody, and the father receiving four days of visitation per week. The parties reached a handwritten agreement which carried that custodial arrangement forward. The mother, feeling unable to sustain herself in Las Vegas, filed a petition to move. The lower court found on balance that the mother’s petition was brought in good faith, but nevertheless denied relocation based on an inability to fashion a feasible alternative visitation schedule. Specifically, the court found that the father’s work schedule made it impossible to compensate him for the time he would lose if the children moved (he was a firefighter, working four 24-hour shifts every eight days). The lower court had found that neither frequent short trips nor longer trips would work, given the ages of the children, the six-hour flying time between Florida and Nevada, the father’s work schedule. The parties divorced October 1991. There were two children. The father received primary custody. Both of the parties worked at the same company. After they were laid off, the father secured employment in Oregon and a residence in Idaho. The parties met to discuss the father moving to Idaho. The father was unaware that he needed written consent to move because it was not in the decree. The mother verbally consented to the move. The parties also discussed a new visitation schedule and lowering the support payments. In November 1998, the father, the children and his girlfriend moved to Idaho. The parties were unable to finalize an agreement concerning visitation and child support. The father left the child alone one day while laying sheetrock, however, the child was trained in how to contact the father. The mother called and found out the child was home alone. The mother called the police who conducted a welfare check and who found the child was fine, not scared, was watching television and doing a project. The mother then filed a motion to modify custody asserting that the father had not complied with the move statute and that the father left the child alone. The district court granted the motion finding that both prongs of the Murphy v. Murphy, 84 Nev. 710, 447 P.2d 664 (1968) standard had been met. B> Most Nevada litigation as to jurisdiction has involved not the "causes" authorizing suits for divorce, but the requisites for filing a complaint under NRS 125.020. What appears to cause confusion in some quarters is the seeming blurring of tests for subject matter jurisdiction, on the one hand, and personal jurisdiction, on the other. They are distinct, but the Nevada divorce statute makes it necessary for at least one party to be a bona fide resident of this state (which incidentally gives the court personal jurisdiction over that person), for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a divorce.1 The California cases made it clear that a spouse has to make an "irrevocable election" whether to begin receiving the spousal share of the retirement benefits upon maturity, or to wait until the wage-earner actually retires, thus enjoying a "smaller piece of a larger pie" by getting a shrinking percentage of a retirement based upon post-divorce increases in the wage-earner’s salary and years in service. Washington goes along with the methodology of those two States, when the disability exists at the time of retirement. Alabama seems to lean against compensating a spouse when the disability benefits exist at the time of divorce, but has not spoken as to post-divorce recharacterization. If you´re going through a difficult divorce and need a knowledgeable lawyer who will be there for you through the entire process, let our Las Vegas Nevada family law appeal lawyer help. We are a Las Vegas divorce and family law firm and our Las Vegas Nevada family law appeal lawyer can help with all your divorce needs. The Ford case maintained that a professional practice - even a solo business - has goodwill divisible upon divorce, even if the business is not salable. In that case, the expert proposed, and the Nevada Supreme Court approved, a valuation methodology based upon "three months gross receipts." Some points are obvious, such as how long the member has been in the jurisdiction, where the member does his banking, and where he sends his children to school. Investing in local businesses, contributing to local charities, or joining voluntary organizations such as church, civil, professional, or fraternal organizations, indicate ties to the community. Getting married, or buying a burial plot in a place might be construed as evidence of residential intent. The wife died intestate in February 1934. The wife was survived by her husband and daughter. The husband was made the administrator of the estate. The husband, as the administrator, requested distribution of the estate which was primarily two fractional city lots which he claimed as community and should be distributed to him as the surviving husband. The daughter objected claiming that the property was the separate property of her mother. The district court decided that the property was community property. P> Instead, it speaks only to the Social Security law permitting garnishments, a much more cumbersome procedure.1 The DFAS guidance notes that the order cannot be the divorce This was a case involving the interpretation of NRS 125B.050(3). The noncustodial parents were subject to child support obligations pursuant to orders entered prior to July 1, 1987. In late 1994, the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office began notifying the noncustodial parents of its intent to enforce their support obligations on behalf of the custodial parents. A URESA master determined that pursuant to McKellar v. McKellar, 110 Nev. 200, 871 P.2d 296 (1994), each appellant was barred from recovering child support payments that had accrued more than six years prior to the commencement of each action. The district court determined that the masters correctly interpreted McKellar, and affirmed. Ms. Rivero then requested that the district court judge recuse herself. When the judge refused to recuse herself, Ms. Rivero moved to disqualify her. The Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court denied Ms. Rivero's motion for disqualification, concluding that it lacked merit. The district court later awarded Mr. Rivero attorney fees for having to defend Ms. Rivero's disqualification motion. paying any portion of the premium, directly or indirectly.1 The former spouse is still over-secured, as in the prior scenario, and the parties are still left in an unequal position regarding risks and burdens, since the member still has an entirely free survivorship interest on the spouse’s life, and she is paying the entire premium for the survivorship interest on the member’s life. Courts in other states, such as California and Idaho, ruled that no common law remedy existed for such persons. These rulings led to passage of "window" statutes specifically permitting those divorced during the gap a limited time to relitigate the division or non-division of the retirement benefits.12 Nevada passed the first such statute, which expired after only six months, in 1983. Illinois enacted the most recent window period, which closed in January, 1989. Second, by way of Concurrent Receipt (also called "Concurrent Disability Pay," or "CDP," but later re-titled "Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay" or "CRDP"),6 all retirees with 20 years of service and VA disability ratings of 50% or higher, had their retired pay offsets phased out over a ten year period. In other words, the military retired pay previously waived for disability pay would be slowly restored, until the retirees were receiving both their full retired pay and the VA disability payments. Because the restored money is the fully-divisible longevity retired pay that was waived for VA benefits in the first place, it is "retired pay." The blurring and blending of tests and terminology from the UCCJEA and the Hague Convention in the UCAPA seems likely to promote some confusion among courts and counsel as to what legitimate objectives and arguments might be raised in which kinds of proceedings. Counsel must be diligent in seeing that proceedings under all three laws remain focused on the legitimate objectives of the proceedings. It is certainly not the State Bar employees running the fee dispute resolution program. They have been universally friendly, responsive, and helpful. But they have no authority to actually get anything done. The lesson for individuals who obtained retirement benefit division orders from someone who might not be entire informed in the field is to have those orders checked - preferably before retirement, and certainly before anyone dies, at a consultation with this office or someone else the time and effort to be well versed in the field. You can find Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA Disability Benefits and Concurrent Receipt The Marren and Page Case List Gepford v Gepford The Marren and Page Case List Schwartz v Schwartz Jones v Jones Trent v Tre The Marren and Page Case List Woods v Bromley and Smolen v Smolen How to Allocate the SBP Premium Cost-Shifting An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section III Subsection A The Marren and Page Case List Petition of Fuller Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Opinion The Marren and Page Case List Marine Midland Bank v Monroe York v York and Whether the Removal or Retention was Wrongful Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection Conclusion Rivero v Rivero Opinion II B What Almost Happened to Child Support in Nevada and Why We Still Have to Fi Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map In Search of a Coherent Theoretical Model for Alimony Section II Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP Survivorship Benefits for the TSP The Marren and Page Case List Finley v Finley Ballin v Ballin and Day v Day Hedlund Brief Amicus Discussion of Issues Military Reservists Motion to File Errata on Rivero |