About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/alifm0033 and id is 1 raw text is: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TOPIC 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 1.02 Written Findings Required to Explain Exceptions Cal.App.2018. Cit. in case quot. in sup.; corns. (a) and (b) quot. in sup. In child-custody proceedings, mother appealed after the family court ruled that father was a domestic abuser, but then awarded custody jointly to father and mother, with father getting most of the visitation time. This court reversed and remanded for a new hearing, holding that the family court was required to state the specific reasons for its decision on the record or in writing if it determined that the evidence rebutted the statutory presumption against awarding custody to a parent who had committed domestic violence. The court noted that, under the Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution § 1.02, courts were required to assume that, if a parent inflicted domestic abuse, limits on the parent's access were necessary to protect the child or the other parent from harm, and written findings were required to support any allocation of custodial or decision-making responsibility to an abusive parent, which justified allocation in light of the assumed danger of the parent's behaviors. Jaime G. v. H.L., 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 217, 218, 220. CHAPTER 2. THE ALLOCATION OF CUSTODIAL AND DECISIONMAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHILDREN TOPIC 4. MODIFICATION OF PARENTING PLAN § 2.17 Relocation of a Parent Vt.2018. Subsec. (1) quot. in case quot. in diss. op. In post-divorce proceedings, mother who shared physical and legal rights and responsibilities for two children with father filed a motion to modify the parties' parent-child contact schedule following her move to a home that was located two-and-a-half hours away. After a hearing, the trial court transferred the right to choose the children's residence and school from mother to father and reconfigured the contact schedule to reduce mother's time with the children from 60% to 20%. This court reversed and remanded for the trial court to set a new parent-child contact schedule, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by modifying the parties' parental rights and responsibilities, because mother's motion did not raise that issue. The dissent argued that the trial court properly transferred the children's primary residence and the legal right to choose their school under the Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution § 2.17, because mother's move constituted a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances. Bonk v. Bonk, 183 A.3d 600, 609. COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AgI Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most