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

Case Citations 1 (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/alifm0034 and id is 1 raw text is: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION CHAPTER 2. THE ALLOCATION OF CUSTODIAL AND DECISIONMAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHILDREN TOPIC 1. SCOPE, OBJECTIVES, DEFINITIONS, AND PARTIES § 2.03. Definitions Me.2019. Com. (c) quot. in sup. Mother's former boyfriend sought a determination of parentage, parental rights, and responsibilities with respect to a child mother adopted as a single parent when she and boyfriend lived together, alleging that, although the child spent every other weekend and some of her vacations with boyfriend for several years after mother moved out with the child, his opportunities for visitation had become increasingly inconsistent. The trial court granted mother's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, finding that boyfriend was not the child's de facto parent, because mother did not allow him to adopt the child and did not regard him as the child's father. This court vacated and remanded, holding that there were disputes of fact as to whether mother understood, acknowledged, or accepted that a bonded and dependent relationship had been established between boyfriend and the child, and whether she behaved as though boyfriend was the child's parent. The court explained that, under Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution § 2.03, failure to adopt a child when it would have been possible was some evidence, although not dispositive, that a legal parent did not agree to the formation of a de facto parent relationship. Young v. King, 208 A.3d 762, 766. CHAPTER 5. COMPENSATORY SPOUSAL PAYMENTS TOPIC 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS § 5.02. Objective Nev.2019. Com. (a) quot. in sup. In divorce proceedings, the trial court entered a decree in which it divided the parties' community property unequally on the ground that former husband had dissipated funds on extramarital affairs, and awarded former wife alimony to compensate for economic losses as a result of the marriage and divorce, even though she did not need alimony to support herself. This court reversed in part as to the alimony award, holding that, while alimony could be just and equitable even when not based on financial need, it was undisputed that former wife's share of community property would produce passive income sufficient to maintain her marital standard of living. The court cited Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution § 5.02 in noting that courts could reach very different figures for a spouse's needs, depending on whether those needs were measured at a subsistence level, a level that the court believed to be objectively reasonable, or the actual subjective marital standard of living, and explained that the Nevada legislature had granted trial courts the power to award alimony as appeared just and equitable. Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, 439 P.3d 397, 402-403. COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved 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