#379 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 31, 2012, Part 4 of 6
May 3, 2013
The first case illustrates the rarely seen doctrine of equitable estoppel. However, when this doctrine appears, it always seems to be in the context of paternity, at least in family court proceedings. The crux of this doctrine, in family law, is this: what is the child's perspective?
The second case involves another TPR petition.
Continue reading "#379 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 31, 2012, Part 4 of 6" »
The first case is the classic application of Tropea to the fact pattern. Mom wants to relocate. Dad opposes the relocation. Mom has a number of factors she needs to prove in order to be able to relocate.
We'll call this one Bad Father, Good Father.
The first case asks more questions than it answers. It also illustrates the dangers of an inartfully drafted stipulation of settlement that makes assumptions about the law.
Sometimes, things are not always as they appear. And, sometimes, decisions are not as clear as they really need to be. And, sometimes, it makes one wonder what the hell is really going on.
The first case illustrates what occurs in an FCA Article 10 case when a non-final order is appealed and then the underlying case is resolved. It also shows the importance of appealing dispositive orders.
The first case involves a very stupid person who rolled the dice and lost. Big time.
The first case is concerns how joint legal custody can easily become sole legal custody when one parent decides that they are not going to be cooperative with the other parent.
The first case involves ... another sex offender. Jesus, they're everywhere! I think you know the drill: affirmed.
The first case is one concerning a sex offender appealing his risk assessment level. Silly sex offender.
The first case is short and sweet. Here's an idea: if you don't want to be found in willful violation of an order of child support, then it is probably best not to admit to being in arrears on the record. D'oh!
The first case illustrates the confluence of money, estrangement, and counsel fees in family court.
And now, for something completely different! Cue the "Monty Python" music.
Here are two relocation cases, both involving mothers who ultimately lose custody.
The first case is a standard, garden variety FCA Article 6 case - but with a twist with regard to what it does not state.
