Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
555 results for '* topic:"Family Law"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2020-06-22
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Stevens
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0647
Appellant argued second judge erred in holding a full evidentiary hearing and in not applying the law of the case doctrine in PFA hearing and court found the law of the case doctrine did not apply because first judge recused herself and made no judicial determination but merely granted the parties' request to include the terms of their agreement in her order continuing the proceedings and governing authority required second judge to conduct a hearing on the underlying merits of the PFA petition. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-06-22
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Murray
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0638
Evidence sufficient to adjudicate defendant delinquent for sexual abuse of children where investigating detective testified as to cybertip that explained the means by which defendant committed the abuse and included excerpts of online conversations in which defendant discussed her conduct in real time. Dispositional order affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-06-22
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Murray
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0643
Trial court did not abuse discretion in finding child a victim of child abuse committed by parents after trial court credited medical testimony opining that child's injuries were consistent with non-accidental trauma and ruling out underlying medical conditions that could have facilitated those injuries. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-06-15
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
Judge: Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0494
The court denied, as untimely, defendant's motion for reconsideration of a protection from abuse order since under §6117 of the Protection from Abuse Act, aggrieved parties must either file an appeal or motion to reconsider within 30 days, and the motion itself must be acted upon within those 30 days. The court dismissed defendant's motion.
Publication Date: 2020-06-15
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Shogan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0608
Challenge to notice of the prosecuted statute and to the sufficiency of evidence did not constitute a non-waivable challenge to the legality of a dispositional order and thus the issues were waived for failing to raise an objection in the trial court. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2020-06-15
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Bowes
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0610
Trial court erred in deviating downward from alimony pendente lite guidelines where obligor husband failed to present evidence the guideline amount was inappropriate and unjust and where the trial court merely concluded wife did not need the full guideline amount to meet her expenses. Order of the trial court affirmed in part and reversed in part, case remanded for further proceedings.
Publication Date: 2020-06-08
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
Judge: Judge Masland
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0463
Even though wife resided in the family home after the parties' separation, husband's payment of the mortgage did not warrant a reduction in his interim support obligation. The court dismissed husband's exceptions to the support master's report and recommendations.
Publication Date: 2020-06-08
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
Judge: Judge Hyams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0489
The court sustained husband's exception to the support master's report and recommendations regarding the payment of health insurance premiums, but denied other exceptions pertaining to the payment of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses and husband's credits for his period of unemployment.
Publication Date: 2020-06-08
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Lazarus
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0590
Trial court erred in involuntarily terminating parental rights and changing permanency goal to adoption where parent was in substantial compliance with service plan and Department of Human Services' failure to notify mother of specific deficiencies in her compliance efforts meant that DHS failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunify parent and child. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
Publication Date: 2020-06-08
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
Judge: Judge Masland
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0464
Where father was held in contempt for failing to report a "significant change" in his income and the case was remanded for a calculation of arrearages due, a support master properly conducted only a calculation of arrearages and did not err in failing to consider the complete components of the child support calculations. The court of common pleasdismissed father's exceptions.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read