• Liao v. Attorney Gen. U.S.A.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-25
    Practice Area: Family Law | Immigration Law
    Industry: Federal Government | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Shwartz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1562

    The Bureau of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding that petitioner was subject to removal due to his Pennsylvania conviction for endangering the welfare of a child because comparing the Pennsylvania statute to the offense of "child abuse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act showed the elements of the two statutes did not match and the statute under which petitioner was convicted did not fit within the definition of "child abuse" under §1227(a)(2)(E)(i) and there was no need to conduct a probability inquiry. Petition granted.

  • Chavez v. Chavez

    Publication Date: 2018-12-25
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Higgins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1457

    Wife's cohabitation did not constitute remarriage under the terms of the parties' marital settlement agreement. The court denied husband's request to terminate his alimony obligation because the parties' agreement was unambiguous.

  • In re Termination of Parental Rights to T.L.C.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-18
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1539

    Trial court properly terminated father's parental rights to the oldest and youngest children but erred in terminating his rights to middle child because she opposed the termination and the attorney for the children erred in serving as middle child's GAL and legal counsel. Vacated in part and affirmed in part.

  • Ashline v. TriState Envelope Corp., et al

    Publication Date: 2018-12-10
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
    Judge: District Judge Schwab
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1494

    Since plaintiff's divorce decree was not a qualified domestic relations order, which would have been exempt from the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, she was not a beneficiary under ERISA through her divorce decree. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss.

  • In the Interest of K.M.R. & J.L.A.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-04
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Family Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1410

    In this juvenile dependency proceeding, the court did not commit any error with regard to the children's testimony, and mother failed to show she met the requirements of the reunification plan.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Insurance Law 2024

    Authors: George J. Kenny, Frank A. Lattal

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re: Adoption of K.C., a minor

    Publication Date: 2018-12-04
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1436

    Involuntary termination of parental rights affirmed where credible evidence demonstrated parent made only one inappropriate attempt to contact child in the six months prior to filing of the termination petition. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • In the Interest of Q.R.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-04
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Family Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1446

    Trial court erred in ordering the incarceration of appellant until her grandchild, who allegedly was a member of her household, was surrendered to the custody of Department of Human Services because appellant did not have custody of the grandchild, child's mother had custody and was not a subject of the adjudicatory hearing before the trial court and the juvenile act did not provide for the incarceration of a non-custodial grandparent to compel a grandchild's surrender. Reversed.

  • Commonwealth v. Ortiz

    Publication Date: 2018-12-04
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Saylor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1430

    The intermediate court did not err in overturning defendant's conviction for kidnapping of a minor under §2901(a.1)(2) of the Crimes Code since the crime of interference with custody of children committed by a biological parent cannot serve as a predicate felony to support such a conviction. The high court affirmed the appellate court's ruling.

  • Cruz v. Melendez

    Publication Date: 2018-10-30
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lebanon County
    Judge: Judge Charles
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1152

    The court imposed a parallel parenting program for the shared custody of the parties' minor child, where the parties had a history of conflict. The custody order included provisions for the involvement of a guardian ad litem on behalf of the child.

  • In re: Adoption of: N.N.H.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-23
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1265

    Mother's petition to involuntarily terminate father's parental rights correctly denied where mother failed to demonstrate that father's conduct warranted termination, where a single threat of violence was insufficient to warrant the drastic step of termination and for the prior six months father had diligently pursued custody rights to exercise his parental duties. Order of the orphans' court affirmed.