Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Yesennia Esmeralda Amaya V Milton Orlando Guerrero Rivera, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (July 3, 2019), Salma Granich
Yesennia Esmeralda Amaya V Milton Orlando Guerrero Rivera, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (July 3, 2019), Salma Granich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that under NRS 3.2203 (1) an order determining physical custody of a child satisfied the dependency or custody prong for Special Immigrant Juvenile predicate findings; and (2) in order to determine predicate findings, the reunification prong is satisfied where the juvenile cannot reunify with at least one parent.
Miller V. Miller, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 15, 2018), Anna Sichting
Miller V. Miller, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 15, 2018), Anna Sichting
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
When the parents share joint physical custody of one minor child but one of the parents has primary physical custody of the other minor child, the district court must use additional steps in order to properly utilize the statutory child support formula. Further, the courts must make specific findings of fact if they deviate from the standard statutory formula.
Harrison V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Jul. 28, 2016), Douglas H. Smith
Harrison V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Jul. 28, 2016), Douglas H. Smith
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that a district court’s written order concerning the custody of two minor children did not violate public policy when its stipulations provided (1) that it was within the discretion of each minor child, after reaching the age of 14, to decide how much time to spend with either of their divorced parents as long as the original arrangement for joint physical custody remained intact, and (2) that a “parent coordinator” would be appointed to resolve disputes and whose role could be defined by a written district court order. Three justices dissented that the first provision encroaches on …
Justice Miriam Shearing: Nevada's Trailblazing Minimalist, Mary E. Berkheiser
Justice Miriam Shearing: Nevada's Trailblazing Minimalist, Mary E. Berkheiser
Scholarly Works
Nevada Supreme Court Justice Miriam Shearing retired at the end of her second term on January 4, 2005. Over the nearly thirty years of her very public life on the bench, many have written of her accomplishments as the firs woman to enter the brotherhood of the Nevada judiciary. With Justice Sharing’s retirement, the time is ripe for an examination of her judicial decisions during the twelve years she served on the Nevada Supreme Court. The analysis here provides one perspective on her body of work. It begins, as it must, with a glimpse into the person behind the work.
Comparativist Ruminations From The Bayou On Child Custody Jurisdiction: The Uccja, The Pkpa, And The Hague Convention On Child Abduction, Christopher L. Blakesley
Comparativist Ruminations From The Bayou On Child Custody Jurisdiction: The Uccja, The Pkpa, And The Hague Convention On Child Abduction, Christopher L. Blakesley
Scholarly Works
Interstate and international jurisdictional problems are often vexing. They are worse in matters of child custody. In the past, jurisdiction to obtain custody or to modify a custody decree required only presence or domicile. The United States population is transient and custody decisions are subject to modification. The volatility of child custody disputes and the tendency of parents to move to different and separate jurisdictions traditionally caused and continue to cause difficult problems for children, parents, and the legal system. Before the promulgation of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), it was …
Child Custody - Jurisdiction And Procedure, Christopher L. Blakesley
Child Custody - Jurisdiction And Procedure, Christopher L. Blakesley
Scholarly Works
Custody determinations traditionally have comprised a subcategory of litigation under the Pennoyer v. Neff exception for proceedings relating to status. Of course, states have the power to decide the status of their domiciliaries. It was natural, therefore, for the courts and scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to consider domicile the sole basis of jurisdiction in custody matters. Gradually, judges and scholars began to challenge the notion that domicile was the sole basis and courts began to apply other bases, such as the child's presence in the state or personal jurisdiction over both parents. One commentator suggests that …
Medical Dependency In Arizona, Mary E. Berkheiser
Medical Dependency In Arizona, Mary E. Berkheiser
Scholarly Works
Analysis of In re Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J, 650 P.2d 459 (Ariz. 1982).