I visited Family Court in Providence on October 13, 2015 during the afternoon. The morning prior, I called the Clerk’s Office in order to ensure that there would be at least one case for me to observe around 1:00 PM. Although the woman on the phone was somewhat rude and condescending, she assured me that this was an appropriate time to go. Unfortunately, when I arrived, I was informed that all courtrooms were on a recess for lunch and would not resume until 2:00. Slightly frustrated, I sat down on the fifth floor and kept busy until it was time to go inside. While waiting, I noticed numerous people running out of the courtrooms crying and somewhat yelling due to the emotional content that was going to be discussed during their case. This was …show more content…
It was decided that the mother would have primary custody of him, but the father would be allowed to see him on mutually-designated days, generally once or twice per week. However, the man, who was the prosecution, claimed his ex-wife was denying him the visitation for a multitude of reasons, including him being late as he had just worked an overnight shift and was forced to stay for extra time, not waiting long enough for her to show up when she herself was not on time, or simply just refusing to comply with the rules. This really frustrated the man, as he claimed to be following the agreement to the best of ability. Eventually, because there were so many issues arising, they chose to meet at the Pawtucket police station in case a hostile or dangerous situation arose. However, the ex-wife had a different story to tell. She said she always allowed visitation, except in rare circumstances that were out of her control, such as when her ex-husband was late and she had to get to work herself. In addition, she claimed he was very disrespectful towards her and threatened to take their son away for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, I could not stay to see how the hearing played out, but it was very difficult for me to side with a specific person. Both had very strong opinions and reasons to back them up, but it was unclear if one specific person was truly at fault or if it were
CUSTODY AGREEMENT Richards vs. Edwards 1. Under no kind of circumstances should any of Eran Gregory Edwards, date of birth 7/15/1980 girlfriends such as; Jessica Janette Parish Fine, date of birth 09/25/1986, be allowed anywhere at any time around Addilyn Grace Edwards, date of birth 02/25/2015, due to the following; Criminal records, Ignition Interlock Device, violence, and drug use. 2. Under no circumstances should Addilyn Grace Edwards be able to stay at any time with Eran Gregory Edwards without supervision including visitation and overnight, due to the following; Jessica Janette Parish Fine, Criminal records, Ignition Interlock Device, anger issues, alcohol and drug use. 3.
Father objected to the move arguing that the move exceeded the limitations presented by A.R.S. 25-408 because Payson is approximately 138 miles from Eagar (Father’s place of residence). He petitioned the court to prevent the relocation of the children with Mother. The court denied Father’s request as the distance of the move from Show Low to Payson is 90 miles, less than the 100 mile limitation per Arizona
In Wyman v. James, the Supreme Court held that the beneficiary of the Aid to the Families with the Dependent Children must allow a house visit by a case manager, when the law requires it, or relinquish her entitlement to open help. The Supreme Court did not view it as a pursuit in fourth amendment terms. Regardless of the possibility that the visit were a pursuit, the Court said it was sensible: it was made for the advantage of the kid; it was "a gentle means" of guaranteeing that duty stores are appropriately spent; the case manager was not a "uniformed authority"; and the beneficiary had the decision of summoning her entitlement to decline or relinquishing the advantages. Three contradicting Justices (William Douglas, William Brennan, Thurgood
The records of the Chicago’s Women’s Club show that in 1891 Mrs. Perry Smith, a member of the CWC recommended the creation of a juvenile court so that children “might be saved from contamination of association with older criminals” (Platt, 2009, p. 128). Furthermore, other members of the CWC persuaded Judge Richard Tuthill to hold a separate court for children on Saturday mornings (Platt, 2009). The CWC assigned a representative to this special court who acted in the capacity of probation officer and adviser to the judge. Judge Tuthill was later quoted in the Annals of the Chicago Women’s Club as saying about the CWC that: The work of this noble organization was initial, persistent and effective.
The court case, Kent vs. United States took place in 1966. This case was about Morris Kent, a 16-year-old boy who had been on probation since he was fourteen. Morris has just been arrested again for three counts of home burglary, three counts of robbery, and two counts of rape in the state of Washington. Because of the seriousness of his charges and the fact that he had been in court before, prosecutors attempted to have Morris tried in adult court. Because of this, Kent's lawyer told the judge that he had a mental illness while committing these crimes, he wanted Morris to stay in juvenile court, where the penalties would be much less severe.
During the hearing, my heart ached for the mother and the newborn. It was a struggle for me to fully grasp the fact that the state could take a newborn away from its mother. As the hearing continued I tried to put aside my emotions and continued listening to the judge. When the judge began communicating to the mother, I was shocked by what was said. This mother
The prosecution approximately took 1 hour ending early because some were ready to go home and eat supper. Ms. Bradley left immediately back home after giving her testimony because she knew that there would not be a chance of justice being made of her son’s
Judge Richard Cappelli 201 W. Front St. Media, Pa. 19063 (610) 891-4042 was advised of the identity of Investigator Sean P. Brennan and of the confidential nature and purpose of the interview, Cappelli, provided the following information: Judge Cappelli was a MDJ from November 1992 until he was elected to the Common Pleas Court in May 2014. Cappelli knows Judge Vann from when he was a MDJ and they would cover for one another over the course of time. Cappelli doesn’t know Vann outside of work, he never socialized with her. Cappelli vaguely recalls the circumstances involved when Vann called him and asked him to do an arraignment for her because she had some sort of conflict.
On 11/15/15 at approximately 1257 hours, I, Offcier Artaz responded to 727 Labor Street in reference to a disturbance. This location is in the City of Delta, County of Delta and the State of Colorado. I arrived on scene , and contacted Deborah Dugas (DOB 08/16/71). Deborah told me that her and her son, Spencer Bachman (DOB 11/20/88), had gotten into a verbal agument. Deborah advised that Spencer has a restraining order, that prohibits him from drinking alcohol.
A. Ms. Baston stood “in loco parentis” to Ms. Duram because she provided food, clothing, transportation, and took an active role in her granddaughter’s life dissimilar from what many grandparents do without assuming a parental role. In addition to establishing that Ms. Duram cared for her grandmother, she will likely be able to establish that her grandmother satisfies the definition of a “parent” under the FMLA. Signs Inc. contends that the FMLA does not authorize FMLA leave to care for grandparents. However, a parent under the FMLA can mean “the biological parent of an employee or an individual who stood ‘in loco parentis’ to an employee when the employee was a son or daughter.”
The problem arose when the parents were dissatisfied with the due process hearing;
One of the most challenging trials Taylor experiences is the struggle to legally adopt Turtle. After Turtle almost gets molested while at the park with Edna, Taylor and Turtle start going to therapy with Cynthia, a social worker. During one of these sessions, Cynthia informs Taylor that the state has discovered that Turtle has no legal guardian. Not only is this true, “But there was other bad news. During the third week of sessions with Cynthia she informed me that it had recently come to the attention of the Child Protection Services Division of the Department of Economic Security...that I had no legal claim to Turtle” (Kingsolver 233).
I had the opportunity to visit a Kankakee County Domestic Violence Court on February 24, 2016. The purpose of this assignment was to challenge me to think about social justice, oppression, and discrimination related to individuals and families as well as social service providers in the court system. The purpose of the Domestic Violence Court was designed to improve the safety of victims and their families through related family issues, such as custody, visitation, civil protection orders, divorce, and enhance offender accountability. My general observations of the court proceedings was that it was located on the third floor in room 309.
Tuesday morning was an exciting, yet scary day to get started. The night before I was scouring the web, trying to figure out the details I needed to know such as how to get there, the court schedule that morning, what time I had to leave my apartment, what I had to take note of while I was there, etc. I did not want to waste my time being clueless at the courthouse, not knowing where to go or what to do. I wanted to be prepared for anything because I did not know what to expect. Growing up, I watched television shows like Law & Order: SVU, Suits, and How to Get Away with Murder, but never have I ever been to an actual courthouse and observed a case or hearing.
I learned that if one wants to observe court they must attend early in the morning. My first attempt to observe court was a failure. I leaned that court cases start early therefore, I needed to be there first thing in the morning. I also found that with each trip I made to the courthouse, it was filled