 
|
|
 |
Case Summaries
Family Law
[10/10]
Lamour v. Peake
Denial of a request to reopen a claim for survivor benefits as the spouse of a veteran is vacated and remanded where the issue of whether claimant and decedent had a valid marriage was not considered with application of the "deemed valid" criteria in the relevant regulation, and since this aspect was the sole basis of the rejection of claimant's petition to reopen her claim.
[09/30]
M.V. v. Superior Court of California
In a family law matter brought by mother seeking reunification with her infant after her incarceration and deportation for engaging in consensual sexual intercourse with a 15-year old boy, petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order and to issue a new and different order continuing reunification services to a 12-month review is affirmed where the court erred in terminating reunification services and setting a .26 hearing by applying the 12-month review standard pursuant to section 366.21, subdivisions (f) and (g), instead of the six-month review standard pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e).
[09/25]
In Re: Amendments to Fla. R. Juv. P.
Recommended amendments to the Rules of Juvenile Procedure to conform the rules and forms to recent legislation are adopted with a sixty-day comment period.
[09/25]
US v. Kerley
Conviction for failure to pay a child support obligation is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court did not err in its rulings as to the good faith defense; 2) the rule of lenity required the court to vacate the conviction on the second count of the offense; and 3) although the district court correctly applied the loss amount and obstruction of justice enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines, the court erred in concluding that the vulnerable victim enhancement was applicable.
[09/23]
In re Shane G.
Juvenile court judgment terminating parental rights to minor son is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship and beneficial sibling relationship exceptions did not apply to preclude terminating their parental rights; and 2) reversal is required because the court failed to ensure proper notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
More...
|
|
|
