DOCSLIB.ORG

Chickasaw Nation Code Title 6, Chapter 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chickasaw Nation Code Title 6, Chapter 2 Domestic Relations & Families (Amended as of 08/20/2021) CHICKASAW NATION CODE TITLE 6 "6. DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILIES" CHAPTER 1 MARRIAGE ARTICLE A DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE Section 6-101.1 Title. Section 6-101.2 Jurisdiction. Section 6-101.3 Areas of Jurisdiction. Section 6-101.4 Applicable Law. Section 6-101.5 Definitions of Marriage; Common Law Marriage. Section 6-101.6 Actions That May Be Brought; Remedies. Section 6-101.7 Consanguinity. Section 6-101.8 Persons Having Capacity to Marry. Section 6-101.9 Marriage Between Persons of Same Gender Not Recognized. Section 6-101.10 Grounds for Divorce. Section 6-101.11 Petition; Summons. Section 6-101.12 Notice of Pendency Contingent upon Service. Section 6-101.13 Special Notice for Actions Pending in Other Courts. Section 6-101.14 Pleadings. Section 6-101.15 Signing of Pleadings. Section 6-101.16 Defense and Objections; When and How Presented; by Pleadings or Motions; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Section 6-101.17 Reserved. Section 6-101.18 Lost Pleadings. Section 6-101.19 Reserved. Section 6-101.20 Reserved. Section 6-101.21 Reserved. Section 6-101.22 Reserved. Section 6-101.23 Reserved. Page 6-1 Domestic Relations & Families Section 6-101.24 Reserved. Section 6-101.25 Reserved. Section 6-101.26 Reserved. Section 6-101.27 Summons, Time Limit for Service. Section 6-101.28 Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers. Section 6-101.29 Computation and Enlargement of Time. Section 6-101.30 Legal Newspaper. Section 6-101.31 Answer May Allege Cause; New Matters Verified by Affidavit. Section 6-101.32 Petition for Divorce to Allege Causes Following Language of Statute Without Statement of Facts; Bill of Particulars. Section 6-101.33 Divorce, Separate Maintenance and Annulment Cases; Delayed Final Orders; Waivers; Exceptions. Section 6-101.34 Reserved. Section 6-101.35 Proceeding for Disposition of Actions with Minor Children. Section 6-101.36 Reserved. Section 6-101.37 Best Interest of Child Considered in Awarding Custody or Appointing Guardian - Joint Custody - Plan - Mediation. Section 6-101.38 Custody of Child during Separation Without Divorce. Section 6-101.39 Determination of Paternity, Custody and Child Support. Section 6-101.40 Reserved. Section 6-101.41 Presumption that Man is the Natural Father. Section 6-101.42 Persons Entitled to Dispute Presumption - Time Limit. Section 6-101.43 Establishment of Paternity by Child. Section 6-101.44 Orders Concerning Property, Children, Support and Expenses. Section 6-101.45 Policy for Equal Access to the Minor Children by Parents. Section 6-101.46 Indirect Contempt for Disobeying Property Division Orders. Section 6-101.47 Order to Provide Minimum Visitation for Noncustodial Parent; Violation of Order. Section 6-101.48 Reserved. Section 6-101.49 Enforcement of Visitation Rights of Noncustodial Parent. Section 6-101.50 Child Support Enforcement Department Recognized; Duties. Section 6-101.51 Care, Custody and Support of Minor Children. Section 6-101.52 Reserved. Section 6-101.53 Evidence of Domestic Abuse Considered - Rebuttable Presumption. Section 6-101.54 Preference of Child Considered in Custody or Visitation Actions. Section 6-101.55 Interest on Delinquent Child Support and Judgments for Support. Section 6-101.56 Restoration of Maiden or Former Name; Alimony; Property Division. Section 6-101.57 Separate Property. Section 6-101.58 Divorce Dissolves Marriage Contract and Bars Property Claims; Exception for Actual Fraud. Section 6-101.59 Unlawful to Marry Within 6 Months from Date of Divorce Decree; Page 6-2 Domestic Relations & Families Penalty for Remarriage and Cohabitation; Appeal. Section 6-101.60 Reserved. Section 6-101.61 Remarriage as Ground for Annulment. Section 6-101.62 Time When Judgment is Final in Divorce; Appeal. Section 6-101.63 Action to Void Marriage Due to Incapacity. Section 6-101.64 Alimony Without Divorce. Section 6-101.65 Evidence in Divorce or Alimony Actions. Section 6-101.66 Residency in Divorce Action. Section 6-101.67 Reserved. Section 6-101.68 Dissolution of Divorce Decree. Section 6-101.69 Alimony Payments; Termination; Modification. Section 6-101.70 Reserved. Section 6-101.71 Reserved. Section 6-101.72 Past Due Support Payments as Judgment; Arrearage Payment Schedule. Section 6-101.73 Costs in Child Support Enforcement Cases. Section 6-101.74 Reserved. Section 6-101.75 Contracts Altering Legal Relations Not Allowed; Exceptions. Section 6-101.76 Mutual Consent as Consideration. Section 6-101.77 Husband and Wife; Joint Tenants, Tenants in Common or Community Property; Separate Property; Inventory and Filing. Section 6-101.78 Liability for Acts and Debts of the Other Spouse; Curtesy and Dower Not Allowed at Death. Section 6-101.79 Reserved. Section 6-101.80 Reserved. Section 6-101.81 Reserved. Section 6-101.82 Reserved. Section 6-101.83 Reserved. Section 6-101.84 Reserved. Section 6-101.85 Ex parte Orders; Writs of Habeas Corpus. Section 6-101.86 Jurisdiction Asserted in More than One Venue. Section 6-101.87 Reciprocity. Section 6-101.88 Registration of Foreign Determination of Child Custody. Section 6-101.89 Enforcement. Section 6-101.90 Child Support. ARTICLE B CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES Section 6-102.1 Purpose. Section 6-102.2 Child Support Orders to Include Provision for Income Assignment - Voluntary Income Assignment. Page 6-3 Domestic Relations & Families Section 6-102.3 Child Support Orders to Include Provision for Health Insurance and Day Care Expenses. Section 6-102.4 Security or Bond for Payment of Child Support. Section 6-102.5 Modification, Suspension or Termination of Income Assignment Order. Section 6-102.6 Child Support Guidelines. Section 6-102.7 Dependent Minor Child. Section 6-102.8 Reserved. Section 6-102.9 Reserved. Section 6-102.10 Child Support Guideline Schedule. Section 6-102.11 Reserved. Section 6-102.12 Child Support Computation Form. Section 6-102.13 Children not Otherwise Considered. CHAPTER 2 DEPRIVED CHILDREN ARTICLE A GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 6-201.1 Purpose. Section 6-201.2 Indian Child Welfare. Section 6-201.3 Title IV-E Federal Funding for Child Welfare Services. Section 6-201.4 Definitions. Section 6-201.5 Jurisdiction for Deprived Child Proceedings Originating in the Chickasaw Nation District Court. Section 6-201.6 Written Consent to Jurisdiction. Section 6-201.7 Child Welfare Transfers from Another Court. Section 6-201.8 Child Welfare Transfers to Tribal or State Court. Section 6-201.9 Placement Preferences. Section 6-201.10 Extended Family Defined. Section 6-201.11 Notice of Legal Rights. Section 6-201.12 Prosecutor Duties. Section 6-201.13 Procedure. Section 6-201.14 Reasonable Efforts. Section 6-201.15 Hearings. Section 6-201.16 Court Reports. Section 6-201.17 Confidential Records. Section 6-201.18 Inspection of Court Records. Section 6-201.19 Search Warrants for the Protection of Children. Section 6-201.20 Issuance and Return of Search Warrant. Page 6-4 Domestic Relations & Families Section 6-201.21 Expiration of Search Warrant. Section 6-201.22 Appeals. Section 6-201.23 Voluntary Foster Care Authorized. Section 6-201.24 Multi-Disciplinary Team. Section 6-201.25 Members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team. Section 6-201.26 Duties of the Multi-Disciplinary Team. ARTICLE B CHILD ABUSE REPORTING Section 6-202.1 Persons Required to Report Child Abuse or Child Neglect. Section 6-202.2 Evidence of Abuse. Section 6-202.3 Immunity from Liability. Section 6-202.4 Reporting Procedures. Section 6-202.5 Central Registry. Section 6-202.6 Confidentiality of Child Abuse Reporting. ARTICLE C PROTECTIVE AND EMERGENCY CUSTODY Section 6-203.1 Protective Custody. Section 6-203.2 Emergency Custody. Section 6-203.3 Show Cause Hearing. Section 6-203.4 Placement of the Child. Section 6-203.5 Duration of Emergency Custody Order. Section 6-203.6 Paramount Concern. ARTICLE D ADJUDICATION Section 6-204.1 Prosecutor Intake. Section 6-204.2 Petition Contents. Section 6-204.3 Petition Form. Section 6-204.4 Paternity. Section 6-204.5 Summons. Section 6-204.6 When Summons Unnecessary. Section 6-204.7 Additional Parties to Be Summoned. Section 6-204.8 Service of Summons. Section 6-204.9 Failure to Appear. Section 6-204.10 Appointment of Counsel. Section 6-204.11 Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem. Page 6-5 Domestic Relations & Families Section 6-204.12 Duties of the Guardian Ad Litem. Section 6-204.13 Compensation of the Guardian Ad Litem. Section 6-204.14 Adjudication Hearing. Section 6-204.15 Alternative Method of Testimony for a Child under the Age of Thirteen Years. Section 6-204.16 Hearsay Statements of a Child under the Age of Thirteen Years. Section 6-204.17 Sustaining Petition. Section 6-204.18 Appeal. Section 6-204.19 Continuing Jurisdiction. Section 6-204.20 Dismissal of Petition. Section 6-204.21 Diversion by Consent Decree. ARTICLE E DISPOSITION Section 6-205.1 Disposition Hearing. Section 6-205.2 Disposition Hearing Purpose. Section 6-205.3 Disposition Hearing Procedures. Section 6-205.4 Medical Examination. Section 6-205.5 Modifications. Section 6-205.6 Orders for Child Support. Section 6-205.7 Additional Orders. Section 6-205.8 Individualized Service Plan. Section 6-205.9 Traditional Custodians= and Grandparents= Rights Following Disposition. ARTICLE F PERMANENCY PLANNING, REASONABLE EFFORTS AND REVIEWS Section 6-206.1 Permanency Planning Review Hearings. Section 6-206.2 Concurrent Permanency Planning. Section 6-206.3 Reasonable Efforts Not Required in Certain Cases. Section 6-206.4 Reports. Section 6-206.5 Evidence for Permanency Planning Reviews. Section 6-206.6 Permanency Planning Review Orders.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • YOUR GUIDE to Divorce and Domestic Relations Orders 2021
    YOUR GUIDE TO Divorce and Domestic Relations Orders 2021 Powering Your Future, Together. What is the Denver Employees Retirement Plan? The Denver Employees Retirement Plan (DERP) was established January 1, 1963 to provide a defined benefit plan for eligible City and County of Denver employees in the Career Service, certain employees of the Denver Health and Hospital Authority, and DERP staff. As a trusted steward of the city’s pension plan for over 50 years, DERP has helped thousands of eligible employees build, plan, and live a strong retirement future through prudent investment management, exceptional member service, and a commitment to deliver retirement benefits to our members. The DERP team administers retirement, disability, and survivor benefits for eligible City and County of Denver employees in the Career Service, certain employees of the Denver Health and Hospital Authority, and DERP staff. Our Mission To provide promised retirement benefits and exceptional service to our members through prudent investment and administration. Our Vision To remain financially secure, to exceed evolving customer service expectations, and to be recognized as best in class among public retirement systems. Our Values • Adhere to diligent and prudent processes • Approach issues in a proactive and strategic manner • Communicate effectively • Cultivate accountability to each other and to all who rely on us • Demonstrate sound leadership in governing and managing the Pension Benefit • Ensure compliance with fiduciary standards of conduct • Exhibit professionalism
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Relations
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 9 Issue 3 Article 14 1958 Domestic Relations Hugh Alan Ross Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hugh Alan Ross, Domestic Relations, 9 W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 314 (1958) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol9/iss3/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW Uulne for is a nullity." Such practice was not a usurpation of the functions of the jury thereby infringing the right guaranteed by the Constitution. The amount of excess in this case did not imply that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice in their finding. EmGA I. KING DOMESTIC RELATIONS Interstate Divorce In the Esti'z and Krege cases the United States Supreme Court held that an ex parte divorce decree could not -terminate a prior alimony decree granted 'by another state. The Nevada decree denying alimony was not entitled to fall faith and credit, although the part of 'the decree which terminated the marital status was so entitled. The argument 'has been made that the Nevada decree was defective only because Nevada had failed to give full faith and credit to the prior New York alimony decree, and -therefore -the Nevada decree denying alimony would be en- titled to credit where there was no prior decree.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Evidence in Favour of Shared Parenting 2 of 12 Shared Parenting: Expert Evidence
    Expert evidence in favour of shared parenting 2 of 12 Shared Parenting: Expert Evidence Majority View of Psychiatrists, Paediatricians and Psychologists The majority view of the psychiatric and paediatric profession is that mothers and fathers are equals as parents, and that a close relationship with both parents is necessary to maximise the child's chances for a healthy and parents productive life. J. Atkinson, Criteria for Deciding Child Custody in the Trial and Appellate Courts, Family Law Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, American both Bar Association (Spring 1984). In a report that “summarizes and evaluates the major research concerning joint custody and its impact on children's welfare”, the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded that: “The research reviewed supports the conclusion that joint custody is parent is associated with certain favourable outcomes for children including father involvement, best interest of the child for adjustment outcomes, child support, reduced relitigation costs, and sometimes reduced parental conflict.” best The APA also noted that: the “The need for improved policy to reduce the present adversarial approach that has resulted in primarily sole maternal custody, limited father involvement and maladjustment of both children and parents is critical. Increased mediation, joint custody, and parent education are supported for this policy.” Report to the US Commission on Child and Family Welfare, American Psychological Association (June 14, 1995) The same American Psychological Association adopted
    [Show full text]
  • Child Custody and Visitation Procedures
    Kansas Legislator K a n s a s Briefing Book L e g i s l a t i v e R e s e a r c h 2015 D e p a r t m e n t D-1 Children and Youth Juvenile Services D-2 Child Custody and Visitation Procedures D-2 Child Custody In Kansas, “legal custody” is defined as “the allocation of parenting and Visitation responsibilities between parents, or any person acting as a parent, Procedures including decision making rights and responsibilities pertaining to matters of child health, education and welfare.” KSA 23-3211. Within that context, Kansas law distinguishes between “residency” and D-3 “parenting time.” Residency refers to the parent with whom the child Child in Need of lives, compared to parenting time, which consists of any time a parent Care Proceedings spends with a child. The term “visitation” is reserved for time nonparents are allowed to spend with a child. D-4 Adoption Initial Determination The standard for awarding custody, residency, parenting time, and visitation is what arrangement is in the “best interests” of the child. A trial judge can determine these issues when a petition is filed for: ● Divorce, annulment, or separate maintenance. KSA 23-2707 (temporary order); KSA 23-3206, KSA 23-3207, and KSA 23- 3208; ● Paternity. KSA 23-2215; ● Protection, pursuant to the Kansas Protection from Abuse Act (KPAA). KSA 60-3107(a)(4) (temporary order); ● Protection, in conjunction with a Child in Need of Care (CINC) proceeding. KSA 38-2243(a) (temporary order); KSA 38- 2253(a)(2)—for more information on CINC proceedings, see D-4; ● Guardianship of a minor.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 32 Domestic Relations Chapter 5 Annulment Of
    TITLE 32 DOMESTIC RELATIONS CHAPTER 5 ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE 32-501. GROUNDS OF ANNULMENT. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage: 1. That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was under the age of legal consent, and such marriage was contracted without the consent of his or her parents or guardian, or persons having charge of him or her; unless, after attaining the age of consent, such party for any time freely cohabits with the other as husband or wife; 2. That the former husband or wife of either party was living, and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force; 3. That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party, after com- ing to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife; 4. That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterward, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife; 5. That the consent of either party was obtained by force, unless such party afterwards freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife; 6. That either party was, at the time of marriage, physically incapable of entering into the married state, and such incapacity continues, and ap- pears to be incurable. [(32-501) 1874, p. 639, sec. 4; R.S., sec. 2450; reen. R.C. & C.L., sec. 2640; C.S., sec. 4620; I.C.A., sec. 31-501.] 32-502.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma Statutes Title 43. Marriage and Family
    OKLAHOMA STATUTES TITLE 43. MARRIAGE AND FAMILY §43-1. Marriage defined. ............................................................................................................................... 8 §43-2. Consanguinity. .................................................................................................................................... 8 §43-3. Who may marry. ................................................................................................................................. 8 §43-3.1. Recognition of marriage between persons of same gender prohibited. ....................................... 10 §43-4. License required. ............................................................................................................................... 10 §43-5. Application - Fees - Issuance of license and certificate. ................................................................... 10 §43-5.1. Premarital counseling. ................................................................................................................... 11 §43-6. License - Contents. ............................................................................................................................ 12 §43-7. Solemnization of marriages. ............................................................................................................. 13 §43-7.1. Refusal to solemnize or recognize marriage by religious organization officials - Definitions. ....... 14 §43-8. Endorsement and return of license. ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Parenting Laws: Mistakes of Pooling? Margaret F
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2014 Shared Parenting Laws: Mistakes of Pooling? Margaret F. Brinig Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Margaret F. Brinig, Shared Parenting Laws: Mistakes of Pooling?, Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 1426 (August 14, 2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1116 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shared Parenting Laws: Mistakes of Pooling? Margaret F. Brinig, Notre Dame Law School In their recent paper “Anti-Herding Regulation,” forthcoming in the Harvard Business Review,1 Ian Ayres and Joshua Mitts argue that many well-intentioned public policy regulations potentially harm rather than help situations. That is, because the rules seek to pool—or herd—groups of people, treating them as equal, they miss or mask important differences among the regulated, thus magnifying systematic risk. Anti- herding regulation, on the other hand, can produce socially beneficial information, in their words steering “both private and public actors toward better evidence-based outcomes.” Left to their own, or with various carrot-and-stick incentives, some groups, anyway, would instead fare better if allowed to separate or diverge. Ayres and Mitts buttress their case with examples from engineering (bridges collapsing because soldiers crossed them in cadences matched to the structures’ oscillations), finance (mandating only low percentages down for real estate purchasers), biodiversity and ecosystem stability, and genetic variation itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Postadoption Contact Agreements Between Birth and Adoptive Families
    STATE STATUTES Current Through August 2018 WHAT’S INSIDE Postadoption Contact States with enforceable Agreements Between Birth contact agreements Who may be a party to and Adoptive Families an agreement? Postadoption contact agreements are The court’s role in arrangements that allow contact or establishing and enforcing agreements communication between a child, his or her adoptive family, and members of the child’s When do States use birth family or other persons with whom the mediation? child has an established relationship, such as a foster parent, after the child’s adoption has Laws in States without been finalized. These arrangements, sometimes enforceable agreements referred to as cooperative adoption or open Summaries of State laws adoption agreements, can range from informal, mutual understandings between the birth and adoptive families to written, formal contracts. To find statute information for a particular State, go to https://www.childwelfare. gov/topics/systemwide/ laws-policies/state/. Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS 800.394.3366 | Email: [email protected] | https://www.childwelfare.gov Postadoption Contact Agreements Between Birth and Adoptive Families https://www.childwelfare.gov Agreements for postadoption contact or communication for contact after the finalization of an adoption.2 The have become more prevalent in recent years due to written agreements specify the type and frequency of several factors: contact and are signed by the parties to an adoption prior to finalization.3 There is wider recognition of the rights of birth parents to make choices for their children. Contact can range from the adoptive and birth parents Many adopted children, especially older children, exchanging information about a child (e.g., cards, letters, such as stepchildren and children adopted from foster and photos via traditional or social media) to the child care, have attachments to one or more birth relatives exchanging information or having visits with the birth with whom ongoing contact may be desirable and parents or relatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Family Systems Paradigm for Legal Decision Making Affecting Child Custody Susan L
    Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 6 Article 1 Issue 1 Fall 1996 Family Systems Paradigm for Legal Decision Making Affecting Child Custody Susan L. Brooks Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brooks, Susan L. (1996) "Family Systems Paradigm for Legal Decision Making Affecting Child Custody," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol6/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A FAMILY SYSTEMS PARADIGM FOR LEGAL DECISION MAKING AFFECTING CHILD CUSTODY Susan L. Brookst INTRODUCTION Sarah, a twelve-year-old child, was raped by the boyfriend of her mother, Ms. P.1 Ms. P. denied the rape. After an investigation, the state's department of human services filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that Sarah was dependent and neglected in that her mother failed to protect her from the perpetrator. The judge appointed a lawyer for Ms. P. and a separate Guardian Ad Litem ("GAL") lawyer to represent Sarah's "best interests." Despite Sarah's insistence that she wanted to remain with her mother, the judge ordered that Sarah be removed from Ms. P.'s home and placed in state custody.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Custody Arrangements: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say
    Land & Water Law Review Volume 31 Issue 2 Article 15 1996 Child Custody Arrangements: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say DeNece Day Koenigs Kimberly A. Harris Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation Koenigs, DeNece Day and Harris, Kimberly A. (1996) "Child Custody Arrangements: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 31 : Iss. 2 , pp. 591 - 621. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol31/iss2/15 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Koenigs and Harris: Child Custody Arrangements: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say Comment CHILD CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say INTRODUCTION In Wyoming, custody battles place judges and court commissioners in King Solomon's' position nearly everyday as they are asked to split children between divorcing parents.2 Of course, judges and commissioners do not wield swords, but they do use legal terms which are often inade- quate and misused.' Unfortunately, the modem day result, though not as graphic as that from the Bible, is just as severe. As many as one in every two marriages will result in divorce.4 Thirty percent of children today will be the focus of a custody decision., For too many of these children, their lives will be adversely affected by an improper custody arrangement caused by the erroneous use of the term "joint custody." 6 The law as it stands in Wyoming does not adequately consider the non-legal aspects of custody or give practitioners and judges the guidance necessary to make appropriate custody determinations.' Gurney v.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining Oklahoma's Maternal Preference Doctrine: Gordon V
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 13 Issue 4 National Energy Forum 1978: Government- Helping or Hurting? 1978 Examining Oklahoma's Maternal Preference Doctrine: Gordon v. Gordon Marcia Trotter Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marcia Trotter, Examining Oklahoma's Maternal Preference Doctrine: Gordon v. Gordon, 13 Tulsa L. J. 802 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol13/iss4/20 This Casenote/Comment is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Trotter: Examining Oklahoma's Maternal Preference Doctrine: Gordon v. Gord NOTES & COMMENTS EXAMINING OKLAHOMA'S MATERNAL PREFERENCE DOCTRINE: GORDON v. GORDON I. INTRODUCTION In the last decade, sex discrimination has been subjected to vary- ing degrees of constitutional review. Therefore it is not surprising that statutory influences on familial relationships which rely upon the dif- ferences in sex are being challenged on this basis. Thus a statute which creates a presumption that, all other things being equal, the mother shall be preferred over the father as the legal custodian of a young child may be attacked under the fourteenth amendment as a denial of equal protection. Recently, one such statute' withstood an equal protection review in Gordon v. Gordon.2 This note will analyze the decision rendered by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in this case. In so doing, it will be nec- essary to examine the application of this statute and the level of scru- tiny by which its constitutionality should be judged.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Comments on the Law of Domestic Relations in Texas Charles O
    SMU Law Review Volume 11 | Issue 3 Article 2 1957 Some Comments on the Law of Domestic Relations in Texas Charles O. Galvin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Charles O. Galvin, Some Comments on the Law of Domestic Relations in Texas, 11 Sw L.J. 291 (1957) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol11/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. SOME COMMENTS ON THE LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS IN TEXAS " by Charles 0. Galvin* T HE high rate of divorce in Texas should be of serious concern to the legal profession. The cynic may suggest that more divorces, property settlement agreements, child custody matters, and the like provide greater economic benefits to lawyers in fees. The grave dangers to the social system, however, far outweigh such selfish con- siderations. The lawyer knows that the sound and efficient administra- tion of justice depends upon stability in the social order, and this order becomes chaos as the family unit, which is the basis of or- ganized society, disintegrates. The destruction of the family affects not only the lives of a husband and wife and their offspring but also the social and economic burdens of the whole community. A higher rate of juvenile delinquency, a greater number of dependent and neglected children, and more complex problems concerning en- forcement of child support already strain the procedures and facili- ties provided by the state and those of private organizations at- tempting to grapple with these problems.
    [Show full text]