DOCSLIB.ORG

The Landscape of Domestic Relations Cases in State Courts Analyzed Family Court Caseloads from 11 Large, Urban Courts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Landscape of Domestic Relations Cases in State Courts Analyzed Family Court Caseloads from 11 Large, Urban Courts In collaboration with the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administra- tors (COSCA), this project was designed to assess the current landscape and promulgate recommendations to improve domestic relations proceedings, legislation, rules, and practices that impact resolutions for families. The Family Justice Initiative (FJI) will help guide courts toward improved outcomes for families while managing costs, controlling delays, and facilitating healthy outcomes. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC), the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) are working together to support the FJI Project. Project MISSION Copyright 2018 National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147 www.ncsc.org ISBN: 978-0-89656-311-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary i Introduction 01 Reform Efforts 03 Background to FJI 05 Data and Methods 06 Participating Sites 09 Findings 12 Contested versus Uncontested Cases 16 Representation Status 20 Initial and Reopened Cases 25 Conclusions 26 Acknowledgments 30 Appendices 31 Executive Summary Domestic relations cases are a key entry point by settlements (26%), then default judgments (17%). into the state court system for many American Time to disposition was examined at the 75th per- families. The characteristics of these cases have centile, which represents the time it takes for 75 changed rapidly over the last several decades, and percent of cases to dispose. This method was cho- the landscape of current domestic relations litiga- sen as averages are sensitive to extreme values tion is not fully understood. The positive response and medians often reflect optimistic standards for to the findings and subsequent recommendations comparison. The 75th percentile for time to dispo- of the CCJ Civil Justice Improvements Commit- sition across all cases was 263 days, or about 8 and tee prompted the CCJ/COSCA Joint Committee on a half months. Divorce cases typically have statu- Courts, Children and Families to initiate the Fam- tory waiting periods before a final decree can be ily Justice Initiative (FJI), which employs a similar issued. Each site’s statutory waiting period was methodology to domestic relations cases. An FJI factored into their divorce caseload by subtract- Task Force has been formed to develop recom- ing the minimum statutory waiting period from mendations for issues facing domestic relations the total time to disposition for divorce cases. The cases, and an FJI Landscape study was commis- adjusted time to disposition for divorce cases was sioned to provide the Task Force with information 170 days, or about five and a half months when ex- about domestic relations caseloads in state courts. cluding waiting periods. Overall, the cases includ- ed in the study were close to meeting the Model Currently, anecdotal accounts and conventional Time Standards. wisdom are the most prevalent evidence for is- sues in domestic relations cases. This landscape study tested that conventional wisdom using ac- tual court data, finding that many are correct. This report documents the caseload characteristics of domestic relations cases disposed between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, across eleven large, ur- ban courts. Three levels of analysis were used to examine the landscape of litigation in domes- tic relations cases: case-level, court procedures and operations, and community characteristics. The sample of 147,436 cases represented approxi- mately 8 percent of domestic relations caseloads nationally. Findings More than three-quarters (76%) of cases were di- vorce/dissolution cases, followed by “other” (14%), a case type used by some courts in their case management system. The final 10 percent of cases involved parental responsibility claims (e.g., cus- Contested versus Uncontested Cases tody/visitation, child support). Some courts were unable to provide one or more of these case type The majority of cases (64.3%) in the FJI Landscape categories and may have grouped categories to- were uncontested, which was consistent across gether more broadly (e.g., a custody case grouped courts and case types. Contested cases were under the initiating divorce case). About half of more likely than uncontested cases to involve mi- cases (51.7%) involved minor children. nor children and had higher rates of requests for emergency or injunctive relief and allegations of Cases were primarily disposed by a judgment domestic violence. Scheduled and held in-court (76.5%), followed by dismissals (20.3%), with the hearings and pretrial conferences were also more remaining cases disposed by transfer or by an un- frequent in contested cases, indicating more court known disposition type. Judgments were mostly involvement in those cases with contested issues. unspecified formal adjudications (34%), followed Interestingly, there was no significant difference i in average time to disposition between contested Conclusions and uncontested cases. Other case character- The FJI Landscape study represents the first large, istics may have confounded this result, as other aggregate examination of how family court cases case factors are important contributors to case are litigated in the state courts. Much of the find- time (e.g., manner of disposition, case type). ings confirmed conventional wisdom about fam- ily court litigation, though several offered new in- Representation Status sights into the typical domestic relations case. As expected, the majority of cases (72%) involved at least one self-represented party. The petitioner was more likely to be represented than the respon- dent across courts and case types (42% versus 33% The study findings also raise questions overall, respectively). Both parties were more like- both of how domestic relations cases ly to be represented in contested cases. For initial filings, both parties were more likely to be repre- should be managed and whether the ju- sented when the case involved minor children. In dicial branch is still the most appropri- reopened filings, both parties were more likely to ate forum for such cases. be represented in cases without the involvement of minor children. Cases in which there was at least one self-represented party were less likely to secure a final judgment, and more likely to have The findings from this study highlight the impor- their case dismissed. tance of data quality in the management of family court cases. Much of the CMS data that are rou- Self-help resources for litigants at each court were tinely collected by state courts harken to a pre- examined in light the representation status of liti- dominantly adjudicative system that no longer gants and community demographics. The num- exists in domestic relations cases. The CMS data ber of self-help resources provided by the court captured by courts fail to indicate both the need was related to the proportion of self-represented for closer judicial involvement in dispute resolu- litigants in the study caseload. The self-help re- tion and the appropriate allocation of resources sources most highly related to self-representation to assist litigants as they reorganize their family were fillable and interactive forms and presence relationships. Moreover, the data fail to provide a of a domestic relations navigator. As the median systematic basis for assessing court performance adjusted income across sites increased, the pres- with respect to the effective use of court resources ence of these resources decreased. and its relationship to case outcomes. Filing Type The study findings also raise questions both of how domestic relations cases should be man- Most cases (80%) were initial filings of a new case, aged and whether the judicial branch is still the rather than a reopened case requesting modifica- most appropriate forum for such cases. External tion or enforcement. This was consistent across resources and programs, such as private media- sites, ranging from 65 percent to 95 percent. Based tion, have continued to develop to serve families on the overall proportion of reopened cases across and resolve conflicts. The judiciary has developed sites, approximately 25 percent of new cases will programs and resources to meet the needs of fam- eventually reopen. Considering only reopened fil- ilies as well, but still maintains many features of ings, the average number of reopened petitions the adversarial system used to litigate other case per case was 2.7. Reopened cases were more like- types outside of family court. Judges and court ly to be contested and more likely to involve minor staff understand their role in achieving better out- children than initial filings. Cases without minors comes for families, but the litigation framework tended to reopen within the first two years follow- for these cases may be ready for reconstruction. ing the original disposition and level off, while Resources for litigants and judicial officers to aid cases with minors reopened at a higher rate and in gathering pertinent case information and to had a wider spread of reopened petitions over sev- support healthier outcomes for families should eral years post-disposition. continue to be developed and implemented across state courts. ii This page intentionally left blank A brief Introduction While civil and criminal case types are unique and (e.g., through adultery, cruelty, abandonment), and present their own challenges, family case types dispute resolution around these issues fit reason- including divorce, separation, and cases allocat- ably well in the context of an adversarial system ing parental responsibility (e.g., child support, of justice designed to apportion fault between custody/visitation) have some important charac- parties. States began moving to no-fault divorce teristics that distinguish them from other types of in the late 1960s, which changed the function of cases filed in state courts. For example, the basis the adjudicative process from finding facts and as- for most claims in civil cases concern a past event, sessing fault to equitably distributing marital as- static in time. Many issues in family cases are on- sets and allocating parental responsibilities.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Table of Contents Title 23 Domestic Relations Part I
    TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE 23 DOMESTIC RELATIONS PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 1. Preliminary Provisions § 101. Short title of title. § 102. Definitions. PART II. MARRIAGE Chapter 11. Preliminary Provisions § 1101. Short title of part. § 1102. Definitions. § 1103. Common-law marriage. § 1104. Forms. § 1105. Fees. § 1106. Records and statistics. Chapter 13. Marriage License § 1301. Marriage license required. § 1302. Application for license. § 1303. Waiting period after application. § 1304. Restrictions on issuance of license. § 1305. Examination and tests for syphilis (Repealed). § 1306. Oral examination. § 1307. Issuance of license. § 1308. Judicial review of refusal to issue license. § 1309. Filing applications and consent certificates. § 1310. Duration and form of license. Chapter 15. Marriage Ceremony § 1501. Form of marriage certificates. § 1502. Forms where parties perform ceremony. § 1503. Persons qualified to solemnize marriages. § 1504. Returns of marriages. Chapter 17. Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to Marriage § 1701. Decree that spouse of applicant is presumed decedent. § 1702. Marriage during existence of former marriage. § 1703. Marriage within degree of consanguinity. § 1704. Marriage between persons of the same sex. Chapter 19. Abolition of Actions for Alienation of Affections and Breach of Promise to Marry § 1901. Actions for alienation of affections abolished. § 1902. Actions for breach of promise to marry abolished. § 1903. Purpose of chapter. § 1904. Filing or threatening to file actions prohibited. § 1905. Instruments executed in satisfaction of abolished claims prohibited. PART III. ADOPTION Chapter 21. Preliminary Provisions § 2101. Short title of part. § 2102. Definitions. Chapter 23. Jurisdiction and Parties Subchapter A. Jurisdiction § 2301. Court. § 2302. Venue. Subchapter B. Parties § 2311. Who may be adopted. § 2312. Who may adopt. § 2313. Representation. Chapter 25.
    [Show full text]
  • Superior Court of the District of Columbia Family Court
    Superior Court of the District of Columbia Family Court HANDBOOK FOR PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN DIVORCE, CUSTODY, AND CHILD SUPPORT CASES Moultrie Courthouse 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 879-1010 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................. 1 Why Should I Read This Handbook? ................................................. 1 How Can I Get More Information About Family Court Cases In D.C. Superior Court? ................................................................ 1 How Do I Get Information About The Status Of My Case? ............... 1 Do I Need A Lawyer To Represent Me? ............................................. 1 Can The Court Appoint A Lawyer To Represent Me? ....................... 2 What Are My Responsibilities If I Represent Myself? ....................... 2 Can I Call Or Write The Judge If I Don’t Know What To Do? ............ 2 How Should I Behave In Court? ......................................................... 2 What Should I Wear To Court? ........................................................... 3 Can I Bring My Children To Court? .................................................... 3 II. THE RULES AND LAW....................................................................................... 3 DIVORCE CASES ...................................................................................... 3 Do I Have To Live In D.C. To File A Divorce Case? ........................... 3 What Do I Have To
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Relations: Adultery As a Ground for Divorce William S
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 24 | Issue 4 Article 9 1936 Domestic Relations: Adultery as a Ground for Divorce William S. Jett rJ . University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Family Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Jett, William S. Jr. (1936) "Domestic Relations: Adultery as a Ground for Divorce," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 24 : Iss. 4 , Article 9. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol24/iss4/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT NoTs 499 compensation with optional compensation as the only alternative. Optional compensation, in turn, discriminates outrageously against motorists as a class, since they pay compensation when not at fault, and damages when they are at fault, with no offsetting benefits. The argument is sound but the premise is wrong. A distinction is to be noted between the kind of statute this contention is based on, and the kind advocated by the majority of those who favor the plan. In the former the taking out of insurance by every motorist is manda- tory; while in the latter it is conditioned upon violation of some motor car law, or upon being involved in an accident as provided by the particular statute. No person is compelled to furnish security of any kind until he has violated some provision of the statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Relations Lecture 08 Prof
    1 Domestic Relations Lecture 08 Prof. Marvin L. Longabaugh © 2016 National Paralegal College Unmarried Fathers’ Rights 2 • Under common law, the father of a child born out of wedlock had no rights. • In modern times, fathers have been able to assert more rights under a “best interest of the child” theory as well as by relying on the Equal Protection Clause. • This has resulted in two major shifts in custodial preference litigation over the last 50 years: • The general rule that preferred mothers in custody disputes is no longer applied • Even the “tender years” doctrine, which favored mothers during infancy, has somewhat fallen into disfavor • Under similar theories, statutes that automatically deny fathers’ rights have been deemed unconstitutional Stanley v. Illinois 3 405 U.S. 645 (1972) • Facts • Joan Stanley lived with Peter Stanley, appellant, intermittently for 18 years, during which time they had three children. • Under Illinois law the children of unwed fathers became wards of the State upon death of the mother. • When Joan died, a dependency proceeding was instituted by the State and appellant’s children were declared wards of the State and placed with court-appointed guardians. • Appellant appealed upon the fact that he had never been shown to be an unfit parent and that since married fathers and unwed mothers could not be deprived of their children without such a showing, he had been deprived of the equal protection of laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Stanley v. Illinois 4 405 U.S. 645 (1972) • Issue • Does the Illinois statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by distinguishing against and burdening unwed fathers? Stanley v.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Take a Child Custody Or Visitation Case to Court
    CENTRAL VIRGINIA LEGAL AID SOCIETY, INC. 1000 Preston Ave, Suite B 101 W Broad, Ste 101 2006 Wakefield Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 Richmond, VA 23241 Petersburg, VA 23805 434-296-8851 (Voice) 804-648-1012 (Voice) 804-862-1100 (Voice) 434-296-5731 (Fax) 804-649-8794 (Fax) 804-861-4311 (Fax) How to Take a Child Custody or Visitation Case to Court How does child custody or visitation get ordered by a court? Unless there’s a court custody order, both parents of a child have equal rights to physical possession of a child. This is true whether the parties are married to each other or not. Virginia law gives no preference to either the mother or the father. A court can order child custody and visitation only after four things happen: • Custody papers are filed with the court. • Custody papers are served (legally delivered) on all the parties. • A hearing is held before the court. • A written child custody or visitation order is issued. Who can file for child custody or visitation? A mother, father, legal guardian, and any “party with a legitimate interest” can file for child custody or visitation. A “party with a legitimate interest” includes, but is not limited to, grandparents, stepparents, former stepparents, blood relatives, and family members. After parental rights have been terminated (ended) by a court, that parent and that parent’s relatives have no custody or visitation rights with that child. Where do I file for child custody or visitation? It depends on whether there’s a prior court order about the child’s custody or visitation.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Relations •Fl Child Custody •Fl a Parent's Adultery Raises No
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 7 Article 8 Issue 1 Fall 1977 1977 Casenotes: Domestic Relations — Child Custody — a Parent's Adultery Raises No Presumption of Unfitness for Child Custody. Davis v. Davis, 280 Md. 119, 372 A.2d 231 (1977) Raymond L. Bank University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bank, Raymond L. (1977) "Casenotes: Domestic Relations — Child Custody — a Parent's Adultery Raises No Presumption of Unfitness for Child Custody. Davis v. Davis, 280 Md. 119, 372 A.2d 231 (1977)," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol7/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 19771 Casenotes 141 DOMESTIC RELATIONS - CHILD CUSTODY - A PARENT'S ADULTERY RAISES NO PRESUMPTION OF UNFITNESS FOR CHILD CUSTODY. DAVIS v. DAVIS, 280 Md. 119, 372 A.2d 231 (1977). In Davis v. Davis' the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that an adulterous 2 parent is not presumptively unfit for the custody of her child. 3 While adulterous conduct remains a "relevant considera- tion" in custody disputes, it need only be considered to the extent that it affects the child's welfare, and must be weighed along with other pertinent factors.
    [Show full text]