The minor or dependent children of this marriage are: David Bean Jr. born on June 5, 2005 Patricia Bean born on July 1, 2008 The minor or dependent children are residing with plaintiff at above said estate of 123 West Golf Road, Boston, Massachusetts. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court that the Decree of Divorce is hereby granted to the Plaintiff and the marriage relationship
The non-fatal offences against the person have been subjected to frequent criticism. Explain and discuss these criticisms and suggest what reforms might be desirable. The Offences against the person Act 1861 covers non-fatal offences. Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) is Section 47 of this Act. The Actus Reus needed is ABH, defined in case law as anything that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim.
Divorce in the United States Historical Background In the early days of the American republic, divorce, tied metaphorically to the new nation's "divorce" from England, was essentially a symbol of social order, representing the ability of the community to enforce standards for marital (and other governing) contracts (Basch, 1999; Cott, 2000). The 18th- and 19th-century privileging of contract relations allowed lifelong marriage to coexist with the acceptance of divorce if one of the spouses failed to live up to the marital contract. Such thinking affirmed the nature of marriage as not only between marrying partners but also as an agreement with the state that marriage was to be conducted along certain socially understood lines
Marilu Gonzalez PLA 2763-1 Law Office Management-1 Individual assignment Week 7 Instructor Notowitz June 1, 2013, To: Instructor Notowitz (Paralegal) 123 Main Street Everest University Anytown, US 32092 DISTRICT COURT OF ___________________ Johnny Smith, Plaintiff, vs. ABC Plumbing, Inc., Defendant Case No. : REQUEST MOTION OF DISCOVERY PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this day 1st of June, I am requesting information as to the timeline for when the response to the Motion of Discovery will be submitted by your client since it was requested and filed on April 15, 2013, and with the city of FLORIDA, a copy of which will be served upon this request. I am also inquiring when any other appropriate communication between both clients
Palmore v.Sidoti 466 U.S. 429 Facts: After Linda Sidoti Palmore and Anthony J. Sidoti were divorced in May of 1980, Linda was awarded custody of their 3-year-old daughter. In September 1981 Anthony filed a petition to pursue custody because Linda was now residing with a Negro, Clearance Palmore, Jr. Anthony made assertions in court that Linda was not properly caring for their child. After a court counselor made no findings in regard to the accusations Anthony found that “there is no issue as to either party’s devotion to the child, adequacy of housing facilities, or respectability of the new spouse of either parent.” The court then decided to change custody due to the wife choosing an unacceptable life-style in the eyes of the father and society for herself and her daughter. The court stated that because of this life-style the child will be susceptible to environmental pressures without choice. The court determined, in the best interest for the child custody would be awarded to the father.
Lakeia Smith English 1302- C03 Professor John Wu October 24, 2011 Argumentive Essay: Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal The essay written by Thomas B. Stoddard, an executive director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights organization believes that gay and lesbian marriage should be legalized. Thomas presents his argument by using a relationship between two women. Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski were considered spouses in every way just not legally married. They lived together for quite some time until Sharon was struck by a drunk driver. She was disabled from the car wreck and had to reside in a nursing home.
In that case, 7 psychiatric specialists gave conflicting medical opinion on the mental capacity of the accused attracting judicial criticism of the current legislation with a heavy reliance on expert opinion. The 1997 reform significantly reformed its predecessor, placing a heavy focus on community involvement in the determination of the accused’s degree of culpability. The NSWLRC recommended to retain the defence on the grounds that community acceptance and transparency is valuable to the due process of criminal law. The Commission were of the opinion that ‘abnormality of the mind’ was full of ambiguity and was the source of conflicting expert medial opinion. In response to this, the Commission
Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967) Facts: In June of 1958, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, got married in Washington, D.C. They returned back to their home state of Virginia only to be convicted of violating Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law that prohibited interracial marriage. They both pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in jail. The judge suspended those sentences on condition that the Lovings leave Virginia and not return for twenty-five years. Mildred and Richard moved to Washington D.C. and with the help of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) they filled to have the sentence set aside on the ground that it violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Occupation: Widowed, Mother Advanced Directives: No Code, DNR Medical History Reason for Hospitalization: 89 year old female patient was originally admitted long term to M.P.T.F. for pneumonia and the following: Primary Diagnosis: 1. Continue treatment for Dementia 2. Continue treatment for Depressive Disorder 3. Continue aftercare for healing of traumatic hip fracture Health History Past and Current: The patient was admitted with pneumonia and remains on palliative care.
The Act was ruled unconstitutional because it requires federal estate tax to be paid by folks in same-sex marriages. Currently if the spouse in an opposite-sex marriage dies, no federal estate tax needs to be paid. The court also stated that the Act discriminates based on sexual orientation and violates equal protection under the Constitution. Republicans are contesting a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates based on the denial of health benefits to same-sex spouses. In defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans claim the goals are to “maintain consistency in allocating federal benefits and encourage relationships “that most frequently result in the begetting and raising of children.”” NYTIMES.