Appellant, the mother, challenges the trial court’s final judgment of paternity and custody order regarding her two children. She alleges that the trial court made three errors that merit discussion: (1) the trial court erred in granting majority time-sharing of the older child to appellee, a non-relative; (2) the trial court erred in
2
calculating child support; and (3) the trial court

¶1This matter concerns an appeal from the order of the district court of Tulsa County wherein the court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings and that unwed biological father's parental rights should be terminated pursuant to Title 10 O.S.Supp.1999, § 7505-4.2(C)(1) and §7505-2.1(D)(2) and the minor child, Baby Boy D., a/k/a R. D.W., be declared eligible for adoptio

A jury found that a father’s parental rights to his child should be terminated
based on one or more of the Family Code’s statutory grounds and that termination
was in the child’s best interest. In eight issues, the father contends that there was
no evidence, or alternatively, insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
judgment on the jury’s findings. We affirm.

Olive N. Anderson, a Filipino national, moved to Nebraska and married Wade B. Anderson after meeting him through an online dating service. Their marriage soured, and the court entered a dissolution decree giving Wade custody of their only child. Wade argues that the court ordered Olive to pay child support that is too low and ordered him to pay alimony that is too high. Wade further contends that

Amine Britel died intestate in 2011. Appellant Jackie Stennett, the mother of A.S., a child born out of wedlock, petitioned to administer Amine’s estate and for A.S. to be declared Amine’s heir under Probate Code section 6453, subdivision (b)(2)
(section 6453(b)(2)).1 Under section 6453(b)(2), a nonmarital child may establish that he or she is the natural child of an intestate decedent by

Defendants, Brian Kennedy and, as to Skyline Outdoor Media LLC only, David Seyde, appeal from a May 13, 2014 order in favor of plaintiff, Drake Kennedy.1 The May 13, 2014 order denied defendants’ motion to stay dissolution of a number of corporations and limited liability companies and appoint appraisers to permit a buyout to occur. (Corp. Code,2 §§ 2000, 17707.03.) Defendants contend the tria

Andrew L. (Andrew) is the biological father of Emilio G. who was born in July 2013. Katherine O. (Katherine) is Emilio’s biological mother. Andrew and Katherine never married. Katherine became pregnant with Emilio a few months after she and Andrew began dating in August 2012. Their relationship was not smooth. By April 2013, Andrew and Katherine had broken up, with Andrew confirming the break up

¶1 In this paternity action, Respondent/Appellant, Vernon McDowell, appeals from the trial court's decree of paternity and its order denying his motion to vacate the decree of paternity. Appellant admitted to the trial court that he is the putative father of the minor child, R.D.P. Based on that admission, we cannot find the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in decreeing Appellant's paternity

In two issues, appellant, Teisa I. Tupou-Pati, challenges the trial court’s dismissal
of her petition seeking managing conservatorship of her grandchildren, Y.H.T., A.M.T.,
and R.S.T. Because we agree that appellant lacked standing to file suit in this matter,
and because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying
appellant’s motions for new trial

¶1 Appellants, Jeffrey and Misti Simmons, appeal from an order denying their request for attorney fees after successfully opposing a grandmother's attempt to secure visitation of her grandchild.

¶2 The sequence of events leading to this appeal is as follows: Appellant, Misti, a single mother, brought an action against one Beeman Roland to establish his paternity and secure child support

¶1 This case, like Nevares v. M.L.S., 2015 UT 34, presents ques-tions concerning the applicability and constitutionality of Utah Code section 78B-6-111. That provision forbids a biological father
1 Associate Chief Justice Nehring acted on this case prior to his retirement.
IN RE ADOPTION OF J.M.S.
Opinion of the Court
2
from challenging an adoption when his child was conceived

¶1 This appeal by Jessica Donn Watson and cross-appeal by Sylvia G. Watson arise from proceedings to probate the intestate estates of Donovan Myrl Watson, Donovan Perren Watson (his father), and Myrl Louise Watson (his mother). Jessica is the minor child of Donovan Myrl Watson's second marriage and the granddaughter of Donovan Perren Watson and Myrl Louise Watson. Sylvia sought and obtained recog

We affirm the final judgment in this paternity and support action. We
do not address the merits of the issues raised by appellant, as they either
were not preserved by objections in the trial court on the grounds raised
on appeal, or they lack merit. As to the father’s claim that this court lacks
jurisdiction to consider the orders entered prior to the final judgment
designat

In this action to establish paternity, a parenting plan and child support,
Petitioner Monica Medina seeks relief from two non-final discovery orders, one
requiring her, as pertinent here, to produce settlement agreements entered into
between non-parties to this action and clients of the law firm which employs her
(none of whom or which are parties to this action), the other purport

In this family law proceeding, T.A. (Mother) appeals from a judgment finding that R.M. (RM) is the presumed father of Mother's biological daughter (Child). Mother conceived Child through artificial insemination procedures, and RM is not the biological father. The trial court declared RM to be Child's presumed father by applying the

2

parentage presumption set forth in Family Code

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA),
adopted by California as Family Code section 3400 et seq., prescribes when a state court
has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination. Family Code section 3402,
subdivision (g) provides with respect to a child less than six months of age that
jurisdiction rests in the state in which the child “lived

¶1 Petitioner/Appellant Jamie Michelle Clark (Mother) seeks review of the trial court's order denying her motion to reconsider after denying her motion to reduce an alleged child support arrearage to judgment in the divorce action against Respondent/Appellee Peter Andrew Clark (Father). In this proceeding, Mother asserts the trial court erred as a matter of law and fact in refusing to grant her j

Jeanna Cheney appeals the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the district court's award of residential custody of her daughter, Justine Poore, to Justine's father, Zachary Poore. Like the Court of Appeals, we conclude that the district court erred in applying K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 23-3207(b) (dividing the residency of full siblings
3
between their parents) to the residential custody determin

This is an appeal by Gracia Gimeno from a downward modification of
Naltan Rivera’s child support obligation in a post-paternity modification
proceeding, based upon the fact that Rivera has fathered three more children by
another woman after having fathered a child with Gimeno. It is settled law that a
party moving for a downward modification of child support has the burden of

A biological father who does not qualify as a presumed father under Family Code section 76111 generally does not have statutory standing to block the adoption of his child unless he proves that it is in the child's best interests that the adoption not proceed. (Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816 (Kelsey S.); Adoption of Michael H. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1043, 1052 (Michael H.).) Under Kelsey S.

¶ 1 J.L.C. appeals the district court’s order dismissing for lack of standing his petition to establish paternity. We conclude that R.P. v. K.S.W., 2014 UT App 38, 320 P.3d 1084, a case issued after the parties’ principal briefs were filed in the present appeal, resolves all material issues against J.L.C. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
¶ 2 The facts of the pres

¶1 William Bolden is the putative father of a child (J.S.) born in 2011. The case before us on appeal is an adoption proceeding involving John and Jane Doe, the would-be adoptive parents of J.S. Bolden tried to intervene in and object to the Does‘ adoption of J.S. He was barred from doing so because he failed to preserve his legal rights as a father by filing a paternity affidavit within the ti

Tulsa County, OK - In re the Marriage of AI and BRW

PETITION TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY, CUSTODY, VISITATION AND SUPPORT
COMES NOW Plaintiff, ***, by and through her attorney, Michael Staggs, and respectfully represents and shows this Court the following, to-wit:
1. Plaintiff is now and has been for more than six (6) months preceding the filing of this Petition to Establish Paternity,

B.M. appeals the termination of his parental rights. B.M.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). B.M. filed a pro se brief. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
B.M. is the father of M.L.H.-M., born May 31, 2013. V.H. is the mother of M.L.H.-M. and is not a party

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of a Wisconsin statute, Wis.Stat. §§ 245.10(1), (4), (5) (1973), which provides that members of a certain class of Wisconsin residents may not marry, within the State or elsewhere, without first obtaining a court order granting permission to marry. The class is defined by the statute to include any "Wisconsin resident having minor issue not in his