A criminal defendant “shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 6. We have held that this right requires effective counsel in both state and federal prosecutions, even if the defendant is unable to afford counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 344 (1963). Counsel is unconstitutionally ineffective if his performance is both deficie

B.J.D. appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to minor child J.R.S. In his sole issue on appeal, B.J.D. asserts the evidence was neither legally nor factually sufficient for the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that terminating his parental rights was in J.R.S.’s best interests. We conclude the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient, and we a

Michael and J.B. (Mother) married in 2011 and continuously lived together until Michael's military deployment to the Persian Gulf in August 2013. Michael returned home in April 2014 and found Mother was seven months pregnant, as she "had relations" with another man while Michael was gone. Michael lived with Mother throughout the remainder of her pregnancy. He was at the hospital when Emma was b

On direct appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals described the factual background of McCarley’s trials and convictions as follows: {¶ 2} Charlene Puffenbarger filed a paternity suit naming McCarley as the father of her two year old son in November of 1991. Charlene filed the suit to obtain child support from McCarley, who initially denied paternity. McCarley did not wish to pay Charlene child support

¶1 In this child custody matter, Defendant/Appellant, Valerie Jo Franek (Mother), appeals from the trial court's order awarding sole custody of the parties' minor child to Plaintiff/Appellee, Zachary Conan Wilson (Father), and granting expanded visitation to Mother. Mother contends the custody determination was a clear abuse of discretion and not in the minor child's best interests. We affirm the

A jury found Defendant guilty of attempted fetal homicide. During the
trial, the jury heard from Lisa Komes. Komes testified that she learned that she
was pregnant with Defendant’s child in February of 2010. She told Defendant
about her pregnancy, and he indicated that he wanted her to obtain an abortion.
Komes did not want to be pregnant at that time, but she did not want

Appellant L.M. (father) is the biological father of A.J. (child), who was six years old on May 13, 2014, the date of the challenged order. Father appeals from the juvenile court’s order at the Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26 permanency planning hearing denying him supervised visitation with the child based on a finding of detriment. As discussed below, while substantial evidence d

BHB was born in May 2010, in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Although Mother and Father were never married, it is undisputed that Father is BHB’s biological parent. In October 2010, Father filed a petition in the district court seeking to establish paternity, custody, visitation, and child support for BHB. A few days later, Father filed a motion for a mutual restraining order providing that BHB could not b

In October of 2011 Matthew Snyder, his girlfriend, and herdaughter JL moved to Gillette. Soon thereafter, JL, who was twelve years old at the time, learned she was pregnant. JL gave birth to a daughter in 2012.
[¶5] In January of 2012, previous to giving birth, and shortly after her thirteenth birthday, Snyder forced JL to have sexual intercourse. This also happened again after she gave bir

Michael Konzen appeals the district court’s decision, which denied his
petition to modify the physical care provisions of the custodial decree. He
maintains that he should have physical care of his two daughters, while the
mother, Emalee Goedert, should have supervised visitation. At a minimum, he
claims he should not have been ordered to have only supervised visitation. He

32 Luis Ramon Morales‐Santana asks us to review a March 3, 2011
33 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to
3
reopen his removal 1 proceedings relating to his claim of derivative
2 citizenship. Under the statute in effect when Morales‐Santana was born – the
3 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “1952 Act”) – a child born

¶1 In this appeal Leandra Lynn James posits the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial on the issue of change of name of her minor child under the authority of 10 O.S. 1991 § 90.4 .1 This action began when Appellant sought a determination of the paternity of her newborn daughter, then one day less that two months old, custody with limited visitation, and child support. The putative

¶1 Petitioner Steven Golden (Father) filed this action to establish paternity and to change the surname of the minor child born to Respondent Jennifer Thompson (Mother). After the parties stipulated that Father is the biological father of the minor child, who at that time was fifteen months of age, the issues of child support, visitation, and change of the child's surname were heard by the trial c

¶1 The only issue presented for this Court's consideration is whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's lack of standing. Questions within the issue are (1) whether a person has standing to seek a best-interest-of-the-child hearing when the sole biological parent relinquished some of her parental rights to the pers

¶1 Custodian/Appellant Erica Ann Butler1 appeals the decision of the trial court ordering Defendant/Appellee Lafe Coldwater to pay $400 per month in child support, denying her request for child support arrearages, and awarding legal custody of C.M.B., the minor child, to Defendant/Appellee.2 Custodian/Appellant Erica Ann Butler ("Mother") is the natural mother of C.M.B., a minor child born out-of-

A jury found that the defendant, the
Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, acted
negligently and recklessly when it assigned Father Ivan
Ferguson, an alcoholic whose admitted acts of child
molestation were understood to be linked to his drinking,
to serve as the director of Saint Mary’s Elementary
School in Derby (Saint Mary’s School), where he sexually
abus

¶1 The issue before this Court is whether the district court erred in sustaining the legal parent's motion to disqualify opposing counsel. The question we consider is whether the integrity of the judicial process is likely to suffer real harm when an attorney who represents a client in a proceeding to establish paternity and to determine custody of a minor child fails to report suspected child ab

The plaintiff, Turi Rostad, and the
defendant, Leon Hirsch, both appealed to the Appellate
Court from the judgment of the trial court in the plaintiff’s
paternity action against the defendant seeking an
order of support and maintenance for her minor son,
attorney’s fees, statutory interest, past due child support
and past due ‘‘special child support.’’ In his ap

This is an appeal from an order terminating the parent-child relationship between D.V. and his mother. The relationship between the little boy and his father was also terminated, but the father has not appealed. Because of recurrent family violence between the parents, we will refer to Father’s behavior where necessary to explain the factual circumstances.1
Mother brings seven issues for rev

In December of 2011, Jorge Garcia filed a petition for bill of review in the underlying cause seeking to set aside an order entered in February of 1996 which established Garcia’s paternity of J.A.E. The Office of the Attorney General filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment asserting no evidence existed to support each element of Garcia’s bill of review claim. The trial court granted th

Appellant, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, appeals from the trial court’s judgment that appellee, Jose Guadalupe Duran, pay nothing in back child support. By one issue, appellant contends that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion when it ordered that [appellee,] be released from a child support arrearage judgment in contravention of
2
Texas Family Code section 161.005.

Appellants T.M. (Father) and J.R. (Mother) appeal from the trial court’s order
terminating their parental rights to their minor child, J.M.1 Father and Mother each contend that the
evidence is factually insufficient to support the termination of their parental rights. Mother also
contends that the trial court wrongfully admitted evidence regarding advertisements for “escort�

This appeal is from a final judgment in a paternity suit. In two issues, the child’s mother, Griselda Ortiz, argues the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering retroactive child support and by ordering current child support in the amount of $1500.00 per month. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1996, Ortiz met Carlos Guerrero. The two had a romantic relationship. At the time, Ortiz and G

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

Appellant, K.G.,1 challenges the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her son, D.N., Jr.2 By a sole issue, she maintains the evidence is insufficient to support termination on the ground that she would be incarcerated for not less than two years from the date the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed its Original Petition for Protection of a Child, for Conser