By Rob Hagy, Law Offices of Rob Hagy, P.C., 154 Hansen Road, Suite 202B, Charlottesville, Virginia. Call (434)293-4562 for more information or email for more information at email@example.com. I look forward to helping you!
The information provided on this web blog is public information and is not individualized legal advice. Do not take any legal action on any information contained in this blog!!! Always consulting with an attorney in your state about your legal issues. The presentation of information on this blog does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with my firm or with me. While I have attempted to maintain the information on this blog as accurately as possible, this information may contain errors or omissions, for which I disclaim any liability. Case law from other jurisdictions discussed here are discussed for comparative purposes only. The author is licensed to practice only in the Commonwealth of Virginia and not in any other state.
Despite the foregoing, this material could be considered to be ADVERTISING MATERIAL. The responsible party for this blog is Robert R. Hagy, II Esq., an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia, of the Law Offices of Rob Hagy, P.C., whose address is 154 Hansen Rd., Suite 202-B, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911.
In the case of T.W. ex rel. R.W. v. T.H., the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four, ruled that the trial court erred in awarding third party visitation to maternal grandmother on alternating weekends, alternating holidays, and every Christmas Day. The visitation was more than minimally intrusive of mother's parental rights and thus impermissibly impinged on her fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning care, custody, and control of her child.
Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Custody Lawyer. For help defending against a claim for visitation by a grandparent, please contace me at (434)293-4562 or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I look forward to helping you.
In the case of Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court improperly adjudicated the parental rights of a lesbian couple who were joined in a Vermont civil union . The parties separated. One party stayed in Vermont. The other moved to Virginia with the parties' daughter. A Vermont court issued an order concerning the parties' parental rights concerning the child. After that order was entered, the Virginia trial court entered another order covering the same matters. The trial court should not have entered the second order because, the Court of Appeals ruled, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1738A, prevented the trial court from exercising jurisdiction in the first place. The Vermont, and not the Virginia orders, are entitled to full faith and credit.
The Spring 2006 issue of the Family Law Quarterly, a publication of the Section of Family Law of the American Bar Association, deals with the issue of third party rights and obligations concerning children. This issue has come up recently in Virginia. In the published opinion of Surles v. Mayer, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that a man who lived with and had a daughter with a woman could petition the court for visitation with the woman's son from a previous marriage.
Virginia Code Section 20-108.2 This provision of Virginia law sets forth the child support guidelines-a table of reference for determining the base monthly child support obligation.
Virginia Code Section 20-124.3 This statute sets forth the factors that a court will consider in divorce proceedings, temporary proceedings, or modification proceedings to determine what custody and visitation arrangement would be best for the child or children involved.