Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2231 - 2240 of 63732 for Motion for joint custody.

[PDF] NOTICE
the custody claim in his initial suppression motion, he did raise it in his postconviction motion, giving
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=57751 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Jami L. Van Boxtel v. Brent F. Van Boxtel
payments under s. 767.261 or for legal custody and physical placement, in case a divorce or legal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15104 - 2017-09-21

Mary Patricia McLaren v. Sean Robert McLaren
, length of absence from the job market, custodial responsibilities for children and the time and expense
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5661 - 2005-03-31

Jami L. Van Boxtel v. Brent F. Van Boxtel
of children, for periodic family support payments under s. 767.261 or for legal custody and physical placement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15104 - 2005-03-31

State v. Denettria J.
protected liberty interest in the “companionship, care, custody, and management” of their children.[11
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20860 - 2006-01-09

[PDF] State v. David Carneal White
the joint, so that is my term right there, 50 to 75, so let me do the jail time so I can be a hundred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15208 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] MuniView Newsletter July 2000
appointed as yet. Joint Courts 1999 Wis. Act 182 has changed the procedure for filing for judges who
/courts/municipal/muniview/july00.pdf - 2009-11-16

[PDF] Katherine G. Kane v. Scott M. Miller
/A KATHERINE G. MILLER, JOINT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT, V. SCOTT M. MILLER
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21204 - 2017-09-21

Mary L. Brice v. Roger Garfield Dale Miller, Sr.
. They agreed to joint legal custody of the child, with Miller having primary physical placement. He did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14587 - 2005-03-31

Leonard Goetzka v. City of Black River Falls
the obligations of the joint review board, not the City; (2) the City properly construed and applied § 66.1105(4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20000 - 2005-11-14