Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 371 - 380 of 63284 for Motion for joint custody.

Anne E. Czarnecki v. Paul A. Czarnecki
its discretion when, in denying her motion seeking a modification of the existing custody
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12161 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Anne E. Czarnecki v. Paul A. Czarnecki
her motion seeking a modification of the existing custody and placement order, the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12161 - 2017-09-21

Charles A. Poindexter II v. Pamela J. Kagan
to the marriage in 1984. The divorce judgment provided for joint custody with primary physical placement to Kagan
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15079 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
a motion to prevent Amy from relocating to the Madison area with the children and for joint legal custody
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=992754 - 2025-08-05

[PDF] Lori Long v. Mohammad Ardestani
have joint legal custody of the four children. Long has primary physical placement, with Ardestani
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2637 - 2017-09-19

Patrick L. Wolfe v. Melanie A. Wolfe
] The specific language she directs us to is "[w]henever it orders sole or joint legal custody to parents
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15905 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Patrick L. Wolfe v. Melanie A. Wolfe
. (b), if the court orders sole or joint legal custody under sub. (2), the court shall allocate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15905 - 2017-09-21

Scott M.H. v. Kathleen M.H.
. Kathleen and Scott were divorced on March 23, 1993. The parties were awarded joint legal custody
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12244 - 2005-03-31

Scott M.H. v. Kathleen M.H.
. Kathleen and Scott were divorced on March 23, 1993. The parties were awarded joint legal custody
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12243 - 2005-03-31

Brown County Department of Human Services v. Samantha E.
] Francis’s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred by permitting a joint trial terminating both
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14126 - 2005-03-31