Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 651 - 660 of 63681 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 651 - 660 of 63681 for Motion for joint custody.
COURT OF APPEALS
discretion when awarding joint custody; and (3) the court erroneously exercised its discretion when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=145111 - 2015-07-27
discretion when awarding joint custody; and (3) the court erroneously exercised its discretion when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=145111 - 2015-07-27
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
court erroneously exercised its discretion when awarding joint custody; and (3) the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145111 - 2017-09-21
court erroneously exercised its discretion when awarding joint custody; and (3) the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145111 - 2017-09-21
Linda K. Evenson v. Christopher H. Evenson
dated February 2, 1998, the court granted the parties joint legal custody of their children with primary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13773 - 2005-03-31
dated February 2, 1998, the court granted the parties joint legal custody of their children with primary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13773 - 2005-03-31
Cameron R.P. v. Jennifer P.
, at a hearing two months later, the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss the charge. At that hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15722 - 2005-03-31
, at a hearing two months later, the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss the charge. At that hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15722 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Cameron R.P. v. Jennifer P.
charge. However, at a hearing two months later, the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15722 - 2017-09-21
charge. However, at a hearing two months later, the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15722 - 2017-09-21
Christopher A. M. v. Trudie T.
litem’s recommendation that joint physical placement and custody was in Joseph’s best interest. In sum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4832 - 2005-03-31
litem’s recommendation that joint physical placement and custody was in Joseph’s best interest. In sum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4832 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
2014. ¶3 Although the parties agreed to joint custody and equal shared placement of E. O
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=164379 - 2017-09-21
2014. ¶3 Although the parties agreed to joint custody and equal shared placement of E. O
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=164379 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Xiaoxia Yu v. Jiayou Zhang
, as the parties are now in joint legal custody. Therefore, Zhang’s scenario—that the children are more needy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11209 - 2017-09-19
, as the parties are now in joint legal custody. Therefore, Zhang’s scenario—that the children are more needy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11209 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
a custody order for Clayton, with joint custody but primary placement with Melissa. In August 2004
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45782 - 2014-09-15
a custody order for Clayton, with joint custody but primary placement with Melissa. In August 2004
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45782 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
a custody order for Clayton, with joint custody but primary placement with Melissa. In August 2004, Melissa
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45782 - 2010-01-13
a custody order for Clayton, with joint custody but primary placement with Melissa. In August 2004, Melissa
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45782 - 2010-01-13