In an initial custody determination, the divorce court has the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the children, and must consider all circumstances bearing on the best interest of the children, including the health, safety, and welfare of the children, any history of abuse by one parent, the nature and amount of contact with both parents, and the use of controlled substances or alcohol by either parent.
Family Law Case Updates
The Court of Appeal found that Husband’s use of reasonable force to defend himself against Wife’s use of physical force to take his property did not amount to “abuse” under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that a dating relationship existed under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”), and that a party’s act of disturbing the peace of the other party was an act of abuse which supported the issuance of a restraining order under the DVPA.
The Court of Appeal found that a husband’s acts of repeatedly beating a child and biting his wife when she tried to intervene were facially sufficient to establish that the husband committed “abuse” against the wife by “disturbing the peace” of the wife, or by placing her in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to herself and her child, as required to support the wife’s request for a domestic violence restraining order.
The dowry agreement encouraged dissolution by providing Wife with cash and property if the marriage failed.
The supported party’s ability to access retirement accounts without penalty was not a material change in circumstances supporting the reduction of a spousal support obligation.
The Court of Appeal found that Respondent’s continued abuse after the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) were relevant to establish Appellant’s reasonable apprehension of future abuse, as required for the renewal of a DVRO.
The Court of Appeal held that the renewal of a domestic violence restraining order must be predicated on a finding that the protected party entertains a “reasonable apprehension” of future abuse and may or may not take into consideration the burdens on the restrained party and significant changes in circumstance since the order was issued.
The Court of Appeal held that Appellant demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of future abuse as required for renewal of a restraining order.
The Court of Appeal found that the divorce court should not have denied a request for the renewal of a domestic violence restraining order on the grounds that the protected party should not have had a reasonable apprehension of future physical abuse due to a lack of incidents of abuse during the time the order was in effect.