best interests of the child

In making custody and visitation decisions, Pennsylvania courts look to various factors in determining what is in the “best interest of the child.” The factors weighed by the court include: (1) the well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child’s maturity and judgment; (2) the need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life; (3) which parent is more likely to foster a relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child; (4) each parent’s history of violent or abusive conduct; and (5) specific criminal convictions.

The appellant, a mother who shared two young children with the respondent, appealed a judgment awarding custody of the couple’s children to the respondent after their divorce. At the time of the original custody order, the children were residing with the appellant in Malawi, but the court granted custody to the respondent to raise them in England.

The Charter aims to protect and promote the human rights set out in Part 2, including property rights and freedom from forced work (slavery), as well as the right to enjoy those human rights without discrimination.  With respect to any proposed new law, the Victorian Parliament must prepare a “statement of compatibility,” which must examine the proposed law’s compatibility (or incompatibility) with the human rights protected in the Charter.  While this statement has no effect on the validity of any law, it furthers the purpose of the Charter in promoting human rights.  Furthe

The Second Grade Magistrate Court in Machinga sentenced the appellant to nine months’ imprisonment  for the offence of negligently doing an act likely to spread a dangerous disease contrary to Section 192 of the Penal Code when she breastfed another woman’s infant while under treatment for HIV.

The Family Violence Protection Act aims to maximise safety for children and adults who have experienced family violence, and to prevent and reduce family violence to the greatest extent possible.  It also aims to promote accountability for those who perpetrate family violence.  The Act provides for police protection before court, family violence intervention orders (and their enforcement), and counselling orders.

The plaintiff, who was from Côte d'Ivoire, appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of her asylum application, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Her asylum claim was based on female genital mutilation (“FGM”) and her fear that her daughters would be subjected to FGM if she was removed.

The petitioner and respondent cross-petitioned to dissolve their marriage on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The petitioner husband argued that he should have been granted custody of the couple’s 10-year-old daughter since the respondent wife treated him with cruelty on multiple occasions by exposing him naked in public and depriving him of his conjugal rights while alleging that he was HIV positive and demanding that he get tested. The petitioner additionally alleged that the respondent deserted the matrimonial home for no good reason and took marital property with her.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment that appellant was guilty of rape. The complainant alleged that the appellant had sex with her when she was 13 years old and he was 18 years old. She alleged that the appellant invited her to his room, gagged her, and had sexual intercourse with her. Her brother’s wife forced open the door after the complainant failed to answer her phone call. The complainant's brother then called the police. The appellant admitted to police that he and the complainant had sex.

The claimant had been registered female at birth but had transitioned to live as a man. He had obtained a gender recognition certificate confirming his gender as male under the law. He suspended testosterone treatment and had intra-uterine insemination with donor sperm.