Pennsylvania uses a system referred to as the “Income Shares Model” for determining child support. This methodology focuses primarily on the net incomes of the parents and aims to grant the children the same proportion of the parental income that he or she would have received had the parents not divorced.
The plaintiff, a mother, brought a petition for child support against the putative father. The two met during a trip to France and had a long-distance relationship for 18 months. After returning to Virginia from another visit to the defendant in France, the plaintiff learned she was pregnant. Because the defendant was her only sexual partner during the relevant time period, she informed the defendant that the child was his. The defendant said he would help in any way he could and called twice a week during the pregnancy. Their child was born in Alexa
This case concerned the issue of child support and the entitlement of recipient spouses, predominantly mothers, to increased child support following an increase in the income of payer spouses, who are predominantly fathers. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that ex-spouses could face significant retroactive child support payments if they failed to declare their increased earnings.
The appellant and the appellee were married for 21 years and had three children. After the birth of their first child, by mutual agreement of the parties, the appellee stopped working and became a homemaker and the children’s primary caregiver.
The Constitutional Court reviewed the constitutionality of the law “on Amendments and Additions to the Code of the Republic of Belarus on Marriage and Family” dated 2011. The Court noted that the Constitution protects marriage, family, motherhood, fatherhood, and childhood. It further noted that the protection and strengthening of the family institution is an integral part of the State’s social policy and held that amendments to the Code are aimed at protecting the family. The Court further noted that the Constitutional guarantee on the equality of both spouses means equal
The petitioner requests a divorce from the respondent and money to care for the parties’ daughter, for whom the petitioner is the sole caregiver.
Following the separation of the plaintiff, Ms. L. del V., from the defendant, Mr. G., the defendant failed to pay their daughter’s school tuition or English lessons, took all of the family’s working vehicles, and sporadically paid no more than 40% of stipulated child support. The plaintiff further alleged that the parties’ attempt at a negotiated solution constituted extortion given that she would not receive any support until they reached an agreement. The parties subsequently negotiated an agreement, which the plaintiff later found to be inadequate.
Under Art. 34, a marriage can be terminated upon a joint application of both spouses or at the request of one spouse. Under Art. 35, the termination of a marriage is prohibited during the pregnancy of the wife and before the child has reached the age of three without the written consent of the other spouse, unless the other spouse does not live with the child, or there is a decision determining that another person is the father of the child. In accordance with Art.
Under Section 48, married women can keep their maiden names, use their husband’s surnames, or both, including after the dissolution of the marriage. To qualify for divorce under Section 61, the court must find the marriage can no longer function, and has “irretrievably broken down.” The court can consider factors under Section 64, such as a rape conviction, homosexual acts or other “unnatural” offenses, or cruelty. Under Section 61, no rights to consummation continue after the termination of the marriage.
The appellant arrived at the respondent’s home armed with a pistol and raped her. The respondent, 16 years old at the time, was already 32 weeks pregnant with the appellant’s child due to multiple previous rapes. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant and gave birth to a daughter during the trial. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment, to which he appealed to the Lahore High Court.
