index to the pennsylvania family lawyer volumes 1-32 compiled by ...

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORS1997)]. 19:57-58.Clifford, Daniel J. Earning Capacity vs. EarningHistory: If a Party has been a Farmer for TenYears; He is a Farmer. [Dennis v. Whitney, 844A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. 26:44-45.Clifford, Daniel J. Second Parent Adoption:Supreme Court puts end to “Absurdity.” [In Re:Adoption of R.B.F. and R.C.F., Appeal of B.A.F.and C.H.F. (Lancaster County), 803 A.2d 1195(Pa. 2002), In Re: Adoption of C.C.G. and Z.C.G.,Appeal of J.C.G and J.J.G. (Erie County), 803A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002)]. 24:105-6.Cognetti, Maria P. Post-Separation RetirementBenefits–After Berrington. [Brown v. Brown, 447Pa. Super. 424, 669 A.2d 969 (1995)]. 18(2):11-13.Conmy, Joanna K. Child Support Calculations:Ongoing Private School Tuition Contributions arein; One-Time Stock Options, Payments TowardPerks and Withdrawal Penalties on EmployerContributions to 401(k) Plans are Out,. [Murphy v.McDermott, 979 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. 2009)].31:159-62.Conmy, Joanna K. A Thin Line DistinguishingBillhime: What Constitutes Enough Evidence toEstablish a Child’s “Significant Connection” withPennsylvania to Maintain Jurisdiction Over aCustody Matter? [Rennie v. Rosenthol, 995 A.2d1217 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:141-44.Cooper, Karl D. The Presumption of Paternity andthe Doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel Revisited.[Hamilton v. Hamilton, 795 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super.2002), T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super.2002)]. 24:35-36.Cusick, Charles S. Jr. Neither IVF, Nor aPreconception Oral Agreement Nor the Mother’sIntentional Deception Bars a Sperm Donor’sAdjudication as the Child’s Legal FatherObligated to Pay Child Support. [Ferguson v.McKiernan, 855 A.2d 121 (Pa Super. 2004)].26:109-10.Daley, Kathleen Carey. Presumption of PaternityRebutted and Paternity by Estoppel Inapplicable.[Green v. Good, 704 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1998)].20:40-42.Davis, Sandra E. Full-Time Job in Support Cases.[Haselrig v. Haselrig, 840 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super.2003)]. 26:8-9.Davis, Sandra E. Mortgage Adjustment in ChildSupport Case After Decree in Divorce. [Isralsky v.Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 (Pa Super. 2003)]. 25:69-72.Davis Anderson, Liane. Appellant’s Failure toComply With Trial Court’s Order to Furnish A1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of onAppeal in a Timely Manner While Also Violatingthe New Procedural Rules Outlined in1925(a)(2)(i) Constitutes a Waiver of Objectionsto the Lower Court’s Order. [J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d904 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:80-82.Dawson, Michelle S. Failure to State Issues inStatement of Matters Complained of On AppealConstitutes Waiver of Issues First Raised byAppellant in Superior Court Brief. [Kelly v.Mueller, 912 A.2d 202 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:19-20.DeMatteo, Christina M. The Application of theDoctrine of In Custodia Legis to Protect MaritalProperty fromTax Sale During the Pendency ofEquitable Distribution. [City of Easton v. Marra,862 A.2d 170 (Pa. Commw. 2004)]. 27:8-9.DeMatteo, Christina M. Dependency by Omission:Trial Court’s Finding That a Child is WithoutProper Parental Care Supports an Adjudication ofDependency. [In Re: R.P., 2008 Pa. Super. 196(August 21, 2008), 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super.2008)]. 30:213-15.Dobbins, Susan N. Shared Custody Order Vacatedfor Infant. [Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa.Super. 1998)]. 21:6-8.Draganosky, David J. Getting Sirious.[Sirio v.Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 30:159-63.6