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

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTStanding to Petition for Custody. [Morgan v. Weisner,923 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Kim Denise Morton.29:85-86.Father’s Failure to Exercise Custody Does not ExcuseMother’s Failure to Follow Parties’ Custody Order.[Hopkins v. Byes, 954 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. 2008)].Amy J. Phillips. 30:205-8.Forum Non Conveniens Analyzed in Adoption/CustodyProceedings. [In Re:Adoption of K.S., 399 Pa. Super.29, 581 A.2d 659 (1990)]. 12(1):10-12.Grandparents have Automatic Standing to BringCustody Actions. [R.M. v. Baxter ex rel T.M., 565 Pa.619, 777 A.2d 446 (2001)]. Teri L. Henning. 23:59-60Gross Abuse of Discretion Standard Child CustodyCases Re-emphasized by Supreme Court. [Lombardo v.Lombardo, 515 Pa. 139, 527 A.2d 525 (1987)]. 9:5.Gruber Factors Applied to Intrastate CustodyRelocation Case. [Perrott v. Perrott, 713 A.2d 666 (Pa.Super. 1998)]. Michael L. Kleiman. 20:59-61.Guidelines for Relocation Custody Disputes. [Lee v.Fontine, 406 Pa. Super. 487, 594 A.2d 724 (1991)].12(4):9-10.Home State Jurisdiction in Custody Cases and Test ofSignificant Connections. [Zimbicki v. Zimbicki, 810A.2d 168 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. Mark R. Galzerano. 25:7-8.Homosexuality is Relevant Factor in Custody Decision.[Constant A. v. Paul C. A., 344 Pa. Super. 49, 496 A.2d1 (1985)]. 6:748-754.In Loco Parentis Required for Standing in CustodyCases. [Argenio v. Fenton, 703 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Super.1998)]. Samatha R. LeComte. 20:38-40.In Re: G.C. Focuses Attention on Standing Issues. [InInterest of G.c., 449 Pa. Super. 258, 673 A.2d 932(1996)]. Sophie P. Paul. 18(3):11-12.Inapplicability of Use of Writ of Habeas Corpus andWrit of Prohibition in Custody Case. [Mayercheck v.Wood, 526 Pa. 477, 587 A.2d 696 (1991)]. 12(3):9-10.Interim Custody Order and Status Quo not ControlSubsequent School Year School District Determination.[Fox v. Garzilli, 875 A.2d 1104 (Pa. Super. 2005)].Pamela L. Purdy. 27:118-20.Lesbian Partner in Exclusive Relationship WithArtificially Inseminated Mother has Standing to BringPartial Custody Case. [T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d 873(Pa. Super. 2000)]. Theresa B. Male. 22:61-62.Melzer Calculation not Affected by Shared Custody.[Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super.2007)]. Julia Swain. 29:129-30.Minor’s Brother Granted Custody–Not Father–WhenMother Died. [Chambers v. Chambers, 105 PDDRR 69(Bucks County, 2005)]. Julie E. Ganz. 27:114-15.Modification of Custody Order: Must First ProveSubstantial Change in Circumstances. [Karis v. Karis,353 Pa. Super. 561, 510 A.2d 804 (1986)]. 7:900-2.Mother by Estoppel v. In Loco Parentis Status. [S.A. v.C.G.R., 856 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. CherylSattin. 27:3-4.Mother Maintained Primary Custody Despite HerPlacement of Child in Private Boarding School. [A.O.v. M.O., 856 A.2d 1204 (2004)]. Jessica A. Pritchard.26:110-11.No Presumption that Public School is Superior to HomeSchooling. [Staub v. Staub, A.2d (Pa. Super. 2008)].Gerald L. Shoemaker. 31:20-21.Non-Biological Grandparents Granted Standing inChild Custody Case. [Peters v. Costello 891 A.2d 705(Pa. Super. 2005)]. Michael E. Bertin. 28:13-15.Paren[t] Who Already Located has Burden to ShowBest Interests Of Children Served by Remaining withThat Parent. [Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super2007)]. Michele G. Bononi. 29:131-32.Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act Controls InterstateCustody Case. [Skomo v. Skomo, 844 A.2d 1256 (Pa.Super. 2004)]. Elisabeth Bennington. 26:40-41.The Parenting Coordinator Cometh. [Yates v. Yates,963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. David J. Draganosky.67