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

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECT31:15-18.Pennsylvania Superior Court Abolishes EvidentiaryPresumption Relating to Same-Sex Relationships inCustody and Affirms the Best Interest Standard.[M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010)].Carolyn R. Mirabile. 32:20-21.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Evaluates Scope ofAppellate Review as Defined by Mumma v. Mumma inCustody Cases. [Robinson v. Robinson, 538 Pa. Super.52, 645 A.2d 836 (1994)]. 16(4):2-3.Preference of Children Dominant Factor in CustodyCase Where Parents Equally Capable and HomesEqually Suitable. [Myers v. Didomenico, 441 Pa.Super. 341, 657 A.2d 956 (1995)]. 17(3):3-4.Prospective Adoptive Parents did not have Standing toIntervene in Custody Case. [B.A. and A.A. v. E.E. v.,D. and C., 559 Pa. 545, 741 A.2d 1227 (1999)]. LindaRovder Fleming. 22:8-11.Protection of Mental Health Records as it Applies to aCustody Case in Pennsylvania. [Gates v. Gates, 967A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Elisabeth W. Molnar.31:97-99.Recent Custody Decisions Which Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Cox v. Cox,255 Pa. Super. 508, 388 A. 2d 1082 (1978); Sipe v.Shaffer, 261 Pa. Super. 150, 396 A. 2d 1359 (1979);Lewis v. Lewis, 267 Pa. Super. 235, 406 A.2d 781(1979); Rupp v. Rupp, 268 Pa. Super. 467, 408 A.2d883 (1979); Kimmey v. Kimmey, 269 Pa. Super. 346,409 A.2d 1178 (1979); Lewis v. Lewis, 271 Pa. Super.519, 414 A.2d 375 (1979), Crowther v. Waida, 272 Pa.Super. 73, 414 A.2d 675 (1979), Weber v. Weber, 272Pa. Super. 88, 414 A.2d 682 (1979)]. 1:1-11.Recent Custody Decisions Which Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Hooks v.Ellerbe, 257 Pa. Super. 219, 390 A. 2d 791 (1978);Hooks v. Ellerbe, Phil. Co., DR 2554288 (Oct. 26,1977), Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363, 416 A. 2d 512(1980); Palmer v. Tokarek, 279 Pa. Super. 458, 421A.2d 289 (1980)]. 1:64-72.Religious Restriction in Custody Order Struck Down.[Zummo C. Zummo, 394 Pa. Super. 30, 574 A.2d 1130(1990)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:143.Right to De Novo Trial in Custody Proceeding.[Ashford v. Ashford, 395 Pa. Super. 125, 576 A.2d1076 (1990)]11:157-58.Shared Custody Act Interpreted by PennsylvaniaSupreme Court. [Karis v. Karis, 518 Pa. 601, 544 A.2d1328 (1988)]. 9(5):45-46.Shared Custody Case. [Smith v. Smith, 307 Pa. Super.544, 453 A.2d 1020 (1983)]. 4:418-22.Shared Custody–Criteria Needed to be Established.[Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 432 A.2d 63 (1982); In Re:K., 299 Pa. Super. 504, 445 A. 2d 1243 (1982)]. 3:314-18.Shared Custody Order Vacated for Infant. [Wiseman v.Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Susan N.Dobbins. 21:6-8.Shared Legal Custody: Public School Versus PrivateSchool. [Dolan v. Dolan, 378 Pa. Super. 321, 548 A.2d632 (1988)]. 9(5):46-47.Some Parents are not More Equal Than Others in JointCustody Arrangements.[Hill v. Hill, 422 Pa. Super.533, 619 A.2d 1086 (1993)]. 14(3):13.Statutory Standing in Grandparent Custody Cases.[Martinez v. Baxter, 725 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1999)].Sally R. Miller. 21:35-36.Superior Court Addresses Interplay of PFA andCustody Order. [Dye for McCoy v. McCoy, 423 Pa.Super. 334, 621 A.2d 144 (1993)]. 14(3):6-7.Superior Court Applies “Specific Harm” Standard toPrevent Mother’s Request to Baptize Child. [Hicks v.Hicks, 868 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Alan J.Fuehrer. 27:54-55.Superior Court Confirms Custody of 15-year-old Girl inAunt, With Whom She has Resided for Three Years,Despite the Claim of Her Mother, a Recovered Addict.[Cardamone v. Elshoff, 442 Pa. Super. 263, 659 A.2d575 (1995)]. 17(4):2-3.Superior Court Grants Standing to a Lesbian Partner to68