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

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTv. L.R.M., 786 A.2d 913 (Pa.2001)]. Michael E. Bertin.24:4-5.Two Fit Parents vs. Best Interest of Child: OpposingAttorney in Quasi Judicial Role. [Songster v. Mumma,380 Pa. Super. 18, 550 A.2d 1341 (1988)]. 10:66-67.Weighing Substance Abuse and Sexual Preference inDetermining Parental Fitness. [Barron v. Barron, 406Pa. Super. 401, 594 A.2d 682 (1991)]. 12(5):7.When can Putative Father Claim Custody Rights toChild Born While Mother is Married to Another Man?[Dettinger v. McCleary, 438 Pa. Super. 300, 652 A.2d383 (1994)]. 17(2):3-5.When is a Custody Order Final and Appealable? notWhen it is an Interim Order Intended to bean InterimMeasure–"Complete Resolution Test." [G.B. v.M.M.B., 448 Pa. Super. 133, 670 A.2d 714 (1996)].Steven B. Schwartz. 18(2):4-5.CUSTODY–RELOCATIONBest Interest of the Child Paramount in Denial ofIntrastate Relocation Petition. [Speck v. Spadafore, 895A.2d. 606 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Michael E. Bertin. 28:98-99.Best Interests Control in Custody Relocation Cases.[Tripathi v. Tripathi, 787 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 2001)].Sally R. Miller. 24:39-40.Custody Relocation Standard Prior to Initial CustodyOrder. [Marshall v. Marshall, 814 A.2d 1226 (Pa.Super. 2002)]. Lori K. Shemtob. 25:4-5.Gruber Analysis Applied to Inter-County Case.[Bednarek v. Velazquez, 830 A.2d 1267 (PaSuper.2003)]. David S. Pollock. 25:99-100.Gruber Applied to Shared Custody Case a Componentof Best Interests. [Thomas v. Thomas, 739 A.2d 206(Pa. Super. 1999)]. Cheryl L. Young. 21:119-20.Gruber Factors are Only a Part of a Best InterestAnalysis When Court Makes Initial CustodyDetermination in a Relocation Situation. [Hurley v.Hurley, 754 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. Candice L.Komar. 22:62-63.Gruber Test not Controlling Where Children RelocatedPursuant To Earlier Order. [R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Elizabeth H. Cepparulo.32:22-23.In Custody Relocation Cases, When can the CourtAssign an Earning Capacity for Purposes ofDetermining Economic Benefit to the Child? [Hogreliusv. Martin, 950 A.2d 345 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. JenniferZofcin. 30:156-57.Parent Who Already Located has Burden to Show BestInterests of Children Served by Remaining With ThatParent. [Klos v. Klos, 934 A2.d 724 (Pa. Super. 2007)].Michael G. Bononi. 29:131-32.Sunny Florida: Relocation Granted. [Billhime v.Billhime, 869 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. MichaelE. Bertin. 27:59-61.Superior Court Reaffirms Trial Court’s Discretion toApply Gruber to Intrastate Relocations, Reject theRecommendation of a Custody Evaluator, and Increasethe Custodial Time of the Non-Petitioning Parent.[Masser v. Miller, 909 A.2d 846 (Pa. Super. 2006)].Cheryl B. Krentzman. 29:15-17.Superior Court Says No to Netherlands ChildRelocation Request. [Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 906 A.2d1198 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Michael E. Bertin. 29:6-8.CUSTODY–UCCJAContinuing Jurisdiction–“The Significant ConnectionsAnalysis”. [Kriebel v. Kriebel, 766 A.2d 854 (Pa.Super. 2000) and Favacchia v. Favacchia, 769 A.2d 531(Pa. Super 2001)]. Richard I. Moore. 23:38-39.Is “Home State” Under the UCCJEA Decided byWhich Judge Speaks First During a Two-State JudicialTelephone Conference? [Bouzos-Reilly v. Reilly 980A.2d. 643 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Melanie S. Rothey.31:164-65.Interplay: PKPA and UCCJA. [Barndt v. Barndt, 397Pa. Super. 321, 580 A.2d 320 (1990)]. 11:185-87.Danger to Children Permits Exercise of JurisdictionUnder UCCJA Despite Pending Out-of-state Action.[Baines v. Williams, 431 Pa. Super. 72, 635 A.2d 107770