Showing posts with label Special Relief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Special Relief. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Superior Court - ANDREW P. GATES v. NANCY J. REED GATES

ANDREW P. GATES v. NANCY J. REED GATES
No. 763, 1023 and 1026 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 40 Atlantic: 967 A.2d 1024 Filed: 3/10/2009

Appeal from the Orderd Entered April 8, 2008 and May 16, 2008,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Civil Division,
at No. 05-1250 C.D.
Before: BOWES, FREEDBERG, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
In these consolidated appeals Nancy Gates (“Mother”) appeals (1) an April 8, 2008 order, wherein the trial court, inter alia, directed her to execute a consent to release records of her psychiatric treatment to Andrew Gates (“Father”); and (2) a May 16, 2008 order finding Mother in contempt for failing to comply with the April 8, 2008 order and summarily suspending her custodial rights to the parties’ son, Jonathan. Upon review, we reverse the April 8, 2008 order in part, and we vacate the May 16, 2008 order.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Superior Court - TONI J. STAUB v. BRIAN L. STAUB

TONI J. STAUB v. BRIAN L. STAUB
No. 1636 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 251 Atlantic: 960 A.2d 848 Filed: 10/21/2008

Appeal from the Order Entered August 24, 2007,
Court of Common Pleas, York County,
Domestic Relations Division, at No. 2006-CU-2123-Y03.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, SHOGAN and COLVILLE*, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant (“Father”), Brian L. Staub, appeals from the order denying his petition for special relief brought pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1915.13. Therein, Father requested that the trial court prevent continued home schooling of the parties’ minor children by Appellee (“Mother”), Toni J. Staub. On appeal, Father asks us, inter alia, to adopt a clear but narrow rule that requires children to attend public schools when parents who share legal custody cannot agree on home schooling versus public schooling. We decline to adopt such a rule or presumption. To the contrary, we hold that the well-established best interests standard, applied on a case by case basis, governs a court’s decision regarding public schooling versus home schooling. Utilizing this standard, we affirm the trial court’s order.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here