FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2199070972> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2199070972 abstract "In the U. S., when married parents with a minor child divorce, the most significant issues commonly pertain to (i) custody, (ii) support and (iii) property division. Rules governing when a U.S. divorce court may assert jurisdiction over these issues in a family law case are not uniform. For example, for custody adjudications there is a home state preference. “Home state” is generally defined as the state where the child has been living for at least 6 continuous months as of the date the action was filed, ignoring temporary absences. For custody disputes, home state status also continues for up to 6 months in those situations where the forum was the child’s home state, one parent moved with the child to another state, and the other parent remains in the forum. For support issues, there is also a home state preference, but for purposes of support home state status ends as soon as the child moves away. So, if a child has established a home state and then one parent moves with the child to another state (and no legal action has yet been filed), home state status immediately ends for purposes of support but not for custody. For purposes of support, if there is no home state, any state that has personal jurisdiction over the obligor can render a support order. Priority is given to the state where the first action for support is filed. “Personal jurisdiction” exists if there are substantial contacts between the forum and the obligor, or the obligor is served with process in the forum. So, if parents have lived in state #1 for years with the child and then one parent moves to state #2 with the child and shortly thereafter files an action for custody and support in state #2, the state #2 court would have to defer to a court in state #1 for custody but not for support. The state #2 court could render a support order if the court has personal jurisdiction over the obligor.For purposes of property division at divorce, to assume jurisdiction the court generally must have personal jurisdiction over both parties. There currently are no generally accepted principles for jurisdictional priority for property division. The most commonly accepted current approach is that the court where the action was first filed should divide the marital estate, as long as that court has personal jurisdiction over both parties, regardless of whether the parties have more substantial contacts with another state. The lack of a sensible system of jurisdictional priority for support and property division can lead to forum shopping and a race to the courthouse. In the U. S., issues in a divorce are resolved based on state law. State support and property division rules vary significantly. The current majority U. S. approach is that the divorce court which assumes jurisdiction applies its own internal family law rules to govern support and property division. This can give a spouse an incentive to file the action first in a forum whose laws would yield a result desired by that spouse. In addition to this concern regarding forum shopping, the lack of a uniform system for jurisdictional priority can lead to different issues being heard in courts in different states, which can be expensive and inconvenient for the parties. It would be sensible to have a more coherent set of rules for priority of jurisdiction in U. S. family law matters. In this paper I propose such a set of rules. I build on the already accepted principle of “home state” as it is now applied for custody matters. I propose generally that rules be adopted so that, if parties are divorcing with a minor child, and the child has a home state, that court should presumptively hear all matters in the divorce. If parties do not have a minor child, I propose that the economic aspects of the divorce should presumptively be adjudicated by a court in the state where the parties last had a common domicile for at least 6 months." @default.
• W2199070972 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2199070972 creator A5068682625 @default.
• W2199070972 date "2015-09-21" @default.
• W2199070972 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2199070972 title "Why a New Uniform Equitable Distribution Jurisdiction Act is Needed to Reduce Forum Shopping in Divorce Litigation" @default.
• W2199070972 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2199070972 type Work @default.
• W2199070972 sameAs 2199070972 @default.
• W2199070972 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2199070972 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W2199070972 hasAuthorship W2199070972A5068682625 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C131932780 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C204434341 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C2780183969 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C11413529 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C131932780 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C144133560 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C15744967 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C17744445 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C199539241 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C204434341 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C2776949292 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C2780183969 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C41008148 @default.
• W2199070972 hasConceptScore W2199070972C48103436 @default.
• W2199070972 hasLocation W21990709721 @default.
• W2199070972 hasOpenAccess W2199070972 @default.
• W2199070972 hasPrimaryLocation W21990709721 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W140140066 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W1444627403 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W1489666511 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W175738205 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W1861666774 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W2041271855 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W2055171382 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W250953574 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W264204239 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W3124349863 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W313533656 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W3198987825 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W325193677 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W326626441 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W85601387 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W183338827 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W23485010 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W2596840970 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W2605441146 @default.
• W2199070972 hasRelatedWork W2798864018 @default.
• W2199070972 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2199070972 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2199070972 magId "2199070972" @default.
• W2199070972 workType "article" @default.