Stipulation Stipulated Agreement

Question: Did FATHER sign over his rights to his child? in front of me, is a " stipulation/agreement of parties. Its is hereby agreed/stipulated that, subject to the approval of the court , the following shall be made a Temporary Order or Judgment of this Court: Father shall pay mother $50.00 weekly child support by wage assigment through D.O.R. - Mother shall have physical and legal custody of the minor child _____. Father shall have parenting time with the minor child on satursdays through sundays as arainged by mutual agreement of the above parent.with 48 hours notice.. 1. Does this mean, parent (father) has singed over his rights to his child.. He wants to know if this is what it means, the D.o.R lawyer did not explain it well to FATHER so he thinks he signed his rights to his child. 2. Above it says its a temporary order or judgement of this court. 3. Does this mean, this is only temporary not Permanent? Can he file a motion to appeal this , if he signed over his rights to his child? all he wants is to see her.

Answer: This bit, "Father shall have parenting time with the minor child on satursdays through sundays as arainged by mutual agreement of the above parent.with 48 hours notice.." says that the father DID NOT sign over his rights. He still has the duty to pay for his child AND he has the right to receive visitation (called "parenting time"). The form does say though that the mother has primary custody of the child (physical and legal) so she gets to make most of the decisions BUT if the father of the child does not like it, he can get his lawyer to fight to have it changed as this is only a temporary order. And if it says, "temporary", it is temporary and not permanent. And since the father has not terminated his parental rights, he has the right to appeal. But since you say all he wants is to see her, I don't see what the problem is as there is visitation ordered (called "parenting time"). It says specifically that he can see his child on Saturdays to Sundays but he has to arrange it with her mother AND give 48 hours notice. This means he can see his child if he obeys the court order. One last thing. Tell the father from me that if he doesn't understand a court order and/or document, he should not sign it until the lawyer explains it to him fully in words that he can understand. Otherwise, he well could sign his parental rights away. And if he is illiterate (cannot read), he needs to be honest with the court and let them know so they can explain things thoroughly to him and confirm his understanding of their orders. Good luck!

Question: What else do I need for this divorce?!? How do I get this on the calendar asap? My ex filed for divorce, I agreed. She waited almost a year not doing anything else they requested of her. I tried numerous times to get it moved on the calendar. I even tried to enforce a settlement agreement that we agreed upon in mediation. All this mess because she changed her mine about what we agreed upon and didn't turn in the final settlement agreement. I thought if we agree in mediation and have signed those papers--wtf else? Now, the courts is saying that all of our previous papers since 07 can not be counted and they want us to start all over from mediation. I know there is a quicker way OUT! P.S. DO NOT GET DIVORCED IN CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA!!! Response to Motion to Enforce 07/29/2008 Event Outcome Denied - Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 07/25/2008 Image Document Change of Address 07/23/2008 Image Document Letter from Judge Secretary 07/21/2008 Image Document Verification 07/21/2008 Image Document Exhibits 07/21/2008 Motion Filed Mot for Jgment on the Pleading 07/11/2008 Image Document Letter from Judge Secretary 07/10/2008 Image Document Request for Hearing 06/13/2008 Image Document Letter from Judge Secretary 06/12/2008 Motion Filed Motion to Enforce Settlement 06/04/2008 Image Document Letter from Judge Secretary 06/03/2008 Image Document Financial Affidavit Defendant 06/03/2008 Motion Filed Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 05/28/2008 Image Document Letter from Judge Secretary 05/27/2008 Stipulation Stipulated by Defendant 05/09/2008 Div Parent Cert Divorcing Parents Certificate 04/02/2008 Div Parent Cert Divorcing Parents Certificate Plaintiff 03/07/2008 Image Document Letter from ADR Special Program Coordinator 12/05/2007 Image Document Letter from Judge Secretary 12/05/2007 Stipulation Stipulated by Plaintiff - Non-Jury 11/30/2007 Image Document Letter from Judge Secretary 11/29/2007 Stipulation Stipulated by Defendant - Non-Jury 11/05/2007 Image Document Notice of Pymt Mediation Fees 10/29/2007 Image Document ADR Release for Hearing and Notice of Fees Due 09/14/2007 Case Filing Counter Claim Against Plaintiff 09/14/2007 Answer Answer By Defendant 09/14/2007 Service Postcrd Service of PERS on 08/14/2007 at 03:24 PM for Defendant 08/14/2007 Service PERSONAL, Defendant 07/19/2007 Image Document Child Support Worksheet 07/19/2007 Image Document Child Support Worksheet 07/19/2007 Image Document Financial Affidavit 07/19/2007 Receipt Receipt# 200705933 issued for $82.25 07/19/2007 Case Filing Divorce against Defendant

Answer: you certainly seem to be having bad time with this..maybe an appeal is possible..if it was a judge says u got to start again then can an appeal against his/her ruling be heard...only thing i can think of..e

Question: My grandson had his first overnight visit with his father in a year and a half....?

Answer: Your daughter needs to chose her battles wisely, this just doesn't seem to be one. Sounds like the father has plenty of problems if he still lives at home and at least he is trying to have some kind of relationship with his son. Give him a chance and don't make things harder for him or your grandson.

Question: Check to make sure if this is all in past tense? ignore any spelling errors. O'Neil, presiding judge. The issue before the court was that the plaintiff, Governor Mark Sanford alleged, that he had entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of a turkey farm, which included both personal and real property. The plaintiff alleged that the parties previously stipulated and agreed that Governor Sanford would obtain possession of the turkey carcasses as a form of personal property under the contract entered by the parties. The issue before the court is whether the turkey carcasses were included under a real property and if this case constitutes a breach of property under the law. The facts, of this case involve occurrences that arose, or allegedly arose out of a contract for the sale of real property and personal property wherein the plaintiff, had signed a written agreement, entering a sale of personal and real property, specifying certain items to be transferred upon the stipulation enclosing of the sale. The sale and purchase was of a turkey farm and the dispute is in regards to dead turkeys that the plaintiff alleged were removed from the property because the plaintiff alleged the turkey carcasses were part of the sale of the property, as personal property. The plaintiffs argument was that the removal of personal property, that was previously stipulated, and agreed upon, had been breached in accordance to the contract entered by the parties. This contract included both real and personal property. The personal property included turkeys, and the plaintiff alleged he was entitled to the carcasses of the deceased turkeys that were killed while on national syndication television. The plaintiff alleged, by failing to provide these carcasses, the defendant has breached the contract of personal property. The defendants argument was that the parties, upon the entrance of stipulating a personal sales contract, had no specific wording regarding the stipulation of deceased carcasses of dead turkeys. The defendant alleged that under the case of Gomez v. Dykes 89 Ariz. 171, 359 P. 2d 760, the trial court properly held that the manureed drop by the defendants cattle rightfully belonged to the defendants and that a great weight of authority in other jurisdiction holds that if animals have not been fed with the products of the land, the land had not been inpverished and consequently, the animals owner owes no duty to lease the manuer to replenish the land. At the time of the national syndication, the defendant was the owner of the animals, he owes no duty to leave the carcasses to replenish the land, under the law. The courts had to base this decision on two separate issues, whether the parties entered into the contract prior to the sindication that was televised and positively showing the existence of these turkey carcasses, in which the courts conclude the contract had not been entered until after the sindication. In the case of Gomez v. Dykes, 89 Ariz. 171, 359 P. 2d 760, the newer droppings form animals was the property of Dykes, because the animals had fed off the land, which would be the second element to substantiate proof upon, and to resolve for the question whether the carcasses were at the premise at the time of acquirement.In this case, the carcasses were there prior to the entrance of the contract, thus they are not the property of the plaintiff, because the defendant has no duty to leave the animal to replenish the land, as in Gomez v. Dykes, in which the animal owner owned no duty to leave the manuer to replenish the land. Judgment is in favor of the defendant.

Answer: See capitals: O'Neil, presiding judge. The issue before the court was that the plaintiff, Governor Mark Sanford alleged, that he had entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of a turkey farm, which included both personal and real property. The plaintiff alleged that the parties previously stipulated and agreed that Governor Sanford would obtain possession of the turkey carcasses as a form of personal property under the contract entered by the parties. The issue before the court WAS whether the turkey carcasses were included under a real property and if this case constituteD a breach of property under the law. The facts, of this case involveD occurrences that arose, or allegedly arose out of a contract for the sale of real property and personal property wherein the plaintiff, had signed a written agreement, entering a sale of personal and real property, specifying certain items to be transferred upon the stipulation enclosing of the sale. The sale and purchase was of a turkey farm and the dispute WAS in regards to dead turkeys that the plaintiff alleged were removed from the property because the plaintiff alleged the turkey carcasses were part of the sale of the property, as personal property. The plaintiffs argument was that the removal of personal property, that was previously stipulated, and agreed upon, had been breached in accordance to the contract entered by the parties. This contract included both real and personal property. The personal property included turkeys, and the plaintiff alleged he was entitled to the carcasses of the deceased turkeys that were killed while on national syndication television. The plaintiff alleged, by failing to provide these carcasses, the defendant haD breached the contract of personal property. The defendants argument was that the parties, upon the entrance of stipulating a personal sales contract, had no specific wording regarding the stipulation of deceased carcasses of dead turkeys. The defendant alleged that under the case of Gomez v. Dykes 89 Ariz. 171, 359 P. 2d 760, the trial court properly held that the manureed drop by the defendants cattle rightfully belonged to the defendants and that a great weight of authority in other jurisdiction hELD that if animals WERE NOT fed with the products of the land, the land had not been inpverished and consequently, the animals owner oweD no duty to lease the manuer to replenish the land. At the time of the national syndication, the defendant was the owner of the animals, he oweD no duty to leave the carcasses to replenish the land, under the law. The courts had to base this decision on two separate issues, whether the parties entered into the contract prior to the sindication that was televised and positively showing the existence of these turkey carcasses, in which the courts conclude the contract had not been entered until after the sindication. In the case of Gomez v. Dykes, 89 Ariz. 171, 359 P. 2d 760, the newer droppings form animals was the property of Dykes, because the animals had fed off the land, which would be the second element to substantiate proof upon, and resolveD for the question whether the carcasses were at the premise at the time of acquirement.In this case, the carcasses were there prior to the entrance of the contract, thus they WERE not the property of the plaintiff, because the defendant haD no duty to leave the animal to replenish the land, as in Gomez v. Dykes, in which the animal owner owned no duty to leave the manuer to replenish the land. Judgment WAS in favor of the defendant.

Question: Governing Law - COntract? When a contract stipulates as to the governing law, does that mean: (i) governing law will step in and govern the interpretation of the contractual terms, etc.? (ii) say if one of the contracting parties is bankrupt in another country (not the country's governing law), what effect does it have on the agreement absent any express stipulation? how does the governing law come into play? does it depend on the governing law? what practicalities and effect it will have on the contracting parties in the country (not the country where the governing law is based on)? Thanks

Answer: Depending on the section, civil code, business & profession code... the governing law is the primary law source for the exsisting legal issue! If you made an agreement with a person who has since gone bankrupt in another country, your law stands as the governing law if your product was sold from your country. The express stipulation is the agreement either written or digital to use other means of presuing legal relief for any possible damages. Stipulation simply means, you both agree! The governing law bypasses any secondary source of law. If your country states that a buyer is liable for any purchase regardless of declaration of bankrupcy, it will allow you to have a lawsuit in your country against this person. However, that suit will ony be good against the person in your country. Other countries are not required to follow the findings of the court in your area. Sounds like one hell of a legal research topic. Have fun!

Question: Long multi-question for American Evangelical Protestant Christians who think that the Bible is the word of God? Sorry of this is long, but I've been smoking a little weed tonight and I'm getting into some deep thinking... As I understand it, the bible that you profess to be the word of the Lord is a either a derivative of the "British Revised Version" or the "American Standard Version". Since both of those were essentially just updates in language to the the so-called "King James Authorized Version", we shall stipulate that your bible is derived by degree from the King James. Of course, if I am wrong, you may correct me. Now let's move on to my questions, keeping in mind our stipulation..... 1. Being that the King James Authorized Version was translated from the Latin Vulgate by 7 commitees comprised of upwards of 50 people, do you think that those 50 people were divinely inspired, or were they just luckily perfect? Could they have made mistakes? Could politics have been involved in their agreements on how to translate certain things? 2. If you accept that the modern translations of the Bible is the word of God, you must therefore accept that the Latin Vulgate (from which they are derived via King James Authorized) is the word of God, correct? Logically, you are therefore stating that Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus (aka the Catholic "St Jerome"), who translated the entire Latin Vulgate from Old latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, was divinely inspired, or just super smart. Which was it? 3. If you assert that the King James Commitees and the Catholic St. Jerome were not divinely inspired, and were just real smart, how can you account for certain human error in the supposed "word of the Lord"? 4. If you accept the divine inspiration of the King James Commitees and the Catholic St. Jerome, then why is it such a stretch that the Pope himself or the Cardinals who elect him would be divinely inspired as well? I don't get how you can consider the bible to be the word of the Lord, and then reject the divinity of the institutions from which your holy book is derived. You cannot be selective in whom and what you consider to be divine, can you? Either the bible is the word of the Lord and was brought forth in a divine fashion through people and institutions whom you reject, or it was never divine to begin with and is therefore not the word of God, right? Set me straight if you think I'm wrong. @JohnO: Ok then, apply my questions to the Illinois dudes. Were they divine, or were they perfectly smart? What about human error in their translation? If they are divine, then why did God select them for divinity and not the translators from the 3rd or 15th centuries? If they are just really smart guys, then your bible is obviously not the word of God, right?

Answer: Five loaves of bread and two fish should take care of the munchies.