Allen v. Allen

4 Citing cases

  1. Connolly v. Connolly

    680 P.2d 568 (Mont. 1984)   Cited 3 times
    In Connolly the fact that a married man had an intimate sexual relationship with Mrs. Connolly was one of several grounds that led this Court to affirm the lower court's decision to change custody.

    In making a custody determination, the court must examine both the children's present environment and their future environment. Therefore substantial evidence of either the children's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships may be the basis for asserting jurisdiction under Subsection (1)(b)(ii). Allen v. Allen (Hawaii 1981), 2 Hawaii App. 519, 634 P.2d 609, 612; Reeve v. Reeve (Fl. 1980), 391, So.2d 789, 791; Nelson v. District Court (Colo. 1974), 186 Colo. 381, 527 P.2d 811, 814. Bodenheimer, The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act,, 22 Vand.L.Rev. 1207, 1227 (1969). Having thus determined that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the petition for modification, we must now look to whether there is substantial evidence to support the court's findings and conclusions that a change in custody is in the best interest of the two younger children.

  2. Puckett v. Puckett

    94 Haw. 471 (Haw. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that defendant had waived the improper service issue by not raising it until after he had filed an answer, personally appeared at a hearing, and filed his first motion to dismiss

    HRS § [583-3(a)(1)(B).] See Allen v[.] Allen, 2 Haw. App. [519], 634 P.2d 609 ([1980]) rev'd 64 Haw. 553, 645 P.2d 300 (1982). 6.

  3. Davis v. Davis

    3 Haw. App. 501 (Haw. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 22 times
    Relating to motions for modification of court-ordered child support

    In the case at bar, it appears that the lower court decided question 1 adversely to Father and never reached questions 2 and 3. The standard by which we review the family court's decision on question 1 is different from the standard by which we review its decision on questions 2 and 3. Compare Allen v. Allen, 2 Haw. App. 519, 634 P.2d 609 (1981), rev'd, 64 Haw. 553 (1982), with Ahlo v. Ahlo, 1 Haw. App. 324, 619 P.2d 112 (1980). In our review of the answer to question 1, the right/wrong standard is applicable.

  4. Bullard v. Bullard

    647 P.2d 294 (Haw. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    Texas was never a "home state." Prior to the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. Allen, 2 Haw. App. 519, 634 P.2d 609 (1981), rev'd, 64 Haw. 553, 645 P.2d 300 (1982), we might have decided that Texas had jurisdiction under its statute parallel to 583-3(a)(2) because it was Andrew's legal custodian's domicile at the time mother filed her petition. However, since domicile is not a "significant connection" and since the parents and child in this case have less connection with Texas than the parents and child in Allen had with Hawaii, or the parents and child in Griffith had with California, Allen and Griffith preclude us from doing so.