Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/957/2005 • CJ GE ATAS/957/2005 Généré par l'IA

Custody Modification Upheld Despite Challenge to Changed Circumstances Standard

Numéro de cause ATAS/957/2005
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The appellant challenged a trial court's order that modified the custody arrangement, asserting the lower court misapplied the standard for modification by focusing on post-judgment events that were foreseeable at the time of the initial custody decree and failing to find a substantial, material change in circumstances necessary to warrant a change in custody. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the trial court correctly considered the totality of the circumstances, including evidence of inadequate provision for the child's welfare under the existing arrangement, which constituted a material and substantial change warranting modification to ensure the child's best interests were served.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Custody Modification Upheld Despite Challenge to Changed Circumstances Standard: The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the trial court correctly considered the totality of the circumstances, including evidence of inadequate provision for the child's welfare under the existing arrangement, which constituted a material and substantial change warranting modification to ensure the child's best interests were served.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
modification des circonstances modification de l'autorité parentale intérêt de l'enfant révision en matière civile modification de la demande recours contre décision de renvoi

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

The court ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the federal judicial proceedings.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

         

     !"!##" $"%!##"

&

' (') )*)  ')  * (

+,- "

 $ ./,- !##"

 

 !"#$%&$''" $ (&$'')$ 



$

*  + ,,  ,!#--,%'$!."' $"& "//!#$!/001 ,  !"#$% &$''"(&$'')$  .



 

            

  21312 



'&'/56%1004'*  + !#72  6$$ 8##$ 9"& #   $  '& ' $$  ' : '&"; 100<  $  '$ =  $ '8%'$& =  $>'<0?@ '8&'/4%1004!A/B%$!$=8$ '  '&  ##$ $  '$ =  $ '8%'$& #'$ =  #$&'C'40?@ &#'8$"&'/D61004$6$'@    ' /5 $; 1004 ' ; ' &! 9"$  $ 78 %C$'&9"'&$$7&='&$"$$$E$'& D/$;1004#9";%$$@ $$'!'$'D/$;1004@  

  *(0  (') )*)  ')  * (



12.3.,, 4  5.. .  67 8! *9

/- '$'$$'- 1- E'F- D- $7#&'$C$$-   C99G  #&'$         HI J E       #9"'#&$K$$$9&>#$78=8999&'& '$&#;7#C99



3//1431004