Talk:Family law

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

POV

The current version of the article is written from the point of view of a father who lost a custody battle. It needs to be more neutral and on topic. -- JeffAMcGee July 1, 2005 22:00 (UTC)

It also seems to have been written by someone with unusual ideas about English - since when has "critique" been a verb?? Maelli (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for bias opinions and personal issues and stories. There are many examples of Websites that are designed for that purpose such as www.facebook.com/FamilyLawHasToChange etc.. Therefore, if one wishes to voice concerns, that is the place to do it, not here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiyahdearie (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of promise

The above comment no longer seems to be applicable to the article as it now stands. However, my question is whether the formerly very important concept of breach of promise needs to be added to either this article, the "family law" template, or both. Comments? Rlquall 15:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think breach of promise is a dead letter law these days. David91 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal needed

This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Chicago-area and Illinois divorce-related government links

There were some good links to Chicago-area and Illinois divorce-related government links that I deleted. Why? Because this article is over-linked already (see the external links guideline) and global in focus.

I encourage the original contributor to consider starting an article (it could be short) such as "Family Law in Illinois". It would need some information in addition to links -- the "What Wikipedia is not" policy rules out articles that are only directories of links.

There are other links in this article that are genuine spam; I started to clean it up (but ran out of time). --A. B. 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New link consideration

I would like to propose adding a link to the http://pafamilylaw.net site. Dwj119 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to say blogs are Links normally to be avoided according to policy--Hu12 00:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a law degree, does that make me a recognized authority? "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Dwj119 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unsure as to why the ParenetTime.Net site is listed as an external link. This site aims to sell a online service (parent calendar) for child custody cases. The site doesn't offer any real useful information about Family Law. I propose removing this link.

The http://pafamilylaw.net site offers free, useful information for all aspects of family law: divorce, child support, and child custody. It is written by a person with a degree in law. I don't think we should discount this valuable resource just because it is in "blog format".

I agree with you on ParenetTime.Net, it has been removed. Editors make the policies here at Wikipedia, feel free to to try and change those policies if you like. Untill that time, those are the policies. If you have content to contribute, why not contribute that. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?--Hu12 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I am here to improve Wikipedia. Most of the information on http://pafamilylaw.net is targeted towards Pennsylvania. Perhaps I should add a new article to WikiPedia, Pennsylvania Family Law or something along those lines. Dwj119 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if your link was approved to be added to Wikipedia. Also where is your link located at. Farzadmazarei 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)PDF[reply]

Family problems & issues

http://familyproblemsissues.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.100.93 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spousal and child abuse

Are these appropriate for this article, and should they be called core areas of family law? I'm inclined to say they belong firmly under criminal law (rather than civil family law) but perhaps I'm reflecting a US centric view of the subject here.--Cybermud (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Family Law section

This section contains a large essay-like section written by someone other than the author (apparently copied and pasted) that describes the "problems" with family law in the United Kingdom. Nowhere in the entire article is there any details regarding supporters of Family Law. Also, the criticism section seems to deal primarily with Family Law in the United Kingdom. Mhadj001 (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenton Mann has written this article and l have corrected the l and me content, thanks for pointing this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.126.46 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My article has been removed, it was created by me and l give the my premission as the author to be used on wikipedia. I have corrected the I and me content of the unedited version. It is a very important article which was concluded after vast experience and extensive involvement of the family law systen. I do know how to put it back on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentonmann (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research and advertising a website. No thanks. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be ohnoitsjamie can help me edit the article, it is important. Help would helpful. Kentonmann (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the reasons already given. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie it is not advertisment and yes it is original research, but its is of substance and complies with wikipedia orginal research source policy as it refers to factual and established research Kentonmann (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie how can wikipedia ever be a source of new knowledge with such unhelpful negitivity which in itself breaks every understanding of a wiki. I am sorry the article does not meet your standards. The article was to help to resolve family law issues from as neutral stand point and how they could be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentonmann (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted the same rant on other comments boards on the web. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you continue to use it as such, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Jamie for your understanding, yes l posted a basic article as a comment which was a draft and was very different to my rant as you describe, which l find insulting and again against wikipedia good conduct. I wish wikipedia well but fear it may be spoilt by a few.Kentonmann (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'criticism section'.

I removed this section for a number of reasons, here is a quick run down of my thinking:

1) The specific criticisms should either be contained in the relevant articles (Alimony) or were not sufficiently neutral (lawyer's fees).
2) Those criticisms were not individually large enough to warrant a mention on the main article without giving them undue weight.
3) The section implied that there are structural issues with family law ('setting families against one another'), when this is simply how an adversarial legal system works. It's a nonsensical, fringe criticism that doesn't undermine the nature of family law itself, although it might be relevant to specific implementations of policy in specific jurisdictions.
4) The sources used for these claims simply linked to articles about alimony reform in specific states, rather than the idea of 'family law' as a whole. This reinforces my impression that the original author was confusing criticism of the practice area with criticism of how specific jurisdictions implement family law.

This whole article needs a re-write, which I currently don't have time to do, but this was the most glaring problem with it.Snumbers (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family Solicitor's

I have spent a long time deciding what i would like to be when i am older! After a long time of deciding, I have managed to see that i would best fit being a family solicitor but i couldn't find any useful sites to help me! Therefore, I have made this site to tell you what i think a family solicitor is...

Family Solicitors deal with many things such as:

•Divorces •Abuse (Physical) •Hurt (emotionally, mentally)

This means that they need a good level of communication and understanding towards others and they should be able to deal with 'heated' situations. Some GCSE or SAT options may be History. This is useful in family solicitors because people need to be able to see theories or what may have previously happened in the past! Another option may be Law. This is also very imperative because people need to know what is obviously allowed and disallowed in family!

Jenny Beharami (12) 

          Ps. i will finish this document very soon, please edit anything you may think is helpful! i promise to carry on with this!♥♥♥  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.120.83 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Family law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Positives and Negatives of Family Law

The new section, Positive and Negatives of Family Law needs significant revision to be useful. If nobody takes on that work, I suggest that it be removed. Arllaw (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With no objection made or discussion having followed, I'm removing the text. Arllaw (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Family_law"