as set forth in Bradley v. School Board, 416 U.S. 696, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974), provides that: a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary. Id. at 711 n. 15, 94 S.Ct. at 2016 n. 15. The second, expressed in Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988), provides that “[r]etroactivity is not favored in the law. Thus, congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.” Id. at 208, 109 S.Ct. at 471. See Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 110 S.Ct. 1570, 108 L.Ed.2d 842 (1990) (<HOLDING>). It is unnecessary to choose sides in the
recognizing the tension between finality and correct result and denying relief where party requested correction after final results had issued recognizing the two lines of child custody cases but declining to resolve conflict recognizing but refusing to resolve tension between bradley and bowen recognizing the courts jurisdiction to resolve disputes between competing permanency plans that are reasonably plausible recognizing the tension between extrarecord evidence and a recordbased standard of review