Thanks to divorcemag.com for posting an insightful article on mistakes parents make during divorce (and based on surveys conducted by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers). This is a great, concise, right-on article for family law lawyers and parents engaged in divorce. Please click here to read the entire piece.
Please be sure to visit www.hardinglaw.com, the website for the law firm of Harding & Associates, for more information on California family law.
For children of divorce, what happens after their parents split up may be just as important to their long-term well-being as the divorce itself.
A new study found that children who lived in unstable family situations after their parents divorced fared much worse as adults on a variety of measures compared to children who had stable post-divorce family situations. This is really important stuff for divorced parents! Please read it so that you don't screw up your kids! Click here for the entire article.
Please be sure to visit www.hardinglaw.com, the website for the law firm of Harding & Associates, for more information on California family law.
Approximately one in two marriages in the United States ends in divorce, affecting about a million children per year. About 10% of these divorces involve custody litigation. Some children are or become emotionally estranged from one or both parents during this process. The cause of this estrangement cannot be determined without an in depth understanding of the family's history and dynamics. Research has shown that the issues underlying parent attachment or estrangement are complex and do not lend themselves to easy answers. However, some child custody evaluators rely on simplistic "junk science" theories to explain the child's behavior and recommend "one size fits all" type solutions to force the child to divide their love 50-50 between their parents. Please click here for this intriguing article from The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence (formerly the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media), and its take on Parental Alienation Syndrome as junk science.
Please be sure to visit www.hardinglaw.com, the website for the law firm of Harding & Associates, for more information on California family law.
What should we do about the children? What will happen to the children? Who will get the children? These are questions that always come up in divorce. What are the answers? Rule number one is the children themselves. Under the law, the court must base its decisions on what is in the best interests of the children. This standard gives the Court broad discretion. What each parent wants will be considered by the court. However, parental preferences will not control the court's decision.
When considering child custody, it is important to understand that there are two types of custody that will be addressed in a divorce. (1) Legal custody and (2) physical custody. Joint legal custody means that both parents share the right and responsibility to make decisions regarding the child's health, education and welfare. Under sole legal custody one parent has primary control over decisions regarding the child's residence, health, education and welfare. The noncustodial parent has secondary visitation rights as ordered by the court. Joint legal custody may be granted without granting joint physical custody. In that event, while the parents share decision-making responsibility, the child resides with and is under the physical supervision of only one of the parents (the parent granted sole physical custody).
Legal custody is different from physical custody. Physical custody measures the amount of time that the children spend with each parent. There can be joint physical custody and primary physical custody. A joint physical custody award means each parent has "significant periods" of physical custody. Physical custody must be shared in such a way as to assure the child "frequent and continuing contact with both parents." It does not mean the child's time must be equally divided with each parent (i.e., one parent can still be the "primary caretaker"). Primary physical custody means that the children will spend most of their time under the care of one parent, while enjoying some visitation schedule with the other parent.
When issuing child custody and visitation orders consistent with the children's best interests, courts adhere to two critical public policies: (1) Primary concern for children's health, safety, welfare (child abuse and domestic violence are detrimental). The court's primary concern is to assure the children's health, safety and welfare. (2) Frequent and continuing contact with both parents and shared parenting. The custody/visitation award must assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, or ended their relationship, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing. Where there is no threat of child endangerment, the primary concern and frequent and continuing contact policies are on equal footing. But where the policies conflict (e.g., because domestic violence evidence shows contact with a parent could jeopardize the child's safety), a custody or visitation order "shall be made in a manner" that ensures the child's health, safety and welfare and the safety of all family members, the primary concern test shall take precedent.
"Frequent and continuing contact" is not defined, nor does the law specify a preference for any particular form of "contact." Rather, the law encourages parents to share child rearing rights and responsibilities. To accomplish frequent and continuing contact, the Court will strive for an arrangement that approximates an unbroken family situation as closely as possible. Again, however, the court's discretion must be exercised in light of the paramount policy of assuring the child's and family's safety.
Please be sure to visit www.hardinglaw.com, the website for the law firm of Harding & Associates, for more information on California family law.
Joanna Grossman is a law professor at Hofstra Law School. She is also a FindLaw.com columnist. She has recently penned a column on the Britney Spears custody fiasco. Using Spears as her storyline, Professor Grossman does a great job of outlining the child custody process. It is worth a read! Click here for the article.
Please be sure to visit www.hardinglaw.com, the website for the law firm of Harding & Associates, for more information on California family law.
The trial court allowed a father, who sexually abused his adopted son, to return to the family home on weekends and designated the non-offending second parent as the monitor after finding that both parents had been participating in counseling and parenting classes. The non-offending parent was employed full time and the offending parent had been a stay-at-home parent.
The court of appeals reversed, because it found that the offending parent's return to the family home under these circumstances could not meet the needs of monitored visitation. It reasoned that even if the non-offending parent were able to arrange for another adult to monitor the visit while he was at work, "living together in the family residence will necessarily mean periods exist, even if somewhat brief (for example, when [non-offending parent] is asleep or showering), when the designated monitor will be unavailable. At least when the threat to the dependent child is the likely recurrence of sexual abuse, the concept of monitored visitation is fundamentally incompatible with around-the-clock in-home contact." Please click here for the full story.
The Supreme Court said Monday it would not block a lesbian from seeking parental rights to a child she helped raise with her longtime partner. The ruling reinforces the laws in those states that have recognized parental rights of same sex partners. California is one of those states. Click here for more.
A recent article by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh (PDF file available here) documents an astonishing pattern of systematic religious bias by family court judges. The clear message this article sends is that many family court judges are more likely to award custody of children to parents who hold religious beliefs similar to their own--even if more relevant considerations, such as the parents' moral character or history, would otherwise lead to a different outcome. Click here form more.
Recent Comments