Child Custody And Divorce: Free Legal Advice
Child Custody And Divorce: Free Legal Advice
Child Custody And Divorce: Free Legal Advice
- - - - - - - - - -
When people talk about joint custody, they mean any of a dozen different things: all of them wrong. There are several different labels for custody, and, unfortunately, the labels themselves can differ from state to state. For all of that, the label for divorce itself differs from state to state: I never really understood why. It makes no sense for California to be talking about "marital dissolution" while Michigan is talking about "divorce". Don't they mean the same thing? Is California out there on the coast waiting, patiently, for backward Michigan to catch up? Or are they, out on the coast, a little too politically correct for proper understanding by ordinary people?
The concept of "joint custody" suffers from the same confusion of labels. Here are several different labels, that may or may not be a tad different in your state:
1. Split custody. This means that the time of the children is more or less equally split, probably with a mathmatically correct formula that pleases the parents, even though it's not good for the children. Hello? It's not good for the children, period, and the social scientists are catching up with this phenomenon. A child who spends a week here, then a week there (or two weeks here, then two weeks there), has no home. He doesn't live here, and he doesn't live there. Just ask him. Just look at his grades. Just look at his friends, if he has any, because with all this peer-group stuff that kids do, the guy who is gone exactly half of the time is left kind of far out in the field, don't you think? At BOTH places, I might add.
The term "split custody" is also used to describe the situation where the son(s) live with Dad, and the daughter(s) live with Mom. I have no authoritative opinion on how well that division works. You might ask someone who has gone through it, and let me know. While you're at it, ask the parents and the kids, but ask each participant separately, while they're alone. I'd like to know.
2. Joint Physical Custody. This label talks about "Where does the child live?", and contemplates a division of the child's time, similar to, but not as oppressive as, split custody, above. It's very likely that one parent, the father (Stereotypical, I know. So sue me.) allows the child to live with mother during the school year, but father is really irked that he has to have "visitation" during that school year. Well now, since father has the child for the entire school vacation, a period of three or more months, why can't he have "physical custody"? Why not make mother endure the indignity of having "visitation" with the children during that three months? THAT will fix her, let her know how bad it is, being a father in this day and age, give her a taste of it, etc. In any event, that's "joint physical custody", and there are as many formulas as there are imaginations. It might be a month on, a month off, (although that's more the split custody arrangement), it might be "every moment that the child is not in school, I get physical custody", you get the idea.
3. Joint Legal Custody. This one is far more common. It was developed by some smart judges (And there are some VERY smart judges out there: I hope you get one.) to solve some very specific problems. Here are the problems:
A. Mother is going on vacation, with her boyfriend, hiking in the wilderness of Oregon. This is all by arrangement, and the kids are being dropped off at dad's, because dad gets a month in the summertime with the kids. While mom is gone, one child gets hit by a car, in an accident. The doctor comes out of the emergency room, and advises that he needs emergency medical authorization to amputate the child's leg, to save the child's life. Dad says "go for it". The doctor asks "Do you have custody, or just visitation?" Now, we have to find mom, and pretty quickly, out there in the wilds of Oregon, to get that medical consent.
B. Same basic scenario, but the police bring the little angel home, for shoplifting. They are willing to release the child to his parent(s), and not press charges, this time. Oh, you don't have custody, just visitation? Well, where's mom, who does have custody?
C. Dad sends a note over to the child's school: please send me a copy of the child's report card, and any PTA notices, and any disciplinary/progress reports, etc. A very polite note comes back from the school: since you don't have custody, just visitation, we here at Happy Day School can't....you get the idea.
So the legislature, after repeated prodding by the judges, passed legislation related to a new (then) category, that of joint legal custody. Any of the legal affairs of the child, of any nature, but specifically including medical, police, and school, shall be considered to be joint between these parents, that is to say, DAD HAS JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY.
Further, (and this was the brainstorm of a rather junior legislative aide, who shall be nameless here) while we're at it, the following shall be true, in joint legal custody situations: the custodial parent shall be obligated to confer with the non-custodial parent as to all major decisions affecting the child's life. Read that carefully: the custodial parent is obligated to inform, and talk about it, but that doesn't mean that the non-custodial parent has veto power. It also doesn't mean that the custodial parent has the right to say "Well, I told you , and now I'm doing what I want to do". It means that the information will be provided early enough that a meaningful discussion will take place, and, if either party feels aggrieved enough, well, it's back to the judge.
Joint legal custody is the most common form of joint custody, and it's a wonderful invention, that was long overdue. There isn't any reason why most non-custodial parents SHOULDN'T have joint legal custody, and the focus has now changed: unless there is some compelling reason why not, then joint legal custody is going to be awarded to each party. It's common, it's expected, and it probably ought to be in your judgment. Watch for it, and, if it's not in there, ask your lawyer why not. It's good for everybody.
Good luck with it.