Joint Physical Custody is in the best interests of children

Joint Physical Custody is in the best interests of children.
Joint Physical Custody is in the best interests of children.

The growing consensus that Joint Physical Custody is in the best interests of children is the topic of this blog post.

A recent article in the July/August 2018 issue of Nebraska Lawyer Magazine written by Linda L. Nielsen, Ph.D discusses the consensus that Joint Physical Custody is in the best interests of children.

Linda Nielsen is a Professor of Adolescent and Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, NC. She is an internationally recognized expert on shared physical custody research and father-daughter relationships. In addition to her seminars for family court and mental health professionals, she is frequently interviewed on the topic of shared parenting by journalists, including Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal.

The article is several pages long but the conclusion of the article is that “These 60 studies reflect the consensus of an international group of 110 scholars and mental health practitioners and a group of 12 renowned researchers: JPC is in children’s best interest, absent situations such as substance abuse or violence, which pose a danger to children even when their parents are still together.”

The article states in relevant part that,

“JPC is generally linked to better outcomes than SPC for children, independent of parental conflict, family income, or the quality of children’s relationships with their parents. Parents do not need to have a low conflict, communicative coparenting relationship or mutually agree to JPC at the outset in order for children to benefit from JPC. Nor is there reliable evidence that children under the age of four are harmed by or do not benefit from JPC or frequent overnighting. These 60 studies reflect the consensus of an international group of 110 scholars and mental health practitioners and a group of 12 renowned researchers: JPC is in children’s best interest, absent situations such as substance abuse or violence, which pose a danger to children even when their parents are still together.”  Nielsen, L. (2018) The Nebraska Lawyer July/August 2018 issue 39, 44 (citing Braver, S. & Lamb, M. (2018). Shared parenting after parental separation: The views of 12 experts. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 59, 372-387. [Special issue on shared parenting];  Warshak, R. (2014). Social science and parenting plans for young children Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 20, 46-67.

The entire article can be viewed or downloaded in PDF at this link:

https://www.nebar.com/resource/resmgr/nebraskalawyer_2017plus/2018/julyaugust/TNL-0718h.pdf

 

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. He believes in Father’s Rights as he has seen first-hand the incredible bias against fathers in the family law courts in California. He is currently working on creating digital products that will assist fathers both in California and throughout the United States to represent themselves without an attorney in Court regarding custody and support issues.

Follow Fathers rights on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/Fathersrights16

Follow Fathers rights on Google Plus at:

https://plus.google.com/+Fathersrights

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stealing the Soul of a Child: Parental Alienation Changes the Life Chances of Children — Karen Woodall

I am currently fully immersed in study whilst preparing for our conference in August. As I continue to read and compare my understanding with my observations of the children I am working with , I find that my awareness of the harm done to them increases. In my observations of alienated children I witness not […]

via Stealing the Soul of a Child: Parental Alienation Changes the Life Chances of Children — Karen Woodall

Great article. The belittling of young children is rampant in society.

Many years ago it was usually women that were belittled.

However the belittling of men in particular has increased tremendously in the last 20-30 years in particular as TV shows and movies almost invariably portray all men and fathers as clueless males.  This explains why women are awarded custody about 80% of the time.

 

 

The Emotional and Psychological Terrorist: False Allegations in Parental Alienation — Karen Woodall

Many of the cases I work with feature allegations of harm. The allegations can range from mild to severe, from a child being chastised, to a child being involved in an organised child sexual abuse gang. A case which features allegations of harm can create anxiety in the unaware practitioner because of the way in […]

via The Emotional and Psychological Terrorist: False Allegations in Parental Alienation — Karen Woodall

I know from personal experience working on divorce and other family law cases in California for over 20 years that false allegations are very common and are often used to deny custody of the minor children to the other parent (which is usually but not always the father).

Why the Lack of Public Discussion of Parental Alienation? — Peace Not Pas

Even if you don’t follow celebrity news, it would still be incredibly difficult to avoid today’s news story regarding Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and their very public custody battle. Type ‘Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Judge’ into Google and approximately 26,400,000 results suddenly become available. The results from Google highlight the incredibly high number of news outlets that […]

via Why the Lack of Public Discussion of Parental Alienation? — Peace Not Pas

The media does not discuss the issue of parental alienation in any depth because it does not fit into their narrative.  Brad Pitt won in Court because he has the money to hire excellent attorneys, and the judge hearing his case is not biased against fathers.   Most fathers involved in custody battles are not so fortunate.

 

When Breaking Off Contact is the Only Option — Peace Not Pas

My divorce came after my wife made it clear to me that my function was that of a sperm donor. We wanted a second child, and after having sex once (scheduled by an Excel spreadsheet for her fertility) and not falling pregnant straight away, she insisted I have my sperm checked out and wouldn’t sleep […]

via When Breaking Off Contact is the Only Option — Peace Not Pas

This is a horror story of extreme parental alienation that no parent should have to go through. The fact that the courts are very biased against fathers cannot be denied by anyone that has worked in the legal system.  The really sad fact is that the courts in all of the western countries are biased against fathers.

Parental alienation is all about having control

Another guest post from another courageous parent speaking up about abuse so others may not have to: I’ve never been a huge fan of the whole narcissism theory. For me people tend to be a great deal more nuanced than that and if we accept a polemic then all empaths are essentially doomed while society […]

via PA – It’s ALL about control — Peace Not Pas

I completely agree with this blog post as I have also noticed the same behaviors in individuals that engage in parental alienation. Deep down inside virtually everyone that engages in parental alienation is a control freak to one degree or another.

Modifying child custody and visitation in California

Modifying child custody and visitation in California
Modifying child custody and visitation in California.

Modifying child custody and visitation in California is the topic of this blog post.

Several California statutes and California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases outline the standards used and the burden of proof on the party seeking an order modifying child custody and visitation in California.

Laws governing modifying child custody and visitation in California.

The law in California states that child custody and visitation orders generally are modifiable throughout the child’s minority whenever the court finds a modification is “necessary or proper” in the child’s best interests. See Family Code § 3022.

In California, in child custody/visitation matters and child support, the family law court has continuing jurisdiction and the matter thus remains pending even after entry of the underlying dissolution (or legal separation or nullity) judgment.

In at least two published cases the California Supreme Court has stated that although the statutes governing custody adjudications only requires courts to ascertain the child’s best interest, the best interest standard has an added twist once a “final” judicial custody determination is in place: A party seeking to modify a “permanent” custody order can do so only upon a showing of a significant change of circumstances so affecting the child that modification is essential to the child’s welfare. Absent such a showing, any modification would be an abuse of discretion as denying the child the benefits of a stable home environment and thus would not be in his or her best interest.

In California, the trial court’s exercise of discretion is far more limited when it effects a change in existing custody orders than when it makes an initial custody decision.

Appellate courts are “less reluctant to find an abuse of discretion when custody is changed than when it is originally awarded, and reversals of such orders have not been uncommon.” Marriage of McLoren (1988) 202 Cal.App. 3d 108, 113, modification giving W joint legal custody (where original order gave H sole legal and physical custody) reversed because W failed to present proof of change of circumstances affecting children’s welfare.

Both the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal have stated that the “changed circumstances” rule is an adjunct of the statutory “best interests” test for determining child custody. See Family Code §§ 3011, 3040(b). It furthers the paramount goal of preserving the need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements, unless some significant change in circumstances indicates a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.

While the party seeking an order modifying child custody and visitation in California must make a showing of changed circumstances in many cases, there are exceptions to this rule that should be carefully considered and reviewed by any party contemplating requesting that the Court modify child custody and/or visitation orders in California.

For example the changed circumstances rule is triggered only after what is known as a “final” or “permanent” custody adjudication. The ordinary best interest standard, without the additional changed circumstances burden of proof applies when the court makes any initial custody adjudication, and when it adjudicates custody following any temporary or interim custody

However as the policy is not to discourage parties from entering into custody stipulations, any doubts about whether the parties intended a stipulated custody order to be a “final” or “permanent” custody adjudication will be resolved against finality and thus against application of the changed circumstances rule in subsequent proceedings to modify the stipulated order.

All indication is that, where the issue is disputed, a stipulated order will be deemed to be temporary or interim in nature unless it clearly states it is a final judgment as to custody or words to that effect. The order must affirmatively state that it is a final order.

In one case, a stipulated dissolution judgment awarded the parties’ joint legal custody, mother “primary physical custody” and father “reasonable visitation.” The judgment also recited, however, that “in the event the parties are unable to resolve their custody and visitation issues, they shall agree upon a therapist or counselor to assist them. If after meeting with a therapist or counselor, the parties remain unable to resolve their differences, they shall make an appointment with the Conciliation Court prior to either party filing a request with the Court for a hearing on the issue.” Despite other boilerplate language in the judgment stating it was intended to be a final settlement of the parties’ rights and obligations, there was no “clear, affirmative indication” that they intended the stipulated custody provision to be a final judicial custody determination. Quite the contrary, the stipulated language warranted “the opposite conclusion the parents disagreed and were attempting to resolve the custody and visitation issues.”

As to physical custody, the changed circumstances rule applies when the modification request seeks to remove custody from one parent and give it to the other. By contrast, no change of circumstances need be shown as a prerequisite to altering only the co-parenting schedule (the amount of time the child spends in each parent’s household) under a joint custody order. Proposed changes in parenting time are “not on a par with a request to change physical custody from sole to joint custody, or vice versa”; the only standard the moving parent must meet in such cases is the child’s best interest.

So long as the joint custody award itself is not being changed, the court has very broad discretion to revise the “coparenting residential arrangement” where the parents are unable to agree and call upon the court to intervene.

Despite what some people think, the changed circumstances rule does not apply when a parent requests only a modification of the visitation arrangement (whether in a joint custody or sole custody situation). Because such a modification does not change “custody,” the trial court considers a visitation modification solely under the child’s best interests standard.

Sample points and authorities in support of modifying child custody and visitation in California.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a sample 13 page points and authorities in support of a request for an order modifying child custody and visitation in California containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and sample declaration sold by the author can see below.

 

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. He believes in Father’s Rights as he has seen first-hand the incredible bias against fathers in the family law courts in California. He is currently working on creating digital products that will assist fathers both in California and throughout the United States to represent themselves without an attorney in Court regarding custody and support issues.

Follow Fathers rights on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/Fathersrights16

Follow Fathers rights on Google Plus at:

https://plus.google.com/+Fathersrights

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.