Custody 2017

This page lists decisions made by the Supreme and Appeals court, which touch on the issue of custody. Although there is nothing in the laws that mandates nor encourages the courts to order sole physical custody, it is obvious that our courts are biased in favor of sole physical custody also known as primary custody

The current law states:

“In making an order or judgment relative to the custody of children, the rights of the parents shall, in the absence of misconduct, be held to be equal”

Unfortunately all too often the courts make clear their bias for sole physical custody

Opinions:

Included in this opinion is the comment

"The determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the discretion of the judge"

which is troubling. Viewing a case in this manner while surely result in bias against shared custody.

Decisions regarding children should always be made in their best interests, not some convoluted process that is an attempt to hide the court's bias against shared custody. The source of this process (Prindle v. Fisk ) dates back to 1974, which is before no fault divorce, which is clearly where our courts are stuck. In this view its always someone's fault and someone always has to lose, unfortunately it is always the children.

December 8, 2017

LEE-ANN WILLWERTH vs. BRUCE STRAYTON Ulwick

Vuono, Meade, Kinder

Although this opinion is not about custody per se, it does contain the following comment:

“Under terms of the separation agreement the mother received primary physical custody of the parties' two year old child”

Which simply reflects the courts bias against shared custody. Although it most likely is true that there is a signed agreement that includes this statement, it was most likely made under duress or misinformation. In situations where both parents are seen as good parents and are actively involved in their child’s life there is no reason to agree to one parent having custody, it is simply the court’s bias.

November 28, 2017

JENNIFER E. HAYES vs. BRIAN J. HAYES Rainaud

Meade, Shin, Ditkoff

Another opinion another clear example of the bias of the court

In this case one parent appeals the lose of physical and legal custody. As all of these cases show, this is what our courts want, however there does not appear to be a legal basis nor a logical basis for this view.

Included in this opinion is the comment

"The determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the discretion of the judge"

which is troubling. Viewing a case in this manner while surely result in bias against shared custody

Decisions regarding children should always be made in their best interests, not some convoluted process that is an attempt to hide the court's bias against shared custody. The source of this process, as acknowledged in this opionion dates back to before no fault divorce, which is clearly where our courts are stuck. In this view its always someone's fault and someone always has to lose, unfortunately it is always the children.

This opinion does make the effort to reveal some aspects of the lower court judges decision making process. It doing so it reveals that this judge places questionable emphasis on vague observations. What is made clear is the decision, sole custody. What is not made clear is a reasonable basis for this decision. The reader is left to conclude that this is yet another case of the court inappropriately exercising it's bias against shared custody.

November 10, 2017

AC vs JC Giordano

Henry, Desmond, Shin

Although this opinion is not about custody per se, it does contain the following comment:

“Under terms of the separation agreement the mother received primary physical custody of the parties' two year old child”

Which simply reflects the courts bias against shared custody. Although it most likely is true that there is a signed agreement that includes this statement, it was most likely made under duress or misinformation. In situations where both parents are seen as good parents and are actively involved in their child’s life there is no reason to agree to one parent having custody, it is simply the court’s bias.

November 9, 2017

KATHLEEN M. ROSS vs. JAMES F. ROSS Keamy

Milkey, Massing, Ditkoff

The individual in this case is over the age of 18, yet custody and support decisions are made. This case is really an immigration case masked as a probate case.

October 27, 2017

JC vs MT Ward

Wolohojian, Maldonado, Wendlandt

The individual in this case was 17, 11 months short of 18. The purpose of the case has more to do with immigration issues than custody issues

October 27, 2017

PETER MANN vs JILL MANN Roach

Trainor, Vuono, Sullivan

One parent loses legal and physical custody of their children and appeals. The court claims that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record of the proceedings, but none the less concludes that the lower court made no error.

Whenever the court makes the drastic decision to take custody of children away from a parent the court should ambiguously state the findings that support the decision. These findings should clearly state how the individual failed as a parent.

This decision provides no such details

October 18, 2017

KELMA MARIE WILSON vs. TODD GORDON WILSON Keamy

Green, Sullivan, Sacks

One parent loses legal and physical custody of their children and appeals.

The history of these case reads like a ping pong game with custody going from one parent to the other. It appears that the lower court judge and this panel were too biased to consider the possibility of a shared custody plan.

In reviewing this case the panel uses the "which parent will promote a child's best interest standard" which obviously promotes sole custody. This standard dates back to before the no fault divorce laws of the 1970's, and as such do not support the current laws.

October 4, 2017

JEFFREY W. FLOR vs. THERESA M. FLOR Simons

Green, Agnes, Desmond

August 24, 2017

MICHAEL H. BINDER vs. PILAR Z. MAURY Smola

Meade, Hanlon, Sacks

August 16, 2017

MARY F. LARKIN-THOMSON vs. JAMES B. THOMSON Moriarty

Meade, Hanlon, Henry