Child Custody Opinions

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.

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.

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.

Although this opinion is not about custody per se, it does discuss the issue of custody and makes clear the courts inability to properly address it.

According to this opinion the parties shared custody both legal and physical, however the court still found the need to deem one household as the "primary" household, showing it's inability to treat the two households as equal. Furthermore the court also found that that one parent had been the "primary" parent during the marriage, while deeming the other parent as having the "primary" residence post divorce. The purpose of this appeal was to address the division of assets, and in part it used the twisted logic of custody to influence it.

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. None the less it allows the court to play to its weakness, the desire to take custody away from a parent.

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. None the less it allows the court to play to its weakness, the desire to take custody away from a parent.

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 unambiguously 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

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.

Although this opinion is not about custody, the court still takes the time to claim that one parent was the primary parent. Even when custody is not the issue the court finds it difficult to not express it's bias. The court's bias against treating parents fairly and equitable often seeps through.

The issue being appealed is a custody decision. The issue in this opinion is the dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds. This decision allows the appeal to go forward

Although this opinion is not about custody, it has at its root a custody decision. One parent was granted sole custody, the reason why is not revealed in this opinion. That parent then behaves poorly and the other parent then makes a motion for sole custody. This case is an example of how treating people unequally leads to further problems.

Although this opinion is not in response to the custody decision, it is mentioned. One parent is granted sole custody. While the behavior of the parent that lost custody is not exemplary it is hard to argue that it justifies lose of custody, it is more likely that the impetus for the decision was the court's own bias.

Although not actually a custody case, it does mention the issue in the most sexist and disparaging way. It is no wonder that our courts treat our families so poorly

A strange custody decision, both parents gain full custody of some of their children and lose custody of other of their children. Hard to imagine two parents that are good for some of their children and bad for others.

The panel had difficulty understanding what was going on here, so the case was remanded.

Never married intentionally having children, what could go wrong?

June 23, 2017

YLR vs MK Kaplan

Vuono, Meade, Maldonado

Never married intentionally having children, what could go wrong?

Not actually a custody case, but the panel does not fail to comment on the child as it were property.

Not actually a custody case, but the panel does not fail to comment on the child as it were property.

Yet another example of clear and obvious bias of the court, when it comes to custody.

The presumption of sole custody is so obvious in this case

May 4, 2017

AMD vs VCD DiLeo

Kafker, C.J., Grainger, Sullivan

Not all people are meant to be parents, this is one example

A lower court decides on shared custody, one party appeals. The panel upholds shared custody. Miracles can happen, but not often.

Custody/Removal is there any more political case? One parent is made the primary parent (ie the winner) the rest is history. There is no law nor mandate to have the courts pick winners, in fact it is against the law.

Not actually a custody case but it does show a judges willingness to make decisions in other peoples lives that are not helpful

Once again the court wishes to claim that they know who the better parent is, they don't and no one is asking them to make this judgement. Determining who is a fit parent and who is not is most likely the limit of their abilities. Consistently claiming that they have skills they do not is disturbing.

Typical, one party loses custody, the court doesn't explain why.