Custody 2016

Not a good case. The panel justifiably criticizes the lower court, but fairs no better. This case is pretty much a blue print as to how to not help people, but simply exploit their weaknesses

"awards to the wife primary physical custody of the parties' two children."

This case shows the bias of the court against shared custody. No explanation is provided as to why one parent lost custody of their child

"The parties' separation agreement, which was incorporated and merged into the judgment of divorce, provided for shared legal custody, with the mother having physical custody"


People do not agree to give up custody of their children without some form of duress. It should come as not surprise that such an inappropriate agreement results in further conflict.

Custody is established in a case where the "child" is over 18 years of age. The court concludes that special findings can be made if there is an allegation that one parent is abusive so that special immigrant status may be obtained.

Poorly decided case by both this panel and the lower court. Rather than help parties resolve a dispute the court simply makes decisions for the parties. The justification for the decisions are cringe worthy and inappropriate

One parent loses custody of their child because they are found to be unfit

In this case the court portraits that one parent as significantly better than the other, while that may be factual true, the findings of fact presented by the court are far from stellar and give the appearance that their could be inappropriate bias on the part of the court

Although this case is mostly about payments of funds, the panel does make comments about custody and parenting time, that is unnecessarily dismissive of the parent's rights.

An ambiguous ruling on a parenting plan is remanded

"the mother was awarded physical custody of the minor child with visitation by the father"

This comment is included in the opinion. It has nothing to do with the subject matter of the opinion, and no explanation is given for this decision. However it does show the bias of the court

GUARDIANSHIP OF SEGUNDO WASHINGTON MAZA QUILLAY DiGangi

Green, Wolohojian, Massing

Guardianship cases usually involve minors, however in this case it involves an eighteen year old, and this individual is not disabled, unless you are to assume immigrants to be a form of disability. A guardianship case is an avenue by which an individual may seek special consideration to remain in this country. One of the requirements is to speak poorly of their parents. I would think we should just let these people in rather than require that they speak poorly of their parents as the price of admission.

"Pursuant to the separation agreement, the mother received primary physical custody of the parties' four children"

People do not willing make such agreements, it most likely done because of the perceived bias of the court. This statement has little to do with the case at hand, it is most likely included as an attempt to normalize the inappropriate bias of the court.

"The parties also resolved the issue of parenting time, allocating forty-five percent of the time to the husband and fifty-five percent to the wife"

If you can get past the point that lawyers and judges are bad with math, one has to wonder why it wasn't just a 50/50 split, nonetheless because one parent was treated as the winner and the other as the loser, conflicts will result. This is simply a case of the courts bias, and them not doing their job

"In relevant part, the agreement provides that the parties have shared legal custody and the mother has primary physical custody"

The term "Primary" physical custody is not a legal term, and should not be allowed in a legal agreement, it is simply an opportunity to create conflict, which it does. In this case the parties were not served well by their lawyers and the court.

Yet another case where the parents are not treated as equals, when there is no reason to do otherwise, and problems ensue.

"he separation agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the mother would have primary physical custody of the parties' three children"

The term "Primary" physical custody is not a legal term, and should not be allowed in a legal agreement, it is simply an opportunity to create conflict, which it does. In this case the parties were not served well by their lawyers and the court.

This case addresses the lose of legal custody by one parent. The panel does not address the issue, but simply points out that the GAL made such a recommendation, the GAL's reasons are not stated.

One of the issues being appealed in this case was the decision regarding custody and the parenting plan. It is unclear what the decision is and what the justification for the decision is, simply put it is a poorly written decision

The parent that was favored by the lower court judge appeals that decision, asking for even more. It is somewhat unclear why one parent was favored by the court, at least this panel does not make it worse.

There are two children, the lower court decides to split them up, one parent gets custody of one and the other parent gets custody of the other. Beyond the ridiculousness of the decision, this opinion gives little reason for it.

"the father would share legal custody of their son, and that the son would principally reside with his father."

which is an unequal parenting plan and prone to leading to further litigation.

"As a matter of law, a custodial parent's relocation, standing alone, does not constitute a change warranting modification"

the initial statement does not claim that only one parent is the custodial parent. It immediately becomes clear that the court is planning their game of winners and losers, some times one parent wins and the other loses, but the children are always losers, when the courts play these games.

The litigants in this case were unmarried, by law the courts are allowed to favor the mother in this case, and so they do

Unfortunately one parent is found to be incapable of caring for their child, and the other parent is granted sole physical custody

The parents agree to share custody, but when one parent becomes unhappy with the personal life of the other parent, the court is more than happy to punish that parent

Not a custody case, but it does show what can go wrong we the courts chose to treat parents unequally.

The court found a parent to be unfit