Custody 2017

"The determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests"

This statement is not the law but reference to a case that bears little resemblance to this case, it does make clear the court's bias again shared parenting

"The judge found that the wife had been the primary caregiver "

It's doubtful this ever happened.  Whatever criteria was used was most likely designed to result in the predetermined result of sole custody.  The panel does take not of testimony that was not complimentary to one parent, but it is unclear that this was the basis for one parent losing custody.  

"Under the terms of the separation agreement, the mother received primary physical custody of the parties' two year old child, and the father agreed to pay alimony and child support "

Apparently this was not agreed to, as custody of the child changed throughout, however it does show what parties have to do when dealing with the bias of the courts against shared parenting 

""The decision of which parent will promote a child's best interests "

Not our currently law, the case is a good forty years after the law changed, but the court seems intent on treating parents unequally.  It should be noted that when this statement could be considered the law, no fault divorce did not exist, and someone had to be found wrong.

The parties start off with shared parenting and it continues throughout, and unsurprisingly it results in no problems.  Although custody is not a contested issue in this case it is heartening to see this panel acknowledge that shared parenting works.

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

This statement is not in line with our current law, but it does show the court's bias against shared parenting.  This case results in sole custody, but it appears there may have been legitimate reasons for that decision

The parties agreed to shared custody, it didn't resolve all of their conflicts, but it also was not the end of the world

This is actually an immigration issue that has been handed to the Probate and Family Courts to address.  The individual is not a juvenile, lives with one of their parents, but is allowed to claim that they are dependent on the court, when they disparage the other parent.  Nothing good will come from our Probate Courts being involved in these matters.

This is actually an immigration issue that has been handed to the Probate and Family Courts to address.  The individual is a juvenile, lives with one of their parents, but is allowed to claim that they are dependent on the court, when they disparage the other parent.  Nothing good will come from our Probate Courts being involved in these matters.

Adoptive parents are found to be unfit and lose custody

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

This is not our current law, and the court knows it, they do not like our current law which has been in place for 40 years.  The court is inappropriately biased against shared parenting.  The parties initiate sole custody proceedings and the court is only to happy to go along, even though it does not appear to be in the best interest of the children.

One parent gets sole custody, it is not stated why

One parent gets sole custody, it is not stated why

CARE AND PROTECTION OF POLLY Donahue 

Agnes, Maldonado, Desmond 

One parent loses custody and parenting time because they are found to be unfit, the case is remanded on the issue of parenting time

"the wife received physical custody of the parties' three youngest unemancipated children, while the husband received physical custody of the remaining three unemancipated children."

This is clearly not in the best interest of the children, what was this judge thinking?

"Belanger was the children's primary, and sometimes sole, caretaker."

Although its doubtful that it was ever proven in court that one parent was the primary caretaker, the fact that sometimes they were the sole caretaker is backed up by the fact that the other parent was incarcerated

"Bettano assumed custody of the children."

Why this happened is never explained and from this point on custody goes from one parent to the other and results in this appeal.  Why the courts are biased against shared parenting is never explained, but it is clear that the bias exists

The parents lose custody of their children because they are found to be unfit

Two never married parents, the judge orders sole legal and physical custody.  It is not explained why but it is in line with the courts bias against shared parenting.

Someone wants to become a defacto parent, the court says no.

"being the primary homemaker and caretaker of the children."

It is unlikely that testimony supporting this position was made, and if it did happen there is no explanation why one parent was the primary caretaker, however it does support the court's bias against shared parenting.

"provided, in part, for shared legal custody and for physical custody with the mother."

"the son "shall continue to reside with the Father" and that the father would have physical custody."

Clearly the court favors sole custody, however they are supposed to be acting in the best interest of the child, not be proponents of sole custody.

There is a question about the abilities of one of the parents to parent.  It is not properly resolved and therefore remanded

"the mother received primary physical custody of the children"

No reason is given for this decision, it simply shows the courts bias for sole custody

"Sole legal custody of the two minor children was awarded to the wife."

"award of primary parenting time to the wife."

No reason is given for this decision, it simply shows the courts bias for sole custody

This case is a mess, it goes from sole custody for one parent to sole custody for the other parent. The decision states

"The inquiry into which parent is primary caregiver focuses on the division of caretaking responsibilities during marriage and the strength of each parent's bond with the child. "

It is doubtful that this inquiry can be fruitful it simply supports the court's bias for sole custody

A parent is found to be unfit

A parent is found to be unfit, everyone agrees that there were errors in the process and the case is remanded

One parent is order supervised visitation, since the case is not properly appealed the panel are unable to determine why

Joint custody is ordered one party appeals, joint custody is upheld

"the parties would have joint legal custody of the children and that the children's primary residence would be with Browning "

No explanation is given to justify this decision, but it clearly promotes sole custoday

"the mother received primary physical custody of the three children "

No explanation is given to justify this decision, but it clearly promotes sole custoday

"the mother was the primary caretaker of the children "

While there is an argument for this statement, it is more likely based on the court's bias against shared parenting 

This opinion does make clear that there are medical issues with the child, however it fails to explain why the parent should lose custody of their child

"the judge ordered that the parties share legal custody of the children, that the mother retain primary physical custody"

Their is no explanation provided to support this opinion, treating one parent as primary, is an example of the unfortunate bias of the courts.

"the father filed a complaint for custody"

The parents were unmarried so the father had to file for custody.  This is the only time this is mentioned in the second paragraph.  The opinion does not state how this issue was resolved, instead the panel presumes the decision is for sole custody, a presumption that appears to be based on the bias of the court.