Custody 2018

Custody is taken from a parent, but since it is unclear that the proper procedure was followed it is remanded

Custody is taken from a parent it is affirmed

One parent loses legal custody of their child.

 In recapping the case the panel informs that there were serious allegations against one parent, however since the court found the allegations not established sole legal custody was granted to the other parent

A particularly poorly written decision.  

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

which Is a standard that ignores the possibility of shared custody, and therefore prejudicial.

Although the opinion should not have included this language, the rest of the decision does make clear that this were troubled parents.  DCF was involved in there life and it appears DCF felt that only one parent attempted to improve themselves 

Although poorly written it does appear based on the facts presented, that the correct decision was made.

A parent who had trouble parenting, loses custody of their child.  The process used was incorrect and the matter is remanded

One parent loses physical custody of their children, no reason is given, which probably means there was no reason, other than the bias of the courts.   

This was followed by the removal of the children from the state, which may have been justified.  By first taking custody away from one parent before deciding on removal the lower court judge lowers the standard required to rule on the removal issue, at a minimum this is just lazy and careless.

Two unmarried parents, the father attempts to obtain custody of his child by filing a motion with the court, he is denied.  The reason for the denial are not given, which probably means it is just due to the bias of the courts.

Two parents are found to be unfit.  One parent works there way back to being a parent, the other does not.

Two unmarried parents, the father seeks shared custody, the court says NO

Two unmarried parents, the father seeks shared custody, the court says NO

"the wife maintained the home and was the primary caregiver for their children."

It's doubtful that this was proven in the court and has nothing to do with the case before the court.  It is simply the court taking the opportunity to recite their bias for one parent winning

One parent loses physical custody, no explanation is provided

A parent loses custody of their child, upon review the order is vacated 

One parent is granted sole physical custody.  No explanation is given.

In this removal case, it is repeatedly stated that only one parent had custody of the child, however the reason for this is never given, and it is central to the case that one parent had custody.

One parent loses physical custody of their child, it does not say why.

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

One parent loses physical custody of their child because they are found to be unfit, the whole family moves to Massachusetts and that parent tries again, but they are still found to be unfit

"the mother would have primary physical custody of the parties' minor child"

No explanation is given for this decision, without one, give the courts history, it is easy to presume that it is due to an inappropriate bias of the court. 

"gave the parties shared legal custody of the child"

This is all we learn from the case, and it is good to hear

"sole custody to the mother,"

"the father sought no parenting time,"

This is not good for the child, but apparently the court has little ability to demand good parenting

"The parents agreed to ..., to the mother's primary physical custody of the child and to a parenting schedule that results in the

father having the child approximately one-third of the time"

Its highly doubtful that a parent, even an unmarried parent would agree to not having custody of their child, it is almost a certainty that they were poorly advised by council

"the parties agreed, inter alia, that the mother would have sole legal and physical custody of the child, and the father would not contact or interact with the child and would stay away from her."

While there could be a reason for this, without providing an explanation one is left to wonder if the court got it completely wrong

"The wife was awarded physical custody of their two children"

No explanation is given for this ruling, it has little to do with the case, it appears to be the court's attempt to normalize such decisions

"The wife was awarded physical custody of their two children"

No explanation is given for this ruling, it has little to do with the case, it appears to be the court's attempt to normalize such decisions

It's possible that there was justification for how these divorce proceedings developed, but it is more likely that the train wreck that it was is do poor decisions made at the start of the case.  

One parent is granted sole legal and physical custody, the parents had been unmarried.  When that doesn't work out the other parent is granted sole legal and physical custody.  Treating people as equals is usually a better path.