Custody 2019
Two unmarried parents, one an illegal alien. Sole custody is granted to one parent, then to the other, the case is a mess and is remanded. It should be noted that the lower court judge in this case retired in 2004
18P0186.mp3The lower court judge orders shared custody, both legal and physical, with one parent having the final say in major decisions. The panel incorrectly disagrees, citing nothing in the way of a legal basis, but making clear their bias against shared custody and the law. It should be noted that at the hearing before the panel only one party was represented by counsel which appears to have been the deciding factor
18P1219.mp3"the wife took on the majority of the childcare"
It is doubtful that this was ever proven at trial, and it has little to do with the case at hand. It does show the court's need to present its biased attitude towards families.
"the parties executed a series of stipulations agreeing to .... shared custody of their three children."
It does work, it can happen.
One parent loses custody after being found unfit, the case is remanded to see if they are still unfit
The parents lose custody after being found unfit.
Yet another disappointing decision, showing the courts open bias against shared custody. In this case physical custody was lost to one parent in an appeal of a decision in 2016. On a modification motion a few years later that parent then loses legal custody,
The parent losing custody is not accused of doing anything inappropriate to the child.
An odd decision, this was an appeal of renewal of a restraining order.. Custody decisions are allowed to be made when applying for restraining orders, although in practice that decision is usually left for the Probate and Family Courts. In this case the custody decision was originally made when the restraining order was issued. The case then went to the Probate and Family Court where a custody decision was presumably made. When this case returned to District Court the judged removed the custody aspect, but the issue was most likely moot at that point, none the less an appeal was filed.
The panel does not address this obvious issue, and it appears to be just promoting its bias against shared parenting by ruling on it, in a manner that has no meaningful effect.
Another decision that shows bias of our courts.
The court starts off by giving sole custody to one parent, when that parent abuses the power given to them, the court takes custody away from that parent and gives it to the other parent. At no time does the court consider shared custody.
Their bias against shared custody is obvious and disappointing.
The lower court starts by taking physical custody away from one parent, no explanation is provided.
That parent then also wants sole legal custody, however the court declines, this appeal follows
The panel upholds the joint legal provision, which is good, but we still do not know why one party lost joint physical custody
"The determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the discretion of the judge"
This state clearly shows the court's bias against shared parenting, the statement could read which parenting plan, which would not be so openly biased.
"the judge found it was in the children's best interests to reside primarily with the wife, as she had been their "primary caregiver" since birth."
This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of what physical custody is, while there should be no question that these judges understand what physical custody is there bias against shared physical is so extreme that they end up making these types of statements
This panels arguments against shared legal custody are also based more on bias than fact.
There is no question that there are situations where one parent or both need to lose custody of their children, physical and/or legal, however the bias of the courts do not support the goal of acting in the children's best interest
One parent loses custody after being found unfit.
18P0901.mp3"At the time of the divorce, the mother parented the parties' two children full-time, and the father was employed"
It is unlikely that this was ever proven at court, it is most likely the court taking the opportunity to express its sexist attitudes
One parent ends up with sole custody, the reason is unclear but the decision is affirmed
18P0841.mp3A lower court judge ordered joint legal custody for two unmarried parents. The panel vacates the joint custody, the rational is so steeped in hyperbole that it is unlikely there was a reason, and that the courts bias against joint custody was the guiding factor.
Two never married parents, the lower court decides not to grant shared custody, the panel agrees
"the wife worked sporadically, as she was principally responsible for homemaking and raising the parties' five children."
It is doubtful that evidence to support this claim was ever presented in court, and more importantly is has nothing to do with the case at hand, the court is simply taking the opportunity to express its sexist attitudes in its opinions.
The panel found the rational for the changes to the parenting plan vague, so it was remanded for clarification
The lower court judge started off by ordering supervised parenting for one parent, and then ends that parenting time altogether. No explanation is given to suggest that parent behaved appropriately in any way. Thankfully the case is remanded
M.C. vs. J.C. Gorman
This appeal has to do with a 209a restraining order, but the case apparently started with a divorce where one parent was limited to supervised parenting time. It is unclear if this was justified, but it did lead to conflict. If the supervised parenting time was not justified, then it was probably the source of the problems
GUARDIANSHIP OF GAZI Meagher
A lower court judge takes custody away from two parents, but fails to follow the approved procedure, and gets a redo.
One parent has trouble parenting so the other is granted sole custody
"[t]he determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the discretion of the judge"
This statement unfortunately shows the open bias of the court. In this case sole custody was granted to one parent, when that did not work out sole custody was granted to the other parent. The bias against shared custody is obvious.
One parent is found to be suffering from mental illness and a danger to their children. That parent loses custody.
A poorly written opinion, although it is clear that one parent lost custody it is not clear why. Vague contradictory statements serve as justification rather than providing an appropriate recitation of the necessary facts