Embedded Files
In this case from the Juvenile Court the court found that not enough effort was made to reunify the family
20P0141.mp3"The wife also worked during the marriage and provided the majority of care for their children."
This statement was most likely never proven to the court, it is in no way relevant to the issues before the court, but it is the court making clear their rather stilted view of gender roles.
20P0120.mp3In this case one parent had trouble parenting and supervised visitation was ordered. Once they got better they got almost 50/50 parenting time. The other parent appealed and the court affirmed the lower court's decision
One parent appearing pro se misses a court date, the lower court judge then decides in the other parent's favor granting them sole legal and physical custody. Although not remanded the panel points out a path forward for the pro se parent
The plaintiff parent appeals the custody decision giving sole legal and physical custody to the other parent. While there may have been a basis for this decision, it is difficult to tell from this decision.
It's unclear if the court could have helped this family, it is clear the court did not.
"the parties agreed to have shared legal custody of their two children, who would reside primarily with the mother."
When the court starts off treating parties unequally it is a recipe for disaster
"During the parties' nineteen-year marriage, the wife was the children's primary caretaker"
It's doubtful that was ever proven in court, and it has nothing to do with the issues at hand. It is simply the court interjecting its view that one parent is better than the other
"During the marriage ... The wife was the primary caregiver to the parties' three children, and also worked part-time in a public school cafeteria.."
It's doubtful that was ever proven in court, and it has nothing to do with the issues at hand. It is simply the court interjecting its view that one parent is better than the other
A parent agrees to guardianship of their child. The guardians then leave the state. When the parent then asks to have the case reviewed the lower court tells them that the state no longer has jurisdiction, this panel disagrees and remands
A parent loses custody of their child to the state, because they acknowledge they are unfit. When they ask to have the case reviewed, they are told they are still unfit
One parent is granted sole legal custody, as expected it does not work out and results in meaningless finger pointing
"During the parties' long-term marriage, the wife was the primary wage earner. The husband spent more time at home and provided care for the couple's only child."
This statement has little to do with the issues at hand. It is simply the court interjecting its own biased views
One parent is granted sole custody, legal and physcial. Although this panel claims the lower court judge had ample reasons to make this decision, none of the reasons are included in this decision. it is most likely an example of the bias of the court.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF MACAULY Collins
A parent loses custody of their child to another family member because they are found to be unfit.
One odd thing to note is that the lower court judge listed for this case retired in 2016. This trial was in 2018
A parent loses custody of their child to another family member because they are found to be unfit.
One odd thing to note is that the lower court judge listed for this case retired in 2008. This child was born in 2013
19P0923.mp3A parent loses custody of their child the other parent who was not married, gains custody
Poorly written case, the lower court could have been right or it could have been wrong, it is difficult to tell from what is written here.
18P1566.mp3"The parties have one daughter, born in 2012, who resided with the wife in the marital home after the divorce."
This statement has little to do with the issues at hand. It is simply the court interjecting its own biased views.
When the court starts off treating parties unequally it is a recipe for disaster
The parents get divorced one parent gets sole custody legal and physical, the other parent moves to Florida in protest of the way they were treated, so a 209a restraining order is issued
Two parents shared custody of their children, after a trial on modification the lower court judge takes away custody from one parent. Since the rational for doing this is not clearly spelled out, the case is remanded
F.L. vs O.S. Kaplan
Two parents are struggling with their parental responsibilities. Only one parent is granted custody of the children.
19P0157.mp3After trial a lower court judge decides to continue shared custody between the parties, both legal and physical. This panel decides to remand the case for further findings. It is unclear what further findings the panel desires, but the panel is certainly trying to raise the bar for shared custody
The never married parents are granted almost equal custody of their children, however the parent who was dealt the upper hand proceeds to behave poorly and sole custody is granted to the other parent.
A child is seriously injured and the state takes custody of the child, the decision is then whether or not to continue life sustaining treatment
Divorcing parents "agree" to one parent getting sole physical custody of their child. The plaintiff first raises an objection to this on appeal, and is therefore denied. One would hope that there would be a proper way to raise this issue on appeal.
18P1650.mp3Sole custody is granted to one parent, that doesn't work out so sole custody is granted to the other parent
A lower court judge takes legal custody from one parent using the argument that the parties cannot successfully co-parent.
A 50/50 parenting plan was established and there were no further problems related to custody
The lower court finds a parent unable to take care of their child
18P0825.mp3"The husband was awarded sole custody of the parties' five children in Massachusetts."
There is no explanation as to why this occurred and this statement has little to do with the matters before the court, it is simply the court openly promoting their bias against shared parenting
18P1679.mp3Divorcing parents "agree" to one parent getting sole physical custody of their child. Thinks go off the rail pretty quickly and custody is reversed
"She was the primary caregiver for the children during the early years of the marriage"
This statement is not material to the decision, and is contradicted by other statements, the court simply cannot help making sexist stereotypical comments
18P1725.mp3"the wife was the primary caregiver of the parties' two children"
This statement is not material to the decision, the court simply cannot help making sexist stereotypical comments.
A parent is found to be unfit to care for their child
One parent is granted sole custody. Although it is difficult to blame the tragedy that unfolded on this decision, it is appropriate to point out that nothing good comes from this decision being made so casually
"the father had substantially greater physical custody of the child than he had had at the time of the divorce."
There is a difference between physical custody and parenting time, this panel should be aware of that and show their knowledge in their writtings
KATHY A. SHOTTES vs. DENNIS R. REGAN Sahagian
18P1492.mp3"the children, who were to reside primarily with the mother and to spend time with the father under a parenting plan set forth in the agreement."
Unless there is a reason to treat parents unequally, then it is a bad idea
One parent loses custody of their child, this opinion does nothing to explain why
19P0085.mp3"they share legal and physical custody of their two minor children."
It does happen.
"the judge awarded equal parenting time to the parties, awarded joint legal custody,"
It does happen, but this panel has an issue with the lower court judge not crediting one parents allegations against the other
Page updated
Report abuse