Custody 2021

As is typical of the courts the first issue they choose to address in their opinion is money, then children.

When discussion moves to the children it is apparent that one parent has mental health issues that makes parenting problematic, so shared parenting is not an option at the outset.

When reviewing the record the court finds that the lower court was open to revisiting the issue of parenting if the facts changed. While such a view is hopeful it is unclear that it is an accurate portrayal of the functioning of the lower court.

The court should review the practice of the lower court in allowing parents back into their child's life when issues that prevent parenting have been addressed, and base their rulings on facts not wishful thinking.

In a custody matter the court found

"the mother had physical custody of the child, and the father had parenting time."

which without an explanation should be viewed as improper bias of the lower court

What transpired after this is unclear since the decision is poorly written

In a footnote the court found:

"The judge heard substantial additional evidence regarding multiple incidents of the father's hostile and threatening behavior toward the mother. The substance need not be repeated herein. We do note, however, that the judge credited the bulk of the mother's version of events."

in fact it should be repeated to be able to understand the issues that the court faced.

A probate judge orders joint legal custody for an unmarried couple that had lived together for the first three years of the child's life. The court remanded the case claiming that the wrong standard was used in determining custody. In reading the decision a reasonable person would find that the lower court had used the appropriate standard.

This decision appears to be the result of the bias of the court against any form of shared parenting

An order was issued that granted shared legal custody to a pair of unmarried parents. Although clearly a difficult case it appears the lower court judge did the best they could and the court affirmed the decision

The parties engage in an unofficial surrogacy arrangement, and unsurprisingly problems develop. The court takes the opportunity to criticize the General Court for not providing further guidance as to how to handle these things.

Although this is not actually a custody case, it is a monetary case, the court takes the time to point out that

"The children lived with the wife in a rented apartment, and the husband continued to reside in the marital home."

This statement has little to do with the case and it is not claimed that the father had no parenting time, it does serve to point out one again the court's bias for one party being the parent and the other party not being a parent.

A lower court judge gave sole legal and physical custody to one parent, when that parent didn't work out sole physical custody was given to the other parent, that parent didn't behave much better. Treating people as equals is a good starting point, whether that was appropriate in this case is not made clear

The case starts off with both parents agreeing to sharing custody of their children both legal and physical. Unfortunately problems did develop and the court shifted to sole custody. The court is capable, of providing help to families experiencing problems, however their willingness to participate in tearing families apart often prevents them from helping these families

After DCF removed the children from the parents, one parent was able to show that they could continue parenting, unfortunately the other did not

The lower court judge increases one parent's parenting time so that it is closer to 50/50 the other parent appeals. The court affirms the more balanced parenting plan

This is a case out of the Juvenile Court, one parent has difficulty parenting and the other parent has to carry on.

A change in one parents work provided more money for the family and allowed that parent to spend more time with the children, and the parenting time was increased. The other parent appealed the court affirmed the lower court decision