Custody 2022

It's hard to say what is going on with this case, the opinion is not well written. The issue revolves around who has "Primary" custody, which is not a legal term so it is unclear precisely what they are referring to. It does appear that one parent was the primary parent and then the other. Which shows the courts bias rather than treating people as equals, which is a sure recipe for disaster, and is why this case exists

This case is about which member of the family should care for the children. The issue is that some members are not capable

A parent fails to follow court procedure, and loses custody of their children. This ruling makes clear the courts bias against families. This opinion fails to include any justification for taking the children from the parent, Although justification for taking custody of the children away may not have been at the core of the argument it certainly is the most important issue and should have at least been touched upon.

A poorly behaved father loses custody of his children

"Shane A. Duval (husband) and Candace M. Duval (wife) executed a separation agreement providing that the wife would have primary physical custody of the parties' two children,"

"Primary Custody" is not a legal term, and it is not defined in this decision. Clearly the court is trying to show that some form of bias is acceptable by the court. In this case the term comes up in an agreement that the parties lawyers drafted. Using terms that have no meaning, but that imply unequal treatment of parents is a sure way to promote conflict, and as proof there is this appeal,

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

This does not reflect our laws but points the panel in the direction of making a sole custody decision It should be noted that the case law that they are relying on relates to unmarried parents, which is not the case that is presented here. Making a decision in this manner is biased and lazy.

Difficult situation that results in three children being removed from their parents

Both parents lost custody, one passed away the other was unable to continue as a parent

"The mother was awarded custody of their three children and the father"

This fact is only tangentially related to the case, however no explanation is given for this decision, it is simply the courts attempt to normalize taking custody away from a parent.

If the court acknowledges that custody was taken from a parent, some explanation should be provided to justify such and extreme act. Unfortunately the court tries to normalize taking custody away from parents, which without explanation, is not in the best interest of children.

"the husband had sole legal and physical custody of the youngest child"

Sadly it appears there was reason to make this order

Horrible decision. It is unclear if the case was improperly assembled due to the plaintiff or the court, if it were the court, that issue should have been addressed.

One parent is ordered into supervised visitation, it is never made clear why.

The GAL appears to be an issue in this case and the judge and this panel appear to take the position that a GAL can do no wrong, a troubling point of view

A parent loses custody of their child to the state, the state ruled that the parent was unfit

One parent is allowed to move with the children to Massachusetts, as is so often the case the other parent follows shortly there after. The late arriving parent files a motion for a more equitable parenting plan, but is denied. Since it is unclear why the request was denied the matter is remanded

One parent is granted sole physical custody, when the child starts to develop problems custody is granted to the other parent. It is unclear if the court or the professionals involved had any clue as to what they were doing, but they did rely on their fallback position, sole custody.

MICHELE M BURNS vs. DOUGLASS A. EWALD McSweeny

Vuono, Shin, Singh

The defendant appears to be suffering from some mental health issues, but also appears to have enough money to cause trouble. The defendant lost custody of the children because of these issues.

"Agreed upon temporary orders granted shared legal custody, primary physical custody to the mother, and authorized her move to southern California with the children to pursue a medical fellowship there."

This is a troubling statement, because no properly informed person would agree to this. There is no need to give up custody of children to facilitate a move away.

After agreeing to this the court then claims that the parents could not share legal custody because of their inability to come to agreement, which is contradicted by the first statement.

This opinion is full of poorly supported arguments to take custody away from one parent.