Custody 2024

Based on the recitation of the facts in this case, the first order granted shared physical custody to both parents, but primary custody to one parent.  Primary physical custody is not a legal term and it is unclear what it means.  As expected, troubles ensued, which led to:

"The determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the discretion of the judge . . .[whose] findings in a custody case 'must stand unless they are plainly wrong.'"

This is not our law, but it does reflect the inappropriate bias of some members of our judiciary.   

This decision makes clear several problems with our current appeals court.  They are intelligent people; however, this decision does not reflect that.  

The parties started off with shared legal custody and primary physical custody going to one parent.  Primary physical custody is an in-determent term, and while it may not have been the source of the problems that arouse, it most likely didn't help

After problems developed with the parent who was given primary physical custody, custody was then changed to the other parent having sole legal custody and both parents having shared physical custody.

"The determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the discretion of the judge . . .[whose] findings in a custody case 'must stand unless they are plainly wrong.'"

This is not our law, but it does reflect the inappropriate bias of some members of our judiciary.   This case results in custody of the children going to one parent rather than both.  This case is difficult because both parents have issues, and they are probably in need of some help.  In is hard to tell if the correct decision was made, but given the inclusion of inappropriate principles, it is most likely that this case was based on bias rather than the best interest of the children.

The parties started off with shared legal custody and shared physical custody.  When one parent started to personal problems the court took that custody away

The parties started off with shared legal custody and shared physical custody.  When one parent started to exhibit financial difficulties the court took that custody away

A parent is found unfit and loses custody of the child

This case has to do with the lower court's decision with regard to child custody.  The lower court decides on shared custody, and the panel agrees

"The judge found that it was in the children's best interest that the mother remain their primary caregiver"

It is unclear how a judge determined that one parent was a "primary" caregiver, it is more likely that the judge relied on the courts bias against treating parents as equals

"The parties share legal and physical custody of the child."

Not actually the point of the appeal, but it is nice to read

'The father's reaction to the mother filing for divorce was "nuclear." He became "hostile," "nasty," and "abusive" in his communications with the mother, and he insisted on immediately having equal parenting time with the children'

It sounds like completely reasonable expectations on the father's part, that the court had an issue with it is of serious concern.  The temporary orders allowed shared parenting, however things did escalate

If a reasonable person reads this opinion, it would not appear that the lower court judge did anything to help out the situation

A parent is found unfit and loses custody of the child

One party is given sole physical custody, the reasons given are vague and not supportive of this action.  This decision does show the court's bias against shared parenting

"In custody matters, the touchstone inquiry [is] . . . what is 'best for the child.'"

Which is absolutely correct

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

Unfortunately, this statement is not, and only serves to support the courts inappropriate bias against shared parenting

Poorly written opinion.

One parent loses physical custody, it is implied that it is by agreement, parents do not willingly give up custody of their children

The parents live in New Jersey and Massachusetts, no explanation is provided as to how this came about, but it should have a significant bearing on the under lying rulings.

It is hard to tell if this ruling was appropriate give the lack of clarity and detail

"the parties entered into an agreement for temporary orders granting physical custody of their minor child to the wife"

People don't agree to give up custody of their children, it is simply the court's bias

A parent is found unfit and loses custody of the child

A parent is found unfit and loses custody of the child

A parent is found unfit and loses custody of the child

Sole physical custody is granted to one of the parties based on allegations of domestic violence

"The parties, who were never married, are the parents of a son who is approximately nine years old. They share legal custody of the son"

Shared legal custody is ordered, which is a movement in the right direction  This case is about a dispute that arose between the parties, and the court was asked to step in and decide

"the wife received primary physical custody)"

No explanation is made as to why this decision was made, it is not a custody case, the court is simply repeating their bias against treating parents as equals

In this case an unwed father loses a custody battle to the maternal grandparents.  It is not a well written case   Once the mother became ill, the maternal parents started helping to care for the child, but also were uncooperative with the father.  The father's faults were that he was convicted of assault on a family member (which member we are not told) and he was incarcerated for a time.  It is claimed that the father had little contact with the child once the mother moved to live with her parents, however it is also revealed that the mother had a 209a restraining order against the father, making such contact impossible, unless something was worked out.

The guardianship may have been appropriate, but this opinion does little to explain why