It also decides the most
appropriate child custody arrangement.
Myth — Psychologists and other «mental health professionals» are trained, and better able than non-psychologists, including family court judges, to evaluate family situations and render opinions on
appropriate child custody arrangements.
Not exact matches
(1) the temperament and developmental needs of the
child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the
child; (3) the preferences of each
child; (4) the wishes of the parents as to
custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the
child with each parent, the
child's siblings, and any other person, including a grandparent, who may significantly affect the best interest of the
child; (6) the actions of each parent to encourage the continuing parent
child relationship between the
child and the other parent, as is
appropriate, including compliance with court orders; (7) the manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the
child in the parents» dispute; (8) any effort by one parent to disparage the other parent in front of the
child; (9) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the
child; (10) the
child's adjustment to his or her home, school, and community environments; (11) the stability of the
child's existing and proposed residences; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, must not be determinative of
custody unless the proposed custodial
arrangement is not in the best interest of the
child; (13) the
child's cultural and spiritual background; (14) whether the
child or a sibling of the
child has been abused or neglected; (15) whether one parent has perpetrated domestic violence or
child abuse or the effect on the
child of the actions of an abuser if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or between the parent and the
child; (16) whether one parent has relocated more than one hundred miles from the
child's primary residence in the past year, unless the parent relocated for safety reasons; and (17) other factors as the court considers necessary.
Nonetheless, in this case the court made some complex mathematical adjustments to support; this included an adjustment to account for the fact that, before the parties started their shared parenting
arrangement, the mother had sole
custody of the
child and was legally entitled to receive
appropriate child support from the father for that period.
In reaching an
appropriate child support figure, the court must consider the overall situation of shared
custody, the costs to each parent of the
arrangement and the overall needs, resources and situation of each parent.
Depending on the age of your
child, different
custody arrangements may be
appropriate.
The guardian ad litem must attend all court hearings and recommend
appropriate services and
custody arrangements for the
child, based on the facts gathered during the investigation.
However, Connecticut's guidelines adjust for split
custody arrangements, shared physical
custody arrangements and parental obligations for
children outside the marriage, and courts have discretion to go outside the guidelines to change the
child support amount when
appropriate.
If a Connecticut family court does not order joint
custody, it may order alternative
custody arrangements, such as awarding sole physical
custody to one parent with
appropriate visitation for the
child with the non-custodial parent.
If parties have a joint
custody arrangement, the parent seeking modification of
custody must show how both parents are unable to cooperate with one another and agree on the best interests of the
child; thus, sole
custody would be a more
appropriate arrangement.
When determining the
appropriate custody arrangement for your
child, the court will base its decision on what is in the best interests of your
child.
(1) the temperament and developmental needs of the
child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the
child; (3) the preferences of each
child; (4) the wishes of the parents as to
custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the
child with each parent, the
child's siblings, and any other person, including a grandparent, who may significantly affect the best interest of the
child; (6) the actions of each parent to encourage the continuing parent
child relationship between the
child and the other parent, as is
appropriate, including compliance with court orders; (7) the manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the
child in the parents» dispute; (8) any effort by one parent to disparage the other parent in front of the
child; (9) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the
child; (10) the
child's adjustment to his or her home, school, and community environments; (11) the stability of the
child's existing and proposed residences; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, must not be determinative of
custody unless the proposed custodial
arrangement is not in the best interest of the
child; (13) the
child's cultural and spiritual background; (14) whether the
child or a sibling of the
child has been abused or neglected; (15) whether one parent has perpetrated domestic violence or
child abuse or the effect on the
child of the actions of an abuser if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or between the parent and the
child; (16) whether one parent has relocated more than one hundred miles from the
child's primary residence in the past year, unless the parent relocated for safety reasons; and (17) other factors as the court considers necessary
The possible sanctions include: compensatory time with the
children; economic sanctions for costs incurred by the non-violator parent due to the other parent's
custody or parenting time violation; modification of the existing transportation (pick up / drop off
arrangements)-- including changing the exchange location to a public place; ordering counseling for either or both of the parties and / or the
children at the expense of the violator; ordering a temporary or permanent modification of the parenting time and custodial
arrangement if under the circumstances this relief is in the best interests of the
children; ordering the violator to participate in a community service program; incarceration of the violator with or without work - release; issuance of a warrant to be executed if the violator persists in failing to comply with court orders; any other
appropriate equitable remedy.
Courts must further the best interests of the
child in determining an
appropriate custody arrangement in Kentucky.
In making an equitable apportionment of marital property, the family court must give weight in such proportion as it finds
appropriate to all of the following factors: (1) the duration of the marriage along with the ages of the parties at the time of the marriage and at the time of the divorce; (2) marital misconduct or fault of either or both parties, if the misconduct affects or has affected the economic circumstances of the parties or contributed to the breakup of the marriage; (3) the value of the marital property and the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, preservation, depreciation, or appreciation in value of the marital property, including the contribution of the spouse as homemaker; (4) the income of each spouse, the earning potential of each spouse, and the opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets; (5) the health, both physical and emotional, of each spouse; (6) either spouse's need for additional training or education in order to achieve that spouse's income potential; (7) the non marital property of each spouse; (8) the existence or nonexistence of vested retirement benefits for each or either spouse; (9) whether separate maintenance or alimony has been awarded; (10) the desirability of awarding the family home as part of equitable distribution or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the spouse having
custody of any
children; (11) the tax consequences to each or either party as a result of equitable apportionment; (12) the existence and extent of any prior support obligations; (13) liens and any other encumbrances upon the marital property and any other existing debts; (14)
child custody arrangements and obligations at the time of the entry of the order; and (15) such other relevant factors as the trial court shall expressly enumerate in its order.