Sentences with phrase «favor joint custody of a child»

Missouri law favors joint custody of children when parents separate, so that children have «frequent, continuing...

Missouri law favors joint custody of children when parents separate, so that children have «frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with both parents.»

Not exact matches

At the time of this writing, courts in Clark County, Nevada, favor joint custody unless one of the parents lives at too far of a distance from the children's schools to make it feasible to transport them there several days per week.

California: There is no presumption in favor of joint or sole custody; custody shall be awarded to both parents jointly or to either parent as is in the best interests of the child.

Nevada law favors joint custody if the parents have agreed to it, unless there is evidence of domestic violence or some other indication that the parents will not be successful in working together for the benefit of their child.

For this reason, joint custody is heavily favored by family law courts in all states, but it is not always the best option, especially if a child of divorce is quite young.

In addition, Idaho favors the active participation of both parents in raising children after divorce, which policy is reflected in I.C. § 32 - 717B supporting joint custody.

In joint custody agreements, which courts often favor, both parents typically share legal custody of the children; however, depending on the state, it can also mean the parents share both physical and legal custody.

Regardless of each state's position for or against a presumption or preference in favor of joint custody and whether or not it has been specifically authorized, overall there appears to be a growing trend in favor of joint custody and more and more bills are being introduced to adopt a presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child unless certain circumstances apply (such as convincing evidence that a parent is unfit or that it would not be in the best interest of the child to award joint custody).

That motion judge's ruling was reversed by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (our intermediate appellate court), ruling that giving such a presumption in favor of the custodial parent is improper in cases where the children's surname was chosen by the parties at the birth of each child and especially in cases where the parents share joint legal custody.

I am in favor of joint physical custody arrangements, but only when both parents are able to work together and have their children's best interest at heart.

Legal custody governs who makes decisions regarding the child, and many states have a presumption in favor of joint legal custody.

While the most misogynistic branches of the father's rights movement state outright that they favor male control and father - only custody in the hopes that this will turn the clock back on women's independence (e.g. by helping to entrap women in marriages that are otherwise broken), much of the movement prefers to publicly posture in favor of the more palatable and misleading rhetoric of «shared parenting,» i.e. joint custody, as a ruse to accomplish this end more indirectly, as well as to reduce or eliminate the foundations for child support payments.

«Having found that [defendant] father and son relationship has been damaged by the alienation of the child toward the defendant, the next logical step is to determine what the court must do to correct the situation... «[Father's motion to modify from joint custody to sole legal custody in his favor, granted; prohibitions of various alienating behaviors on the part of mother and her family; restrictions on mother's attendance at doctor visits and parent - teacher conferences.

Without the «psychological fingerprint» evidence, the presence of other circumstantial evidence is usually not deemed sufficient to «convict» the allied and supposedly «favored» parent of inducing the suppression of the child's attachment bonding motivations toward the other parent, so that the custody evaluator often recommends joint custody, or primary custody to the allied and supposedly «favored» parent, along with therapy for the child and targeted - rejected parent.

Most family law professionals favor joint custody because it is most often seen as the best interest of the child that both co-parents play an active role in raising the child.

At the beginning of every case, Idaho child custody laws favor joint custody.

In the state of Alabama, in an effort to foster ongoing contact between parent and child, there is a presumption in favor of joint legal and physical custody.

The reason I have opposed this rebuttable presumption in favor of joint custody is because it does not put the best interest of the child first.

«If we are serious about the best interest of the child being the principle that comes first, if that's the primary consideration in awarding custody, then we ought not to have a rebuttable presumption in favor of joint custody.

In the amendment to both sections of the statute, the presumption in favor of joint custody seemingly is withdrawn where there is a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an intrafamily offense, an instance of child abuse or neglect, or an instance of parental kidnapping occurred.

1996)(listing impact on Aid to Families with Dependent Children and medical assistanceas factors to consider in determining the best interest of the child and in rebutting the presumption in favor of joint custody).