Sentences with phrase «more of a joint custody arrangement»

After frequent visitation while your child is an infant, you can transition to more of a joint custody arrangement when she is old enough to divide her time more easily between your homes.

Not exact matches

While these side benefits should never be the primary reason to choose joint physical custody, they're worth considering if you're having trouble looking on the bright... MORE side of a court - ordered joint custody arrangement.

So before you push back and ask the courts to review your case one more time (in the hopes of winning sole custody), consider the unexpected benefits you can expect to enjoy once you all get used to the changes brought on by a joint custody arrangement.

In T.K. the Court of Appeal recognizes that it is more problematic to extend «respect» to the stated reasons for a move in cases where there has been no previous determination with respect to custody, or where there is a pre-existing joint custody order or de facto joint custody / shared residency arrangement.

In recent years, the label of shared / joint physical custody has become more commonly used in describing a parenting arrangement; however, actual 50 - 50 sharing of the child is still NOT the norm or most common parenting plan the court adopts or that parents choose.

While this is more of a kidnapping case it can still happen in a joint custody arrangement in which the parent leaves the country with the child.

Parents also reported higher satisfaction with joint custody arrangements, and parents who were ordered to pay child support were more likely to do so when they shared custody of their children.

In joint legal custody arrangements, noncustodial parents may be more likely to pay child support than parents who do not have joint legal custody of their children.

Much more common than true joint custody arrangements (where both physical and legal custody are shared) is «joint legal custody,» in which both parents share the right to make long - term decisions about the raising of a child and key aspects of the child's welfare, with physical custody awarded to one 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.

To say that joint custody «is associated with» reduced parent conflict is to ignore that more amicable parents would be more likely to voluntarily choose this arrangement (whereas the dataset of sole custody homes would include, among others, most of the families with severe abuse issues.)

While there is much spindoctoring of isolated and arbitrarily selected findings claiming here or there to discover benefits or «no difference» between child wellbeing outcomes in joint versus sole custody, these are specious, and overall, children do far better in more traditional arrangements.

However, the above study used a ridiculously tiny sample of 14 children who reported spending more time with their fathers in joint custody arrangements.

While a number of researchers purport to have found relitigation rates lower following mediated decisions, or (primarily in early studies) in joint custody arrangements, not one of these studies appears to have corrected for (in the first case) the reality that negotiated agreements are not as legally amenable to modification as court orders, or (in both cases) that couples who achieved accord in mediation, as well as those who voluntarily chose early joint custody arrangements were already relatively more amicable couples.

If you can't satisfy New Jersey's criteria for joint custody, this doesn't rule out shared custody, and New Jersey judges are much more willing to order this type of arrangement.

[FN181] Nevertheless, the alternative of no access to this type of public benefit in one of their dwellings under a joint physical custody arrangement makes the lives of children living in poverty even more tenuous.

Another example raises the question of what influences advocacy, this one from a woman lawyer and AFCC activist who inexplicably lobbies for joint custody and father's rights (and more therapeutic jurisprudence in the courts) even though the arrangement worked for neither herself as a child, nor, ultimately, her own daughter: [ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: «In personal life, we learn things about the day to day realities too, that influence the lenses through which we see life.

Michigan law provides that a parent who is subject to a joint child custody arrangement may not move more than 100 miles from his or her current home without the consent of the other parent or the approval of the court.

If there is joint physical custody but the child is living much more of the time with one parent than the other, would the parents need to change the child support arrangements to reflect the actual custody arrangements?