Under Michigan law, grandparents are
not awarded custody of a grandchild unless the court determines the parents are...
And, the plan can assist parties in creating a visitation plan in the event that one party is
not awarded custody of a child
A parent in Wyoming who is
not awarded custody of a child is still entitled to access to a child's medical, dental, and school records, equal to the rights of custodial parents.
The parent
not awarded custody receives visitation rights.
The parent who is
not awarded custody still has many important legal rights.
The parent
not awarded custody is entitled to reasonable visitation.
And, the plan can assist parties in creating a visitation plan in the event that one party is
not awarded custody of a child
For example, the judge can
not award custody of pets, but the parties can come to an agreement between themselves concerning their custody arrangement of pets.
In making such determinations, the family courts of Hawaii do
not award custody based on the parent's gender or wealth but on the best interests of the child.
The court will
not award custody based upon the gender of the parent.
Not exact matches
The upshot is that «many do
not attempt to be
awarded custody of their children for fear of fighting a losing battle, even when welfare professionals agree that children would be better placed in their primary care.»
Even when one parent is
awarded «sole»
custody, courts will
not terminate the child's relationship with her other parent, at least absent some significant and severe circumstances that might make contact with that parent unsafe.
Remember, too, that the court can
award joint
custody even if that's
not what you're asking for at this time.
For example, if either parent has been convicted of domestic violence, the court will usually presume that he or she should
not be
awarded joint
custody.
In addition, even if sole physical
custody is
awarded, there has a been a push to allowing more lenient visitation rights for the parent that does
not live with the child.
However, just because the rule has been phased out, that does
not mean that parents can
not ask a judge to
award custody to the mother.
If there is no agreement or if the agreement is
not in the best interests of the child, the court shall
award joint
custody, unless
custody by one parent is shown by clear and convincing evidence to serve the child's best interests.
While, in the past, the primary caretaker preference seemed just another way to
award custody to mothers, as more and more men share parenting responsibilities, this preference does
not necessarily favor mothers.
While I morally agree with this approach to
awarding custody of a pet — I personally think of my pets as my kids,
not property, and would always agree that a pet belongs in the best possible home — assigning «human» rights to pets can have unintended, game - changing consequences.
In determining who should be
awarded custody, the court may want to consider which party has paid attention to the animal's basic daily needs (food, shelter, physical care, exercise, grooming, flea control); who takes the animal to the veterinarian; who provides for social interactions (in the case of dogs) with other dogs and / or with people; who maintains appropriate supervision to assure that state and local regulations are complied with (licensing,
not allowing the dog to run free and protecting against circumstances that would endanger her life or health); and who has the greatest ability to financially support the animal.
The fact that the father had no rights of
custody was also considered immaterial, if no plausible case had been made that rights of
custody could
not be
awarded to him.
It took more than four years to get
custody of my daughters
awarded to me and this would
not have ever happened without the help of the Coalition.
Sole legal
custody may be
awarded to one parent when the parties can
not or will
not co-parent.
Courts in South Carolina, where the adoptive parents lived,
awarded custody to her birth father because ICWA's adoption procedure had
not been followed.
Section 63-15-230 allows the court to
award either joint or sole
custody as it sees fit but does
not express a preference between either.
However, there are situations where it may
not be
awarded such as if one parent is deemed unfit or if it would be in the child's best interests for one parent to have sole legal
custody.
There is no reason to explain why he was
awarded custody except that he was represented by an attorney who understood how to navigate the court system in order to obtain
custody for his client, while Amber was
not.
In 2012, Ms. Simon received the Denise O'Donnell Day
Award from the Idaho State Bar for her pro bono representation of a single father who ultimately obtained a paternity order and award of primary custody of his child, over the mother's assertions that he was not the biological fa
Award from the Idaho State Bar for her pro bono representation of a single father who ultimately obtained a paternity order and
award of primary custody of his child, over the mother's assertions that he was not the biological fa
award of primary
custody of his child, over the mother's assertions that he was
not the biological father.
A Michigan judge says he was
not aware he had
awarded joint legal
custody of a boy to a father accused of raping the boy's mother when she was...
Thus the family court did
not err when
awarding sole
custody of the children to the mother and specifically declining to
award joint
custody.
The appellate court held that the family court did
not abuse its discretion regarding the
award of sole
custody to the mother of the three minor children.
Alaska law also creates a «rebuttable presumption» (a legal assumption that has to be overcome with credible evidence to the contrary) that if an abusive parent has a history of committing domestic violence against the other parent, a child, or even a domestic living partner, the abusive parent must
not be
awarded sole legal
custody, sole physical
custody, joint legal
custody, or joint physical
custody.
On appeal Spreeuw argued that the family court erred in
not awarding her sole physical
custody and Barker argued that the family court erred in
not awarding him primary legal
custody.
Since
custody was the primary issue at trial, it is
not surprising that the court affirmed the
award of attorney's fees.
However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the family court's decision
not to
award Husband joint
custody.
W2000 -03067-COA-R3-CV (Tennessee Court of Appeals, February 5, 2002): The husband appealed the property division, denial of rehabilitative alimony,
award of attorney's fees to wife, and decision
not to hear evidence on child
custody.
(Interestingly, the husband also claimed he should have been
awarded custody, because although he suffered from depression and couldn't work, he was able to care for the children.)
The Supreme Court held that the trial court did
not err in
awarding full
custody of the dog to the husband under Rule 60 (b)(6), even though the dog was marital property.
The self - represented appellant mother argued that the trial judge was biased, that he erred in his
custody determination, and that he erred in
not awarding spousal support.
In Cortina, the court upheld the trial judge's decision to
award sole
custody of teenage children to the father but varied the costs order to take into account the fact that a particular offer had expired three days before trial and thus was
not in strict compliance with Rule 18 (14).
Mrs. Campbell admits that the Arizona court
awarded Mr. Campbell
custody and has
not attacked the validity of that order.
At the time of the divorce in 2003, Mother was
awarded sole legal
custody and primary physical
custody of the children, followed by her remarriage and relocation with the children to Texas in 2005, Father's relocation for 6 months to be near the children in Texas, Father's return to Arizona after
not finding steady employment, Mother's separation from her new husband and subsequent move to an apartment with the children (that resulted in a change of schools).
In 2012 our legislature enacted S.C. Code § 63-15-230 (C), which reads, «If
custody is contested or if either parent seeks an
award of joint
custody, the court shall consider all
custody options, including, but
not limited to, joint
custody, and, in its final order, the court shall state its determination as to
custody and shall state its reasoning for that decision.»
If a judge does
not believe that you are capable of fostering a healthy relationship between your child and the other parent, you are less likely to be
awarded custody or favourable access terms.
This issue should
not be confused with the issue of Shared Parental Responsibility (legal
custody), which is
awarded to both parents in the vast majority of cases and which gives each parent the same right to participate in making important decisions affecting their children in areas such as education, medical care, religious upbringing, etc..
And it's also important to remember that even if one parent does
not have
custody of the children, the court may still
award them child support, so that they will have the financial resources necessary to provide for the children in a manner consistent with their current standard of living.
In any event, this case is yet another indicator that, while equally shared physical
custody is
not a presumption, the courts continue to
award ever more generous access to non-resident parents.
Court Intervention - If the two parents can
not agree without the involvement of the court, the court will decide on which parent will be
awarded physical
custody and who will be
awarded visitation rights.
In other words, if your spouse is behaving in a manner that is unreasonable and does
not put your children's best interests at the forefront, the courts may
award sole
custody and primary residency of the children to you.
A parent who is
not awarded interim
custody, but who wishes to have physical
custody in the future should attempt to maintain contact with the child, exercising their access rights whenever possible.