Sentences with phrase «preference for custody»

Another of Arizona's best interests factors involves the coercing, manipulating or bribing a child into voicing a certain preference for custody.

The court may consider the child's reasonable preference for custody.

The child's preference for custody carries some significant weight if the child is of sufficient age and maturity to make a reasonable decision.

Where the parents work, the court must be satisfied that there are adequate child care arrangements and as between working parents preference for custody will be given to the parent who works regular hours and has time left to spend with the children.

In a divorce proceeding, neither the mother nor the father is given an automatic preference for custody of the child.

Historically, Georgia has been one of the more generous states when it comes to dealing with a child's preference for custody in divorce proceedings.

The child's preference for custody carries some significant weight if the child is of sufficient age and maturity to make a reasonable decision.

In some cases, depending on the age and maturity level of the child, the court may consider the child's preferences for custody.

Not exact matches

It should also be noted that, in a docketed report to trial court, the attorney for the children stated a cautious preference for placing the custody of the children with Robert.

In custody cases, most states» family courts allow a preference for the parent who can demonstrate that he or she was a child's primary caretaker during the course of marriage, or assumed that role in general if the parents are unmarried.

If the child is younger than 11, there is no expectation for the judge to consider the child's preference when awarding custody.

However with no stated preference for joint custody over sole custody and with South Carolina case law favoring sole custody, I do not see any reason why this statute should radically alter South Carolina child custody determinations.

(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.

For example, a court will consider the reasonable preferences of the child when considering how to administer physical custody Minn..

New Hampshire law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Oklahoma law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Vermont law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Iowa law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

To determine the child's best interest, judges consider various factors, including the parents» suitability for custody, the child's psychological and emotional needs, the parents» ability to communicate, the parents» past care of the child, the child's preference, where each parent lives, the child's safety, and any history of domestic neglect or abuse.

Most states now use the best interests of the child standard to determine custody without preference for parental gender.

Tennessee law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

New York law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Idaho law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Montana law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Nebraska law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

The preference to allow both parents visitation and custody rights usually means the parenting plan does not provide for sole custody.

However, California does not establish a preference or a presumption for or against joint custody or custody to one parent, and therefore leaves the parenting plan decision up to the discretion of the family court or judge.

Maine's child custody law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

While California, unlike some other states, has no preference for joint custody, in order to obtain sole custody, you still must show the arrangement is in the child's best interest.

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).

Unlike some other states, California does not have a preference for joint custody, which means that California does not automatically presume that joint custody is the best decision for the child.

Some states are amending laws to adopt a preference and presumption for joint custody, while others are amending laws to allow joint custody only when the parents agree to it.

Mississippi law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Kentucky law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

New Mexico law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case, so joint custody is considered beneficial for the child.

In the context of custody and visitation, the explicit preference that children maintain significant contacts with both parents after separation and divorce and the tendency to see marital dysfunction as the product of conflict rather than abuse have led specialists in partner abuse to accuse family courts of ignoring abuse and its consequences for both adults and children.

The Family Code specifically refrains from establishing a preference or presumption in favor of any arrangement for custody and visitation.

The statutes of West Virginia express a preference for permanence in child custody arrangements.

West Virginia law establishes a preference for parents resolving custody issues between themselves.

Missouri law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Maryland law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

The court does not give any preference to one parent because of gender, and no preference for either joint or sole custody is presumed.

The District of Columbia law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

California law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of their child.

Alabama law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case because the court believes both parents should be permitted the ability to develop and maintain a meaningful relationship with their child despite the end of the marriage.

Michigan law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Georgia law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Pennsylvania law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

West Virginia law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as practically possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.

Arkansas law expresses a preference for parents to share as equally as possible in the custody of a child in a divorce case.