Sentences with phrase «such custody award»

Such presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that such custody award is in the best interests of the child.

Not exact matches

An award of joint custody in Maine will include provisions such as:

Joint custody may be awarded when both parents agree to such an arrangement.

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.

Courts can grant sole custody, joint custody or award custody to third parties such as grandparents.

In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Washington state statute allowing the court to award grandparent visitation based only upon the best interests of the child, finding that such a broad standard violates the liberty interest of the parents in having custody of their children.

The Japanese courts purported to acknowledge that he had custody of the child, which he had been awarded in Wisconsin, where the child was born and lived, but then decided that the child should stay in Japan with her Japanese mother because by that time the delays had been such that she had already been in Japan for a significant period of time.

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..

Factors considered by the court when awarding custody may include the age of the parent and child, the physical and mental condition of each parent and child, the relationship existing between each parent and each child, the needs of the child, the role played by each parent in the upbringing and caring for the child, the home where the child will live, and the child's wishes if the child is of sufficient age, intelligence, and maturity to make such a decision.

To win sole physical and legal custody, you must show the court that awarding you custody is in the best interests of your child due to factors such as your existing relationship with the child; stability of the home life you provide; inability of the father to meet the child's needs; father's lack of involvement in the child's life; father's failure to financially support the child; father's violent behavior toward you or the child; or father's substance abuse issues.

Behavior such as abandonment may impact the court's decision when it awards custody of the children and decides how to divide the spouses» property.

The complaint details the reason you feel the court should grant you a divorce — your grounds — and lists what you would like the court to award you, such as custody or a fair division of property.

She might also present evidence of alcohol or drug abuse, such as documentation from a treatment program, to convince the court that an award of sole custody is in the child's best interests.

The court can award sole or joint legal custody, which refers to a parent's right to make major decisions concerning the child — such as medical and educational decisions.

In the event the court has terminated a surviving parent's rights, or changed the terms of the decree post-divorce to award full custody to the deceased parent, California law allows third parties — such as grandparents or other relatives — to intervene.

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 may also award sole custody, where one parent makes such decisions.

Courts can award physical custody to one parent or another, or decide parents should share such 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).

Kansas courts usually award sole custody only when one parent is literally unable to contribute to decision - making, such as if he is mentally incompetent, or his judgment might be unsound or detrimental to his child, such as if he has been convicted of a serious crime and is incarcerated.

The agreement should address issues such as child support and custody, alimony — which can be awarded in Mississippi — and property division.

As such, the Courts view parents equally and thus, outside of evidence to the contrary, Courts are inclined to award joint legal custody.

In Georgia, a party other than the child's biological parents, such as a grandparent, may be awarded custody, when the court determines that this is in the child's best interest.

Historically, courts used to give physical custody of young children to mothers automatically, sometimes because state laws required such awards.

Legal custody refers to a parent's right to make important decisions for a child; courts commonly award joint legal custody, meaning the parents share the right to make important decisions, such as what medical care the child receives.

For other cases holding that proposed relocation requests which would result in the effective termination of a shared physical custodial arrangement should be treated as a modification of custody, see, e.g., Lewellyn v. Lewellyn, 351 Ark. 346, 93 S.W. 3d 681 (2002)(both mother and father petitioned for sole custody of children after mother's proposed relocation would make parties» shared physical custodial arrangement unworkable; court found that mother's relocation constituted material change of circumstances warranting award of sole custody to father, even though such a relocation would not be considered a material change in circumstances in a case that did not involve shared physical custody), and In re Marriage of Garst, 955 P. 2d 1056 (Colo..

In such cases, custody can be awarded to a grandparent or other relative, a foster parent, a state agency, or other organization or institution.

However, even though we find such conduct deplorable, Wilhelms has not appealed the custody award.»

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.

For this reason, some states presume that awarding legal custody to a substance - abusing parent is not in a child's best interest, and that limitations should be placed on physical custody, such as contact only through supervised visits.

Generally, courts will only award sole custody when it is found to be in the best interests of the child, such as where a parent is unfit to care for the child.

[FN51] Rather than codify the practice of awarding joint custody to parties who agree to such an arrangement, the new law creates a presumption that shifts the focus away from the child, despite the childrearing problems inherent in parental discord, and toward the parents.

[FN156] The case was tried prior to the Act's passage, but the Court of Appeals referred to the new law specifying its application to unmarried parents as bolstering its conclusion that even prior to the passage of the Act, joint custody could be awarded to unmarried parents, «particularly in a case such as this, where both parents -LSB--RSB- actively participated in the upbringing of the child.»

(g)(1) An award of custody may be modified or terminated upon the motion of one or both parents, or on the court's own motion, upon a determination that there has been a substantial and material change in circumstances and that such modification or termination is in the best interest of the child.

In such cases he recommended awarding primary custody to the rejected parent and restricting contact between the alienating parent and child.

[FN67] While such eventualities would not necessarily preclude a joint custody award, they do underscore the difficulty of imposing interaction implicit in the marital relationship upon parties who are not in that relationship.

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.