Because of this, the trial court determined that the father had a «more traditional family environment» and
thus awarded custody to him.
Not exact matches
Thus the family court retained jurisdiction to
award fees incidental to the child
custody and support issues.
Thus the family court did not err when
awarding sole
custody of the children to the mother and specifically declining to
award joint
custody.
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).
However, courts consider that when a former spouse helped raise the children,
custody or visitation
award must consider joint parenting, and
thus assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents.
Thus, courts will typically conclude that an
award of
custody to the parent who is most likely to foster as relationship between the child and the other parent is in the child's best interests.
As such, the Courts view parents equally and
thus, outside of evidence to the contrary, Courts are inclined to
award joint legal
custody.
While some fathers may take little interest in their children, the main causes include failure of the courts to
award joint physical
custody, failure to
award significant parenting time («visitation»), failure to enforce the parenting time that has been ordered, readiness to curtail contact between fathers and children when estranged wives make any allegation, child support orders that require fathers to work two or three jobs,
thus leaving no time for parenting, moveaways, and other factors.
1998)(cases in which parties share physical
custody are indistinguishable from initial
custody awards;
thus, best interests of child would control any request for relocation by parent).
This section is captioned «Retention of jurisdiction as to alimony and
custody of children,» and begins with the phrase «After the issuance of a decree of divorce...» This language seems to create a gap between this section and the pendente lite
custody available under section 16 - 911, unless the
custody decree was originally conceived by the D.C. Council to be a separate order that would follow the divorce
award,
thus making section 16 - 914 the permanent
custody provision.