STANDARDIZED CHILD SUPPORT ?

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My comment:

Oops! I meant visitation / custody, not support.

Recently, a very nice contributor / writer to this site asked if there was such a thing as "standardardized" child visitation. My response was, no - - that each issue of this type is decided on a case-by-case basis.

To bring this issue into further focus, and to give you a real life example of how visitation is anything but "standard", you may find the following interesting:

How about "Alternating-Year" Custody?

In an unusual custody decision, a judge in Massachusetts ordered the parents to alternate custody every other year. There is one child of the marriage, a 7-year-old boy.

The parents live in different towns, about a half-hour apart. The child will stay in the same school system.

The custody arrangement calls for the child to live with the mother during the week and the father on weekends for a year. Then they'll switch, and the child will live with the father during the week and the mother on weekends.

This arrangement was designed by judge Christina Harms, when custody was contested. In making the decision, the judge ignored the recommendation of the guardian ad litem, who had apparently recommended that the mother retain custody.

The mother argued that it would be difficult for her to pursue her career under this arrangement. (I don't see why. Would sole custody, which she wanted, have made it easier to pursue a career?)

The father was pleased with the decision. His lawyer said that the decision indicates that the judge recognizes the importance and needs of the father.

The mother is 30 and the father is 49 years old. They met when the mother was a 20-year old student at Wellesley college and the father was 39 years old.

The decision was upheld on appeal in Massachusetts on June 27.


Editorial Comment:

I can only wonder if this would be very jarring for the boy. But perhaps it is less jarring than the prevailing existing joint-custody arrangements, which have children shuttling on a weekly basis.

Have a comment?

IAAL

------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."



[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited July 06, 2000).]

Thanks, IAAL, It really only shows that

Judges have a real battle when dealing with

custody issues, and for the majority of the

judges, status quo is the way to go, but

Judge CH appears to be trying to gain

something here. Not personal gain, of

course, but the case will undoubtedly be

mentioned in her courtroom, and others as

time goes on. Although time consuming, This

may be the way for adults to deal with a

rough situation. Dads may be led to believe

that they haven't much of a chance,

sometimes they are correct.

Wisdom of Solomon?. I don't know, but if

two otherwise reasonable adults can abide by

this type of declaration, the kids will be

much better for the process, where they have

to sit by and watch, while thier lives are

being torn up.

Threats of "taking the child", and the like

are based on fear, fear that the other will

be so in control of the child's love, that

that will be the only solution.

For some, it just may be a way to hurt the

other, and why? When it's over,it's over.

But never for the child. DNA is proof that

both parents contributed to the life of the

child, and never should one be judged as

less capable of the care and well-being of a

child, unless there is an immediate

emergency to remove the child.

Congradulations to all, Moms AND Dads, who

are able to communicate, and comply ewith

the court's orders, when they realize they

cannot comply with their vows. Peace!!

[This message has been edited by MessyMe (edited July 06, 2000).]

x

[This message has been edited by Always searching (edited October 15, 2000).]

I was reading a case the other day where the parents agreed to alternate custody on a yearly basis. One lived in NY and the other VA. The judge allowed it. Amazed me, imagine being taken from your home at the end of the school year and taken to another place to be called your home for a year. How on earth could you build friendships or established ties.

In the end, the mother who was swedish asked to have the child in sweden for her year and the father stupidly agreed. Of course, sweden does not recognise foreign custody court orders and at the end of her year, she refused to send the child back to the US and filled for full custody in Sweden.

She got full custody via the swedish courts but is unable to return to the US as he sited her for comtempt of court and kidnapping.

A year with each parent ?.. amazing and clearing NOT in the best interests of the child. I noticed however that the words 'best interest' were taken out of the UCCJA enforcement act..

[MySonsMom]

That is sad. It's bad enough on a child that their natural parents aren't together, the best that can be done is to make the kids' like as normal as possible. This set up is not normal. How sad.