Question about a current event

[Nevergrowup]

Police Find Kidnapped 4-year-old, Arrest Mom

I have a question about this case...this part specifically:


Jason Bearce filed for custody of Brandon in November 2010, but the case was declared inactive this May. Because a judge never ruled on the case, by default both parents have custody of the child.

I don't understand this. I'm ASSuming this is an unwed case, because of the different last names...so if the case is inactive, how do both parents have custody?

I'm not debating that mom should be in jail...just confused as to how custody would have been determined by "default" after being declared "inactive". Any insight?

Edited to add...I reread, it says it is an unmarried situation. So, how joint custody?

 

[Proserpina]

Police Find Kidnapped 4-year-old, Arrest Mom

I have a question about this case...this part specifically:


Jason Bearce filed for custody of Brandon in November 2010, but the case was declared inactive this May. Because a judge never ruled on the case, by default both parents have custody of the child.

I don't understand this. I'm ASSuming this is an unwed case, because of the different last names...so if the case is inactive, how do both parents have custody?

I'm not debating that mom should be in jail...just confused as to how custody would have been determined by "default" after being declared "inactive". Any insight?

US law only.

 

[Nevergrowup]

US law only.

LOL. Twin Falls is Idaho, right?

 

[Proserpina]

LOL. Twin Falls is Idaho, right?

Yeap!

I just couldn't resist.


Now as to the case...maybe Idaho (I didn't check offhand) is one of those few states where once paternity is established the presumption is joint custody unless/until a court order says otherwise?

 

[mistoffolees]

Yeap!

I just couldn't resist.


Now as to the case...maybe Idaho (I didn't check offhand) is one of those few states where once paternity is established the presumption is joint custody unless/until a court order says otherwise?

Easy enough to check:
Joint Custody Laws In The UNITED STATES

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), of the section, absent a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary, there shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child or children.

 

[Nevergrowup]

Easy enough to check:
Joint Custody Laws In The UNITED STATES

So, we can ASSume paternity was established prior...case went "inactive" (how does that happen?) so joint was the default. But that is joint legal, not physical custody? Or if it is both, how in the world do the parents divide the time (again, ASSuming, that they don't get along).

Mom's major issue in this case clearly was invading Dad's home. However, with just a default judgement, and nothing stated specifically, can't she just take him anyway (unless there is a home invasion involved)? There obviously has to be more to this story, but it is a confusing legal situation for me.

Again, Mom was BAD in this situation, not defending her. Just baffled.

 

[Proserpina]

Easy enough to check:
Joint Custody Laws In The UNITED STATES

You're right. It's easy enough. I'm just lazy (ier? No...wait..I'm usually pretty good about posting references and stuff) tonight.

It's Thursday night football.

 

[breezymom]

Just a thought, but "inactive," I can guess, doesn't necessarily mean that the custody situation was never actually decided, correct? What I mean is, could they not have gone to court, had joint-legal decided by the court, and then just not filed anything again? Would the case then be declared inactive? I could definitely be thinking of this wrongly, but...a thought.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Maybe dad already had joint custody, but filed for sole custody. Based on her recent behavior, who could blame him? For whatever reason, the court case stalled and custody remained joint "by default".

 

[breezymom]

Just a thought, but "inactive," I can guess, doesn't necessarily mean that the custody situation was never actually decided, correct? What I mean is, could they not have gone to court, had joint-legal decided by the court, and then just not filed anything again? Would the case then be declared inactive? I could definitely be thinking of this wrongly, but...a thought.

Dur. Nevermind. It's in the article. I am blaming this God-awful headache for my lack of reading comprehension, tonight!