Parental Alienation

parental alienation arizona lawyers scottsdale phoenixParental alienation is unfortunately, a topic of considerable concern and frequency.  However, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association have not recognized it. Many courts have acknowledged it, however.

The goal of course is to protect a child from a physically and/or psychologically abusive parent.  To deal with this, some courts have ordered some children into unsupervised timesharing and, in some cases, majority timesharing, with an abusing parent … to punish the so-called alienating (that is, protecting) parent. Unltimately, the question is whether Is it better to err in favor of protecting an allegedly alienated parent’s “rights” or in favor of protecting a child from abuse?

Check out this quote from a recent Capital Weekly article,

Parental Alienation is a perilous accusation that should never be recognized in courts or viewed as particularly compelling in cases deciding the custody of a child, especially when resolving profoundly difficult questions concerning the scary scenario of  placing that child back into the home of a domestic violence abuser.

Children with Special Needs

Children with special needs further complicate child custody and care issues during and after a divorce. As a result, your family law attorney needs to know what parents rights are under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and with the Section 504 (504) in the Americans With Disabilities Act when advising their clients and when crafting custody agreements.

The following article "Impact of Divorce Agreements on Special Education Decision-Making" highlights some issues and concerns to think about when one of your client's children are suspected of having or are diagnosed with a learning or emotional disability.

Recent Ruling - Arizona Child Custody Appeal

Sometimes the simple things count the most.  Remember, if you are in the process of appealing a child custody determination made by the Arizona Family Court, make sure you attach a copy of the transcript of the custody hearing for the Appellate Court's review.

In Bourgo v. Bourgo, 2009 WL 5062194 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)(Dec. 24, 2009), Mother forgot to do just that and as a result, her appeal challenging the denial of her petition to modify child custody was denied.

For all of your Arizona child custody related issues, make sure to contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, experienced Arizona family law attorneys.

Continue Reading...

Arizona Child Custody Statutes - Best Interests of the Child

When there are children involved in divorce cases in Arizona (or paternity cases), many questions arise as to how child custody is resolved. Arizona Statutes deal with child custody issues in Arizona divorce and paternity cases and are a great first place to start.

Some definitions need to be known and understood.  For instance, with respect to Arizona child custody, "Joint legal custody" means the condition under which both parents share legal custody.  In this situation, "both parents share legal custody and neither parent's rights are superior, except with respect to specified decisions set forth by the court or the parents in a final judgment or order."  Normally, the major decisions regarding a child involve medical, education and religion.  Most other decisions made by a parent such as daily activies of the child, what the children eat and wear, etc. are made by the parent who has physical custody of the child at the time the decision needs to be made.

That brings us to "Joint physical custody", which is defined as "the condition under which the physical residence of the child is shared by the parents in a manner that assures that the child has substantially equal time and contact with both parents."  What "substantially equally time and contact with both parents" is, of course, where many problems may arise as both parents may have very different views on this subject.

In an Arizona divorce or paternity case, if mother and father are unable to reach an agreement as to what custody arrangements should be put in place for their child, Arizona statute authorizes the court to award when deciding child custody that custody be either "sole" or "joint".  Importantly, there is no presumption in favor of one custody arrangement over the other.  And, "the court in determing custody shall not prefer a parent as custodian because of that parent's sex".  So, the sex of the parent when determing child custody in Arizona should not be a factor in the court's decision.

Many questions often arise about "what is in the child's best interests" in Arizona custody cases.  The divorce or paternity case judge considers the following: 1. the wishes of the child's parents; 2. the wishes of the child; 3. the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the parents, the child's siblings and any others who may significantly affect the child's best interests; 4. the child's adjustment to home, school and community; 5. the mental and physical  health of all individuals involved; 6. which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and meaningful continuing contact with the other parent; 7. whether one parent, both parents or neither parent has provided primary care of the child; 8. the nature and extent of coercion or duress used by a parent in obtaining an agreement regarding custody; and 9. whether either parent was convicted of an act of false reporting of child abuse.

Of course, this is only the basics.  When dealing with Arizona child custody disputes each case is different because no two situations are exactly the same.  Facts always differ.  If you have any questions regarding Arizona child custody in the context of an Arizona divorce or paternity case, contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC.

Arizona Divorce, Arizona Child Custody and Arizona Child Support -- Temporary Orders Hearing

Temporary Orders in Arizona Family Court

What kind of temporary orders you can get in Arizona family court, and how.

Typically Arizona divorce and custody cases take months to make it to court. But if you're getting divorced and need a quick decision from a judge about who gets the kids, the car, the money in the bank accounts, or the house -- or if you need money for support right away -- obviously you can't wait that long.

You don't have to. When couples separate, important issues are often resolved in a short evidentiary hearing before a judge, instead of requiring a full-scale trial.

Even though these hearings are shorter than trials, their brevity means that you must be prepared and know exactly what you want. You may have only a few minutes to ask for it.

What Temporary Orders Are For

Let's say a husband moves out, and the wife who's left behind needs money to feed and shelter the children. Realizing that her children would starve long before a full trial could be held, she is desperate for help. She can go to court to request a temporary order from an Arizona family court judge, even though a formal divorce action has not yet been set for trial and discovery may not have been completed, or for that matter, even started. Her request will be put on a fast track, and an evidentiary hearing will be scheduled within weeks in most cases.

Spouses can also ask the Arizona family court to temporarily: 

  • restrain a spouse from coming near or contacting the other (or, if he or she hasn't already done so, to move out of the family home)
  • establish child custody and visiting arrangements
  • provide for spousal support (alimony) and/or child support payments
  • order either spouse not to sell valuable assets, and/or
  • give possession of the family home or car to one of the spouses.

These temporary orders are usually valid until the court holds another hearing or until the spouses arrive at their own settlement through negotiation or mediation.

When to Ask for a Temporary Order

When someone moves out of the house, one of you should go to court right away to quickly resolve any critical issues, such as spousal support. And, if the children will be staying with you, you should immediately file for custody and child support.

This accomplishes two things. First, you will be awarded the proper amount of child support and the court will acknowledge that you live with the children -- often granting physical custody right off the bat. Second, your spouse cannot successfully claim that the children were kidnapped. This may sound extreme and unlike your future ex-spouse, but some people behave uncharacteristically when under duress and feeling threatened. And, if your future ex-spouse raises such a claim, the police or judge are usually obligated to hear her or him out. However, when you arrive with proof that you filed for custody and child support, the court will most likely dismiss a kidnapping claim.

How to Ask for a Temporary Order

To get a court order, you must prepare and file some paperwork. Here's what you'll probably need 

  • A request for the court order you want.
     
  • A supporting affidavit. This is a written statement, under penalty of perjury, setting out facts that legally justify the issuance of the temporary order -- for example, the need for money to support your children. You can also submit declarations of other people who have first-hand knowledge of the facts.
     
  • A proposed temporary order granting you the relief requested. This order will be signed by the family court judge if he or she grants the relief you request.
     
  • A proof of service. This is a document that proves to the court that the papers have been properly delivered to your spouse.

What to Expect at the Hearing

Your next step is to attend the court hearing where the jArizona family court udge will consider your request. In emergencies, the hearing can be held within a few days.

The judge will:

  • review the details of the requests and the underlying facts
  • possibly ask you some questions
  • ask your spouse, if present, for his or her side of the story, and
  • in child support cases, refer to state guidelines on recommended support, given factors such as each spouse's income and who has primary custody of the kids.

At its conclusion, the Arizona family court judge will likely make a ruling, usually either issuing the temporary order you requested or modifying it somewhat. Orders such as these stay in effect only until the divorce is finally settled, either through a trial or when you and your spouse reach an agreement.

The Art & Science of Custody Evaluations

If you are interested in learning more about custody evaluations, check out this book.
If you need to see a Arizona custody lawyer, contact www.nrglaw.net for a complete analysis of your situation.

How To Be An A+ Parent

One way parents can increase their child's chance of succeeding in school is to forget a good relationship with his/her teacher. Parents magazine published an article, Be an A+ Parent by Nancy Seid, which gives several practical tips toward that end.

For information on Arizona Child Custody issues contact NRG.

Thanks to Ben Stevens at South Carolina Family Law Blog.

Continue Reading...

UCCJEA - Mother and Child's Overseas Move Did Not Divest Court of Jurisdiction

New York has continuing jurisdiction over a custody dispute involving a child who, at the time his father retained him following visitation, had lived in Norway with the custodial mother for two years, the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, has decided in EB v. EFB, N.Y. Sup. Ct., No. 9159/02, 1/4/05.

Addressing for the first time application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act in a case where the underlying custody order was issued prior to the Act's effective date and the modification request was made after such date, the court rebuffed the mother's contention that Norway has home state jurisdiction under the Act's predecessor, the UCCJA. It said that because the father remained in New York following the parties' divorce and issuance of the custody order, the state retained jurisdiction

Continue Reading...

A New Era of Family Law - "50/50 Custody"

The following article discusses the movement to pass legislation in all 50 states mandating a presumption of 50/50 custody.
Food for thought?

By Lynne Gold-Bikin

A movement by fathers' groups and their current wives to have every state legislature mandate a presumption of 50/50 custody for all children as a starting point in every contested custody case has created a new area of family law. If you inquire about the rationale behind this movement, the groups will respond that they have a constitutional right to raise their children and, further, that this presumption will alleviate all custody problems. Further, they say, the "best interest of the child" standard is bogus and is just used to deprive fit parents of their rights. Other arguments made by these dads include: the criteria used to award custody are unconstitutionally vague; there are no scientific data to support the continued use of the "best interests" standard, and the standards are arbitrarily utilized. If the legislatures would only mandate a presumption of 50/50 custody at the outset, these groups claim, there would be no interparental conflict, no wasting of family resources, and no shattered lives.

Continue Reading...

Visitation Jurisdiction

In a federal diversity action where the father fails to establish any credible evidence to remove jurisdiction, jurisdiction will be returned to the child's home state. See, Melnick v. Melnick, 04 Civ. 5993, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, November 15, 2004.

In Melnick, the parties were divorced in Connecticut in 1997. There was one minor child of the marriage and the parties had continuing disagreements regarding the father's visitation rights with respect to the minor child. A supplemental visitation agreement was drafted in 2003 under the supervision of the Connecticut Family Court. Thereafter, the father relocated to New York, and filed an action in the New York courts, claiming the mother continued to violate the parties' visitation agreements. The mother removed the matter as a diversity case to the federal courts. The federal court dismissed the case and remanded it to the Connecticut courts. It held that the father's complaint was insufficient to find that any of the father's causes of action were rooted in New York. It considered that the parties were divorced in Connecticut, and the subject minor child's home state continued to be Connecticut. The father's complaint only alleged, in conclusory terms, without much empirical evidence, that there was any connection to New York. The mother did not dispute that the father was entitled to remove the child to New York for the purpose of temporary visitation.

UCCJEA Opinion From Texas

A Texas court erred in designating Illinois as the home state of a divorcing couple's child, who had not spent six consecutive months in the latter state at the time of the divorce, the Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District, held Feb. 10th in Nagubadi v. Nagubadi, Tex. Ct. App., No. 13-02-621-CV, 2/10/05.

The Court found that the parents and child were all living in Texas when the mother filed for divorce but that by the time the final decree was entered the mother was completing a two-year medical residency program in Dayton, Ohio, and the father was living in Chicago.

Mother May Have Child Baptized Without Father's Consent

This week, in Hicks v. Hicks, a Pennsylvania appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying a mother the right to baptize her 9-year-old daughter over the objection of the child's father. In doing so, the Court reversed the trial court order barring either parent from unilaterally baptizing the child and authorizing her to make her own choice at age 13.

To read the full opinion, click here.

Child Never in State -- Divorce Action -- UCCJEA

In Weesner v. Johnson, Ark. Ct. App., No. 04-784, 1/19/05, it was held that the trial court erred as a matter of law in assuming jurisdiction over the custody aspect of a divorce case where the parties' child had never lived in Arkansas.

At trial, the resident father, who had requested custody in his divorce petition, acknowledged that the child had been born and resided in California, and said that the mother and child had also lived in Arizona and Nevada for brief periods. The mother, however, moved for a dismissal of the custody matter and submitted an affidavit maintaining that while she and the child had moved around the state, they had always resided in California. (The parties had separated prior to the child's birth in 2001.) The trial court held that it had custody jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

Examining the the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the Court held that Arkansas clearly did not have home state jurisdiction because the child had never lived there. Likewise, the Court found that the father could not rely on significant connection jurisdiction, because the child had absolutely none with Arkansas. Further finding that this case did not present the situation in which another state declines jurisdiction, the Court also rejected the father's reliance on the UCCJEA provision under which Arkansas retains jurisdiction if no court of any other state would have jurisdiction.

Of note, the Father appeared without an attorney. Probably not the best idea when faced with a UCCJEA issue.

In Re Ashley D. - California Court Deals With UCCJEA Issue

In In re Ashley D., 2005 WL 45052 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)(01/11/05), Mother appealed from the juvenile court's order which terminated legal guardianship for her daughter, Ashley D. (born in 1991), as well as any remaining jurisdiction over Ashley's case. Ashley also separately appealled the order. On appeal, Mother and Ashley did not contest the order terminating guardianship, they only challenged the termination of California jurisdiction, with deference to pending juvenile dependency proceedings in Oregon.

In doing so, Mother and Ashley asserted that the juvenile court erred in terminating California jurisdiction over the dependency proceedings arguing that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam.Code, § 3400, et.seq.), Oregon erred in adjudicating a petition for juvenile dependency concerning Ashley because California already had jurisdiction. Mother and Ashley further argued that the California juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating California's jurisdiction and deferring the matter to Oregon after granting the Oregon Department of Human Services's (ODHS) Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition terminating legal guardianship and California jurisdiction.

The California Court of Appeals foundthat there was no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment holding that the record sufficiently supports a reasonable finding that allowing Ashley's juvenile dependency matter to continue in Oregon, where she had been living for at least four years and had been the subject of juvenile dependency proceedings there for almost three years, was appropriate and in Ashley's best interest.

Lesbian Lifestyle and Non-Attendance at Church Leads To Court's Transfer of Custody To Father In Mississippi

The Mississippi Court of Appeals, in Davidson v. Coit, Miss. Ct. App., No. 2002-CA-01570, 2/1/05, ruled that a custodial mother's exposure of her daughters to her lesbian lifestyle and her failure to take them to church were properly considered by a trial court in changing custody to their father.

While acknowledging that the divorce court was aware of the mother's sexual preference when it originally awarded her custody (and that the fact that she was a lesbian would not support modification), the court found that the evidence buttressed the father's contention that her post-divorce conduct was detrimental to the children. It also found that in awarding custody to the father the trial court did not err in taking into account the fact that the mother did not take the children to church When the parties divorced in 1997, they were granted joint custody of their two daughters, with the mother having primary physical custody. In 2001, the father filed for modification, asserting that the children (then ages 7 and 9) had been exposed to the mother's lesbian lifestyle and that her live-in girlfriends and the maternal grandmother were raising them.

Continue Reading...

Arkansas Case Deals With UCCJEA Issues

The Arkansas Court of Appeals, in Weesner v. Johnson, Ark. Ct. App., No. 04-784, 1/19/05) ruled that the trial court erred as a matter of law in assuming jurisdiction over the custody aspect of a divorce case where the parties' child had never lived in Arkansas.

At trial, the resident father, who had requested custody in his divorce petition, acknowledged that the child had been born and resided in California, and said that the mother and child had also lived in Arizona and Nevada for brief periods. The mother, however, moved for a dismissal of the custody matter and submitted an affidavit maintaining that while she and the child had moved around the state, they had always resided in California. (The parties had separated prior to the child's birth in 2001.) The trial court held that it had custody jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

Continue Reading...

International Family Law

By Jeremy D. Morley

International marriages and personal relationships place special demands on family lawyers whose clients require dependable advice about complex international family law issues. This has led to an increasing role for international family law counsel.

Today, it would hardly be unusual for an American man and a French woman living in New York to marry in Bermuda, move from New York to Singapore on business, own real estate in Canada and a business in England, and have children in school in Switzerland. If they separated and one spouse unilaterally returned with the children to live in New York, both parties might well require legal advice regarding many matters, each of which might have a significant international component, concerning divorce, custody, equitable distribution, child support, spousal support and child abduction.

Continue Reading...

Virginia Bill Proposes Drastic Changes To Custody In Divorce Actions

There may soon be a change in visitation rights when Virginia couples file for divorce.

A bill in play at the General Assembly would take away a judge's power to establish a parent's visitation schedule. Some Virginia parents believe the current system is unfair. Parents spoke out Wednesday, saying they want a new law to establish fair visitation guidelines for parents going through divorce. Proponents of the bill say it would also drastically reduce attorney's fees. The bill would establish guidelines for judges during divorce proceedings.

Continue Reading...

US Navy Policy - Single Care Plans

Service members with children, who are minors, are required to have a family care plan. A family care plan designates who will take care of a service members' children while the service member is deployed. However, it is very important that service members with children know that a family care plan has no legal authority outside of the military, and this can be a big problem if you deploy and leave your child with anyone other than the child's other biological parent. If you and the other biological parent are fighting over custody of the child, a family care plan alone will not prevent the other parent from taking the child while you are deployed.

Continue Reading...