ROCK-PAPER-SCISSORS: PLAYING THE ODDS WITH THE LAW OF CHILD RELOCATION (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Family Psychology, 2003
State courts have rightly termed relocation cases, in which a custodial parent's desire to move to move away with the child is opposed by the other parent, "one of the knottiest and most disturbing problems" courts face. The recent trend is to permit such moves. This trend was encouraged by Judith Wallerstein's influential but controversial amica curiae brief in the California Supreme Court case of Burgess v. Burgess, which argued that allowing such moves is generally in the child's interests because social science evidence shows that "in general, what is good for the custodial parent is good for the child." Subsequent papers have challenged Wallerstein's characterization of the social science evidence, but in fact there has been no single study offering direct evidence on this question. The current study, which divides college students whose parents were divorced into groups based upon their parents' moveaway status, sought such direct evidence. We find statistically significant differences favoring children of divorce whose parents did not move, on a variety of outcomes, as reported by the students themselves. These results suggest that the child's interests require separate consideration from that of the custodial parent's in the rules by which such relocation cases are decided.
The Determination of Child Custody
The Future of Children, 1994
This article reviews briefly the history of child custody decision making and describes current custodial arrangements in the United States. It examines both the manner in which parents and courts make decisions regarding custody and access, and the changes in visiting patterns in recent decades. The author discusses the impact of reforms in the law and the implementation of newer dispute resolution and educational interventions, and then makes recommendations for policy and practice.
The Best Interests of the Child and Relocation Disputes
The fluidity of the modern family springs from changing social values on various forms of intimate relationships. But as easily as they form, they are easily unformed, susceptible to separation and re-partnering. In the aftermath of separation, the problem is often exacerbated by the presence of children. It’s a painful process in which one of the parents may well at some level need to distance himself or herself physically as well as emotionally from the other. Dissension results and contested relocation emerges in which the best interest of the child is paramount. But what are the child’s best interests and who can determine them? This article examines the best interests of the child and its application in relocation disputes.
The Relocation of Children and Custodial Parents: Public Policy, Past and Present
1996
While this article was in press, the California Supreme Court rendered a 6-1 decision in In re Marriage of Burgess, 913 P.2d 473 (Cal. 1996). The court's opinion shares much of the reasoning set forth in this article. A custodial parent has a presumptive right to change the children's residence that applies in either an initial custody case or a modification action. Noting "the paramount need for continuity and stability in custodial arrangements," Justice Mosk's majority opinion emphasizes maintaining the custodial household and grants deference to the factual custodial relationship. The legislature's endorsement of frequent and continuing contact with both parents, he writes, "[does] not specify a preference for any particular form of 'contact'." Nor does it constrain the trial court's best-interest decision or impose a burden of proof on those wishing to relocate. Specifically declining to require that trial courts "micromanage.. . everyday decisions about career and family," the opinion states that a court may not require either parent to justify a residential choice. Rather, the majority notes the "ordinary needs for both parents after a marital dissolution to secure or retain employment, pursue *
This paper outlines why domestic violence (or more specifically, coercive control) should be crucial to child custody proceedings. What is known about parenting in the context of coercively controlling violence, and what the legislation directs courts to consider, is juxtaposed with the actuality of court decision making. Current knowledge about the recognition of domestic violence in judicial practice is overviewed, drawing particular attention to the role of the " expert " family assessment in determinations of a child's " best interests ". A comprehensive synopsis of the existing research on these " expert " reports in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is provided. It is concluded that, in court proceedings the reality of living with coercively controlling violence and the potential ongoing risks it poses to children and non-abusive parents, is typically negated. Instead, " best interests " considerations prioritise the maintenance of perpetrator/child relationships, and thus " abuser's rights " over victim safety. Judicial officers are not experts in domestic violence and they can only make decisions on the basis of the evidence before them, the assessments made by the " experts " likely play an important role in best interest considerations. Of concern is current research that calls into serious question the expertise of these " experts " when it comes to proceedings involving allegations of coercively controlling violence.
Journal of Child Custody, 2016
Parental alienation syndrome" (PAS) is unscientific and is an affront to children, women who hold the custody of children of separated couples, science, human rights, and the justice system itself. Justice, to be just, should be based on scientifically proven theories and evidence. This article describes investigations carried out to show that two of the principles that underpin PAS are false: That children lie when pressed (alienated in the terminology of PAS), and that the principle that should guide judges' actions for the good of the child should be that for the child to always be in contact with both parents. The results of these investigations show that these two principles are false and advocates the use of truly scientific proceedings for judges to grant custody in case of dispute between parents, as well as for determining the visitation for the noncustodial parent.