Family Law Newsletter
| Jurisdiction | United States,Federal |
| Citation | Vol. 8 No. 9 Pg. 1704 |
| Pages | 1704 |
| Publication year | 1979 |
1979, September, Pg. 1704. Family Law Newsletter
The growing trend toward choosing and awarding joint or shared custody makes the following case, digested in the June 5, 1979, issue of the Family Law Reporter, Volume 5, Number 30, a necessary reading.
The New York County Supreme Court, a trial level forum, decided that, although neither parent sought joint custody of their eleven-year-old daughter, this would be the best resolution to the custody dispute that would be in the best interest of the child.
The court recognized the existing state of affairs of the parents and the psychological needs of the child in making the award. The parents live near each other, agree on important areas of child care and treat each other with civility and restraint.
It was the court's hope that a legal recognition of shared responsibility would help meet the needs of the child to feel wanted by both parents. Adler v. Adler, 5-4-79, 5 FLR 2613.
The California Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's award of joint custody to both parents where Section 4600 of the California Civil Code authorized an award of custody to "either" parent. The court rejected the argument that a requirement to award custody to "either" parent foreclosed the court from making a "joint custody" award.
However, the court did strike down that portion of the trial court's order which awarded physical custody to the mother, while giving joint custody to both parents. The court stated that the award of "physical" and the overlapping feature of joint legal custody is ephemeral and essentially meaningless and therefore, struck the physical custody language from the trial court's order. Neal v. Neal, 5-9-79, 5 FLR 2565.
Viewing the modern trend for courts to consider the extent of an unmarried couple's relationship rather than its legal status, a Maine District Court decided that a divorced mother was not entitled to continued spousal support where she and her paramour lived together.
The court looked at all the indices of the living arrangements, sharing an abode, pooling financial resources and psychological support. Noting that the only thing lacking in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial