10/11/2009 10:00:00 AM
Whose kid is this anyway, Part II
Legal-Ease
| |
|
 |
| By Todd D. Wolfrum
Attorney-at-law |
|
"Got a wife and kids in Baltimore, Jack/ I went out for a ride and I never went back./ Like a river that don't know where it's flowin'/ I took a wrong turn and I just kept goin'." - Bruce Springsteen.
Last week, we touched on the issues surrounding having kids out of wedlock. The flipside, of course, is what happens to children in a divorce - that legal Bizarro World where the person you once loved to the point of matrimony becomes your own private version of the devil.
Everyone goes a little crazy during a divorce, and a little crazier when kids are involved. You can't help that. Some common questions preliminary to a divorce are:
"Can I just take the children and leave?"/ "Can I hide the children from him because he'll go ape as soon as he knows I left him?"/ "Can I change the locks on the doors?"/ "Can I bust a window and get into the house if she changes the locks on the doors?"
The answer to all of these questions is yes and don't. In the free-for-all that is being married and separated but not yet in court, everything, including the kids, is up for grabs. Each party owns everything jointly, even those things titled separately. Until a divorce action is filed, possession is ten-tenths of the law, and the cops will enforce that, meaning they will go out of their way to not get involved until someone throws a punch or a coffee mug.
But be careful how you act - everything is eventually evidence. Will a judge give custody to someone who takes the kids and runs instead of someone who steadily maintains the marital home? Maybe - how crazy is the party maintaining the home? (Charles Manson maintained a "family", after all.) Bear in mind that a judge is not starting from the position that your soon-to-be ex is the devil. A person has to weigh their own crazy factor before separating and try to act solely in the best interests of the child, and weighing ain't easy in Bizarro World.
Once a divorce is filed, temporary orders will issue regarding the property and children and much of the free-for-all ends. Whoever files the action can swear by affidavit some facts to get opening guidelines established. It usually doesn't matter which party files, the exception to that being when a party does nothing and lets temporary orders run uncontested. Those orders then have a way of evolving into permanent orders.
All else being equal, shared parenting is preferred by the court in divorce. Shared parenting is not necessarily splitting time equally. It is a contract drafted around the parents' schedules to give the child maximum time with both parents while maintaining the maximum amount of stability in the child's life.
Money can't help but be an issue. Let's say the mother (although it can be the father) is the primary caregiver for the child, meaning the parent who provides the majority of the feeding, grooming, etc.. She will be appointed residential parent and the child will live with her.
Visitation for the father then becomes the question. Standard visitation varies from county to county, but every other weekend for a 48-hour period is usual with extra time in the summer and on weekday evenings.
The trick is that the nonresidential parent gets credit against his or her child support for time spent with the child that is beyond standard visitation. The best interests of the child is clouded by the desire to pay less in some instances and it is next to impossible for judges to determine when a parent desires more time with the child or to pay less support.
More is involved, obviously, but custody centers on what is best for the child. If your future ex is the devil, getting around what The Boss might describe as a "Brilliant Disguise" is the trick. If you're not the crazy one, start keeping detailed records to prove it and spend some time doing so. Nothing is easy to prove once the free-for-all commences.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
