California Child Custody Form
by Daniel Lee
One of the ongoing discussions in the shared parenting movement is what language to use, such as visitation or parenting time. As shown in the below form which is presently used in California courts, that state uses the terms "legal custody", "physical custody", and "visitation".
Setting aside for the moment the optimum language to use, what's most important is the definition of the individual terms. In block 1 of the form California defines legal custody as "person who makes decisions about health, education, etc." They define physical custody as "person with whom the child lives". They have provisions where parents can equally share these statuses, by having joint legal and/or joint physical custody.
Using the California terms and definitions, it can be shown how simple it is to reform most of family law. Parents enter the courtroom with joint physical and legal custody. If they are in agreement, the blocks of joint physical and joint legal custody only need to be checked off, and they go on their way. If they are in disagreement, they retain joint physical custody, and another block is added where they time-divide legal custody on a long-term schedule.
That meets the two constitutional requirements of government not having decision-making over children with fit parents (by choosing one over the other), and not forcing men and women into the greatly different classes of permanent primary and secondary parent. With nothing to fight over, custody battles will almost never happen. The language issue becomes irrelevant, because your kids will be living with you half of the time, and you'll have legal decision making over them half the time. With less conflict, there will be lower divorce and domestic violence rates.
Children have both parents fully in their lives, to the greatest extent possible when the family is not intact.
This is a simple solution, that will work in the real world. If you disagree, or have a better solution, please reply with the exact reasons why it won't work.
California Form:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/fl341.pdf
Daniel Lee
One of the ongoing discussions in the shared parenting movement is what language to use, such as visitation or parenting time. As shown in the below form which is presently used in California courts, that state uses the terms "legal custody", "physical custody", and "visitation".
Setting aside for the moment the optimum language to use, what's most important is the definition of the individual terms. In block 1 of the form California defines legal custody as "person who makes decisions about health, education, etc." They define physical custody as "person with whom the child lives". They have provisions where parents can equally share these statuses, by having joint legal and/or joint physical custody.
Using the California terms and definitions, it can be shown how simple it is to reform most of family law. Parents enter the courtroom with joint physical and legal custody. If they are in agreement, the blocks of joint physical and joint legal custody only need to be checked off, and they go on their way. If they are in disagreement, they retain joint physical custody, and another block is added where they time-divide legal custody on a long-term schedule.
That meets the two constitutional requirements of government not having decision-making over children with fit parents (by choosing one over the other), and not forcing men and women into the greatly different classes of permanent primary and secondary parent. With nothing to fight over, custody battles will almost never happen. The language issue becomes irrelevant, because your kids will be living with you half of the time, and you'll have legal decision making over them half the time. With less conflict, there will be lower divorce and domestic violence rates.
Children have both parents fully in their lives, to the greatest extent possible when the family is not intact.
This is a simple solution, that will work in the real world. If you disagree, or have a better solution, please reply with the exact reasons why it won't work.
California Form:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/fl341.pdf
Daniel Lee
5 Comments:
yes but the free food, money and extortionate support amounts that flow one way will stop. What will pigs [as in facists] fatten themselves on in such an equal universe. ?
Until the parents get control over the payment of child support by taking it away from the government collectors, child support will still be used as extortion to "allow" fathers to have time with their children. I have joint legal/physical custody of my 2 children and I have to pay child support to the mother because my "attorney" said that because of the courts attitude toward men, I was paying to get my parenting time with my children in spite of the fact that equal time with the children in my state calls for no child support. Its a struggle to support my current family and have my children half the time and pay her child support. How is that fair? Its a step in the right direction requiring joint legal/physical custody, but child support is still the hammer on men.
It is quite evident that the first two comments put to rest any workable vision of a statute that would define shared parenting that would solve the Constitutional and legal problems currently in practice.
Child custody statutes in no-fault divorce is unconstitutional. The legal terms and phrases in current law such as legal custody, irretrievable, irreconcilable, physical custody, joint legal custody are so illdefined and undefinable, that it is wishful thinking to presume that "shared custody" would be so defined as to bring current practices of County court systems into compliance with the Constitution.
The idea that Courts or the Legislature have any authority to define the status of a natural fit parents "custody" absent jurisdiction is akin to expecting Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin to define the "best interests of children".
The phrase is politically palitable, but legally unworkable. It permits the continuation of judicial tyranny and will delay the debate and resolution by another 10 years.
The custody reform is a good step, but what is to be done about the hideous way that California, and most other states make it their business to enslave men with alimony/support that is socialist in theory and misandronous in practice?
M is for Malevolent, a blog on the abuse of men.
I am a divorced mother who has been forced to be in a custody battle for 7 years, we equally share custody and visitation. The court is allowing the father to keep this in court going to repeated mediations, evaluations, and now a special master. The crazy part of it all, there are no issues that the father has, but he does have a greedy attorney. I think this huge whole in the system where one parent can keep "the fight" going should be stopped.
Post a Comment
<< Home