#while all the interests still have a stable supportive nurturing home life in The Fix and Pasha

[clownjacket]

MARK BITION RESOLUTION!!!!!

[tinkadreamchaser]

Vargas Arithmancy/Numerology

So, today I found out Arithmancy is real and not just Harry Potter. Numerology is the actual term for assigning meaning to numbers, Arithmancy is assigning numbers to letters and words. I’m still reading up on that, though, so apologies if I’m wrong. Of course I immediately had to apply it to fictional characters and so you get this.

In my Vargas Astrology post I took a swing at figuring out their birthdays, and that will be useful later from what I’ve read, since a few numbers need a birth date. As a reminder, I estimated Scriabin to be born on October 27, 1997 and Edgar on August 24, 1964

There are five important numbers in Numerology, the Life Path number, the Expression/Destiny number, the Birth Day number, the Heart’s Desire number and the Personality number.

Life Path number

I’m gonna start with the Life Path number, just like I started with the sun signs in the astrology post. Seems like they are similarly important. And like I said, this one needs the birth date. Or rather, the digit sum of the birthdate. There is actually an order to it, that tells you how to reduce the numbers in the birth date.

The next bit is some simple math. First, you have to reduce the month, then the date and lastly the year. All of those numbers are then added up and reduced until we get a single digit number.

For Scriabin, that’s the month October = 10 = 1+0 = 1, the day 27 = 2+7 = 9 and the year 1997 = 1+9+9+7 = 26 = 2+6 = 8. That makes 1+9+8 = 18 = 1+8 = 9.

For Edgar, it’s the month August = 8, the day 24 = 2+4 = 6 and the year 1964 = 1+9+6+4 = 20 = 2. And so for him we have 8+6+2 = 16 = 1+6 = 7.

Now we have the Life Path number 9 for Scriabin and 7 for Edgar, but what does this mean? The Life Path number is like our Sun Sign in Astrology, it’s supposed to give an idea of who someone is, what’s important to them, how they behave, and so on.

Honestly, this is just a fun little exercise, but a few aspects of the Life Path 9 could fit Scriabin, I think. 9’s have a lot of charisma and self-confidence, which draws a lot of attention from others and is often used by them to get the things they want in life. A downside of the Life Path 9 is that they may develop a negative obsession with success and freedom, especially in financial matters. Also, since the 9 is the last number in numerology (excepting the master numbers 11 and 22), it’s considered an ‘old soul’ and in a way, a sage. Which plays a large role in that they keep offering insight, guidance and advice to others. Honestly, what I read about this was all phrased very kindly, but to me they sound a lot like smartasses.

The number 7 is funny to me, because one website described it as a blend of Virgo and Scorpio, which are the Sun Signs I pinned on Edgar and Scriabin respectively. And since the Life Path number is there since birth, this is just such a neat little thing! And actually, there is so much more in this Life Path that fits really well in my opinion. 7’s are analytical, they search for knowledge and the answers to mysteries. They enjoy deep, abstract and philosophical conversations, but can get easily overstimulated and withdraw as a form of self-preservation, which makes them loners most of the time. That in turn gives them a lot to learn about relationships. And since they are so reflective, they will eventually be forced to also go deep within themselves to confront themselves. Which I can imagine, if this went wrong for whatever reason, could have some very bad results for them. Since the goal of this kind of self-discovery is trusting yourself to set yourself on a path of achievement, it must be detrimental to suddenly find oneself ridden with another person in your brain. Also, the people on Life Path 7 distrust their own judgement a lot anyways, so it’s all just a bundle of trust issues.

Expression number

Next up is the Expression number, which is also called Destiny number. This one is tricky here, because it comes from your full name at birth, the one on your birth certificate. Which in Scriabin’s case could be considered the note Edgar wrote in Chapter 29. It’s what I’m going to go with at least. It works by assigning numbers to each letter of the alphabet and then calculating the digit number of your name.

SCRIABIN VARGAS

13991295 419711 = 1+3+9+9+1+2+9+5+4+1+9+7+1+1 = 62 = 6+2 = 8

EDGAR VARGAS

54719 419711 =  5+4+7+1+9+4+1+9+7+1+1 = 49 = 4+9 = 13 = 1+3 = 4

The Expression number is often called Destiny number because it shows the kind of person you were meant to become. It doesn’t mean you will become like this, just that it is the goal you should strive towards, the one for which you have the tools to achieve.

Scriabin’s Expression Number is 8, but I also calculated a 3 for just his first name. The three has a stronger focus on social skills and communication than the 8, but the 8 also includes having an ability to judge people well. This does not mean having any deep connections with them, though, which is something 8’s often lack. Close relationships with an 8 are difficult since to them it feels as though their peace is disturbed. Really, the Expression number 8 is one of material gain and they seek financial security, which I don’t think fits well with Scriabin? But they can’t all be winners. There are still some other parts of the number 8 that fit fairly well, like that they can turn to being impatient and commanding if they get too ambitious. They do have good leadership skills, but if there are no emotion or connection to support that, it’s easy for them to become domineering and controlling. 8’s also tend to see an idea that is different from their own as wrong.

And Edgar is a four, which is a number I’ve seen before described as ‘four legs on a table’. It’s stable, it’s down-to-earth and it can be stubborn as hell. Yes, tables are stubborn, and tables with four legs are always harder to just tip over! But really, 4’s are kind of fixed in their ways, just as Virgo’s are. And they are occasionally loyal to a fault, which I figure could prove to be difficult, since the thing that makes them happiest is being around people with the same moral compass as them. But if they are specifically loyal to someone who does not share their integrity... sounds like a tough situation to be in. Now, 4’s are hard-working, which if they take on too many challenges can make them frustrated to the point of coming off as aggressive and bossy. Also, they’re not gonna do anything without a plan. Another cute little bit is that they are considered good parents, since they tend to be good with kids.

Heart’s Desire and Personality numbers

I’m going to do the Heart’s Desire and Personality numbers here, since they are also calculated from the names. The first is calculated by only adding up the vowels, the other by adding up the consonants.

SCRIABIN VARGAS

---91-9- -1--1- = 9+1+9+1+1 = 21 = 3

139--2-5 4-97-1 = 1+3+9+2+5+4+9+7+1 = 41 = 4+1 = 5

EDGAR VARGAS

5--1- -1--1 = 5+1+1+1 = 8

-47-9 4-97-1 = 4+7+9+4+9+7+1 = 41 = 4+1 = 5

So for Scriabin, the Heart’s Desire number is a 3 and Edgar’s is a 8. That they share the Personality number 5 is intriguing to me. 5’s value expression of personal freedom greatly and in most aspects, 5 is a Personality number that fits Scriabin much more than Edgar. They always know all the gossip, have a wide circle of friends and socializes often, but won’t settle down in any way. That means jobs, homes, partners, you name it. They just can’t commit to anything long-term.

And the Heart’s Desire numbers in this case are also kind of off, but I’m gonna give them to you anyways. 3’s are likely to want to express themselves through art, in any medium, which includes acting among things like music or decorating. Scriabin does get artistic with his imagination, I guess. And 8’s usually wish to be primary figures in organizational matters, to take over big projects.

Something more interesting is the meaning associated with certain letters in a name. The first letter of a name (the Cornerstone) represents that persons approach to life, while the last letter (the Capstone) shows how they accomplish things and follow through. Basically, the beginning and end of any task they undertake. The first vowel is important too, since it shows what the person values the most. It’s also a part that people rarely get to see.

So, for Scriabin it’s S-I-N. Which is hilarious. S in the beginning shows a magnetic presence and strong persuasive skills, N is all about imagination and free thinking, while I is - because of course - soft-marshmallow-y compassion and creativity.

And Edgar is E-E-R, I guess. I don’t know the rules when a first vowel is also the first letter. But E stands for freedom being a driving force for that person, and also has some romantic and expressive energy. R is all hard work and shows a commitment to support and uplift people.

Birthday number

But let’s move away from the names and take a look at the last core number, which is the Birth Day number. This only looks at the day someone was born, no math needed. Again, I’m going with what I pinned them as in my Astrology post. Edgar is a 24 and Scriabin a 27.

Birthday number 24 seems to me like a sweetheart. They’re loyal to their loved ones, able to be nurturer, protector and provider, but are also supposedly good at maintaining balanced and stable relationships. Then again, they also have a tendency for self-sacrifice and are very aware of their place in the world and the role they play in it. If something upsets their principles, they become narrow-minded and stubborn. One website said they ‘have drastic manifestation of emotions’, which yeah, that made me laugh.

27’s are funny, because one website described them as natural aristocrats, while another quite literally said they can make people do things. And once again, people born on the 27th are often great artists. They also can have difficulty with accepting a different point of view. And most importantly, if there are negative connections in their life they should cut those off, before they are driven to retaliate, since that exponentially increases the negativity in their life.

 Aaaand that’s another ridiculously long post about me focusing way too hard on psychoanalysing fictional characters with spiritual means. Who know, next I’ll bust out my tarot deck and do a reading for them!

[astraltwelve]

The Twelve Zodiac Signs

Life on Earth is incredibly diverse. However, every species under the Sun contains DNA – which act as instructions as to how the individual should be developed, starting from the embryonic stage, continuing until death. DNA is responsible for the growth and development of our physical bodies, and so much more.

DNA, while producing vast differences from organism to organism, and species to species, is composed from the altering sequences of four nucleotides.

Metaphorically, the Zodiac Signs can be similarly – they’re all different and unique, but are composed of various combinations of Modality, Triplicity, Duality, and Polarity.

(Not talking about Sun Signs, or individuals born under them. Simply talking about what the 12 Zodiac Signs represent in essence.)

Categories

Modalities

Also called “quadruplicates” because each group contains four signs.

Represents how we interact with the world.

Cardinal

Effacious and self-starters

Lead and make things happen rather than sit back and watch

Independent, ambitious, and domineering visionaries

Start things easily, have trouble completing them

Abundance of confidence and are assertive

Fixed

Focused and determined

Steady, stable

Consistent energy, that’s smooth and tolerant

Powerful and can both start and finish projects

Stubborn and dislike change

Pursue goals in a safe and orderly format

Mutable

Flexible and adaptable, and unpredictable

Can make the most out of a situation

Open-minded and welcome new ideas

Tend to be ambiguous, which can cause them to change or lose direction

Elements

Also called “ Triplicities,” as each group contains three signs.

Represents how they express energies, temperaments, basic personality traits

Fire

Vital and intense

Full of enthusiasm and passion

Impulsive and intuitive, rushing into action without planning

Potential to be creative and destructive

Born with a strong sense of self, may seem egoistic, but simply need to spread and explore

Earth

Practical and stable

Prefer to experience life via their sense

Take life at a slower pace, and more thorough and the other elements

Take comfort in material items and consistency, to the point of possessiveness and unwillingness to change

Solid and stable, foundation of our homes and lives

Air

Social and intellectual

Use their minds to navigate through life

Tend to have space between real life and their observing mind, so seem detached and aloof

Enjoy social interactions and communication, but can be elusive, unpredictable, and eccentric

Often lack emotional depth

Water

Intuitive and Emotional

Full of compassion and empathy

Known for being mysterious and complex, often hard to understand, despite their ability to understand others

Has intense power and is capable of great damage, like a flood – can both heal and destroy those close to them

Dualities

Dual nature of the Signs.

Different Astrologers refer to the two sides as Masculine/Feminine, Assertive/Passive, Positive/Negative, Yin/Yang, Introverted/Extroverted, etc, but regardless of the name, the implications are the same.

Represent how the signs express themselves, and whether they tend to focus on the internal or external world.

Masculine

Impulsive, Outgoing

Focused on the external

Feminine

Premedative, Reserved

Focused on the internal

Polarity

Six groups, each containing two signs

Also called “Complimentary” or “Opposite” Signs, as they rest on opposite sides of the Zodiac Cycle

Each pair have similar goals, values, and objectives, with different approaches to them

Aries & Libra – Polarity of Identity

Taurus & Scorpio – Polarity of Possessing

Gemini & Sagittarius – Polarity of Expression

Cancer & Capricorn – Polarity of Home and Safety

Leo & Aquarius – Polarity of Individuality

Virgo & Pisces – Polarity of Service

Putting the pieces together, an image of each sign can be painted.

Aries

Are impatient and active, Immense desire to explore the world, and do so easily, Do not fear risks

Temperamental and dynamic. Active, adventurous, interested in everything.

Direct, sometime seemingly aggressive or confrontational. Rush into action as soon as they see fit. Focus on the world, and the people, around them, and often seem nosy.

Discovers their identity on their own

Taurus

Are renown for their stability, practical and stable, Dislike change and exemplify the phrase “Stubborn as a mule,” Persistent and appreciate preserved traditions

Solid and Strong, seek harmony and happiness. Warm and nurturing, enjoy taking care of others.

Prefer to think things through thoroughly before acting, They’re reserved and cautious, and focused on what’s in their head and can pull strength from deep within themselves.

Aims to attain personal possessions (Like to possess things)

Gemini

Plethora of profundity in acquiring information, Harbor a deep need for communication and are easily bored, Appreciate learning new things on a daily basis, Switch topics easily

 Flighty, don’t slow down. Indecisive, adaptable. Seek feeling complete.

 Filled with impulsive energy, finding it difficult to not take action. Full of enthusiastic curiosity and wonder, love to learn about the environment in which they exist.

 Sign of Self-Expression – communication

Cancer

Compassionate, easily relate to others, use to their advantage when engaging in a goal, Moody – often analyzing feelings on a deeper level

Have a strong empathetic and caring nature, genuine, concerned for others, nurturing, helpful. Reserved and secretive, only open up to those closest to them. Can become aggressive when defending loved ones.

Incredibly reserved and shy, Moody and spend time analyzing their feelings, Focused on what’s in their head, find it difficult to break out of their shell.

 Nurturing presence in the home, emotional support

 Leo

Aware of their purpose in life, Egoistic but generous and helpful to those they care about, Appreciate self-expression and have a lot of self-control, Stable and steady and always stay true to themselves

Likes to have center stage, stable and radiant, spread warmth. Grandiose, know how to make their presence known. Regal nature, feel comfortable commanding a crowd.

Easily engage others in conversation, filled with lively energy, focused on the world around them and enjoy taking care of their friends.

Individuality through performance and self-expression

 Virgo

Hard workings, Give things their all when they truly believe in themselves, Can be very critical because they value perfection, Realistic and health conscious

Can be rather indecisive, but still stable, observing, and analytical, Take comfort in order and organization

Spend a lot of time thinking and analyzing, quite shy at times, focused on what’s in their head and can appear overly critical despite their caring and helpful intentions.

Assist others through bringing order

Libra

Refined mediators, Can be authoritive and bossy but also charming, Tendency to control relationships, Know when it’s appropriate to get down to business

Seek harmony, balance, and peace, thrive on relationships. Provide for those they love.

Filled with a more subtle energy, preferring to take action in less reckless ways. Know what they want and how to get it. Focus on the world around them, and love to socialize.

Discovers their identity through relationships with others

Scorpio

Run deep with emotions, Water that runs solid like ice, Slow to open up prefer to keep information to themselves, Strong and powerful, Desire to find their own motives as well as others’

Observes those around them, tend to control both themselves and their environment. Equipped with an intuitive and empathetic nature, and have a knack for discovering secrets.

Are incredibly thoughtful, and carefully plan every move, Focused on what’s in their head, and can find great reserves of strength within their souls.

Aims to achieve communal possession (Like to possess people)

Sagittarius

Adventurers on a mission, Desire to learn philosophical or religious, Question in search of truth, Open-Minded and prefer to not judge or stereotype

Philosophical, flexible, and adaptable. Creative and idealistic, and gentle.

Assertiveness is best seen through their honesty and bluntness. Full of enthusiasm and don’t hesitate to take action, love to explore the world around them.

Philosophy – Expression on a wider scale.

Capricorn

Consider the final result, before they take action, Conscious and concerned about their reputation, Plan for completion and highly motivated by material and physical rewards

Enjoy materialistic possessions and powerful public status. Logical and realistic, steady and stable. Value social standing

Have a difficult expressing verbally the thoughts in their head, Pensive and calculative, always planning for the future, Focused on what’s in their head and can be quite withdrawn, which is why they tend to be so aloof

Ambitious presence in the home, financial support

Aquarius

Usually have their minds made up, Appreciate interacting with others and fairness, Goals revolve around reform – want to make the world a better place, Work on goals in a timely manner rather than being impulsive

Steady and strong, observing those around them. Can be unpredictable and erratic, but also are advanced thinking.

Know how to say the things they need to, May seem aloof but are very passionate, Focused on the world around them and have a progressive outlook for human nature and evolution.

Individuality through intellectuality and progression

Pisces

Can change direction of their dreams, Strong imaginations often lead them to stray from reality, Sensitive to the needs of others, Often appear psychic, Extremely emotionally receptive and can change to suit their environment

Highly philosophical and spiritual, easily influenced by the people around them. Value beauty in their lives.

Are rather passive, but incredibly receptive, Focused on what’s in their head and can get lost in their own minds

Assist others through emotional support

[michaeljames1221]

Child Custody Rights

Utah Code Section 30-3-35 deals with child custody. If you are in the midst of a divorce, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Utah child custody attorney. The court will not automatically grant custody of your children to you.

Best Interests Of The Child Test

Beginning in the 1970s, custody statutes began to enumerate factors to guide a “best interests” determination, or to adopt presumptions that would all but dictate the outcome in certain types of cases. Typical factors range from parental age and health to earning capacity, ability to nurture, and living arrangements. Children of a certain age might get to voice an opinion, too.10 This does not eliminate judicial discretion, but it narrows the inquiry at least somewhat. At the same time, the maternal preference—formally recognized in some states, but informally lurking virtually everywhere—gave way to a gender-neutral standard in the 1970s.

The ban on sex discrimination in the 1970s made it difficult, if not impossible, for states to defend sex-based classifications. The maternal preference was held to be unconstitutional, in favoring women and penalizing men who might be equally good parents. As the Utah Supreme Court wrote in a 1986 opinion, the “tender years doctrine was perhaps useful in a society in which fathers traditionally worked outside the home and mothers did not,” but it was now “unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.”

Legal Custody and Physical Custody

Under the law, custody has two distinct components. Legal custody gives a parent the legal authority to make decisions about a child’s upbringing. Physical custody is the right of a parent to maintain physical control of a child. The children of a divorced couple live with the parent who is awarded physical custody. An award of sole custody grants control of a child’s life to one parent. That parent’s home becomes the child’s legal residence, and the child becomes that parent’s legal responsibility. Divided custody is an arrangement allowing children to live with each parent for part of the year. The parent with whom the children are residing at any given time has legal custody. Split custody is an allocation of parental rights in which each parent is granted sole custody of some of the couple’s children. Joint custody theoretically grants both parents equal legal rights and responsibilities. A variety of residential options are possible under joint custody, including bird’s nest custody—an arrangement allowing the children to remain in the family home while the parents take turns moving in and out.

Sole Custody and Joint Custody

Custody awards traditionally were of only one type: one parent was awarded sole custody, and the other was perhaps awarded “visitation.” Sole custody basically meant decision-making power over all aspects of the child’s life, and physical responsibility for all aspects of a child’s care. But this arrangement often meant that relationships with the other parent were apt to deteriorate or disappear. With joint custody, parents can share “physical” or “residential” custody so that children go back and forth from house to house (or, in some cases, the parents go back and forth between the custodial house and another residence). Or they may just share “legal” custody, that is, both parents have a say in important decisions about education, religious training, and medical care. Joint custody is in many ways harder to establish and maintain than the traditional arrangement. Parents must have the capacity to make decisions together—even though, after all, they have recently gotten a divorce.

They must be able to afford two of everything—beds, clothes, toys, musical instruments, bikes— so that children do not feel they are living out of a suitcase. They must live close enough to each other so that the back-and-forth travel is manageable for children and parents. And the children themselves must be secure and stable enough to handle all the moving around. On the other hand, fathers with joint custodial rights are more likely to pay child support. Children clearly benefit in most cases through stronger ties with both parents. But divorcing families are not all alike; and legislatures eventually decided to give back to the judges some of their discretion in deciding where the children’s best interest lies. Courts may consider what the parents want, what they can do, what the children want (if they are old enough to have a say), the money situation, geographical issues, what will and what will not disrupt the children’s education and social lives, and so on. Joint legal custody is less difficult; but there is still plenty of potential for trouble. If one parent thinks the child needs a private school, and the other prefers a public school, who decides? Disagreements often led to the divorce in the first place, so it is hardly surprising that they continue afterwards.

Utah Court Decisions On Child Custody

A child custody lawsuit is unlike any other. The judge has to decide on an unusual and difficult question. While most lawsuit rely heavily on the documentation of facts that are relevant to the case, a child custody lawsuit involves detailed subjective judgement on the caregiving competence of the parents. Prior cases cannot be the sole basis for deciding a child custody lawsuit. Each child custody lawsuit is different and they must be decided on a case to case basis. The judge has to consider the unique nature and circumstances of the husband, wife and the children. The judge also must consider the long term implications of the final custody award that will be passed while at the same considering the future (unpredictable) financial condition of the spouses and the developments needs of the children.

Judges are provided few explicit decision-rules to determine what a child’s best interests are, much less rules that take into account a child’s changing developmental needs. Even when statutes provide broad guidelines defining the child’s best interests, these guidelines are seldom very explicit and judges are offered no guidance concerning which of these interests are most important in determining custody. This leaves judges broad discretion in defining these interests, with the result that custody awards can be determined on the basis of highly subjective criteria that may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

A fundamental question, for example, concerns which of the child’s many “interests” should predominate in a judge’s deliberations over a custody award. Fundamentally, of course, children require the basic necessities that promote physical well being: adequate nourishment, a warm, safe home environment, sufficient health care, clothing, and an interpersonal environment that is not overtly abusive or oppressive.

In the adjudication of child custody disputes, however, judges frequently rely on subjective judgments of a parent’s caretaking style that are often based on personal values and beliefs. Sometimes these judgments concern the “moral climate” of the home. In some cases, a judgment is based on a parent’s occupational commitments, political affiliations, expectation of remarriage, or economic circumstances rather than his or her relationship with the child.

There will be cases in which both parents present evidence that they have served equally as primary caretakers, and the child is emotionally attached to both. Then the judge must look to some other factor to break the tie. Or there may be evidence that the child is not emotionally attached to the primary caretaking parent but rather to the other parent. With very small children this is not usual, but it is possible in the case of a seriously emotionally detached parent. The primary parent preference simply means that a judge cannot be arbitrary and must look first to actual parenting.

Unlike divorce, child custody is not a legal event that can be negotiated or fought over and ultimately settled within a year or two. Legal custody lasts until the child reaches adulthood. Even if you have been granted custody, your spouse can later apply to the court to have the custody changed.

Courts impose custodial arrangements typically without regard to the age of the children and without reference to the available developmental research. Although custody orders theoretically can be modified at the request of a parent, this difficult option is rarely exercised and custody arrangements for the most part remain fixed no matter what the child’s age. Modification of custody orders requires significantly changed circumstances. The changing needs of the children alone are not considered changed circumstances for modification purposes.

Criteria For Custody

Most family court judges rely on some combination of the following criteria:

• The Parents’ Wishes – A court will almost always approve custody provisions that the divorcing couple have designed themselves. Parental agreements do not, however, deprive a family court of its power to act in the best interests of the child. Occasionally, courts use this power to alter or overrule a divorcing couple’s custody arrangements. Not surprisingly, a judge is unlikely to award custody to a parent who is not prepared for custodial responsibilities or whose stated desire for custody seems to be based on financial gain or personal satisfaction rather than a child’s interests.

• The Child’s Preference – A child’s wishes are given more or less weight, depending on the child’s age, education, and demonstrated maturity. In some states, a child’s custodial preference cannot be considered unless the child is at least twelve years old. In a few states, a child’s preference must be honored if the child is fourteen or older.

• Siblings – While courts overwhelmingly prefer to keep siblings together, circumstances frequently arise that warrant split-custody decisions. Siblings who constantly fight are often separated at the request of their parents. To honor children’s wishes, a father is sometimes awarded custody of an older son while his daughter continues to live with her mother.

• Environmental Stability – A child’s comfort in and satisfaction with home life, school, friends, and daily activities are significant considerations for most family court judges. Divorce itself is a traumatic disruption to children’s lives; courts are reluctant to approve custody requests that are likely to result in additional anxiety and destabilization. A child’s “established living pattern” in a familiar home, school, community, and religious institution should be altered only if there is a compelling need to do so.

• Violence or the Threat of Violence – No family court should knowingly allow a child to be exposed to domestic violence or the threat of violence. It doesn’t matter whether the violence, or the threat, is directed against the child or against someone else. A potential for violence based on past conduct is usually considered a valid indicator of future danger.

• Mental and Physical Health – If a child suffers from a mental or physical disability, the court must decide which parent can best meet the child’s special needs. The physical and mental health of the divorcing parents also comes under close scrutiny. Mental illnesses or physical impediments severe enough to endanger a child or debilitating enough to deprive a child of a parent’s care and companionship will almost always hamper a parent’s chances for custody in the eyes of the court. Evidence of rehabilitation can mitigate these concerns.

• Lifestyle – A family court evaluates a wide range of factors in its attempt to determine the effects (both positive and negative) that parents’ lifestyles are likely to have on the well-being of children. Courts do not generally look kindly on parents who engage in criminal activity, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, promiscuity, or homosexuality. Cohabitation is viewed harshly by some courts, barely noticed by others. The time that each parent’s lifestyle leaves available for child-rearing activities is also closely examined. A parent willing to revamp a daily work schedule to devote more time to child care has a clear advantage over a parent whose days and nights are consumed by the demands of a career. Because medical science has recently made clear the dangers of secondary smoke, a non‐ smoking parent is often preferable to a smoker.

• Everything Else – The majority of family court judges will consider any and all information presented to them in their attempts to determine what is—and what is not—in the best interests of a divorcing couple’s children.

An experienced Utah Child Custody attorney is your best friend in your child custody battle.

Utah Child Custody Lawyer Free Consultation

When you have a child custody battle in Utah, call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with paternity cases. Child Custody. Child Support. Back Child Support. Child Support Modification. Child Custody Modifications. Grandparent’s Rights. Divorces. And much more. We will help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

South Jordan Utah Bankruptcy Lawyer

Marijuana Law

Tenant Evictions

Utah Easements

What If the Executor Does Not Probate The Will?

Real Estate Lawyer Farmington Utah

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/child-custody-rights/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah https://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/child-custody-rights/

[melissawalker01]

Child Custody Rights

Utah Code Section 30-3-35 deals with child custody. If you are in the midst of a divorce, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Utah child custody attorney. The court will not automatically grant custody of your children to you.

Best Interests Of The Child Test

Beginning in the 1970s, custody statutes began to enumerate factors to guide a “best interests” determination, or to adopt presumptions that would all but dictate the outcome in certain types of cases. Typical factors range from parental age and health to earning capacity, ability to nurture, and living arrangements. Children of a certain age might get to voice an opinion, too.10 This does not eliminate judicial discretion, but it narrows the inquiry at least somewhat. At the same time, the maternal preference—formally recognized in some states, but informally lurking virtually everywhere—gave way to a gender-neutral standard in the 1970s.

The ban on sex discrimination in the 1970s made it difficult, if not impossible, for states to defend sex-based classifications. The maternal preference was held to be unconstitutional, in favoring women and penalizing men who might be equally good parents. As the Utah Supreme Court wrote in a 1986 opinion, the “tender years doctrine was perhaps useful in a society in which fathers traditionally worked outside the home and mothers did not,” but it was now “unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.”

Legal Custody and Physical Custody

Under the law, custody has two distinct components. Legal custody gives a parent the legal authority to make decisions about a child’s upbringing. Physical custody is the right of a parent to maintain physical control of a child. The children of a divorced couple live with the parent who is awarded physical custody. An award of sole custody grants control of a child’s life to one parent. That parent’s home becomes the child’s legal residence, and the child becomes that parent’s legal responsibility. Divided custody is an arrangement allowing children to live with each parent for part of the year. The parent with whom the children are residing at any given time has legal custody. Split custody is an allocation of parental rights in which each parent is granted sole custody of some of the couple’s children. Joint custody theoretically grants both parents equal legal rights and responsibilities. A variety of residential options are possible under joint custody, including bird’s nest custody—an arrangement allowing the children to remain in the family home while the parents take turns moving in and out.

Sole Custody and Joint Custody

Custody awards traditionally were of only one type: one parent was awarded sole custody, and the other was perhaps awarded “visitation.” Sole custody basically meant decision-making power over all aspects of the child’s life, and physical responsibility for all aspects of a child’s care. But this arrangement often meant that relationships with the other parent were apt to deteriorate or disappear. With joint custody, parents can share “physical” or “residential” custody so that children go back and forth from house to house (or, in some cases, the parents go back and forth between the custodial house and another residence). Or they may just share “legal” custody, that is, both parents have a say in important decisions about education, religious training, and medical care. Joint custody is in many ways harder to establish and maintain than the traditional arrangement. Parents must have the capacity to make decisions together—even though, after all, they have recently gotten a divorce.

They must be able to afford two of everything—beds, clothes, toys, musical instruments, bikes— so that children do not feel they are living out of a suitcase. They must live close enough to each other so that the back-and-forth travel is manageable for children and parents. And the children themselves must be secure and stable enough to handle all the moving around. On the other hand, fathers with joint custodial rights are more likely to pay child support. Children clearly benefit in most cases through stronger ties with both parents. But divorcing families are not all alike; and legislatures eventually decided to give back to the judges some of their discretion in deciding where the children’s best interest lies. Courts may consider what the parents want, what they can do, what the children want (if they are old enough to have a say), the money situation, geographical issues, what will and what will not disrupt the children’s education and social lives, and so on. Joint legal custody is less difficult; but there is still plenty of potential for trouble. If one parent thinks the child needs a private school, and the other prefers a public school, who decides? Disagreements often led to the divorce in the first place, so it is hardly surprising that they continue afterwards.

Utah Court Decisions On Child Custody

A child custody lawsuit is unlike any other. The judge has to decide on an unusual and difficult question. While most lawsuit rely heavily on the documentation of facts that are relevant to the case, a child custody lawsuit involves detailed subjective judgement on the caregiving competence of the parents. Prior cases cannot be the sole basis for deciding a child custody lawsuit. Each child custody lawsuit is different and they must be decided on a case to case basis. The judge has to consider the unique nature and circumstances of the husband, wife and the children. The judge also must consider the long term implications of the final custody award that will be passed while at the same considering the future (unpredictable) financial condition of the spouses and the developments needs of the children.

Judges are provided few explicit decision-rules to determine what a child’s best interests are, much less rules that take into account a child’s changing developmental needs. Even when statutes provide broad guidelines defining the child’s best interests, these guidelines are seldom very explicit and judges are offered no guidance concerning which of these interests are most important in determining custody. This leaves judges broad discretion in defining these interests, with the result that custody awards can be determined on the basis of highly subjective criteria that may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

A fundamental question, for example, concerns which of the child’s many “interests” should predominate in a judge’s deliberations over a custody award. Fundamentally, of course, children require the basic necessities that promote physical well being: adequate nourishment, a warm, safe home environment, sufficient health care, clothing, and an interpersonal environment that is not overtly abusive or oppressive.

In the adjudication of child custody disputes, however, judges frequently rely on subjective judgments of a parent’s caretaking style that are often based on personal values and beliefs. Sometimes these judgments concern the “moral climate” of the home. In some cases, a judgment is based on a parent’s occupational commitments, political affiliations, expectation of remarriage, or economic circumstances rather than his or her relationship with the child.

There will be cases in which both parents present evidence that they have served equally as primary caretakers, and the child is emotionally attached to both. Then the judge must look to some other factor to break the tie. Or there may be evidence that the child is not emotionally attached to the primary caretaking parent but rather to the other parent. With very small children this is not usual, but it is possible in the case of a seriously emotionally detached parent. The primary parent preference simply means that a judge cannot be arbitrary and must look first to actual parenting.

Unlike divorce, child custody is not a legal event that can be negotiated or fought over and ultimately settled within a year or two. Legal custody lasts until the child reaches adulthood. Even if you have been granted custody, your spouse can later apply to the court to have the custody changed.

Courts impose custodial arrangements typically without regard to the age of the children and without reference to the available developmental research. Although custody orders theoretically can be modified at the request of a parent, this difficult option is rarely exercised and custody arrangements for the most part remain fixed no matter what the child’s age. Modification of custody orders requires significantly changed circumstances. The changing needs of the children alone are not considered changed circumstances for modification purposes.

Criteria For Custody

Most family court judges rely on some combination of the following criteria:

• The Parents’ Wishes – A court will almost always approve custody provisions that the divorcing couple have designed themselves. Parental agreements do not, however, deprive a family court of its power to act in the best interests of the child. Occasionally, courts use this power to alter or overrule a divorcing couple’s custody arrangements. Not surprisingly, a judge is unlikely to award custody to a parent who is not prepared for custodial responsibilities or whose stated desire for custody seems to be based on financial gain or personal satisfaction rather than a child’s interests.

• The Child’s Preference – A child’s wishes are given more or less weight, depending on the child’s age, education, and demonstrated maturity. In some states, a child’s custodial preference cannot be considered unless the child is at least twelve years old. In a few states, a child’s preference must be honored if the child is fourteen or older.

• Siblings – While courts overwhelmingly prefer to keep siblings together, circumstances frequently arise that warrant split-custody decisions. Siblings who constantly fight are often separated at the request of their parents. To honor children’s wishes, a father is sometimes awarded custody of an older son while his daughter continues to live with her mother.

• Environmental Stability – A child’s comfort in and satisfaction with home life, school, friends, and daily activities are significant considerations for most family court judges. Divorce itself is a traumatic disruption to children’s lives; courts are reluctant to approve custody requests that are likely to result in additional anxiety and destabilization. A child’s “established living pattern” in a familiar home, school, community, and religious institution should be altered only if there is a compelling need to do so.

• Violence or the Threat of Violence – No family court should knowingly allow a child to be exposed to domestic violence or the threat of violence. It doesn’t matter whether the violence, or the threat, is directed against the child or against someone else. A potential for violence based on past conduct is usually considered a valid indicator of future danger.

• Mental and Physical Health – If a child suffers from a mental or physical disability, the court must decide which parent can best meet the child’s special needs. The physical and mental health of the divorcing parents also comes under close scrutiny. Mental illnesses or physical impediments severe enough to endanger a child or debilitating enough to deprive a child of a parent’s care and companionship will almost always hamper a parent’s chances for custody in the eyes of the court. Evidence of rehabilitation can mitigate these concerns.

• Lifestyle – A family court evaluates a wide range of factors in its attempt to determine the effects (both positive and negative) that parents’ lifestyles are likely to have on the well-being of children. Courts do not generally look kindly on parents who engage in criminal activity, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, promiscuity, or homosexuality. Cohabitation is viewed harshly by some courts, barely noticed by others. The time that each parent’s lifestyle leaves available for child-rearing activities is also closely examined. A parent willing to revamp a daily work schedule to devote more time to child care has a clear advantage over a parent whose days and nights are consumed by the demands of a career. Because medical science has recently made clear the dangers of secondary smoke, a non‐ smoking parent is often preferable to a smoker.

• Everything Else – The majority of family court judges will consider any and all information presented to them in their attempts to determine what is—and what is not—in the best interests of a divorcing couple’s children.

An experienced Utah Child Custody attorney is your best friend in your child custody battle.

Utah Child Custody Lawyer Free Consultation

When you have a child custody battle in Utah, call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with paternity cases. Child Custody. Child Support. Back Child Support. Child Support Modification. Child Custody Modifications. Grandparent’s Rights. Divorces. And much more. We will help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

South Jordan Utah Bankruptcy Lawyer

Marijuana Law

Tenant Evictions

Utah Easements

What If the Executor Does Not Probate The Will?

Real Estate Lawyer Farmington Utah

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/child-custody-rights/ from Divorce Lawyer Nelson Farms Utah https://divorcelawyernelsonfarmsutah.tumblr.com/post/189749188970

[coming-from-hell]

Child Custody Rights

Utah Code Section 30-3-35 deals with child custody. If you are in the midst of a divorce, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Utah child custody attorney. The court will not automatically grant custody of your children to you.

Best Interests Of The Child Test

Beginning in the 1970s, custody statutes began to enumerate factors to guide a “best interests” determination, or to adopt presumptions that would all but dictate the outcome in certain types of cases. Typical factors range from parental age and health to earning capacity, ability to nurture, and living arrangements. Children of a certain age might get to voice an opinion, too.10 This does not eliminate judicial discretion, but it narrows the inquiry at least somewhat. At the same time, the maternal preference—formally recognized in some states, but informally lurking virtually everywhere—gave way to a gender-neutral standard in the 1970s.

The ban on sex discrimination in the 1970s made it difficult, if not impossible, for states to defend sex-based classifications. The maternal preference was held to be unconstitutional, in favoring women and penalizing men who might be equally good parents. As the Utah Supreme Court wrote in a 1986 opinion, the “tender years doctrine was perhaps useful in a society in which fathers traditionally worked outside the home and mothers did not,” but it was now “unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.”

Legal Custody and Physical Custody

Under the law, custody has two distinct components. Legal custody gives a parent the legal authority to make decisions about a child’s upbringing. Physical custody is the right of a parent to maintain physical control of a child. The children of a divorced couple live with the parent who is awarded physical custody. An award of sole custody grants control of a child’s life to one parent. That parent’s home becomes the child’s legal residence, and the child becomes that parent’s legal responsibility. Divided custody is an arrangement allowing children to live with each parent for part of the year. The parent with whom the children are residing at any given time has legal custody. Split custody is an allocation of parental rights in which each parent is granted sole custody of some of the couple’s children. Joint custody theoretically grants both parents equal legal rights and responsibilities. A variety of residential options are possible under joint custody, including bird’s nest custody—an arrangement allowing the children to remain in the family home while the parents take turns moving in and out.

Sole Custody and Joint Custody

Custody awards traditionally were of only one type: one parent was awarded sole custody, and the other was perhaps awarded “visitation.” Sole custody basically meant decision-making power over all aspects of the child’s life, and physical responsibility for all aspects of a child’s care. But this arrangement often meant that relationships with the other parent were apt to deteriorate or disappear. With joint custody, parents can share “physical” or “residential” custody so that children go back and forth from house to house (or, in some cases, the parents go back and forth between the custodial house and another residence). Or they may just share “legal” custody, that is, both parents have a say in important decisions about education, religious training, and medical care. Joint custody is in many ways harder to establish and maintain than the traditional arrangement. Parents must have the capacity to make decisions together—even though, after all, they have recently gotten a divorce.

They must be able to afford two of everything—beds, clothes, toys, musical instruments, bikes— so that children do not feel they are living out of a suitcase. They must live close enough to each other so that the back-and-forth travel is manageable for children and parents. And the children themselves must be secure and stable enough to handle all the moving around. On the other hand, fathers with joint custodial rights are more likely to pay child support. Children clearly benefit in most cases through stronger ties with both parents. But divorcing families are not all alike; and legislatures eventually decided to give back to the judges some of their discretion in deciding where the children’s best interest lies. Courts may consider what the parents want, what they can do, what the children want (if they are old enough to have a say), the money situation, geographical issues, what will and what will not disrupt the children’s education and social lives, and so on. Joint legal custody is less difficult; but there is still plenty of potential for trouble. If one parent thinks the child needs a private school, and the other prefers a public school, who decides? Disagreements often led to the divorce in the first place, so it is hardly surprising that they continue afterwards.

Utah Court Decisions On Child Custody

A child custody lawsuit is unlike any other. The judge has to decide on an unusual and difficult question. While most lawsuit rely heavily on the documentation of facts that are relevant to the case, a child custody lawsuit involves detailed subjective judgement on the caregiving competence of the parents. Prior cases cannot be the sole basis for deciding a child custody lawsuit. Each child custody lawsuit is different and they must be decided on a case to case basis. The judge has to consider the unique nature and circumstances of the husband, wife and the children. The judge also must consider the long term implications of the final custody award that will be passed while at the same considering the future (unpredictable) financial condition of the spouses and the developments needs of the children.

Judges are provided few explicit decision-rules to determine what a child’s best interests are, much less rules that take into account a child’s changing developmental needs. Even when statutes provide broad guidelines defining the child’s best interests, these guidelines are seldom very explicit and judges are offered no guidance concerning which of these interests are most important in determining custody. This leaves judges broad discretion in defining these interests, with the result that custody awards can be determined on the basis of highly subjective criteria that may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

A fundamental question, for example, concerns which of the child’s many “interests” should predominate in a judge’s deliberations over a custody award. Fundamentally, of course, children require the basic necessities that promote physical well being: adequate nourishment, a warm, safe home environment, sufficient health care, clothing, and an interpersonal environment that is not overtly abusive or oppressive.

In the adjudication of child custody disputes, however, judges frequently rely on subjective judgments of a parent’s caretaking style that are often based on personal values and beliefs. Sometimes these judgments concern the “moral climate” of the home. In some cases, a judgment is based on a parent’s occupational commitments, political affiliations, expectation of remarriage, or economic circumstances rather than his or her relationship with the child.

There will be cases in which both parents present evidence that they have served equally as primary caretakers, and the child is emotionally attached to both. Then the judge must look to some other factor to break the tie. Or there may be evidence that the child is not emotionally attached to the primary caretaking parent but rather to the other parent. With very small children this is not usual, but it is possible in the case of a seriously emotionally detached parent. The primary parent preference simply means that a judge cannot be arbitrary and must look first to actual parenting.

Unlike divorce, child custody is not a legal event that can be negotiated or fought over and ultimately settled within a year or two. Legal custody lasts until the child reaches adulthood. Even if you have been granted custody, your spouse can later apply to the court to have the custody changed.

Courts impose custodial arrangements typically without regard to the age of the children and without reference to the available developmental research. Although custody orders theoretically can be modified at the request of a parent, this difficult option is rarely exercised and custody arrangements for the most part remain fixed no matter what the child’s age. Modification of custody orders requires significantly changed circumstances. The changing needs of the children alone are not considered changed circumstances for modification purposes.

Criteria For Custody

Most family court judges rely on some combination of the following criteria:

• The Parents’ Wishes – A court will almost always approve custody provisions that the divorcing couple have designed themselves. Parental agreements do not, however, deprive a family court of its power to act in the best interests of the child. Occasionally, courts use this power to alter or overrule a divorcing couple’s custody arrangements. Not surprisingly, a judge is unlikely to award custody to a parent who is not prepared for custodial responsibilities or whose stated desire for custody seems to be based on financial gain or personal satisfaction rather than a child’s interests.

• The Child’s Preference – A child’s wishes are given more or less weight, depending on the child’s age, education, and demonstrated maturity. In some states, a child’s custodial preference cannot be considered unless the child is at least twelve years old. In a few states, a child’s preference must be honored if the child is fourteen or older.

• Siblings – While courts overwhelmingly prefer to keep siblings together, circumstances frequently arise that warrant split-custody decisions. Siblings who constantly fight are often separated at the request of their parents. To honor children’s wishes, a father is sometimes awarded custody of an older son while his daughter continues to live with her mother.

• Environmental Stability – A child’s comfort in and satisfaction with home life, school, friends, and daily activities are significant considerations for most family court judges. Divorce itself is a traumatic disruption to children’s lives; courts are reluctant to approve custody requests that are likely to result in additional anxiety and destabilization. A child’s “established living pattern” in a familiar home, school, community, and religious institution should be altered only if there is a compelling need to do so.

• Violence or the Threat of Violence – No family court should knowingly allow a child to be exposed to domestic violence or the threat of violence. It doesn’t matter whether the violence, or the threat, is directed against the child or against someone else. A potential for violence based on past conduct is usually considered a valid indicator of future danger.

• Mental and Physical Health – If a child suffers from a mental or physical disability, the court must decide which parent can best meet the child’s special needs. The physical and mental health of the divorcing parents also comes under close scrutiny. Mental illnesses or physical impediments severe enough to endanger a child or debilitating enough to deprive a child of a parent’s care and companionship will almost always hamper a parent’s chances for custody in the eyes of the court. Evidence of rehabilitation can mitigate these concerns.

• Lifestyle – A family court evaluates a wide range of factors in its attempt to determine the effects (both positive and negative) that parents’ lifestyles are likely to have on the well-being of children. Courts do not generally look kindly on parents who engage in criminal activity, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, promiscuity, or homosexuality. Cohabitation is viewed harshly by some courts, barely noticed by others. The time that each parent’s lifestyle leaves available for child-rearing activities is also closely examined. A parent willing to revamp a daily work schedule to devote more time to child care has a clear advantage over a parent whose days and nights are consumed by the demands of a career. Because medical science has recently made clear the dangers of secondary smoke, a non‐ smoking parent is often preferable to a smoker.

• Everything Else – The majority of family court judges will consider any and all information presented to them in their attempts to determine what is—and what is not—in the best interests of a divorcing couple’s children.

An experienced Utah Child Custody attorney is your best friend in your child custody battle.

Utah Child Custody Lawyer Free Consultation

When you have a child custody battle in Utah, call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with paternity cases. Child Custody. Child Support. Back Child Support. Child Support Modification. Child Custody Modifications. Grandparent’s Rights. Divorces. And much more. We will help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

South Jordan Utah Bankruptcy Lawyer

Marijuana Law

Tenant Evictions

Utah Easements

What If the Executor Does Not Probate The Will?

Real Estate Lawyer Farmington Utah

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/child-custody-rights/

[mayarosa47]

Child Custody Rights

Utah Code Section 30-3-35 deals with child custody. If you are in the midst of a divorce, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Utah child custody attorney. The court will not automatically grant custody of your children to you.

Best Interests Of The Child Test

Beginning in the 1970s, custody statutes began to enumerate factors to guide a “best interests” determination, or to adopt presumptions that would all but dictate the outcome in certain types of cases. Typical factors range from parental age and health to earning capacity, ability to nurture, and living arrangements. Children of a certain age might get to voice an opinion, too.10 This does not eliminate judicial discretion, but it narrows the inquiry at least somewhat. At the same time, the maternal preference—formally recognized in some states, but informally lurking virtually everywhere—gave way to a gender-neutral standard in the 1970s.

The ban on sex discrimination in the 1970s made it difficult, if not impossible, for states to defend sex-based classifications. The maternal preference was held to be unconstitutional, in favoring women and penalizing men who might be equally good parents. As the Utah Supreme Court wrote in a 1986 opinion, the “tender years doctrine was perhaps useful in a society in which fathers traditionally worked outside the home and mothers did not,” but it was now “unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.”

Legal Custody and Physical Custody

Under the law, custody has two distinct components. Legal custody gives a parent the legal authority to make decisions about a child’s upbringing. Physical custody is the right of a parent to maintain physical control of a child. The children of a divorced couple live with the parent who is awarded physical custody. An award of sole custody grants control of a child’s life to one parent. That parent’s home becomes the child’s legal residence, and the child becomes that parent’s legal responsibility. Divided custody is an arrangement allowing children to live with each parent for part of the year. The parent with whom the children are residing at any given time has legal custody. Split custody is an allocation of parental rights in which each parent is granted sole custody of some of the couple’s children. Joint custody theoretically grants both parents equal legal rights and responsibilities. A variety of residential options are possible under joint custody, including bird’s nest custody—an arrangement allowing the children to remain in the family home while the parents take turns moving in and out.

Sole Custody and Joint Custody

Custody awards traditionally were of only one type: one parent was awarded sole custody, and the other was perhaps awarded “visitation.” Sole custody basically meant decision-making power over all aspects of the child’s life, and physical responsibility for all aspects of a child’s care. But this arrangement often meant that relationships with the other parent were apt to deteriorate or disappear. With joint custody, parents can share “physical” or “residential” custody so that children go back and forth from house to house (or, in some cases, the parents go back and forth between the custodial house and another residence). Or they may just share “legal” custody, that is, both parents have a say in important decisions about education, religious training, and medical care. Joint custody is in many ways harder to establish and maintain than the traditional arrangement. Parents must have the capacity to make decisions together—even though, after all, they have recently gotten a divorce.

They must be able to afford two of everything—beds, clothes, toys, musical instruments, bikes— so that children do not feel they are living out of a suitcase. They must live close enough to each other so that the back-and-forth travel is manageable for children and parents. And the children themselves must be secure and stable enough to handle all the moving around. On the other hand, fathers with joint custodial rights are more likely to pay child support. Children clearly benefit in most cases through stronger ties with both parents. But divorcing families are not all alike; and legislatures eventually decided to give back to the judges some of their discretion in deciding where the children’s best interest lies. Courts may consider what the parents want, what they can do, what the children want (if they are old enough to have a say), the money situation, geographical issues, what will and what will not disrupt the children’s education and social lives, and so on. Joint legal custody is less difficult; but there is still plenty of potential for trouble. If one parent thinks the child needs a private school, and the other prefers a public school, who decides? Disagreements often led to the divorce in the first place, so it is hardly surprising that they continue afterwards.

Utah Court Decisions On Child Custody

A child custody lawsuit is unlike any other. The judge has to decide on an unusual and difficult question. While most lawsuit rely heavily on the documentation of facts that are relevant to the case, a child custody lawsuit involves detailed subjective judgement on the caregiving competence of the parents. Prior cases cannot be the sole basis for deciding a child custody lawsuit. Each child custody lawsuit is different and they must be decided on a case to case basis. The judge has to consider the unique nature and circumstances of the husband, wife and the children. The judge also must consider the long term implications of the final custody award that will be passed while at the same considering the future (unpredictable) financial condition of the spouses and the developments needs of the children.

Judges are provided few explicit decision-rules to determine what a child’s best interests are, much less rules that take into account a child’s changing developmental needs. Even when statutes provide broad guidelines defining the child’s best interests, these guidelines are seldom very explicit and judges are offered no guidance concerning which of these interests are most important in determining custody. This leaves judges broad discretion in defining these interests, with the result that custody awards can be determined on the basis of highly subjective criteria that may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

A fundamental question, for example, concerns which of the child’s many “interests” should predominate in a judge’s deliberations over a custody award. Fundamentally, of course, children require the basic necessities that promote physical well being: adequate nourishment, a warm, safe home environment, sufficient health care, clothing, and an interpersonal environment that is not overtly abusive or oppressive.

In the adjudication of child custody disputes, however, judges frequently rely on subjective judgments of a parent’s caretaking style that are often based on personal values and beliefs. Sometimes these judgments concern the “moral climate” of the home. In some cases, a judgment is based on a parent’s occupational commitments, political affiliations, expectation of remarriage, or economic circumstances rather than his or her relationship with the child.

There will be cases in which both parents present evidence that they have served equally as primary caretakers, and the child is emotionally attached to both. Then the judge must look to some other factor to break the tie. Or there may be evidence that the child is not emotionally attached to the primary caretaking parent but rather to the other parent. With very small children this is not usual, but it is possible in the case of a seriously emotionally detached parent. The primary parent preference simply means that a judge cannot be arbitrary and must look first to actual parenting.

Unlike divorce, child custody is not a legal event that can be negotiated or fought over and ultimately settled within a year or two. Legal custody lasts until the child reaches adulthood. Even if you have been granted custody, your spouse can later apply to the court to have the custody changed.

Courts impose custodial arrangements typically without regard to the age of the children and without reference to the available developmental research. Although custody orders theoretically can be modified at the request of a parent, this difficult option is rarely exercised and custody arrangements for the most part remain fixed no matter what the child’s age. Modification of custody orders requires significantly changed circumstances. The changing needs of the children alone are not considered changed circumstances for modification purposes.

Criteria For Custody

Most family court judges rely on some combination of the following criteria:

• The Parents’ Wishes – A court will almost always approve custody provisions that the divorcing couple have designed themselves. Parental agreements do not, however, deprive a family court of its power to act in the best interests of the child. Occasionally, courts use this power to alter or overrule a divorcing couple’s custody arrangements. Not surprisingly, a judge is unlikely to award custody to a parent who is not prepared for custodial responsibilities or whose stated desire for custody seems to be based on financial gain or personal satisfaction rather than a child’s interests.

• The Child’s Preference – A child’s wishes are given more or less weight, depending on the child’s age, education, and demonstrated maturity. In some states, a child’s custodial preference cannot be considered unless the child is at least twelve years old. In a few states, a child’s preference must be honored if the child is fourteen or older.

• Siblings – While courts overwhelmingly prefer to keep siblings together, circumstances frequently arise that warrant split-custody decisions. Siblings who constantly fight are often separated at the request of their parents. To honor children’s wishes, a father is sometimes awarded custody of an older son while his daughter continues to live with her mother.

• Environmental Stability – A child’s comfort in and satisfaction with home life, school, friends, and daily activities are significant considerations for most family court judges. Divorce itself is a traumatic disruption to children’s lives; courts are reluctant to approve custody requests that are likely to result in additional anxiety and destabilization. A child’s “established living pattern” in a familiar home, school, community, and religious institution should be altered only if there is a compelling need to do so.

• Violence or the Threat of Violence – No family court should knowingly allow a child to be exposed to domestic violence or the threat of violence. It doesn’t matter whether the violence, or the threat, is directed against the child or against someone else. A potential for violence based on past conduct is usually considered a valid indicator of future danger.

• Mental and Physical Health – If a child suffers from a mental or physical disability, the court must decide which parent can best meet the child’s special needs. The physical and mental health of the divorcing parents also comes under close scrutiny. Mental illnesses or physical impediments severe enough to endanger a child or debilitating enough to deprive a child of a parent’s care and companionship will almost always hamper a parent’s chances for custody in the eyes of the court. Evidence of rehabilitation can mitigate these concerns.

• Lifestyle – A family court evaluates a wide range of factors in its attempt to determine the effects (both positive and negative) that parents’ lifestyles are likely to have on the well-being of children. Courts do not generally look kindly on parents who engage in criminal activity, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, promiscuity, or homosexuality. Cohabitation is viewed harshly by some courts, barely noticed by others. The time that each parent’s lifestyle leaves available for child-rearing activities is also closely examined. A parent willing to revamp a daily work schedule to devote more time to child care has a clear advantage over a parent whose days and nights are consumed by the demands of a career. Because medical science has recently made clear the dangers of secondary smoke, a non‐ smoking parent is often preferable to a smoker.

• Everything Else – The majority of family court judges will consider any and all information presented to them in their attempts to determine what is—and what is not—in the best interests of a divorcing couple’s children.

An experienced Utah Child Custody attorney is your best friend in your child custody battle.

Utah Child Custody Lawyer Free Consultation

When you have a child custody battle in Utah, call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with paternity cases. Child Custody. Child Support. Back Child Support. Child Support Modification. Child Custody Modifications. Grandparent’s Rights. Divorces. And much more. We will help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

South Jordan Utah Bankruptcy Lawyer

Marijuana Law

Tenant Evictions

Utah Easements

What If the Executor Does Not Probate The Will?

Real Estate Lawyer Farmington Utah

from https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/child-custody-rights/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah - Blog http://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.weebly.com/blog/child-custody-rights

[asafeatherwould]

Child Custody Rights

Utah Code Section 30-3-35 deals with child custody. If you are in the midst of a divorce, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Utah child custody attorney. The court will not automatically grant custody of your children to you.

Best Interests Of The Child Test

Beginning in the 1970s, custody statutes began to enumerate factors to guide a “best interests” determination, or to adopt presumptions that would all but dictate the outcome in certain types of cases. Typical factors range from parental age and health to earning capacity, ability to nurture, and living arrangements. Children of a certain age might get to voice an opinion, too.10 This does not eliminate judicial discretion, but it narrows the inquiry at least somewhat. At the same time, the maternal preference—formally recognized in some states, but informally lurking virtually everywhere—gave way to a gender-neutral standard in the 1970s.

The ban on sex discrimination in the 1970s made it difficult, if not impossible, for states to defend sex-based classifications. The maternal preference was held to be unconstitutional, in favoring women and penalizing men who might be equally good parents. As the Utah Supreme Court wrote in a 1986 opinion, the “tender years doctrine was perhaps useful in a society in which fathers traditionally worked outside the home and mothers did not,” but it was now “unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.”

Legal Custody and Physical Custody

Under the law, custody has two distinct components. Legal custody gives a parent the legal authority to make decisions about a child’s upbringing. Physical custody is the right of a parent to maintain physical control of a child. The children of a divorced couple live with the parent who is awarded physical custody. An award of sole custody grants control of a child’s life to one parent. That parent’s home becomes the child’s legal residence, and the child becomes that parent’s legal responsibility. Divided custody is an arrangement allowing children to live with each parent for part of the year. The parent with whom the children are residing at any given time has legal custody. Split custody is an allocation of parental rights in which each parent is granted sole custody of some of the couple’s children. Joint custody theoretically grants both parents equal legal rights and responsibilities. A variety of residential options are possible under joint custody, including bird’s nest custody—an arrangement allowing the children to remain in the family home while the parents take turns moving in and out.

Sole Custody and Joint Custody

Custody awards traditionally were of only one type: one parent was awarded sole custody, and the other was perhaps awarded “visitation.” Sole custody basically meant decision-making power over all aspects of the child’s life, and physical responsibility for all aspects of a child’s care. But this arrangement often meant that relationships with the other parent were apt to deteriorate or disappear. With joint custody, parents can share “physical” or “residential” custody so that children go back and forth from house to house (or, in some cases, the parents go back and forth between the custodial house and another residence). Or they may just share “legal” custody, that is, both parents have a say in important decisions about education, religious training, and medical care. Joint custody is in many ways harder to establish and maintain than the traditional arrangement. Parents must have the capacity to make decisions together—even though, after all, they have recently gotten a divorce.

They must be able to afford two of everything—beds, clothes, toys, musical instruments, bikes— so that children do not feel they are living out of a suitcase. They must live close enough to each other so that the back-and-forth travel is manageable for children and parents. And the children themselves must be secure and stable enough to handle all the moving around. On the other hand, fathers with joint custodial rights are more likely to pay child support. Children clearly benefit in most cases through stronger ties with both parents. But divorcing families are not all alike; and legislatures eventually decided to give back to the judges some of their discretion in deciding where the children’s best interest lies. Courts may consider what the parents want, what they can do, what the children want (if they are old enough to have a say), the money situation, geographical issues, what will and what will not disrupt the children’s education and social lives, and so on. Joint legal custody is less difficult; but there is still plenty of potential for trouble. If one parent thinks the child needs a private school, and the other prefers a public school, who decides? Disagreements often led to the divorce in the first place, so it is hardly surprising that they continue afterwards.

Utah Court Decisions On Child Custody

A child custody lawsuit is unlike any other. The judge has to decide on an unusual and difficult question. While most lawsuit rely heavily on the documentation of facts that are relevant to the case, a child custody lawsuit involves detailed subjective judgement on the caregiving competence of the parents. Prior cases cannot be the sole basis for deciding a child custody lawsuit. Each child custody lawsuit is different and they must be decided on a case to case basis. The judge has to consider the unique nature and circumstances of the husband, wife and the children. The judge also must consider the long term implications of the final custody award that will be passed while at the same considering the future (unpredictable) financial condition of the spouses and the developments needs of the children.

Judges are provided few explicit decision-rules to determine what a child’s best interests are, much less rules that take into account a child’s changing developmental needs. Even when statutes provide broad guidelines defining the child’s best interests, these guidelines are seldom very explicit and judges are offered no guidance concerning which of these interests are most important in determining custody. This leaves judges broad discretion in defining these interests, with the result that custody awards can be determined on the basis of highly subjective criteria that may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

A fundamental question, for example, concerns which of the child’s many “interests” should predominate in a judge’s deliberations over a custody award. Fundamentally, of course, children require the basic necessities that promote physical well being: adequate nourishment, a warm, safe home environment, sufficient health care, clothing, and an interpersonal environment that is not overtly abusive or oppressive.

In the adjudication of child custody disputes, however, judges frequently rely on subjective judgments of a parent’s caretaking style that are often based on personal values and beliefs. Sometimes these judgments concern the “moral climate” of the home. In some cases, a judgment is based on a parent’s occupational commitments, political affiliations, expectation of remarriage, or economic circumstances rather than his or her relationship with the child.

There will be cases in which both parents present evidence that they have served equally as primary caretakers, and the child is emotionally attached to both. Then the judge must look to some other factor to break the tie. Or there may be evidence that the child is not emotionally attached to the primary caretaking parent but rather to the other parent. With very small children this is not usual, but it is possible in the case of a seriously emotionally detached parent. The primary parent preference simply means that a judge cannot be arbitrary and must look first to actual parenting.

Unlike divorce, child custody is not a legal event that can be negotiated or fought over and ultimately settled within a year or two. Legal custody lasts until the child reaches adulthood. Even if you have been granted custody, your spouse can later apply to the court to have the custody changed.

Courts impose custodial arrangements typically without regard to the age of the children and without reference to the available developmental research. Although custody orders theoretically can be modified at the request of a parent, this difficult option is rarely exercised and custody arrangements for the most part remain fixed no matter what the child’s age. Modification of custody orders requires significantly changed circumstances. The changing needs of the children alone are not considered changed circumstances for modification purposes.

Criteria For Custody

Most family court judges rely on some combination of the following criteria:

• The Parents’ Wishes – A court will almost always approve custody provisions that the divorcing couple have designed themselves. Parental agreements do not, however, deprive a family court of its power to act in the best interests of the child. Occasionally, courts use this power to alter or overrule a divorcing couple’s custody arrangements. Not surprisingly, a judge is unlikely to award custody to a parent who is not prepared for custodial responsibilities or whose stated desire for custody seems to be based on financial gain or personal satisfaction rather than a child’s interests.

• The Child’s Preference – A child’s wishes are given more or less weight, depending on the child’s age, education, and demonstrated maturity. In some states, a child’s custodial preference cannot be considered unless the child is at least twelve years old. In a few states, a child’s preference must be honored if the child is fourteen or older.

• Siblings – While courts overwhelmingly prefer to keep siblings together, circumstances frequently arise that warrant split-custody decisions. Siblings who constantly fight are often separated at the request of their parents. To honor children’s wishes, a father is sometimes awarded custody of an older son while his daughter continues to live with her mother.

• Environmental Stability – A child’s comfort in and satisfaction with home life, school, friends, and daily activities are significant considerations for most family court judges. Divorce itself is a traumatic disruption to children’s lives; courts are reluctant to approve custody requests that are likely to result in additional anxiety and destabilization. A child’s “established living pattern” in a familiar home, school, community, and religious institution should be altered only if there is a compelling need to do so.

• Violence or the Threat of Violence – No family court should knowingly allow a child to be exposed to domestic violence or the threat of violence. It doesn’t matter whether the violence, or the threat, is directed against the child or against someone else. A potential for violence based on past conduct is usually considered a valid indicator of future danger.

• Mental and Physical Health – If a child suffers from a mental or physical disability, the court must decide which parent can best meet the child’s special needs. The physical and mental health of the divorcing parents also comes under close scrutiny. Mental illnesses or physical impediments severe enough to endanger a child or debilitating enough to deprive a child of a parent’s care and companionship will almost always hamper a parent’s chances for custody in the eyes of the court. Evidence of rehabilitation can mitigate these concerns.

• Lifestyle – A family court evaluates a wide range of factors in its attempt to determine the effects (both positive and negative) that parents’ lifestyles are likely to have on the well-being of children. Courts do not generally look kindly on parents who engage in criminal activity, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, promiscuity, or homosexuality. Cohabitation is viewed harshly by some courts, barely noticed by others. The time that each parent’s lifestyle leaves available for child-rearing activities is also closely examined. A parent willing to revamp a daily work schedule to devote more time to child care has a clear advantage over a parent whose days and nights are consumed by the demands of a career. Because medical science has recently made clear the dangers of secondary smoke, a non‐ smoking parent is often preferable to a smoker.

• Everything Else – The majority of family court judges will consider any and all information presented to them in their attempts to determine what is—and what is not—in the best interests of a divorcing couple’s children.

An experienced Utah Child Custody attorney is your best friend in your child custody battle.

Utah Child Custody Lawyer Free Consultation

When you have a child custody battle in Utah, call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with paternity cases. Child Custody. Child Support. Back Child Support. Child Support Modification. Child Custody Modifications. Grandparent’s Rights. Divorces. And much more. We will help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

South Jordan Utah Bankruptcy Lawyer

Marijuana Law

Tenant Evictions

Utah Easements

What If the Executor Does Not Probate The Will?

Real Estate Lawyer Farmington Utah

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/child-custody-rights/

[aretia]

Child Custody Rights

Utah Code Section 30-3-35 deals with child custody. If you are in the midst of a divorce, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Utah child custody attorney. The court will not automatically grant custody of your children to you.

Best Interests Of The Child Test

Beginning in the 1970s, custody statutes began to enumerate factors to guide a “best interests” determination, or to adopt presumptions that would all but dictate the outcome in certain types of cases. Typical factors range from parental age and health to earning capacity, ability to nurture, and living arrangements. Children of a certain age might get to voice an opinion, too.10 This does not eliminate judicial discretion, but it narrows the inquiry at least somewhat. At the same time, the maternal preference—formally recognized in some states, but informally lurking virtually everywhere—gave way to a gender-neutral standard in the 1970s.

The ban on sex discrimination in the 1970s made it difficult, if not impossible, for states to defend sex-based classifications. The maternal preference was held to be unconstitutional, in favoring women and penalizing men who might be equally good parents. As the Utah Supreme Court wrote in a 1986 opinion, the “tender years doctrine was perhaps useful in a society in which fathers traditionally worked outside the home and mothers did not,” but it was now “unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.”

Legal Custody and Physical Custody

Under the law, custody has two distinct components. Legal custody gives a parent the legal authority to make decisions about a child’s upbringing. Physical custody is the right of a parent to maintain physical control of a child. The children of a divorced couple live with the parent who is awarded physical custody. An award of sole custody grants control of a child’s life to one parent. That parent’s home becomes the child’s legal residence, and the child becomes that parent’s legal responsibility. Divided custody is an arrangement allowing children to live with each parent for part of the year. The parent with whom the children are residing at any given time has legal custody. Split custody is an allocation of parental rights in which each parent is granted sole custody of some of the couple’s children. Joint custody theoretically grants both parents equal legal rights and responsibilities. A variety of residential options are possible under joint custody, including bird’s nest custody—an arrangement allowing the children to remain in the family home while the parents take turns moving in and out.

Sole Custody and Joint Custody

Custody awards traditionally were of only one type: one parent was awarded sole custody, and the other was perhaps awarded “visitation.” Sole custody basically meant decision-making power over all aspects of the child’s life, and physical responsibility for all aspects of a child’s care. But this arrangement often meant that relationships with the other parent were apt to deteriorate or disappear. With joint custody, parents can share “physical” or “residential” custody so that children go back and forth from house to house (or, in some cases, the parents go back and forth between the custodial house and another residence). Or they may just share “legal” custody, that is, both parents have a say in important decisions about education, religious training, and medical care. Joint custody is in many ways harder to establish and maintain than the traditional arrangement. Parents must have the capacity to make decisions together—even though, after all, they have recently gotten a divorce.

They must be able to afford two of everything—beds, clothes, toys, musical instruments, bikes— so that children do not feel they are living out of a suitcase. They must live close enough to each other so that the back-and-forth travel is manageable for children and parents. And the children themselves must be secure and stable enough to handle all the moving around. On the other hand, fathers with joint custodial rights are more likely to pay child support. Children clearly benefit in most cases through stronger ties with both parents. But divorcing families are not all alike; and legislatures eventually decided to give back to the judges some of their discretion in deciding where the children’s best interest lies. Courts may consider what the parents want, what they can do, what the children want (if they are old enough to have a say), the money situation, geographical issues, what will and what will not disrupt the children’s education and social lives, and so on. Joint legal custody is less difficult; but there is still plenty of potential for trouble. If one parent thinks the child needs a private school, and the other prefers a public school, who decides? Disagreements often led to the divorce in the first place, so it is hardly surprising that they continue afterwards.

Utah Court Decisions On Child Custody

A child custody lawsuit is unlike any other. The judge has to decide on an unusual and difficult question. While most lawsuit rely heavily on the documentation of facts that are relevant to the case, a child custody lawsuit involves detailed subjective judgement on the caregiving competence of the parents. Prior cases cannot be the sole basis for deciding a child custody lawsuit. Each child custody lawsuit is different and they must be decided on a case to case basis. The judge has to consider the unique nature and circumstances of the husband, wife and the children. The judge also must consider the long term implications of the final custody award that will be passed while at the same considering the future (unpredictable) financial condition of the spouses and the developments needs of the children.

Judges are provided few explicit decision-rules to determine what a child’s best interests are, much less rules that take into account a child’s changing developmental needs. Even when statutes provide broad guidelines defining the child’s best interests, these guidelines are seldom very explicit and judges are offered no guidance concerning which of these interests are most important in determining custody. This leaves judges broad discretion in defining these interests, with the result that custody awards can be determined on the basis of highly subjective criteria that may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

A fundamental question, for example, concerns which of the child’s many “interests” should predominate in a judge’s deliberations over a custody award. Fundamentally, of course, children require the basic necessities that promote physical well being: adequate nourishment, a warm, safe home environment, sufficient health care, clothing, and an interpersonal environment that is not overtly abusive or oppressive.

In the adjudication of child custody disputes, however, judges frequently rely on subjective judgments of a parent’s caretaking style that are often based on personal values and beliefs. Sometimes these judgments concern the “moral climate” of the home. In some cases, a judgment is based on a parent’s occupational commitments, political affiliations, expectation of remarriage, or economic circumstances rather than his or her relationship with the child.

There will be cases in which both parents present evidence that they have served equally as primary caretakers, and the child is emotionally attached to both. Then the judge must look to some other factor to break the tie. Or there may be evidence that the child is not emotionally attached to the primary caretaking parent but rather to the other parent. With very small children this is not usual, but it is possible in the case of a seriously emotionally detached parent. The primary parent preference simply means that a judge cannot be arbitrary and must look first to actual parenting.

Unlike divorce, child custody is not a legal event that can be negotiated or fought over and ultimately settled within a year or two. Legal custody lasts until the child reaches adulthood. Even if you have been granted custody, your spouse can later apply to the court to have the custody changed.

Courts impose custodial arrangements typically without regard to the age of the children and without reference to the available developmental research. Although custody orders theoretically can be modified at the request of a parent, this difficult option is rarely exercised and custody arrangements for the most part remain fixed no matter what the child’s age. Modification of custody orders requires significantly changed circumstances. The changing needs of the children alone are not considered changed circumstances for modification purposes.

Criteria For Custody

Most family court judges rely on some combination of the following criteria:

• The Parents’ Wishes – A court will almost always approve custody provisions that the divorcing couple have designed themselves. Parental agreements do not, however, deprive a family court of its power to act in the best interests of the child. Occasionally, courts use this power to alter or overrule a divorcing couple’s custody arrangements. Not surprisingly, a judge is unlikely to award custody to a parent who is not prepared for custodial responsibilities or whose stated desire for custody seems to be based on financial gain or personal satisfaction rather than a child’s interests.

• The Child’s Preference – A child’s wishes are given more or less weight, depending on the child’s age, education, and demonstrated maturity. In some states, a child’s custodial preference cannot be considered unless the child is at least twelve years old. In a few states, a child’s preference must be honored if the child is fourteen or older.

• Siblings – While courts overwhelmingly prefer to keep siblings together, circumstances frequently arise that warrant split-custody decisions. Siblings who constantly fight are often separated at the request of their parents. To honor children’s wishes, a father is sometimes awarded custody of an older son while his daughter continues to live with her mother.

• Environmental Stability – A child’s comfort in and satisfaction with home life, school, friends, and daily activities are significant considerations for most family court judges. Divorce itself is a traumatic disruption to children’s lives; courts are reluctant to approve custody requests that are likely to result in additional anxiety and destabilization. A child’s “established living pattern” in a familiar home, school, community, and religious institution should be altered only if there is a compelling need to do so.

• Violence or the Threat of Violence – No family court should knowingly allow a child to be exposed to domestic violence or the threat of violence. It doesn’t matter whether the violence, or the threat, is directed against the child or against someone else. A potential for violence based on past conduct is usually considered a valid indicator of future danger.

• Mental and Physical Health – If a child suffers from a mental or physical disability, the court must decide which parent can best meet the child’s special needs. The physical and mental health of the divorcing parents also comes under close scrutiny. Mental illnesses or physical impediments severe enough to endanger a child or debilitating enough to deprive a child of a parent’s care and companionship will almost always hamper a parent’s chances for custody in the eyes of the court. Evidence of rehabilitation can mitigate these concerns.

• Lifestyle – A family court evaluates a wide range of factors in its attempt to determine the effects (both positive and negative) that parents’ lifestyles are likely to have on the well-being of children. Courts do not generally look kindly on parents who engage in criminal activity, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, promiscuity, or homosexuality. Cohabitation is viewed harshly by some courts, barely noticed by others. The time that each parent’s lifestyle leaves available for child-rearing activities is also closely examined. A parent willing to revamp a daily work schedule to devote more time to child care has a clear advantage over a parent whose days and nights are consumed by the demands of a career. Because medical science has recently made clear the dangers of secondary smoke, a non‐ smoking parent is often preferable to a smoker.

• Everything Else – The majority of family court judges will consider any and all information presented to them in their attempts to determine what is—and what is not—in the best interests of a divorcing couple’s children.

An experienced Utah Child Custody attorney is your best friend in your child custody battle.

Utah Child Custody Lawyer Free Consultation

When you have a child custody battle in Utah, call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with paternity cases. Child Custody. Child Support. Back Child Support. Child Support Modification. Child Custody Modifications. Grandparent’s Rights. Divorces. And much more. We will help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

South Jordan Utah Bankruptcy Lawyer

Marijuana Law

Tenant Evictions

Utah Easements

What If the Executor Does Not Probate The Will?

Real Estate Lawyer Farmington Utah

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/child-custody-rights/

[advertphoto]

Child Custody Rights

Utah Code Section 30-3-35 deals with child custody. If you are in the midst of a divorce, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Utah child custody attorney. The court will not automatically grant custody of your children to you.

Best Interests Of The Child Test

Beginning in the 1970s, custody statutes began to enumerate factors to guide a “best interests” determination, or to adopt presumptions that would all but dictate the outcome in certain types of cases. Typical factors range from parental age and health to earning capacity, ability to nurture, and living arrangements. Children of a certain age might get to voice an opinion, too.10 This does not eliminate judicial discretion, but it narrows the inquiry at least somewhat. At the same time, the maternal preference—formally recognized in some states, but informally lurking virtually everywhere—gave way to a gender-neutral standard in the 1970s.

The ban on sex discrimination in the 1970s made it difficult, if not impossible, for states to defend sex-based classifications. The maternal preference was held to be unconstitutional, in favoring women and penalizing men who might be equally good parents. As the Utah Supreme Court wrote in a 1986 opinion, the “tender years doctrine was perhaps useful in a society in which fathers traditionally worked outside the home and mothers did not,” but it was now “unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.”

Legal Custody and Physical Custody

Under the law, custody has two distinct components. Legal custody gives a parent the legal authority to make decisions about a child’s upbringing. Physical custody is the right of a parent to maintain physical control of a child. The children of a divorced couple live with the parent who is awarded physical custody. An award of sole custody grants control of a child’s life to one parent. That parent’s home becomes the child’s legal residence, and the child becomes that parent’s legal responsibility. Divided custody is an arrangement allowing children to live with each parent for part of the year. The parent with whom the children are residing at any given time has legal custody. Split custody is an allocation of parental rights in which each parent is granted sole custody of some of the couple’s children. Joint custody theoretically grants both parents equal legal rights and responsibilities. A variety of residential options are possible under joint custody, including bird’s nest custody—an arrangement allowing the children to remain in the family home while the parents take turns moving in and out.

Sole Custody and Joint Custody

Custody awards traditionally were of only one type: one parent was awarded sole custody, and the other was perhaps awarded “visitation.” Sole custody basically meant decision-making power over all aspects of the child’s life, and physical responsibility for all aspects of a child’s care. But this arrangement often meant that relationships with the other parent were apt to deteriorate or disappear. With joint custody, parents can share “physical” or “residential” custody so that children go back and forth from house to house (or, in some cases, the parents go back and forth between the custodial house and another residence). Or they may just share “legal” custody, that is, both parents have a say in important decisions about education, religious training, and medical care. Joint custody is in many ways harder to establish and maintain than the traditional arrangement. Parents must have the capacity to make decisions together—even though, after all, they have recently gotten a divorce.

They must be able to afford two of everything—beds, clothes, toys, musical instruments, bikes— so that children do not feel they are living out of a suitcase. They must live close enough to each other so that the back-and-forth travel is manageable for children and parents. And the children themselves must be secure and stable enough to handle all the moving around. On the other hand, fathers with joint custodial rights are more likely to pay child support. Children clearly benefit in most cases through stronger ties with both parents. But divorcing families are not all alike; and legislatures eventually decided to give back to the judges some of their discretion in deciding where the children’s best interest lies. Courts may consider what the parents want, what they can do, what the children want (if they are old enough to have a say), the money situation, geographical issues, what will and what will not disrupt the children’s education and social lives, and so on. Joint legal custody is less difficult; but there is still plenty of potential for trouble. If one parent thinks the child needs a private school, and the other prefers a public school, who decides? Disagreements often led to the divorce in the first place, so it is hardly surprising that they continue afterwards.

Utah Court Decisions On Child Custody

A child custody lawsuit is unlike any other. The judge has to decide on an unusual and difficult question. While most lawsuit rely heavily on the documentation of facts that are relevant to the case, a child custody lawsuit involves detailed subjective judgement on the caregiving competence of the parents. Prior cases cannot be the sole basis for deciding a child custody lawsuit. Each child custody lawsuit is different and they must be decided on a case to case basis. The judge has to consider the unique nature and circumstances of the husband, wife and the children. The judge also must consider the long term implications of the final custody award that will be passed while at the same considering the future (unpredictable) financial condition of the spouses and the developments needs of the children.

Judges are provided few explicit decision-rules to determine what a child’s best interests are, much less rules that take into account a child’s changing developmental needs. Even when statutes provide broad guidelines defining the child’s best interests, these guidelines are seldom very explicit and judges are offered no guidance concerning which of these interests are most important in determining custody. This leaves judges broad discretion in defining these interests, with the result that custody awards can be determined on the basis of highly subjective criteria that may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

A fundamental question, for example, concerns which of the child’s many “interests” should predominate in a judge’s deliberations over a custody award. Fundamentally, of course, children require the basic necessities that promote physical well being: adequate nourishment, a warm, safe home environment, sufficient health care, clothing, and an interpersonal environment that is not overtly abusive or oppressive.

In the adjudication of child custody disputes, however, judges frequently rely on subjective judgments of a parent’s caretaking style that are often based on personal values and beliefs. Sometimes these judgments concern the “moral climate” of the home. In some cases, a judgment is based on a parent’s occupational commitments, political affiliations, expectation of remarriage, or economic circumstances rather than his or her relationship with the child.

There will be cases in which both parents present evidence that they have served equally as primary caretakers, and the child is emotionally attached to both. Then the judge must look to some other factor to break the tie. Or there may be evidence that the child is not emotionally attached to the primary caretaking parent but rather to the other parent. With very small children this is not usual, but it is possible in the case of a seriously emotionally detached parent. The primary parent preference simply means that a judge cannot be arbitrary and must look first to actual parenting.

Unlike divorce, child custody is not a legal event that can be negotiated or fought over and ultimately settled within a year or two. Legal custody lasts until the child reaches adulthood. Even if you have been granted custody, your spouse can later apply to the court to have the custody changed.

Courts impose custodial arrangements typically without regard to the age of the children and without reference to the available developmental research. Although custody orders theoretically can be modified at the request of a parent, this difficult option is rarely exercised and custody arrangements for the most part remain fixed no matter what the child’s age. Modification of custody orders requires significantly changed circumstances. The changing needs of the children alone are not considered changed circumstances for modification purposes.

Criteria For Custody

Most family court judges rely on some combination of the following criteria:

• The Parents’ Wishes – A court will almost always approve custody provisions that the divorcing couple have designed themselves. Parental agreements do not, however, deprive a family court of its power to act in the best interests of the child. Occasionally, courts use this power to alter or overrule a divorcing couple’s custody arrangements. Not surprisingly, a judge is unlikely to award custody to a parent who is not prepared for custodial responsibilities or whose stated desire for custody seems to be based on financial gain or personal satisfaction rather than a child’s interests.

• The Child’s Preference – A child’s wishes are given more or less weight, depending on the child’s age, education, and demonstrated maturity. In some states, a child’s custodial preference cannot be considered unless the child is at least twelve years old. In a few states, a child’s preference must be honored if the child is fourteen or older.

• Siblings – While courts overwhelmingly prefer to keep siblings together, circumstances frequently arise that warrant split-custody decisions. Siblings who constantly fight are often separated at the request of their parents. To honor children’s wishes, a father is sometimes awarded custody of an older son while his daughter continues to live with her mother.

• Environmental Stability – A child’s comfort in and satisfaction with home life, school, friends, and daily activities are significant considerations for most family court judges. Divorce itself is a traumatic disruption to children’s lives; courts are reluctant to approve custody requests that are likely to result in additional anxiety and destabilization. A child’s “established living pattern” in a familiar home, school, community, and religious institution should be altered only if there is a compelling need to do so.

• Violence or the Threat of Violence – No family court should knowingly allow a child to be exposed to domestic violence or the threat of violence. It doesn’t matter whether the violence, or the threat, is directed against the child or against someone else. A potential for violence based on past conduct is usually considered a valid indicator of future danger.

• Mental and Physical Health – If a child suffers from a mental or physical disability, the court must decide which parent can best meet the child’s special needs. The physical and mental health of the divorcing parents also comes under close scrutiny. Mental illnesses or physical impediments severe enough to endanger a child or debilitating enough to deprive a child of a parent’s care and companionship will almost always hamper a parent’s chances for custody in the eyes of the court. Evidence of rehabilitation can mitigate these concerns.

• Lifestyle – A family court evaluates a wide range of factors in its attempt to determine the effects (both positive and negative) that parents’ lifestyles are likely to have on the well-being of children. Courts do not generally look kindly on parents who engage in criminal activity, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, promiscuity, or homosexuality. Cohabitation is viewed harshly by some courts, barely noticed by others. The time that each parent’s lifestyle leaves available for child-rearing activities is also closely examined. A parent willing to revamp a daily work schedule to devote more time to child care has a clear advantage over a parent whose days and nights are consumed by the demands of a career. Because medical science has recently made clear the dangers of secondary smoke, a non‐ smoking parent is often preferable to a smoker.

• Everything Else – The majority of family court judges will consider any and all information presented to them in their attempts to determine what is—and what is not—in the best interests of a divorcing couple’s children.

An experienced Utah Child Custody attorney is your best friend in your child custody battle.

Utah Child Custody Lawyer Free Consultation

When you have a child custody battle in Utah, call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with paternity cases. Child Custody. Child Support. Back Child Support. Child Support Modification. Child Custody Modifications. Grandparent’s Rights. Divorces. And much more. We will help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

South Jordan Utah Bankruptcy Lawyer

Marijuana Law

Tenant Evictions

Utah Easements

What If the Executor Does Not Probate The Will?

Real Estate Lawyer Farmington Utah

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/child-custody-rights/

[gonnagoandrunwiththehorses]

Child Custody Rights

Utah Code Section 30-3-35 deals with child custody. If you are in the midst of a divorce, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Utah child custody attorney. The court will not automatically grant custody of your children to you.

Best Interests Of The Child Test

Beginning in the 1970s, custody statutes began to enumerate factors to guide a “best interests” determination, or to adopt presumptions that would all but dictate the outcome in certain types of cases. Typical factors range from parental age and health to earning capacity, ability to nurture, and living arrangements. Children of a certain age might get to voice an opinion, too.10 This does not eliminate judicial discretion, but it narrows the inquiry at least somewhat. At the same time, the maternal preference—formally recognized in some states, but informally lurking virtually everywhere—gave way to a gender-neutral standard in the 1970s.

The ban on sex discrimination in the 1970s made it difficult, if not impossible, for states to defend sex-based classifications. The maternal preference was held to be unconstitutional, in favoring women and penalizing men who might be equally good parents. As the Utah Supreme Court wrote in a 1986 opinion, the “tender years doctrine was perhaps useful in a society in which fathers traditionally worked outside the home and mothers did not,” but it was now “unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.”

Legal Custody and Physical Custody

Under the law, custody has two distinct components. Legal custody gives a parent the legal authority to make decisions about a child’s upbringing. Physical custody is the right of a parent to maintain physical control of a child. The children of a divorced couple live with the parent who is awarded physical custody. An award of sole custody grants control of a child’s life to one parent. That parent’s home becomes the child’s legal residence, and the child becomes that parent’s legal responsibility. Divided custody is an arrangement allowing children to live with each parent for part of the year. The parent with whom the children are residing at any given time has legal custody. Split custody is an allocation of parental rights in which each parent is granted sole custody of some of the couple’s children. Joint custody theoretically grants both parents equal legal rights and responsibilities. A variety of residential options are possible under joint custody, including bird’s nest custody—an arrangement allowing the children to remain in the family home while the parents take turns moving in and out.

Sole Custody and Joint Custody

Custody awards traditionally were of only one type: one parent was awarded sole custody, and the other was perhaps awarded “visitation.” Sole custody basically meant decision-making power over all aspects of the child’s life, and physical responsibility for all aspects of a child’s care. But this arrangement often meant that relationships with the other parent were apt to deteriorate or disappear. With joint custody, parents can share “physical” or “residential” custody so that children go back and forth from house to house (or, in some cases, the parents go back and forth between the custodial house and another residence). Or they may just share “legal” custody, that is, both parents have a say in important decisions about education, religious training, and medical care. Joint custody is in many ways harder to establish and maintain than the traditional arrangement. Parents must have the capacity to make decisions together—even though, after all, they have recently gotten a divorce.

They must be able to afford two of everything—beds, clothes, toys, musical instruments, bikes— so that children do not feel they are living out of a suitcase. They must live close enough to each other so that the back-and-forth travel is manageable for children and parents. And the children themselves must be secure and stable enough to handle all the moving around. On the other hand, fathers with joint custodial rights are more likely to pay child support. Children clearly benefit in most cases through stronger ties with both parents. But divorcing families are not all alike; and legislatures eventually decided to give back to the judges some of their discretion in deciding where the children’s best interest lies. Courts may consider what the parents want, what they can do, what the children want (if they are old enough to have a say), the money situation, geographical issues, what will and what will not disrupt the children’s education and social lives, and so on. Joint legal custody is less difficult; but there is still plenty of potential for trouble. If one parent thinks the child needs a private school, and the other prefers a public school, who decides? Disagreements often led to the divorce in the first place, so it is hardly surprising that they continue afterwards.

Utah Court Decisions On Child Custody

A child custody lawsuit is unlike any other. The judge has to decide on an unusual and difficult question. While most lawsuit rely heavily on the documentation of facts that are relevant to the case, a child custody lawsuit involves detailed subjective judgement on the caregiving competence of the parents. Prior cases cannot be the sole basis for deciding a child custody lawsuit. Each child custody lawsuit is different and they must be decided on a case to case basis. The judge has to consider the unique nature and circumstances of the husband, wife and the children. The judge also must consider the long term implications of the final custody award that will be passed while at the same considering the future (unpredictable) financial condition of the spouses and the developments needs of the children.

Judges are provided few explicit decision-rules to determine what a child’s best interests are, much less rules that take into account a child’s changing developmental needs. Even when statutes provide broad guidelines defining the child’s best interests, these guidelines are seldom very explicit and judges are offered no guidance concerning which of these interests are most important in determining custody. This leaves judges broad discretion in defining these interests, with the result that custody awards can be determined on the basis of highly subjective criteria that may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

A fundamental question, for example, concerns which of the child’s many “interests” should predominate in a judge’s deliberations over a custody award. Fundamentally, of course, children require the basic necessities that promote physical well being: adequate nourishment, a warm, safe home environment, sufficient health care, clothing, and an interpersonal environment that is not overtly abusive or oppressive.

In the adjudication of child custody disputes, however, judges frequently rely on subjective judgments of a parent’s caretaking style that are often based on personal values and beliefs. Sometimes these judgments concern the “moral climate” of the home. In some cases, a judgment is based on a parent’s occupational commitments, political affiliations, expectation of remarriage, or economic circumstances rather than his or her relationship with the child.

There will be cases in which both parents present evidence that they have served equally as primary caretakers, and the child is emotionally attached to both. Then the judge must look to some other factor to break the tie. Or there may be evidence that the child is not emotionally attached to the primary caretaking parent but rather to the other parent. With very small children this is not usual, but it is possible in the case of a seriously emotionally detached parent. The primary parent preference simply means that a judge cannot be arbitrary and must look first to actual parenting.

Unlike divorce, child custody is not a legal event that can be negotiated or fought over and ultimately settled within a year or two. Legal custody lasts until the child reaches adulthood. Even if you have been granted custody, your spouse can later apply to the court to have the custody changed.

Courts impose custodial arrangements typically without regard to the age of the children and without reference to the available developmental research. Although custody orders theoretically can be modified at the request of a parent, this difficult option is rarely exercised and custody arrangements for the most part remain fixed no matter what the child’s age. Modification of custody orders requires significantly changed circumstances. The changing needs of the children alone are not considered changed circumstances for modification purposes.

Criteria For Custody

Most family court judges rely on some combination of the following criteria:

• The Parents’ Wishes – A court will almost always approve custody provisions that the divorcing couple have designed themselves. Parental agreements do not, however, deprive a family court of its power to act in the best interests of the child. Occasionally, courts use this power to alter or overrule a divorcing couple’s custody arrangements. Not surprisingly, a judge is unlikely to award custody to a parent who is not prepared for custodial responsibilities or whose stated desire for custody seems to be based on financial gain or personal satisfaction rather than a child’s interests.

• The Child’s Preference – A child’s wishes are given more or less weight, depending on the child’s age, education, and demonstrated maturity. In some states, a child’s custodial preference cannot be considered unless the child is at least twelve years old. In a few states, a child’s preference must be honored if the child is fourteen or older.

• Siblings – While courts overwhelmingly prefer to keep siblings together, circumstances frequently arise that warrant split-custody decisions. Siblings who constantly fight are often separated at the request of their parents. To honor children’s wishes, a father is sometimes awarded custody of an older son while his daughter continues to live with her mother.

• Environmental Stability – A child’s comfort in and satisfaction with home life, school, friends, and daily activities are significant considerations for most family court judges. Divorce itself is a traumatic disruption to children’s lives; courts are reluctant to approve custody requests that are likely to result in additional anxiety and destabilization. A child’s “established living pattern” in a familiar home, school, community, and religious institution should be altered only if there is a compelling need to do so.

• Violence or the Threat of Violence – No family court should knowingly allow a child to be exposed to domestic violence or the threat of violence. It doesn’t matter whether the violence, or the threat, is directed against the child or against someone else. A potential for violence based on past conduct is usually considered a valid indicator of future danger.

• Mental and Physical Health – If a child suffers from a mental or physical disability, the court must decide which parent can best meet the child’s special needs. The physical and mental health of the divorcing parents also comes under close scrutiny. Mental illnesses or physical impediments severe enough to endanger a child or debilitating enough to deprive a child of a parent’s care and companionship will almost always hamper a parent’s chances for custody in the eyes of the court. Evidence of rehabilitation can mitigate these concerns.

• Lifestyle – A family court evaluates a wide range of factors in its attempt to determine the effects (both positive and negative) that parents’ lifestyles are likely to have on the well-being of children. Courts do not generally look kindly on parents who engage in criminal activity, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, promiscuity, or homosexuality. Cohabitation is viewed harshly by some courts, barely noticed by others. The time that each parent’s lifestyle leaves available for child-rearing activities is also closely examined. A parent willing to revamp a daily work schedule to devote more time to child care has a clear advantage over a parent whose days and nights are consumed by the demands of a career. Because medical science has recently made clear the dangers of secondary smoke, a non‐ smoking parent is often preferable to a smoker.

• Everything Else – The majority of family court judges will consider any and all information presented to them in their attempts to determine what is—and what is not—in the best interests of a divorcing couple’s children.

An experienced Utah Child Custody attorney is your best friend in your child custody battle.

Utah Child Custody Lawyer Free Consultation

When you have a child custody battle in Utah, call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with paternity cases. Child Custody. Child Support. Back Child Support. Child Support Modification. Child Custody Modifications. Grandparent’s Rights. Divorces. And much more. We will help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

South Jordan Utah Bankruptcy Lawyer

Marijuana Law

Tenant Evictions

Utah Easements

What If the Executor Does Not Probate The Will?

Real Estate Lawyer Farmington Utah

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/child-custody-rights/

[divorcelawyergunnisonutah]

Child Custody Rights

Utah Code Section 30-3-35 deals with child custody. If you are in the midst of a divorce, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Utah child custody attorney. The court will not automatically grant custody of your children to you.

Best Interests Of The Child Test

Beginning in the 1970s, custody statutes began to enumerate factors to guide a “best interests” determination, or to adopt presumptions that would all but dictate the outcome in certain types of cases. Typical factors range from parental age and health to earning capacity, ability to nurture, and living arrangements. Children of a certain age might get to voice an opinion, too.10 This does not eliminate judicial discretion, but it narrows the inquiry at least somewhat. At the same time, the maternal preference—formally recognized in some states, but informally lurking virtually everywhere—gave way to a gender-neutral standard in the 1970s.

The ban on sex discrimination in the 1970s made it difficult, if not impossible, for states to defend sex-based classifications. The maternal preference was held to be unconstitutional, in favoring women and penalizing men who might be equally good parents. As the Utah Supreme Court wrote in a 1986 opinion, the “tender years doctrine was perhaps useful in a society in which fathers traditionally worked outside the home and mothers did not,” but it was now “unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.”

Legal Custody and Physical Custody

Under the law, custody has two distinct components. Legal custody gives a parent the legal authority to make decisions about a child’s upbringing. Physical custody is the right of a parent to maintain physical control of a child. The children of a divorced couple live with the parent who is awarded physical custody. An award of sole custody grants control of a child’s life to one parent. That parent’s home becomes the child’s legal residence, and the child becomes that parent’s legal responsibility. Divided custody is an arrangement allowing children to live with each parent for part of the year. The parent with whom the children are residing at any given time has legal custody. Split custody is an allocation of parental rights in which each parent is granted sole custody of some of the couple’s children. Joint custody theoretically grants both parents equal legal rights and responsibilities. A variety of residential options are possible under joint custody, including bird’s nest custody—an arrangement allowing the children to remain in the family home while the parents take turns moving in and out.

Sole Custody and Joint Custody

Custody awards traditionally were of only one type: one parent was awarded sole custody, and the other was perhaps awarded “visitation.” Sole custody basically meant decision-making power over all aspects of the child’s life, and physical responsibility for all aspects of a child’s care. But this arrangement often meant that relationships with the other parent were apt to deteriorate or disappear. With joint custody, parents can share “physical” or “residential” custody so that children go back and forth from house to house (or, in some cases, the parents go back and forth between the custodial house and another residence). Or they may just share “legal” custody, that is, both parents have a say in important decisions about education, religious training, and medical care. Joint custody is in many ways harder to establish and maintain than the traditional arrangement. Parents must have the capacity to make decisions together—even though, after all, they have recently gotten a divorce.

They must be able to afford two of everything—beds, clothes, toys, musical instruments, bikes— so that children do not feel they are living out of a suitcase. They must live close enough to each other so that the back-and-forth travel is manageable for children and parents. And the children themselves must be secure and stable enough to handle all the moving around. On the other hand, fathers with joint custodial rights are more likely to pay child support. Children clearly benefit in most cases through stronger ties with both parents. But divorcing families are not all alike; and legislatures eventually decided to give back to the judges some of their discretion in deciding where the children’s best interest lies. Courts may consider what the parents want, what they can do, what the children want (if they are old enough to have a say), the money situation, geographical issues, what will and what will not disrupt the children’s education and social lives, and so on. Joint legal custody is less difficult; but there is still plenty of potential for trouble. If one parent thinks the child needs a private school, and the other prefers a public school, who decides? Disagreements often led to the divorce in the first place, so it is hardly surprising that they continue afterwards.

Utah Court Decisions On Child Custody

A child custody lawsuit is unlike any other. The judge has to decide on an unusual and difficult question. While most lawsuit rely heavily on the documentation of facts that are relevant to the case, a child custody lawsuit involves detailed subjective judgement on the caregiving competence of the parents. Prior cases cannot be the sole basis for deciding a child custody lawsuit. Each child custody lawsuit is different and they must be decided on a case to case basis. The judge has to consider the unique nature and circumstances of the husband, wife and the children. The judge also must consider the long term implications of the final custody award that will be passed while at the same considering the future (unpredictable) financial condition of the spouses and the developments needs of the children.

Judges are provided few explicit decision-rules to determine what a child’s best interests are, much less rules that take into account a child’s changing developmental needs. Even when statutes provide broad guidelines defining the child’s best interests, these guidelines are seldom very explicit and judges are offered no guidance concerning which of these interests are most important in determining custody. This leaves judges broad discretion in defining these interests, with the result that custody awards can be determined on the basis of highly subjective criteria that may vary widely on a case-by-case basis.

A fundamental question, for example, concerns which of the child’s many “interests” should predominate in a judge’s deliberations over a custody award. Fundamentally, of course, children require the basic necessities that promote physical well being: adequate nourishment, a warm, safe home environment, sufficient health care, clothing, and an interpersonal environment that is not overtly abusive or oppressive.

In the adjudication of child custody disputes, however, judges frequently rely on subjective judgments of a parent’s caretaking style that are often based on personal values and beliefs. Sometimes these judgments concern the “moral climate” of the home. In some cases, a judgment is based on a parent’s occupational commitments, political affiliations, expectation of remarriage, or economic circumstances rather than his or her relationship with the child.

There will be cases in which both parents present evidence that they have served equally as primary caretakers, and the child is emotionally attached to both. Then the judge must look to some other factor to break the tie. Or there may be evidence that the child is not emotionally attached to the primary caretaking parent but rather to the other parent. With very small children this is not usual, but it is possible in the case of a seriously emotionally detached parent. The primary parent preference simply means that a judge cannot be arbitrary and must look first to actual parenting.

Unlike divorce, child custody is not a legal event that can be negotiated or fought over and ultimately settled within a year or two. Legal custody lasts until the child reaches adulthood. Even if you have been granted custody, your spouse can later apply to the court to have the custody changed.

Courts impose custodial arrangements typically without regard to the age of the children and without reference to the available developmental research. Although custody orders theoretically can be modified at the request of a parent, this difficult option is rarely exercised and custody arrangements for the most part remain fixed no matter what the child’s age. Modification of custody orders requires significantly changed circumstances. The changing needs of the children alone are not considered changed circumstances for modification purposes.

Criteria For Custody

Most family court judges rely on some combination of the following criteria:

• The Parents’ Wishes – A court will almost always approve custody provisions that the divorcing couple have designed themselves. Parental agreements do not, however, deprive a family court of its power to act in the best interests of the child. Occasionally, courts use this power to alter or overrule a divorcing couple’s custody arrangements. Not surprisingly, a judge is unlikely to award custody to a parent who is not prepared for custodial responsibilities or whose stated desire for custody seems to be based on financial gain or personal satisfaction rather than a child’s interests.

• The Child’s Preference – A child’s wishes are given more or less weight, depending on the child’s age, education, and demonstrated maturity. In some states, a child’s custodial preference cannot be considered unless the child is at least twelve years old. In a few states, a child’s preference must be honored if the child is fourteen or older.

• Siblings – While courts overwhelmingly prefer to keep siblings together, circumstances frequently arise that warrant split-custody decisions. Siblings who constantly fight are often separated at the request of their parents. To honor children’s wishes, a father is sometimes awarded custody of an older son while his daughter continues to live with her mother.

• Environmental Stability – A child’s comfort in and satisfaction with home life, school, friends, and daily activities are significant considerations for most family court judges. Divorce itself is a traumatic disruption to children’s lives; courts are reluctant to approve custody requests that are likely to result in additional anxiety and destabilization. A child’s “established living pattern” in a familiar home, school, community, and religious institution should be altered only if there is a compelling need to do so.

• Violence or the Threat of Violence – No family court should knowingly allow a child to be exposed to domestic violence or the threat of violence. It doesn’t matter whether the violence, or the threat, is directed against the child or against someone else. A potential for violence based on past conduct is usually considered a valid indicator of future danger.

• Mental and Physical Health – If a child suffers from a mental or physical disability, the court must decide which parent can best meet the child’s special needs. The physical and mental health of the divorcing parents also comes under close scrutiny. Mental illnesses or physical impediments severe enough to endanger a child or debilitating enough to deprive a child of a parent’s care and companionship will almost always hamper a parent’s chances for custody in the eyes of the court. Evidence of rehabilitation can mitigate these concerns.

• Lifestyle – A family court evaluates a wide range of factors in its attempt to determine the effects (both positive and negative) that parents’ lifestyles are likely to have on the well-being of children. Courts do not generally look kindly on parents who engage in criminal activity, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, promiscuity, or homosexuality. Cohabitation is viewed harshly by some courts, barely noticed by others. The time that each parent’s lifestyle leaves available for child-rearing activities is also closely examined. A parent willing to revamp a daily work schedule to devote more time to child care has a clear advantage over a parent whose days and nights are consumed by the demands of a career. Because medical science has recently made clear the dangers of secondary smoke, a non‐ smoking parent is often preferable to a smoker.

• Everything Else – The majority of family court judges will consider any and all information presented to them in their attempts to determine what is—and what is not—in the best interests of a divorcing couple’s children.

An experienced Utah Child Custody attorney is your best friend in your child custody battle.

Utah Child Custody Lawyer Free Consultation

When you have a child custody battle in Utah, call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with paternity cases. Child Custody. Child Support. Back Child Support. Child Support Modification. Child Custody Modifications. Grandparent’s Rights. Divorces. And much more. We will help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

South Jordan Utah Bankruptcy Lawyer

Marijuana Law

Tenant Evictions

Utah Easements

What If the Executor Does Not Probate The Will?

Real Estate Lawyer Farmington Utah

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/child-custody-rights/

[sherristockman]

Back to Eden — How Simple, Natural Methods Can Take the Work Out of Gardening, and Boost Your Harvest Dr. Mercola By Dr. Mercola The featured documentary, "Back to Eden," reveals a simple organic gardening method that not only can transform your personal garden, but may even be part of the food solution needed on a global scale. Far from being life sustaining, our modern, large-scale, chemical-dependent farming methods strip soil of nutrients, destroy critical soil microbes, contribute to the creation of deserts where nothing will grow, and saturate farmlands with toxic pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that then migrate into ground water, rivers, lakes and oceans. This video really inspired me and, after watching it, I called my local tree cutting service and was able to get three truckloads of wood chips dropped on my driveway for free. I then wheelbarreled them onto my landscape. The great thing about the wood chips is that they are waste and most companies will give you all you want. I plan on adding more every few months. One important aspect I learned, though, is that the wood chip pile will tend to decompose rather rapidly if you don't spread it on your landscape right away. So, it's best to spread the chips over a few days and not leave it in a pile. Otherwise you will wind up needing to wear a mask to avoid inhaling the dust when you use a pitchfork to move the chips into your wheelbarrel. I am convinced that "Back to Eden's" gardener, Paul Gautschi, makes loads of sense and that this is a crucial part of the equation for creating healthy soil to produce healthy plants. Wood chips not only seem to eliminate the need for any fertilizer or mineral supplements, but also to help reduce watering and make weeding a snap. If the religious overtones of this film don't appeal to you, I hope you will overlook them because regardless of your religious beliefs, the information shared still has tremendous value, and is sure to be of interest to anyone concerned with sustainable agriculture. As presented by Documentary Storm:1 "Dana & Sarah Films, a nomadic grassroots film production company, travel to Washington where Paul Gautschi has developed a revolutionary gardening technique that is estimated to cut back on the need for irrigation by up to 95 percent. Paul is known locally as a master arborist and is now inspiring people across the nation to experiment with his gardening methods by starting their own 'Back to Eden' gardens." 'Back to Eden' — Nature Is Self-Sustaining What many fail to realize is that your health ultimately depends on the health of the soil — this is what allows your food, the vegetables and fruits, to grow nutrient-dense. When soils are depleted of nutrients, the foods grown in it will be deficient in critical minerals and phytonutrients as well. Unfortunately, that's the state of a large portion of the Earth's soils today. Clearly, the answer to correcting soils depleted of nutrients is NOT to add even more chemical fertilizers. The "magical" ingredient that maintains and maximizes soil health is actually the microorganisms living in the soil. This includes bacteria, fungi, protozoa and microscopic roundworms called nematodes. Far from being scourges to be avoided, microorganisms are an essential necessity for optimized plant growth. We now understand that it is the cooperation between these microorganisms, the soil's biome and the plants' roots — called rhizosphere — that is ultimately responsible for allowing the plant to absorb nutrients from the soil in which it's grown. As discussed in the featured film, nature is self-sustaining. When left alone, the ground becomes covered with leaves and organic materials that then turn into lush compost that adds nutrients back to the soil. This top layer of organic material also shields the soil and helps retain moisture. By imitating nature and simply covering his garden with wood chips, Gautschi doesn't need to water any of his plants, even in the summer. And his garden yields plenty of large, well-formed, juicy fruits, berries and vegetables. While you certainly can purchase wood chips, Paul suggests contacting your local tree service to get large amounts. These are basically tree branches that have gone through a wood chipper. They usually have to get rid of all these wood chips anyway so, like me, you may be able to get it for next to nothing, opposed to buying bags of mulch from a gardening center. As stated by Documentary Storm: "In these days of genetically modified organisms, leafy greens replete with pesticides, drought, fruits and vegetables that are deficient of nutrients, soil that is depleted of minerals, and a myriad of problems and side effects that have risen because of the aforementioned, Paul Gautschi seems to have an answer that almost seems too simple to believe." Others have duplicated his efforts, reaping the same fantastic results. For example, the film also features Ronald and Sylvia Richardson, who were inspired to follow in Gautschi's footsteps after a visit to his garden in 2010, and the McOmber family, who have also successfully implemented his methods in their garden. A Nearly Magical Soil Amendment, the Results of Which Will Shock You One of the keys to a truly successful garden is to improve the microbiology of the soil. Many people don't appreciate that it's NOT commercial products like Miracle-Gro® you put in your garden that give you disease-resistant and nutrient-dense food, but the diverse collection of bacteria, fungi and parasites that actually transfer the nutrients from the soil into the plant. Miracle-Gro® will supply some nutrients, but these salts actually kill the soil microbes. Although the film does not discuss this, I believe that one of the primary reasons why Gautschi's experiment is so successful is due to the beneficial effect on microorganism growth. When the article initially ran, I experimented in my own garden by spreading 15 gallons of vortexed compost tea (basically compost tea that has been stirred, creating a vortex in the bucket) nearly every day for six months. Each ounce of the tea had hundreds of trillions of beneficial microbes. Since I was applying 2,000 ounces to my garden, that's a lot of microbes! While that provided some benefit, I was still disappointed with the results. What I learned from that experience is that these microbes need a home to hang out in, live and multiply. Without a proper home they simply die, soon after being applied. As it turns out, Biochar fits the bill perfectly. Shortly after this interview initially ran I applied biochar to my property and I now have a deep, rich topsoil with wonderful edible landscape. Biochar is created by slowly burning biomass like wood chips, corn stalks, coconut shells or any similar organic material in a low-oxygen environment, such as a kiln. When burned this way, the carbon in the organic material is not released into the atmosphere as CO2; rather, it traps the carbon and forms a type of charcoal that has a reef-like structure, which serves as a magnificent microbial home. Besides providing excellent living quarters for soil microorganisms, Biochar also has a number of other benefits, including: Returning much of the depleted carbon to the soil (carbon sequestration), where it can remain for hundreds or even thousands of years Improving overall soil quality and fertility Raising the soil's water retention ability Potentially helping to "filter" toxic chemicals in the soil, much like carbon-based water filtration systems can filter toxins out of your water Biochar Strongly Supports Plant Growth The introduction of Biochar into soil is not like applying fertilizer; rather, it's the beginning of a process — most of the benefit is achieved through the activity of the microbes and fungi that take up residence in the treated soil. They colonize its massive surface area and integrate into the char and the surrounding soil, dramatically increasing the soil's ability to nurture plant growth. One of the major benefits of Biochar is that it is highly stable and typically lasts for many centuries, if not longer, so it is one soil amendment that does not need to be regularly applied. In this respect, it is far superior to wood chips. As explained in a recent Ecologist2 article, research shows Biochar can more than double a plant's yield! The researchers also discovered the "how" behind this remarkable result. As reported in the article: "They also tracked for the first time the changes in genetic expression that followed from applying biochar. The response of more than 10,000 genes was followed simultaneously, and two growth promoting plant hormones — brassinosteroids and auxins, together with their signaling molecules — were stimulated by the biochar. Professor Taylor said: 'Our findings provide the very first insight into how biochar stimulates plant growth — we now know that cell expansion is stimulated in roots and leaves alike and this appears to be the consequence of a complex signaling network that is focused around two plant growth hormones.'" Urban Gardening Is the Answer to Many of Our Problems There's no doubt that urban gardening is an important step toward building a more sustainable food system. In fact, I've been encouraging everyone to plant a "Victory Garden" as a proactive step toward fixing our broken food system and improving your health. Victory Gardens are named after the gardens that people were encouraged to plant in their back yards and in parks and other public places during World Wars I and II. As a result, in 1944, 40 percent of the produce grown in the U.S. was in people's backyards. I really think it's possible to catalyze a similar movement for a different purpose. The new reality is that for most people, it is very difficult to obtain high-quality, nutrient-dense foods unless you grow them yourself. Food grown in your own garden is overall fresher, more nutritious and tastes better than store-bought food — and you can't beat the price. Urban gardens are also key to saving energy, protecting water quality and topsoil, and promoting biodiversity and beautifying densely populated communities. It may even be the U-turn we need to rein in out-of-control rates of depression, much of which may be rooted in the feeling of being disconnected from nature, and hence disconnected from our own selves. According to a survey by Gardeners' World Magazine, 80 percent of gardeners reported being "happy" and satisfied with their lives, compared to 67 percent of non-gardeners. Monty Don, a British TV presenter and garden writer, attributes the wellbeing of gardeners to the "recharging" you get from sticking your hands in the soil and spending time outdoors in nature. This seems more than reasonable when you consider the health benefits associated with grounding, also known as earthing. As detailed in the documentary film "Grounded," the surface of the Earth holds subtle health-boosting energy, and all you have to do is touch it. Walking barefoot on the Earth transfers free electrons from the Earth's surface into your body that spread throughout your tissues. Grounding has been shown to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, improve sleep and enhance your wellbeing. Many a gardener will attest to the sense of wellbeing obtained from sticking your hands in the dirt as well, and this is separate from the pleasure of accomplishment that comes from eating your own home-grown food. Basic Biochar Guidelines If you're planning on starting a garden, I heartily endorse Biochar. You just need to make sure it is activated by either combining it with compost, rock dust powder or my favorite, human urine. Urine is a phenomenal source of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus and will bind strongly to the carbon in the Biochar rather than draining away. The nitrogen balances the carbon in the Biochar and serves as food for the microbes, which in turn feed the plant for the long term. A friend of mine did this last year in his garden and his plants produced so many vegetables they almost seemed like mutants. Wetting the Biochar is also important to promote beneficial earthworms. One 2011 study3 found that earthworms tend to avoid dry Biochar, but that wetting the char resulted in "statistically undetectable avoidance." According to the authors: "[I]nsufficient moisture could be a key factor affecting earthworm behavior in soil amended with dry biochar. To avoid desiccation of invertebrates and enable their beneficial ecosystem services, we recommend wetting biochar either before or immediately after soil application." You can certainly add Biochar to existing plants, shrubs and trees but, ideally, it's best if it's in the soil prior to planting, so the plants have an ideal form of nutrition early on. If you have a small garden, you might need only a few hundred pounds. Larger landscapes will require more. Gardeners Beware: Pesticides Also Kill Off Beneficial Earthworms Getting back to earthworms for a brief moment, these creepy crawlers also play an important role in maintaining the health of the soil. Pesticides, which are commonly sprayed on crops to protect them against being ravaged by pests, also have a devastating effect on earthworms living beneath the soil, which is yet another reason to avoid chemical gardening. Research shows that earthworms exposed to pesticides grow to only half their normal weight. Since pesticide exposure also has a detrimental impact on their ability to reproduce, untreated soils can contain as much as two to three times as many earthworms as treated soils. As reported by the Cornucopia Institute:4 "Pesticides have a direct impact on the physiology and behavior of earthworms, a Danish/French research team reports after having studied earthworms that were exposed to pesticides over generations. 'We see that the worms have developed methods to detoxify themselves, so that they can live in soil sprayed with fungicide. They spend a lot of energy on detoxifying, and that comes with a cost: The worms do not reach the same size as other worms, and we see that there are fewer of them in sprayed soil. An explanation could be that they are less successful at reproducing, because they spend their energy on ridding themselves of the pesticide,' the researchers, Ph.D. student Nicolas Givaudan and associate professor, Claudia Wiegand, say." Working WITH Nature Rather Than Against It: That's the Future of Farming Researchers are increasingly starting to recognize gut microbiota as one of your most unappreciated "organs."5 It may even be more appropriate to view your body as a "super organism" composed of symbiotic microorganisms. Probiotics are even becoming widely accepted and adopted in the conventional medical community to support health. In soil, we have a very similar process. The health of the plants and those who eat those plants all stand to benefit from the optimization of soil microbiology. Optimizing soil biology also strengthens plants against pest infestations without having to resort to chemical warfare that kills far more than the insects they're designed to destroy. Research shows that there's constant communication going on between plants via the rhizosphere (root ball). Plants "talk" to one another through aerial emissions — the volatile gasses they emit — and also through the mycelial networks in the soil. This is a major insight that deepens our understanding of the importance of nurturing and maintaining healthy soil microbiomes. It also explains why you don't really need synthetic chemicals to grow large amounts of food. On the contrary, the chemicals used in modern agriculture are killing the very foundation of health — the microbiomes in the soil. In short, if you support and nurture the microbiome in soil, it in turn will provide you with good nutrition and optimal health through the food grown in it. As noted by Documentary Storm: "A sustainable permaculture revolution is at hand as a solution to earth's mistreatment and the unwillingness of the U.S. government to protect its citizens from agribusiness giants ... When the burden of proof is in the hands of the affected to prove the food-like products are negatively affecting their health, the safest thing to do is grow the most nutritious food we can at the smallest expense in order to push these food-like products out of market. Paul's garden is an example of sustainable permaculture at its best." About the Directors I believe in bringing quality to my readers, which is why I wanted to share some information about Dana Richardson and Sarah Zentz, producers and directors of "Back to Eden." We sat down with Dana and Sarah to learn a little more about what goes in to making these films. Thank you to Dana and Sarah for sharing with us. What was your inspiration for making this film? I​n 2010 we heard a story about Paul Gautschi, a gardener who practiced a no-till, non-GMO, organic gardening method that was capable of being implemented in diverse climates and soil conditions around the world. At that time, awareness was increasing about GMO​s​ and ​the impacts of​ conventional farming​ practices​ on the health and wellness of our bodies and the environment. We knew that Paul's organic gardening method was a simple, sustainable solution​ to the global food crisis​ that needed to be documented and shared with the world. Our goal was to create a visually engaging and educational documentary that taught people around the world how to grow a "Back to Eden Garden" and thus reap the abundant harvest and numerous health benefits of Paul Gautschi's organic gardening method. What was your favorite part of making this film? Meeting Paul Gautschi was a life-changing experience. On a daily basis we walked with Paul in his gardens and orchards, experienced eating the sweetest tasting fruits and vegetables, learned how to grow our own organic food, and were immeasurably blessed by his incredible knowledge and generous spirit. Where do the proceeds to your film go? If you buy the film through our website http://ift.tt/12z64hM, the proceeds go directly ​toward spreading the message of Back to Eden gardening around the world >>>>> Click Here

[oojamaflip-whatchamacallit]

#I know this probably isn’t canon but Mark running a secondary school that Avaricce is funding to help foster wayward interests into#real skills and passions that can be creatively persued or open job opportunities for us#while all the interests still have a stable supportive nurturing home life in The Fix and Pasha#is really cool#Also Elias retakes up bass and developed it from an interest into a skill!!#Ambition to keep practicing and find real world applications for your passions can turn an interest into a skill!!!!#Also he still stays in contact with The Fix#But this time they’re BOTH helping the kids grow up for adult life in the big city!#And of course Avaricce ‘s the Benifactor because he has to stick his duck in somewhere#Guilta/Madame Loathing and Mark Bition we’re supposed to trade places#I actually love this for him

MARK BITION RESOLUTION!!!!!