Skip to content
  • Maryland
  • Virginia
  • Washington, D.C.

Divorce Lawyers

Thyden Gross and Callahan LLPCounselors and Attorneys at Law




This is about fathers' rights law, and protecting the best interests of your children. It provides information, news and comments on laws, cases and strategies for life as a single father and winning your custody, access or child support case.

Archive for April, 2009

Court Orders Mom to Have Electronic Tag for Visitation

Friday, April 24th, 2009

The mother removed her child from England, where the father lived, to her country of origin twice.  Both times the father sued under the Hague Convention and the mother returned with the child.  The father now has custody.

The mother wanted visitation under an interim order until a custody evaluation could be completed.  The father objected, concerned that the mother would abscond with the child again.

The English High Court, in Re A (A Minor), March 17, 2009, issued an order requiring that the mother wear an electronic ankle bracelet before being allowed to visit her child.

Read more at Jeremy Morley’s excellent International Family Law Blog.

Father Gets Final Decision Making Authority

Friday, April 10th, 2009

David Rembert tried his divorce case against Angela Rembert and got joint legal custody of his two children.  But the judge also gave him primary physical custody and final decision making authority on all matters involving the children including the school they attend, membership in organizations, and other extracurricular activities.

Angela appealed contending that the order didn’t really grant joint legal custody because it gave David final decision making authority.

The Supreme Court of Georgia noted the joint custody statute provided that the judge may designate one parent to have sole power to make certain decisions.

Angela also complained that the decision to award primary physical custody to David was wrong because she was equally fit to be a parent.  The court noted that Angela had a romantic involvement with a married man prior to filing for divorce and said she intended to marry him after her divorce.  She also planned to be a full-time student.  She borrowed $43,000 from David to buy a car after the separation.  And she threatened the life of a neighbor.

David, on the other hand, intended to stay in the marital home, and was seeking a transfer from his job as a pilot to be a trainer with a more regular schedule.  The appeals court said this was ample support for the decision of the trial court and affirmed the decision.

Rembert v. Rembert, Case No. S08F1582, Georgia Supreme Court (Decided March 23, 2009)

© 2018 Thyden Gross and Callahan LLP. All rights reserved.