Family Court Judge Diane Gibbons, however, took a dim view of the blog, especially since the couple has two sons, ages 10 and 12.  She ordered Morelli to shut down the site.

In its place, Morelli has set up Savethepyschoexwife.com, to raise legal fees to challenge the judge’s ruling on freedom of speech grounds.  He has already received over $5,000 in contributions.

Source:  Maggie Flecknoe, fox26medford.com

The pleadings may not make much difference if the couple settles out of court.

Both parties are asking the court for joint custody of their sons, age 17 and 13.  Child support will also have to be addressed in the settlement.

Source:  Bakersfieldnow.com

In 2008, Dorene filed an action to obtain sole custody of the children.  She lost and the court amended her visitation to provide that she “shall not have any overnight male guests while the minor children are present.”

Dorene appealed contending that this provision was overbroad, because on its face it prohibits her from having her father, a brother, a new spouse, or even the children’s father spend the night at her house while the minor children are present.

The appeals court agreed.  It said a trial court has discretion to place restrictions on custodial parents’ behavior that will harm their children.  While the trial court could limit visitation if it finds that the children would be adversely affected if any boyfriends of Dorene spent the night with her, the restriction against “any overnight male guests” would prohibit Dorene from having visitors with whom she has no romantic relationship and for whom the record does not support a finding of any harmful effect on her children.

Ward v. Ward, No. S11A0437 (Georgia Supreme Court, May 31, 2011)

In one case vignette, the mother was the primary care giver 75 percent of the time.  In another, the father, and in a third they divided child care equally.  In each case, neither parent wanted equal custody, but were each requesting as much living time with the children as possible because each now genuinely feels the children would be better off mostly in their care and not so much in the care of the other parent.

Surprisingly, most decided that timesharing should be equally divided in all three cases.  However, when asked how a real judge would decide, most said that the mother would get more time with the children than the father.  This indicates that the public perception is that courts are unfairly biased toward the mother in custody cases.

Patricia filed for divorce in New Hampshire and asked the court to let her relocate with the son to Rhode Island where her parents lived. The court said no and she appealed.

New Hampshire law provides that the parent seeking permission to relocate bears the initial burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (a) The relocation is for a legitimate purpose; and (b) The proposed location is reasonable in light of that purpose.

Patricia argued that her legitimate reason for wanting to relocate was her needs for emotional and financial support from her Rhode Island family.

However, the court noted she had a full time job in New Hampshire, and no comparable job prospects in Rhode Island.  As for the emotional support, Patricia’s counseling records indicated that she did not have a strong relationship with her parents in the past.  The court found that the primary reason Patricia wanted to move was to avoid interaction with the father and to get away from him.

In re Martin, No. 2009-556, (New Hampshire Supreme Court, August 19, 2010)

IN AN INITIAL CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDING, WHETHER PENDENTE LITE OR PERMANENT, INVOLVING THE PARENTS OF A CHILD, THERE IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT:

(1) JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD; AND

(2) PHYSICAL CUSTODY TO EACH PARENT FOR APPROXIMATELY EQUAL PERIODS OF TIME IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.

Similar bills have failed before, but they are always hotly debated with strong advocates on either side.  I’m not sure it really makes that much difference in the end in litigation.  With or without the presumption, the judge still decides whether custody should be joint or sole with one parent or the other, based on what the judge thinks is in the best interest of the child.  In settlement negotiations, however, it might replace “every other weekend” as a starting position.

Legal custody is about long term parenting decisions, such as the education, health and religion of the children.  Joint legal custody means the parents are to make those decisions together.  Both have an equal vote and each has a veto power.

Physical custody means where the child resides most of the time.  The other parent has visitation or access or timesharing.  Each parent has care and custody of the child when they are with them, and can make day to day parenting decisions alone.

Here’s where legal world and real world part company.  In the legal world, long term decisions are required to be made by agreement.  But in the real world, if mom decides on her own to make Dr. A their pediatrician, dad usually doesn’t object.  If dad does object, his only recourse is to take mom back to court and that usually costs more money than it is worth.

So sometimes, joint legal custody and primary physical custody ends up being, as a practical matter, the same as sole legal custody.

“That’s right.”

“Well take a look at this doctor’s report that says Mr. Jones took the children to four out of the last five visits.  Did I read that right?”

“Yes.”

“And do you recall that Mr. Jones was at the school recital on November16?”

“Yes.”

“And he coaches their basketball team, doesn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“He took the children to the movies on Thanksgiving Day, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

Trial Note to Dads:  Small details can add to your credibility and take away from Mom’s credibility at a custody trial when Mom claims you don’t spend any time with the kids.   Testimony is evidence, but so are doctor’s reports, school records, and your journal or diary of time spent with your kids.

First, you can require notice prior to any move so that the objecting party has time to ask the court to review custody.   residence.  Here’s an example from a Parenting Agreement for my state:

Under Maryland law, a move out of state with the minor children by the parent with legal custody constitutes a change in circumstances that warrants a review of the residential arrangements.  Therefore, the parent with legal custody shall notify the other parent at least 45 days in advance of any contemplated move (and sooner if possible), and the parents shall cooperate to work out a new visitation schedule.  In the event that a new visitation schedule cannot be agreed upon by the parents, the parents shall promptly submit the issues raised by relocation to mediation.

Second you can set up an alternative timesharing schedule in your Parenting Plan, to become effective in the event one parent moves over a certain distance from their current residence.  Here’s the introduction to such an alternative schedule:

If the parents live more than one (1) hour apart driving door to door, the following schedule will be presumed to be in the best interests of the children.  It provides the minimum visitation and parents are encouraged to agree on additional visitation.

Finally, you could try to have a non-relocation provision in your Parenting Plan, such as the following example:

The parents agree that neither one will relocate more than 50 miles from their current residence without the consent of the other or an order of the court.

Note that the court has the power to override this non-relocation provision if it finds that relocation is in the best interests of the children.  You may want to add language stating that the parties agree that the best interest of the children lies in being raised in the present location.  Give us your thoughts and experience with relocation in the comment section.

The purpose of the Hague Convention is to protect children from being abducted and kept across international boundaries.

The Convention sets out a procedure to bring about a prompt return of such children. The “Child Abduction Section” provides information about the operation of the Convention and the work of the Hague Conference in monitoring its implementation and promoting international co-operation in the area of child abduction.

It is important to note that the Convention ceases to apply when a child attains the age of 16 years.