There is an emerging brotherhood of men in their 40s, 50s or 60s, according to the Tucson Citizen, who are raising young children.  Some of them have adult children and grandchildren as well.  They can get the senior discount and the child’s discount at the same place.

Many men in the Baby Boomers generation married young, worked hard and built their careers.  Then they got divorced and may have remarried a younger spouse who wanted children.

“These men are doing it the second time around, often with women half their age,” says Michael Kimmel, a sociologist at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, N.Y. He calls the phenomenon “serial paternity.”  For some this is an opportunity to repeat their child-rearing experiences, and in some cases, to get it right the second time.

The men interviewed said it was worth it, even with sleepless nights and cranky kids.  Most have more time, more patience and more financial resources than when they were younger.

Health was a concern.  Most of the fathers said they exercise regularly to keep up with their kids.

You know how kids like to add a half year to their age, like saying “I’m five and a half years  old”?  If your access schedule has every other birthday or no birthdays with your child, Orr General Store for Parents suggests throwing a half-birthday party.

The website says, “Half birthday parties can be even more fun that the regular party.  You bake half a cake.  If you’re not a baker, buy the cake and cut it in half.  Sing half of the birthday song or every other word.  Fill the cups half full.  You’ll think of lots of things to make it a special half birthday party.  As your child grows older it will become a funnier party because the child can add their own half touches.”

And there is even a website where you can find all the party supplies you need to throw a half birthday.

Fatemeh and Thomas entered into a marital settlement agreement in 2006, which required Thomas to pay $1200 per month in child support for three years and then $750 an month into a college educational account for the children.

Shortly before the three years was up, Fatemeh filed a petition to modify child support claiming the provision converting the $1200 monthly child support payment to a $750 payment into a college educational account was void as against public policy.

The court said the provision would have violated public policy if it relieved Thomas entirely or permanently from his duty to support his minor child.  A parent may not waive or otherwise contract away their child’s right to support.  But that does not prevent parents from making contracts or agreements concerning their child’s support so long as the best interests of the children are served.  Since the payment was directed into an account for the benefit of the child, there was no public policy violation in the provision of the settlement agreement requiring the child support payment of $750 to be deposited into a college educational account.

Laussermair v. Laussermair, No. 4D09-4823, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D448
(Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, March 2, 2011)

In a new study at Arizona State University, researchers gave three hypothetical child custody cases to participants and asked them to be the judge.

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 and Michael Martin met in 2002 and were married in 2004. Shortly after their son was born in 2007, Patricia discovered that Michael was having an affair.

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)

Last year Maryland raised its child support guidelines.  Just before that, it extended the age that child support terminates from 18 to the earlier of 19 or graduation from high school if a child is living at home and enrolled full time in high school.

This year, Maryland delegates have introduced House Bill 1272 that would extend child support if the child is enrolled in an institution of postsecondary education (college or vocational school) until the earlier of graduation or age 21.

If enacted, this would allow college tuition and room and board to be added to costs in above guidelines cases just in time for tuition bills this fall.

Following his divorce from his ex-wife Elin, Tiger Woods has failed to win a golf tournament in the last sixteen months.

But Woods isn’t playing golf all that much.  He’s only competed in ten tournaments this year, which isn’t a lot for a professional golfer with the Masters coming up.

There was speculation that he would play in the Honda Classic.  But that was a conflict with his shared parenting time with his three year old daughter and one year old son.

When USAToday asked him why he wasn’t playing more, Woods responded, “Because I have a family. I’m divorced.  If you’ve been divorced with kids, then you would understand.”

I am thinking about Charlie Sheen’s custody case. If I were his lawyer, I think I would start by giving him the book “Ethics” by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC).

Aristotle catalogues and describes various virtues and vices, such as boasting or humility, and argues that the best way to behave is by finding the mean between the two.

It does not seem too different from the reasonable man test I learned in law school a couple of thousand plus years later.

I am all for “Do not be ordinary” as Robin Williams said in Dead Poet’s Society. And while I do not want my tombstone to say “Here lies a reasonable man”, I would advise Charlie Sheen that judges are more influenced by Aristotle and tend to favor the parent that seems to be the most reasonable.

House Bill 1132, if passed, would establish a presumption in favor of joint custody for children in Maryland.   The Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates is considering the bill, which would add the following as Section 9-109 to the Maryland Family Law Article:

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.

Many times we see agreements or decrees that say the parents have joint legal custody and the mother (or the father) has physical custody of the children.

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.