When people start their divorce most of the time they tell their lawyers something like "I want custody of my children." But what does that actually mean in reality? Do you think it means simply that you will get the children and he won't? Well, no, in order to understand the whole concept of custody, you have to think a little bit more deeply.
First of all, to all extents and purposes, there is pretty much a presumption of joint custody in the state of Connecticut, as opposed to sole custody going to either parent. This means that unless your ex is a known pervert or is currently in jail or something pretty extreme, the default mode is joint custody. That means both of you get custody--it's a win win situation. Yeah!
Ok, ok. It's a bit more complicated than that. When you are talking about the word custody, what is it that lawyers actually mean when it comes to divorce? As defined, custody means that you have basic parenting authority over your children, that you have the constitutional right to assume your role as parent towards your children. But how does that definition change once your enter a divorce courtroom and how will that affect your particular situation?
Custody as defined in divorce court has two separate elements. One is physical custody. Who has physical custody or what is called residential custody of the children? This means where do the children eat and sleep for the better majority of the time. If one person has the children when they eat and sleep with that person, while the other parent does what is called visitation, then the first person has physical custody of the children while the other one, the one with visitation does not have physical custody of the children, no matter what anyone says to the contrary.
When lawyers talk to their clients and say something like, "We want to make sure you have custody of the children." they are not talking about sole custody with you having full parental authority over the children all the time. What lawyers are actually talking about is that you and your ex have joint custody of the children but you have residential custody of the children. That's what it means to get custody of your children nowadays and 95% of folks going into court get just that.
A second aspect of custody has to do with decision making. The question here is, of the two parents, who is more qualified to make the decisions regarding the children about their medical care, religious instruction, or educational requirements, etc. For the most part if you get the standard joint custody with residential custody going to one or the other parent, both parents get to make the decisions regarding the lives of the children.
However, if one parent is in a shaky position because of mental health problems, drug and/or alcohol abuse, abuse of the children, or if one parent has a bad lawyer or just simply bad luck in conducting the case in court, such a parent might end up with something like, joint custody, with residential custody and sole decision making going to the parent with greater leverage.
Now, I've had friends of mine come back from a high conflict custody session in court going, "I won, I won! I got joint custody!" And I'll say well, "Who got the decision making?" And my friend will say, "Well, we've got joint custody but he has sole decision making."
Ladies, let me lay this right out on the line for you all right now. Do you want to know what joint custody is with sole decision making going to the other parent? That is, essentially, full custody going to the other party and you lost with a little bit of a cosmetic gloss so you don't feel so bad about it. Tah Dah! I've never seen a circumstance where one parent got residential custody while the other received sole decision making, so I'm assuming whoever got the sole decision making also got residential custody leaving joint custody out there as a consolation prize for the loser.
I mean, how meaningless does it get when you have joint custody but your kids don't live with you and you have no authority to make any decisions on their behalf? You've essentially been disenfranchised as a parent. Still, I can't tell you how many people fall for that ploy. It's amazing!
Another kind of custody you will find many men going for is a fifty fifty situation where the children spend fifty percent of their time living with one parent and fifty percent of their time living with the other. There is also the "nesting" custody where the children stay in the house with the parents cycling in and out instead of the kids. These latter two arrangements both require tremendous cooperation between the parents, and God bless anyone who can manage it.
Cooperating parents do this to benefit their children. But the only reason this kind of arrangement occurs in high conflict cases is so the guy can avoid child support. Trust me. So if your ex shows up with this idea, think about this before you agree to it. There is a definite politics to divorce, and if you aren't familiar with it, as you can see, you can end up being shortchanged.
Finally, I want you to know that, even if you are denied custody of your children, even if you have no decision making authority, and even if you do not have residential custody of your children, still, you have a constitutional right to be a parent to your children. Therefore, you have the right to see your children on a regular basis, you have a right to communicate with your children, granting the opposing attorney has not been able to entirely trash your reputation.
Still, even if you are not allowed a significant role in your childrens' lives, you still have the opportunity to influence them with your dignified and ethical response to the challenges you face. Your continued dedication to their best interests, your continued expressions of concern, your ongoing appearances in court to fight on their behalf, all of that is meaningful and important to your children, if not immediately in the present, then sometime in the future when they finally have the opportunity to see all that you did with what little you had.
So never, never, never, give up.
No comments:
Post a Comment