For many parents contemplating a divorce or dissolution of their marriage, a primary concern is which parent shall have “custody” of the child or children of the marriage. I shall begin the article by addressing the differences between the two parenting systems in Ohio – “sole custody” and “shared parenting”.
- The parents have different names or titles: In a situation where one parent has “sole custody” of the child/children, that parent is designated as the “residential parent and legal custodian” and the other parent is designated as the “non-residential parent” or the “non-custodial parent”. In a shared parenting situation both parents have the same title. They are both designated as the “residential parent and legal custodian” of the child or children. For school district reasons of residency and tuition, one parent’s residence is typically designated as the residence of the child for school district purposes. The parent whose residence is the residence of the child for school district purposes may have a slight advantage over the other party as he or she has the ability to change residences with the child changing school districts accordingly. For example, in a “shared parenting” arrangement wherein Mother’s residence is the residence of the
As we all know, the typical family from the 1950’s television shows such as “Leave it to Beaver” have become a rarity over the years. A couple celebrating their golden wedding anniversary is not so commonplace. Today, approximately fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. In the traditional family, estates usually involve wills and the use of “joint and survivorship” ownership between husband and wife or “beneficiary designations” to ensure that upon the death of a spouse everything would pass to the surviving spouse. However, in today’s modern family, there may be a second or even third spouse and children from prior marriages. How does an individual take care of his or her current spouse yet protect his/her children from a prior marriage?
On July 1, 2009, I received a decision on one of the more interesting cases I have worked on since embarking on my legal career. The case started out as a custody case in Juvenile Court, but quickly spiraled into a full-scale federal trial; and subsequently, an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It’s safe to say that this was not your typical custody case. What made this case different, among other things, was that the family had moved to Ohio from Israel and the mother had returned to Israel. While in Israel, she decided to pursue custody and filed a Petition for the return of the minor child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, claiming that our client, the child’s father, had kidnapped the child and wrongfully retained him here in the United States instead of allowing him to return to Israel.
It is newsworthy that the State of Ohio has taken major “hits” in the job loss category and that our unemployment rate approaches 10%. Recently, General Motors, aka Delphi, has closed most plants in Dayton causing a massive loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. Then, National Cash Register (NCR) announced the company was moving its headquarters and nearly fifteen hundred (1500) jobs to a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia. The Dayton Daily News has reported that eleven (11) policemen are slated to “lose their jobs” due to budgetary constraints. Also, businesses associated with supplying the auto industry with parts and services are feeling a financial “crunch” as their major or primary customer was General Motors, aka Delphi.
England is trying to catch up with Ohio and the rest of the United States when it comes to Family Law. Until a landmark case last week, the courts in England and Wales put little, if any, weight on the terms of prenuptial agreements. Prenuptial agreements (also called antenuptial agreements) in one form or another have been around for a very long time. The Supreme Court of Ohio in 1984 held in Gross v. Gross that, under certain circumstances, they are valid and the terms should be enforced by Ohio courts.
One of the most interesting and well written pieces that I have read in a long time is a keynote address presented by Dr. Frank S. Williams to the National Council for Children’s Rights in Washington D.C. on October 20, 1990. Dr. Williams is a noted child psychiatrist and the Director of Family and Child Psychiatry at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. While this presentation was almost 19 years ago, Dr. Williams’ sage advice is no less relevant now than it ever was!
I came across an interesting survey last month in the Gordon Poll Youth Survey published by the Wilmington Institute Network. Dr. Robert Gordon is the founder and director of the Wilmington Institute of Trial and Settlement Sciences. He is a past president of the Texas Psychological Association and is author of “On the Witness Stand.” He is both a clinical psychologist and a lawyer. The work of Dr. Gordon and the institute team has been featured on the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, ABC, Nightline, CNN, Fox News, Larry King Live, Good Morning America and USA Today.![[bar.gif]](https://www.hcmmlaw.com/blog/wp-content/themes/greenline-10/img/1b.gif)
40.22%