Posts Tagged ‘Child Custody’

ARIZONA DIVORCE LAWYER: FATHER’S RIGHTS IN ARIZONA CUSTODY CASES

Monday, July 16th, 2012

Submitted by Attorney Douglas Gardner

 

East Valley Divorce Attorney Discusses Father’s Rights in Divorce Cases

 

 

Arizona has moved forward in terms of Father’s rights recently, which changes how cases should be handled whether you are the Mother or the Father.

 

In the 1970s and 1980s, a typical custody order would have the children reside with the Mother, and Father would see the children on alternating weekends and two weeks during the summer.  As we moved into the 1990s and the 2000s, Father’s rights and Father’s role in raising children received significant attention from mental health professionals, which trickled its way into state laws and into the courtroom practices of judges.  Weekday parenting time to the Father became more common, and alternating holidays, equal sharing of summer and Christmas school recess became more common.

 

Over just the last two years, the Courts have moved beyond this, to much more often awarding equal parenting time when the parent’s live close enough to allow the children stability in school while residing with both parents. 

 

Moving to equal parenting time has its pros and cons.  Many children feel like they live at neither house, but “camp” at both houses and move back and forth.  Other children enjoy the significant relationship with both parents being much more involved.  Equal time parenting plans allow both parents to have their own time as well as parenting time, and can balance the various difficulties  in life including jobs and other responsibilities.  However, Equal time for many mother’s necessarily includes reduced parenting time. 

 

One difficulty often ran into is societal expectations.  While these changes are great for Father’s that want to be more involved, many mother’s feel that the Court has punished them because they are familiar with other families in which the Mother was named the primary parent, and they feel that they are as good or better of a parent than this other parent.  Such comparisons fail to account for the dramatic changes in the law over just the past few years. 

 

While many Father’s enjoy this additional time with their children, some Father’s realize that having the children 50% of the time causes them to be away from work more of the time, as schooling, sick children, and other issues are now falling on their parenting time 50% of the time. 

 

Equal parenting time is not appropriate in all cases.  I still see many cases in which Father or Mother can provide a better life style, stability, safe environment, and other factors and in which we can persuade the Court to award my client’s more than 50%/50% custody.  However, proving that such is the case requires a solid case and a well prepared trial plan. 

 

If you are experiencing legal issues involving custody or other difficult issues, whether as part of a divorce, after the divorce has already been entered, or a custody battle in which the parents were never married, you should have experienced legal counsel on your side. Please call 800 899-2730 and ask to speak with attorney Douglas C. Gardner, or visit our website at yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.

A Financial Benefit to Paying Child Support

Monday, July 2nd, 2012

Submitted by Attorney Kirk Smith

 

There is a general discontent among those who must pay child support. The consensus among them is not that they are unwilling to financially support their children; but rather, that they seemingly overcompensate the primary physical custodian for the expenses of the children, as these expenses fall appreciably lower than the child support they owe. Notwithstanding this perceived inequity, there is some consultation for child support obligors, as their tax liabilities generally decrease due to paying child support.

 

When child support is calculated each parent will be obligated to pay a specific percentage of the total amount calculated. How this plays out typically is that the primary physical custodian will pay nothing directly to the non-custodial parent, but the non-custodial parent will pay a specified sum each month to the primary physical custodian. For the purpose of this discussion do not get caught up in the fact that the primary physical custodian typically pays nothing directly to the non-custodial parent despite being allocated a percentage of the child support obligation.

 

An example of how these percentages might be allocated is; the primary physical custodian would be obligated to pay 20% of the total amount of child support calculated and the non-custodial parent would be obligated to pay 80% of the total amount of the child support calculated.

 

The family law courts will use these percentages under Number 27 of the Appendix of Arizona Revised Statutes 25-320, to determine the allocation between the parties of the dependent tax benefit, for the years following the divorce or separation.

 

Number 27 of the Appendix of Arizona Revised Statutes 25-320 states;

 

All the federal and state tax exemptions applicable to the minor children shall be allocated between the parents as they agree, or, in the absence of their agreement, in a manner that allows each parent to claim allowable federal dependency exemptions proportionate to adjusted gross income…To implement this provision, the proportionate share of the combined adjusted gross income of both parents is rounded to the nearest fraction with a denominator no larger than 5 (i.e. 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5).

 

Applying this statute to the above example, and assuming that the parties have only 1 child, the non-custodial parent would receive the dependent tax benefit 4 out of the next 5 years. Looking at the years following the divorce or separation, 80% of 5 years is four years. The percentage then used to determine each parent’s child support obligation is also used to determine who receives the dependent tax benefit each year.

 

Figuring out who receives the dependent tax benefit can become more complicated with multiple children between the parties, however, the aforementioned principles still apply. Child support obligors then can take a measure of solace that even though their finances will diminish due to their child support obligation; their finances typically increase when it comes to receiving their yearend tax refund. 

If you are in need of legal counsel and would like to speak with an experienced attorney, please call 800 899-2730  or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com. or www.davismiles.com

 

 

Strategic Reasons for Being Nice-Custody Determination

Friday, June 8th, 2012

 

Submitted by Attorney Kirk Smith

 

In many cases, parents divorcing, or parents who were not married but are now separating, will fight a merciless custody battle for their children. The extreme acrimony attendant with such battles, in my experience, can have a very real impact on the children of these divorces. Increased cooperation between the parents lessens this emotional impact, and by itself, should be sufficient incentive for most parents to “play nice” during the subsequent legal process.  

 

None the less is there a strategic reason for one parent to be gracious to the other, outside altruism, that benefits them in the court’s final custody determination?  

 

In most cases one parent will become the primary physical custodian of the children, meaning that that parent will have the children at their residence the majority of the time each week. There are specific statutory factors the family law court examines when determining who becomes the primary physical custodian of the children. See Generally A.R.S. §25-403. 

 

One of the factors the court looks at in determining who should receive primary physical custodianship is;

 

Which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and meaningful continuing contact with the other parent. This paragraph does not apply if the court determines that a parent is acting in good faith to protect the child from witnessing an act of domestic violence or being a victim of domestic violence or child abuse.A.R.S. § 25-403 (6)

Of course in some cases the other parent is a real danger to the children therefore it is necessary to diminish that other parent’s time with the children or ask that it be supervised. More often then not, however, both parents are usually suitable to care for the children, and an attempt to completely eliminate the other parent’s time with the children will be seen by the court negatively. The parent trying to “thwart” the other parent’s visitation with the children then could seriously and detrimentally effect that parent’s  chance of becoming the primary physical custodian because that parent did not “allow the child frequent and meaningful continuing contact with the other parent.”

If you are in need of legal counsel and would like to speak with an experienced attorney, please call 800 899-2730  or visit our website at yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com. or www.davismiles.com

A rule of thumb, assuming that the other parent is not a danger to the children, is to allow and encourage the other parent’s time with the children. This does not mean that you must have a half time schedule with the other parent, nor does it mean that anytime the other parent asks for time it must be provided. What it does mean is that going to extremes by trying to eliminate the other parent’s access to the children without good cause, strategically speaking, can backfire and decrease your chances of gaining the final custody determination from the court you wish.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RELOCATION ISSUES

Tuesday, May 29th, 2012

Seasoned attorney, Ron Fineberg, addresses the issue of relocation and what Arizona law requires of parents. 

 

Q&A’s

 

Question:

Our divorce was final two years ago.  The father and I were granted joint custody of our two minor children with substantially equal parenting time (visitation).  Because of my job, I need to move to California.  What do I do if the father will not agree to allow the children to move with me?

 

 

 

Answer:

 

Under those circumstances, Arizona law requires that the parent who wishes to “relocate” with a child outside of the state, or more than one hundred miles within the state, must provide the other parent written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, at least sixty days prior to the anticipated relocation.  If the non-moving parent opposes the relocation, that parent may petition the court to prevent relocation of the child.  The petition to prevent relocation must be filed within thirty days after the notice is made, otherwise the petition to prevent relocation may be granted to the non-moving parent only upon a showing of good cause. 

 

If the petition to prevent relocation is timely filed, it is then up to a judge to determine whether or not to allow the parent to relocate the child after considering the “best interests” of the child.  The burden of proving what is in the child’s best interest is on the parent seeking to relocate the child.  A.R.S. §25-408, 25-403(A) and ARFLP 91(E).

 

If you are in need of legal counsel and would like to speak with an experienced attorney, please call 800 899-2730  or visit our website at yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com. or www.davismiles.com 

Arizona Attorney Discusses Jurisdiction Issues in Custody Cases

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

Under Arizona law, Arizona courts typically have jurisdiction over new divorce, custody, paternity, and other cases involving children so long as the child has resided in the state of Arizona for the 6 months preceding the commencement of the case. Once Arizona obtains jurisdiction, the courts will generally continue to have jurisdiction so long as either parent continues to reside in the state of Arizona.

If both parents have relocated out of the state, a new state may have jurisdiction. Occasionally the parties can consent to jurisdiction in another state. Courts in Arizona or other states can get involved on an emergency basis when necessary, even when that court or state would not have ongoing jurisdiction.

Most states have similar or identical laws regarding jurisdiction over custody issues.

If a case has been filed against you in Arizona, and you do not believe that Arizona has jurisdiction, an attorney with McGuire Gardner, PLLC can file a Motion to Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. If you would like to file a case in Arizona and you are not certain if Arizona has jurisdiction over some or all of the pending issues, you should also speak with one of the family law attorneys with McGuire Gardner, PLLC. To contact an attorney with McGuire Gardner, PLLC to discuss your custody issues, you may call (480) 829-9081 or visit us online at yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.