Joint Custody in Divorce - 0 views

• 
  #1 Lyhne Marcher on 17 Sep 13

   

  There have been an increasing trend, in Ontario, in family and divorce law, during the last several years, for family courts to obtain joint custody of children. The desire, by some, was that the parenting skills of the parties could be increased with honors of joint custody. The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, has tried to put this development into perspective.
  
  Within this decision, the parties were married in 1998 and divided in January 2002. The parties had a daughter who was born in October 2001. At trial, the daddy wanted joint custody and the mother opposed the request, stating that the parties could not speak without screaming at one another. The trial judge granted the parties joint custody and the caretaker appealed the order. The appeal court set aside the order of joint custody and the mother was awarded sole custody.
  
  The Appeal Court held that, for an of joint custody to be granted, there should be some evidence that shows, that despite the parents own strong conflict with each other, the functions can and have cooperated and communicated properly with one another. In this case there was evidence to the contrary, there was no evidence to support the trial judge determine how a joint custody order would improve the childs emotional and psychological needs and the little one was too young to communicate her own desires.
  
  Around the same time frame this case was determined, the Ontario Court of Appeal also ruled on the case of Ladisa v. Ladisa, where the appeal court upheld the trial judges order of joint custody. In cases like this the trial judge had the advantage of hearing evidence of the Childrens Lawyer who introduced the childrens needs and who suggested joint custody. It happened that the trial judge had heard evidence from third parties regarding assistance and proper communication between the parties. The trial judge also looked over the history of co-parenting during the marriage and that despite their extreme conflict, the events could and had efficiently communicated with each other and placed the interests of their children forward their own, when required. To get alternative ways to look at it, please have a view at: columbus ga defense lawyer.
  
  To summarize, in Ontario joint custody cases, it would seem that the courts will now be looking more closely for evidence from 3rd party and professional witnesses, which can demonstrate that the events can and have cooperated and communicated appropriately and have been in a position to put aside their own differences and conflict, for the benefit of the kiddies. The lack of appropriate interaction and historical assistance between the parties can greatly limit the success of the joint custody program. The assumption by some, that the granting of joint custody will enhance the parenting abilities of the parties, will not be a sufficient reason on its own to grant joint custody, in the lack of communication between the parties and present good cooperation.Scot Sikes Attorney at Law
  1320 Wynnton Road, Suite A
  Columbus, GA 31904
  706-494-6900

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">There have been an increasing trend, in Ontario, in family and divorce law, during the last several years, for family courts to obtain joint custody of children. The desire, by some, was that the parenting skills of the parties could be increased with honors of joint custody. The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, has tried to put this development into perspective. <br /> <br /> Within this decision, the parties were married in 1998 and divided in January 2002. The parties had a daughter who was born in October 2001. At trial, the daddy wanted joint custody and the mother opposed the request, stating that the parties could not speak without screaming at one another. The trial judge granted the parties joint custody and the caretaker appealed the order. The appeal court set aside the order of joint custody and the mother was awarded sole custody. <br /> <br /> The Appeal Court held that, for an of joint custody to be granted, there should be some evidence that shows, that despite the parents own strong conflict with each other, the functions can and have cooperated and communicated properly with one another. In this case there was evidence to the contrary, there was no evidence to support the trial judge determine how a joint custody order would improve the childs emotional and psychological needs and the little one was too young to communicate her own desires. <br /> <br /> Around the same time frame this case was determined, the Ontario Court of Appeal also ruled on the case of Ladisa v. Ladisa, where the appeal court upheld the trial judges order of joint custody. In cases like this the trial judge had the advantage of hearing evidence of the Childrens Lawyer who introduced the childrens needs and who suggested joint custody. It happened that the trial judge had heard evidence from third parties regarding assistance and proper communication between the parties. The trial judge also looked over the history of co-parenting during the marriage and that despite their extreme conflict, the events could and had efficiently communicated with each other and placed the interests of their children forward their own, when required. To get alternative ways to look at it, please have a view at: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/user/columbusgalawyer">columbus ga defense lawyer</a>. <br /> <br /> To summarize, in Ontario joint custody cases, it would seem that the courts will now be looking more closely for evidence from 3rd party and professional witnesses, which can demonstrate that the events can and have cooperated and communicated appropriately and have been in a position to put aside their own differences and conflict, for the benefit of the kiddies. The lack of appropriate interaction and historical assistance between the parties can greatly limit the success of the joint custody program. The assumption by some, that the granting of joint custody will enhance the parenting abilities of the parties, will not be a sufficient reason on its own to grant joint custody, in the lack of communication between the parties and present good cooperation.Scot Sikes Attorney at Law <br /> 1320 Wynnton Road, Suite A <br /> Columbus, GA 31904 <br /> 706-494-6900</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top