Friday, March 7, 2014
More Single Dads? What Does the Other Side Think?
As a follow up to the previous post on a possible presumption of shared custody, I thought I would also outline the other side of the argument. A shared custody schedule works well for children of parents who reside in close proximity and are able to work together well for the child’s benefit.
For many children, equal custodial arrangements for the parents can be difficult. Some children feel overburdened by the alternating home life and a shared custody schedule and frequent exchanges can cause increased parental conflict that has a negative effect on the child. In addition, some children feel insecure and anxious due to alternating homes. If the parents can work together to apply similar rules, schedules, and structure in their respective homes, the child will feel less stress.
Some argue that a shared custodial schedule is simply to benefit the emotional needs of the parent rather than the child. In 1979, California adopted a presumption for joint custody but later amended the law to allow joint custody only when the parents agreed to it.
Whatever the trend, both sides of the argument should be balanced by what is in the best interest of the child. In Washington, we do not have a joint custody presumption; however, there is certainly a trend toward joint custody. In addition, the court will review other factors such as a history of domestic violence by either parent, drug or alcohol abuse by either parent, child abuse, or even seemingly innocuous “issues” such as distance between the parents’ households.
Copyright © 2014 Wong Fleming, All rights reserved.
Rachel Luke is a attorney in the Bellevue office of Wong Fleming. Ms. Luke practices family law and represents clients on divorces, custody issues, parenting plans, child support, and more.
The Wong Fleming Web Page and all of the information on the website are public resources of general information and entertainment which are intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete and up-to-date. This website may also be considered advertising under various jurisdiction rules governing attorney professional conduct, but it is not intended and does not constitute legal advice. The reader should not consider transmission of these materials to create an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel in the reader’s jurisdiction. Wong Fleming does not intend links on the website to be referrals or endorsements of the linked entities, and offers no comment regarding the contents of other websites linked to this website. Wong Fleming does not wish to represent anyone desiring information based upon viewing this website in a state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Materials appearing at this website may only be reproduced in their entirety (without modification, and must include this Disclaimer)
Before proceeding, please note: If you are not a current client of Wong Fleming, please do not include any information in this e-mail that you or someone else considers to be of a confidential or secret nature. Wong Fleming has no duty to keep confidential any of the information you provide. Neither the transmission nor receipt of your information is considered a request for legal advice, securing legal services or retaining a lawyer. An attorney-client relationship with Wong Fleming or any lawyer at Wong Fleming is not established until and unless Wong Fleming agrees to such a relationship as reflected in a separate writing.