Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are splitting costs including daycare 50/50, but one parent is unemployed, that seems very unfair. Why should a parent who is unemployed have to pay for half of daycare that they don't need? Even if they were working, it would be split by income in most states.

I wrote above that I would support the parent who isn't asking for the change, but then reread and realized that that parent seems to be failing to support their child.

Is that true, or are there other financial pieces I'm missing?

I realize I was not very clear.

The petitioner is the mother seeking sole legal custody and to change the 50/50 parenting time schedule. She is unemployed. The mother was willing to continue paying for half of preschool and was able to do so as she was collecting unemployment for 52 weeks. She has continued to utilize preschool during her parenting time as she was attending a certificate program in the hopes of starting a new career. Her unemployment recently ended and she is hoping to start a small business in the next few months to support her household.

The respondent who was willing to agree to joint legal custody and wishes to maintain the status quo 50/50 parenting time is the father and is employed full time and maintains health insurance for the child.

Is he paying child support? Unless her unemployment is equal to his income, or she has some other source of income, then he should be paying substantial child support.

There was no custody order or child support order prior to this case being filed. Prior to her unemployment, the two parents were making roughly the same salary and neither party felt the need for child support to be ordered. Child support will be calculated and ordered as part of the custody case.

Looking at the entirety of the law, it sounds like the judge can order joint custody, and then the parents can agree to it.

I would think that if the judge orders joint, and one parent refuses, the other parent should get sole legal custody. But I am not a judge.

I would think that a mother asking for sole custody, who is offered a choice between joint and none, would become amenable to joint custody.

What is her basis for asking for a change?

Is there a current custody agreement or is it informal since there was no divorce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are splitting costs including daycare 50/50, but one parent is unemployed, that seems very unfair. Why should a parent who is unemployed have to pay for half of daycare that they don't need? Even if they were working, it would be split by income in most states.

I wrote above that I would support the parent who isn't asking for the change, but then reread and realized that that parent seems to be failing to support their child.

Is that true, or are there other financial pieces I'm missing?

I realize I was not very clear.

The petitioner is the mother seeking sole legal custody and to change the 50/50 parenting time schedule. She is unemployed. The mother was willing to continue paying for half of preschool and was able to do so as she was collecting unemployment for 52 weeks. She has continued to utilize preschool during her parenting time as she was attending a certificate program in the hopes of starting a new career. Her unemployment recently ended and she is hoping to start a small business in the next few months to support her household.

The respondent who was willing to agree to joint legal custody and wishes to maintain the status quo 50/50 parenting time is the father and is employed full time and maintains health insurance for the child.

Is he paying child support? Unless her unemployment is equal to his income, or she has some other source of income, then he should be paying substantial child support.

OP here adding these two factors that may be relevant

4) In determining custody of a minor child under ORS 107.105 (Provisions of judgment) or 107.135 (Vacation or modification of judgment), the court shall consider the conduct, marital status, income, social environment or lifestyle of either party only if it is shown that any of these factors are causing or may cause emotional or physical damage to the child.

5) No preference in custody shall be given to the mother over the father for the sole reason that she is the mother, nor shall any preference be given to the father over the mother for the sole reason that he is the father.

Anonymous wrote:If they are splitting costs including daycare 50/50, but one parent is unemployed, that seems very unfair. Why should a parent who is unemployed have to pay for half of daycare that they don't need? Even if they were working, it would be split by income in most states.

I wrote above that I would support the parent who isn't asking for the change, but then reread and realized that that parent seems to be failing to support their child.

Is that true, or are there other financial pieces I'm missing?

I realize I was not very clear.

The petitioner is the mother seeking sole legal custody and to change the 50/50 parenting time schedule. She is unemployed. The mother was willing to continue paying for half of preschool and was able to do so as she was collecting unemployment for 52 weeks. She has continued to utilize preschool during her parenting time as she was attending a certificate program in the hopes of starting a new career. Her unemployment recently ended and she is hoping to start a small business in the next few months to support her household.

The respondent who was willing to agree to joint legal custody and wishes to maintain the status quo 50/50 parenting time is the father and is employed full time and maintains health insurance for the child.

Is the jobless man wanting full custody?

If they are splitting costs including daycare 50/50, but one parent is unemployed, that seems very unfair. Why should a parent who is unemployed have to pay for half of daycare that they don't need? Even if they were working, it would be split by income in most states.

I wrote above that I would support the parent who isn't asking for the change, but then reread and realized that that parent seems to be failing to support their child.

Is that true, or are there other financial pieces I'm missing?

Anonymous wrote:I mean, look it's heavily jurisdiction specific, fact specific, and even judge specific. You need to talk to your lawyer.

My lawyer said it could go either way. Just looking for other thoughts and angles I haven't considered.

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea what the court would find, as I don't live in a state that operates that way, but I think that unless the parent seeking full custody has some strong evidence that the other parent is unfit, the fact that they're seeking to take a child away from their other parent, is a sign that they aren't putting the child's needs first, and I'd lean towards finding for the other parent, although maybe with a suggestion that they go back to mediation and see if they can get to joint custody.

Does the state allow 50/50 physical custody and just not legal custody? I can't really imagine someone having the kids 50% of the time, and not being able to make decisions for them.

Yes, legal custody and parenting time are completely separate and the state is very pro 50/50 parenting time. If the parents live in the same area and one parent desires 50/50 it is almost always ordered barring demonstrated abuse or neglect. It is extremely unlikely that in this case either parents parenting time will be reduced from the status quo of 50/50.

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it will probably go to the mother. The cultural bias for younger kids is that the mother gets custody. In most cases that is fair, because mothers are doing more work. They're taking care of scheduling doctor's appointments and dealing with the school and scheduling sports and classes and doing more hands on care. If the parents are doing equal work, that bias is unfair to the father, but in most cases, women are doing most of the work so it's fair.

The flip side of this is that if men fight for custody, they tend to win.

The reality is that it will probably go to the mother. The cultural bias for younger kids is that the mother gets custody. In most cases that is fair, because mothers are doing more work. They're taking care of scheduling doctor's appointments and dealing with the school and scheduling sports and classes and doing more hands on care. If the parents are doing equal work, that bias is unfair to the father, but in most cases, women are doing most of the work so it's fair.

50/50 and it sucks

I mean, look it's heavily jurisdiction specific, fact specific, and even judge specific. You need to talk to your lawyer.

I have no idea what the court would find, as I don't live in a state that operates that way, but I think that unless the parent seeking full custody has some strong evidence that the other parent is unfit, the fact that they're seeking to take a child away from their other parent, is a sign that they aren't putting the child's needs first, and I'd lean towards finding for the other parent, although maybe with a suggestion that they go back to mediation and see if they can get to joint custody.

Does the state allow 50/50 physical custody and just not legal custody? I can't really imagine someone having the kids 50% of the time, and not being able to make decisions for them.

I am in a state where joint legal custody (separate from parenting time) cannot be ordered unless both parties agree. If one party objects to joint custody, the court orders sole legal custody (ability to make unilateral decisions about education, medical care, and religion) to one party, considering these factors:

(a)The emotional ties between the child and other family members;
(b)The interest of the parties in and attitude toward the child;
(c)The desirability of continuing an existing relationship;
(d)The abuse of one parent by the other;
(e)The preference for the primary caregiver of the child, if the caregiver is deemed fit by the court; and
(f)The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child. However, the court may not consider such willingness and ability if one parent shows that the other parent has sexually assaulted or engaged in a pattern of behavior of abuse against the parent or a child and that a continuing relationship with the other parent will endanger the health or safety of either parent or the child.

In this situation, the two parties were not married but were domestic partners and the father is on the birth certificate through voluntary establishment of paternity. The child is 5, and the parents have been separated for almost 3 years. Since the separation they have maintained a 50/50 parenting time schedule without any court order, switching every 7 days. There is no history of abuse by either parent. Both parents have an equal interest in the child and continuing the existing relationship.

The petioner has shown intent to reduce the other's time to every other weekend and will not agree to joint legal custody. The respondent wishes to keep the status quo of 50/50 parenting time in the final order and has shown interest in joint legal custody. They split daycare/preschool costs equally. One party has always maintained and paid for the child's health insurance policy since birth. The other party (that is seeking sole legal custody and majority parenting time) does not have insurance available to the child, as this party has not worked for the past year.

What do you think the court will look at in this case? Happy to add any relevant details.