Podcast Summary
Domestic violence in child custody cases: History of domestic violence can influence custody arrangements, but it doesn't always prevent a parent from having significant time with the child. Cases can be lengthy and complex, with dismissals of restraining orders possible.
Domestic violence can significantly impact child custody cases, even when it has been an issue from the beginning of a relationship. In the case of HH vs. AM, a mother and father who shared a child had a history of domestic violence dating back to the pregnancy. Despite this, they found themselves in court over custody orders, which granted the father significant time with the child. The case spanned over five years and involved numerous custody exchanges that led to discord between the parties. Despite allegations of domestic violence, competing requests for restraining orders were dismissed. It's important for anyone involved in a family law case, especially those involving domestic violence, to be aware of the potential impact on custody arrangements.
Obtaining both an EPO and DVRO for domestic violence protection: Immediate safety from EPOs and long-term protection from DVROs are crucial for those experiencing domestic violence. Don't delay filing for a DVRO after obtaining an EPO.
In cases of domestic violence, obtaining both an Emergency Protective Order (EPO) through the police and a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) through the courts can provide the best protection for those in danger. While an EPO is crucial for immediate safety, it has an expiration date. Therefore, it's essential to follow up with a DVRO to secure long-term safety and custody arrangements. In this specific case, the mother received an EPO in 2019 but didn't file for a DVRO until a year later due to ongoing abuse. Despite the restraining order being pending, visitation was temporarily reinstated based on the children's suffering from the lack of contact with their father. Ultimately, the mother's request for a DVRO was granted, and she was awarded sole legal and physical custody in accordance with the Family Code.
Court changes custody arrangement without proper justification: A court's error in denying a father's opportunity to rebut custody presumption and failure to issue a statement of decision led to a reversal of the custody ruling.
During a child custody hearing, the court made a significant change from joint physical and legal custody to sole physical custody for the mother, despite the father's argument that he had not been properly denied the opportunity to rebut the presumption against awarding custody to a domestic abuser. The court also failed to issue a statement of decision as requested by the mother, which could have provided clear findings of fact in the case. The court of appeals later ruled that the trial court had made an error in both regards, and the case was sent back for further proceedings.
Rebutting the presumption of joint custody in domestic violence cases: In domestic violence cases, to rebut the presumption of joint legal and physical custody, perpetrators must provide evidence of completing batterers treatment, drug/alcohol treatment, complying with probation/parole, and no further acts of violence. However, these are not mandatory, and courts can still rebut the presumption in other ways.
In family court cases involving domestic violence, the presumption of joint legal and physical custody can be rebutted by the perpetrator, but they must provide evidence of completing a batterers treatment program, drug or alcohol treatment program, complying with probation or parole terms, and showing no further acts of domestic violence. However, these are not mandatory, and the court can still find that the presumption has been rebutted in other ways. In the discussed case, the father did not provide any evidence to rebut the presumption and the court did not make specific findings on the record. The court of appeal found this to be an abuse of discretion and reversed the decision, remanding it back for further proceedings. It is recommended that parents in similar situations start working on these requirements as soon as possible to strengthen their case.
Court orders' labels don't change their legal effect: Labels like 'joint custody' or 'visitation' don't alter the actual time-sharing arrangement or legal rights and responsibilities.
That labeling a court order, such as joint or sole legal and physical custody, does not change its legal effect. The court in this case emphasized the importance of considering the significant physical custody time each parent has, rather than the label given to the arrangement. The court also noted that a statutory definition of "significant time" for identifying joint physical custody arrangements does not exist, and previous cases have provided guidelines for determining what constitutes significant time. The court's decision serves as a reminder that attempts to circumvent section 3044 by characterizing orders in a certain way are not valid. The court in the Cecilia s case also made it clear that labeling an order as visitation instead of joint physical custody does not change the substance of the arrangement.
Custodial time definitions vary for joint and sole physical custody: Joint physical custody doesn't always mean equal time, while sole physical custody may allow for limited visitation, recent court decisions suggest.
The distinction between joint physical custody and sole physical custody is not strictly defined by a specific percentage of time spent with each parent. While joint physical custody typically implies nearly equal time, sole physical custody may allow for more limited visitation. However, recent appellate court decisions suggest that even alternate weekend visitation and occasional dinner visits may still result in sole physical custody for the other parent. This clarification of custodial time definitions will be important for legal professionals and could potentially impact domestic violence cases.
Effective communication and collaboration: Clear and concise messaging, active listening, engaging with others, technology and data, human connection, and empathy are key to successful communication and collaboration
Key takeaway from our discussion on exhibit A is the importance of effective communication and collaboration in achieving success. We learned that having a clear and concise message, as well as actively listening and engaging with others, can lead to better outcomes. Additionally, the use of technology and data can enhance communication and facilitate collaboration, but it's important to remember that human connection and empathy are still essential components of successful interactions. Overall, the ability to build meaningful relationships and work together effectively is crucial for individuals and organizations looking to succeed in today's complex and rapidly changing world.
