Define "Custodial Parent"?
Anon
for the "custodial parent". But I can't find a legal definition for
"custodial parent" anywhere. This is important in cases where both
parents share 50% legal and physical custody. Would they both be
considered the CP? Also, there are an odd number of days each year.
Assuming custody IS really split down the middle, one parent would
have custody 182 days, and the other would have 183 days. If
"custodial parent" is defined as the parent with GREATER physical
custody, wouldn't the "custodial parent" flip flop each year....
whoever got 183 days that year?
Where can I find a legal definition for "custodial parent" in
California
Very Determined!
if legal custody were technically 50/50 each would get 182 1/2 days.
Anon
Perhaps that's the case. It may be irrelevant. Given all the
statutes awarding rights to the Custodial Parent, what is the legal
definition of the term? Is it simply the parent with MORE time, or is
some other criteria used? If it's simply a matter of time, then WHO
would be considered the CP if each parent got EXACTLY 262,800 minutes
of custody each year?
Kenneth S.
"Anon" <mpe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190332780....@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
In California, as in other states, if you substitute "mother" for
"custodial parent," you won't go far wrong. If that doesn't quite fit, try
"recipient of child support."
Anon
> "custodial parent," you won't go far wrong. If that doesn't quite fit, try
> "recipient of child support."
Surely there is a legal definition or precident somewhere.
In my situation, if you calculate the actual days of physical custody,
it turns out the dad has the child 51% of the time (mom has 49%). The
father earns substantially more money than the mother, so after
California child support calculations dad (with a slight majority of
custody) pays mom child support. I'm trying to figure out whether the
mother is the CP by virtue of the fact that she gets a check from dad,
OR if Dad is CP because he has more physical custody. There is a
statute that gives a substantial privledge to the CP, I'm just not
sure who that is in this case. How can I find out, or is it at the
judge's discretion?
teachrmama
to be custodial? Has custody always been divided this way, or has it grown
into these percentages over time? How old is (are) the child(ren)? Is
there a chance that they will decide that they would rather live for a
greater percentage of time with one parent rather than the other. IOW, do
you want to define something that might later come back and bite you in the
butt.
"Anon" <mpe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190348879....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Anon
"The parents shall share joint legal custody."
"The parents shall share joint physical custody."
Then goes on to state when the child is in the care and custody of the
father and the mother. Essentially it's split evenly, but there are a
few variances which give slightly more time to the father. Since
custody time is so close and the father makes roughly three times what
the mother makes, he must pay her child support. Still, the
California code is full of language like, "if the custodial parent
[blah, blah, blah] the the noncustodial parent [blah, blah, blah]"
What I haven't found anywhere is a definition of "custodial parent".
Years ago, when most of these laws were written, the courts awarded
custody to one parent and visitation to the other, so it all made
sense. Mom had custody, so she was the "custodial parent", dad
didn't, so he was the "noncustodial parent". But these days, the
courts are awarding "joint custody" and "shared custody". So, to
apply these laws the courts would have to first figure out who's the
CP and who's the NCP. In the code each get very different
priveledges. Yet, I haven't found a legal definition for these terms
in the code anywhere.
Can someone let me know what the courts use to determine who's the CP
with "shared custody" arrangements?
Chris
Welcome to the world of "family court". You will NEVER get any straight
answer because you are dealing with deceptive wicked people. Get used to it.
>
>
Chris
Seems that both "mother" AND "recipient of child support" apply in your
situation. What's the difficulty?
>
>
>
Bob Whiteside
The CS system has a bunch of different designations for custodial parents
depending upon which area of Family Law you are talking about. Here are a
few examples:
Sole Custodial Parent - A parent with full legal and physical custody of
minor children. Sometimes called residential or placement custody.
Joint Custodial Parent - Typically a parental agreement where legal custody
is shared and physical custody is awarded to only one parent. Sometimes
called Joint Legal Custody.
Shared Custodial Parent - A parental agreement where both legal and physical
custody are awarded to both parents. Sometimes called Joint Legal and
Physical Custody.
Custodial Parent - The IRS designation for a never married parent who had
custody of the child for the greater part of a year and meet the dependency
test.
Custodial Parent - The IRS designation for a divorced or separated parent
who meets the three criteria in the support test.
The payment status of parents you described above usually ignores the legal
and physical custody status of the parents because the parents are
designated as the obligor and the obligee. Since you pay that makes you the
obligor even though you have described being a shared parental custody
parent. Since you have more physical custody that means you can meet
probably meet the IRS as a custodial parent using the dependency test and/or
the support test to take the child as an exemption.
An emerging area of Family Law is the use of Parenting Plans to allow the
parents to create their own agreements on how the details of
post-relationship details are implemented.
Chris
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:VpydnRrk_b3YmGnb...@giganews.com...
The above CLEARLY demonstrates the insanity of the government people.
The fact is that one is either a parent or not a parent, with no third
option. No amount of labelling will change such fact.
>
> The payment status of parents you described above usually ignores the
legal
> and physical custody status of the parents because the parents are
> designated as the obligor and the obligee. Since you pay that makes you
the
> obligor even though you have described being a shared parental custody
> parent. Since you have more physical custody that means you can meet
> probably meet the IRS as a custodial parent using the dependency test
and/or
> the support test to take the child as an exemption.
>
> An emerging area of Family Law is the use of Parenting Plans to allow the
> parents to create their own agreements on how the details of
> post-relationship details are implemented.
As if the mother is going to forfeit the FREE CASH she gets for keeping her
child fatherless. LOL.
>
>
Very Determined!
> "Bob Whiteside" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote in message
>
> news:VpydnRrk_b3YmGnb...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Anon" <mpea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
touche
Werebat
@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Well, *I* have 50/50 joint physical and legal custody of my son, which I
share with his mother. In *MY* case, the effective answer has been --
the mother.
It's POSSIBLE that if I earned less money than her, the effective answer
would be ME, but I'm not sure of that. Certainly "the lower earning
parent" seems less gender biased than "the mother", so it would probably
be what a court official would tell you if you asked him about my case.
When I asked a similar question of my lawyer in my case, his answer was
a question -- "Well, who is paying child support to whom?" There ya go.
I pay her money, she doesn't pay me anything, so CSE has lots of
documents labelling her as "custodial" and myself as "non-custodial".
I'm TOLD that this is "just because we don't have forms saying anything
else" and that I "shouldn't worry about any legal ramifications", but,
heh. Who are they kidding?
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
I'm in a similar situation, where we share equal time, no "custodial"
parent is mentioned, but I pay her CS because I work and she just
collects disability.
Part of me wonders if I would succeed if I tried to get CS from HER, on
the grounds that I have as much right to it as she does (it makes
perfect sense to me -- if SHE was working and I was not, you think
they'd leave me alone?). I don't want to rock the boat right now, but
in the future, after I'm off the CS hook, it may be something to
consider, just for fun.
18+ years of back child support might come in handy, even if it's only
whatever the state can mug off of a disabled woman, eh? :^/
- Ron ^*^
Rob
"Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:BsdJi.101392$Vk6....@newsfe07.phx...