Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W were married in 1999. Their only child, a son, was born in 2007. H and W both have an MBA from Wharton. In 2013, H revealed he had been engaged in another relationship and that he was seeking a different type of life than the one he could have with W. The parties separated. In January 2014, H commenced this divorce action. the parties attempted to agree on a parenting plan. There were countless settlement conferences, both in court and out, and numerous draft agreements exchanged and redlined. Unfortunately, this effort was to no avail, and the parties were unable to reach a compromise. The only disputes were which sports programs the child was going to be enrolled and how many weeks he would attend summer day camp. The trial took place over a number of days in the late summer and fall of 2016, with post-trial briefs submitted at the end of the year. The witnesses were the parties, the person who briefly served as a parent coordinator and later as a consultant to the father, and the psychiatrist appointed by the court to conduct the forensic custody evaluation. The court with the child, accompanied by the attorney for the child, met in an in camera proceeding known as a Lincoln Hearing. The key witness was the forensic psychiatrist. In his forensic report, prepared in the fall of 2015, and his testimony, he provided examples of the father's rigidity and idiosyncrasies, and articulated how making decisions jointly would be an ordeal for the mother because of the father's difficult, often combative, personality. The forensic, however, was clear that both parents possess the 'basic skills and knowledge to be more than competent parents,' and that, although the father was 'rigid about his beliefs,' his 'parenting skills are nevertheless well within the range of normal.' He identified flaws on the part of the mother as well. She too can be rigid, has a tendency to be 'somewhat overprotective' of the child, and is 'angry and resentful' towards the father. Nevertheless, he concluded that because the mother is more sensitive to the child's needs, more able to give consideration to the other parent's views, and because the parents cannot 'work together,' the mother should have final decision-making authority in all areas. In testimony, each parent sought to blame the other for their inability to work together. The evidence shows that when needed, the parties have somehow managed to collectively make major parenting decisions for their child, such as education and medical treatment. What they have been unable to do is make the minor parenting decisions.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co