Joint vs Shared?

[suddenlysinglemom]

I moved out with my two children this past week and am trying to come to a mutual agreement with their father - I'm just wondering if anyone knows the best route to word a document which we are trying to come up with together - he wants joint - I am not sure if it's the same as shared - but originally I wanted sole.

He's still willing to pay the support - have them alternate weekends and a few times through the week.. but I don't want to get screwed and yet trying to keep things civil between us so he doesn't need to pay the $ for a lawyer (where as I know I'd get legal aid)


Thanks for readin' & any feedback.

Kindly,

K.

[Suchislife]

Shared custody is not the same as joint.

Shared custody is sharing the parenting equal time.

Joint custody is both parents having legal custody of the children. Usually one parent is the primary caregiver. Access is then determined to be as little or as much as suits both parties.

A parent with sole custody of a child does not have to consult the other parent in making decisions for the child. The other parent forfeits their right to be involved when they give up custody. Access is then set to suit both parents.

[today]

Good evening suddenly single,

The reply you recieved clearly states the difference between shared and joint. However I get the impression (hopefully mistakenly) that you are more concerned with getting "screwed" if I understand correctly meaning losing out on full child support. Generally using the children to ensure monetary gain through child support is not something you would admit openly, generally the parents would share expensed and cs in an offset type of arrangement relating to each income.

It is very important to remeber that each parent is entitled to equal access to the children, one must be carefull thinking that they have a right to determine the time the other may share. Although some appear to think they dictate what they will "permit". I presume if in front of a judge through case conference, motion and then through trial if you wish a parent would likely gain equal parenting time and an offset cs payment given that there in no threat to te child and a desire by to other parent.

All that to say no matter how you word your agreement he could always apply for a change in circumstances as can you.

Perhaps negotiating a fair cs payment to you now would avoid any future problems of getting "screwed"
What was your point about getting screwed again???

[supermean]

Wow. So you would rather screw your children by blocking their access to their father just so you could get some financial benefits? Seems like he is a responsible parent to agree to pay the child support but but not responsible enough to protect his children from greedy parent like you.

You need not to worry. The whole justice system in on your side since you got the "possession" of the kids.

[mylesc]

very well put superman

[KainAndrews]

THE LIZ LIBRARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

[KainAndrews]

To answer your question, from my own research:

Regarding the custodial terms:

While courts these days are generally swaying away from the semantics of the terms of use in custody, Joint custody, often Joint legal Custody, is a common term used to describe a parenting situation where both parents are recognised as having the care and decision making of the children.

Shared Parenting is sometimes used interchangably with Joint custody, depending on the province or country you are in, however this term often implies that the parenting time is shared almost if not exactly equally.

"primary caregiver" as a term is sometimes used although often not designated because it gets some peoples "back up". So any term that might add conflict they try to eliminate. That said, each judge has their own mind about that one, some are more traditional than others.

Usually, its the parenting time that becomes the most important factor indetermining the nature of the arrangement. Ie, if one parent sees the children about 40% of the time, and the children are with the other parent the rest of the time, then the arrangement itself will imply what kind of custodial arrangement it is. And they would probably blanket that with "joint custody".

Have you considered a counsellor who also does mediation who might be able to assist you both in coming up with an agreement that you are both comfortable with? I don't know the details of the situation but in that case the counsellor can also help in restructuring your relationship to eachother in a way that means you can communicate and cooperate better that you did within the marriage itself. Which is absolutely essential for Joint custody to work, not to mention shared parenting, which requires a former couple who are either very amicable or willing to try to be, since otherwise conflict can escalate.

Try to ignore the angry comments on the forum. Clearly some folks have been very hurt by their partners and perhaps by the courts themselves, and they are still holding onto that. I hope they too can heal.

Either way, its worth a try to do this on your own and stay out of court. So good for you! And keep trying.

[billm]

Originally Posted by KainAndrews

THE LIZ LIBRARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

This site is a war chest for people who want to characterize fathers as not as capable as mothers to raise children, and have sole custody for women the default in child custody after divorce. That concept is morally reprehensible to me, a father of 3 happy kids with equal joint physical custody after separation. Fortunately my former spouse agrees with me and we practically did not even discuss custody because it was obvious that our children need us equally.

As with married parents, it should be proven that you are a bad parent for you to have your right to raise your child removed, not the default assumption that you are incapable, or at the least less capable than your partner, simply based on gender!

[KainAndrews]

I actually found the site to have some valid points about how one might approach parenting in separation. There are 3 sides to any story: his, hers and the truth. So I find its important to always look at the big picture, and while the site had its slants, so do the sites I find that are slanted the other way. Each philosphy can have its good and bad points. Its good in a way that courts tend to take each case individually, since one method might work well for some, but not as well for others.

Sounds like this is a very sensitive subject for you. I am glad that you and your spouse were able to work something out amicably, not everyone is that lucky. Its a complicated issue, one that often requires the outcome to be specifically tailored to the individuals involved.

All the best.

[billm]

Originally Posted by KainAndrews

.... Its good in a way that courts tend to take each case individually, since one method might work well for some, but not as well for others.

That is the problem with that particular site - it tries to paint men with same brush, and use that to set policies regarding custody and support. Statistically as a man I may be more likely to be this way or that, but the fundamental aspect of a just society is that I am not to be stereotyped, but rather judged/assessed as an individual, with the default assumption that I am a well adjusted and normal person and specifically in this context, a loving and capable parent.

The site mentioned is a mastery of intentional misinformation and self proclaimed 'facts', exclusively against men, and I don't trust information presented there in anyway (nor the sites they mention representing 'fathers rights' for that matter).

Originally Posted by KainAndrews

Sounds like this is a very sensitive subject for you.

Absolutely, there is no subject more important to me than my family, and raising my kids equally with their mother.