Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The difference between joint/shared custody

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The difference between joint/shared custody

    Hi,
    I was just wondering what is the "big" difference between joint and shared custody?
    What makes parents seek shared over joint?
    Im still left wondering, is it just about the money?
    Do some parents wonder, if it's really about the children then why not just go joint? If it's a difference between paying and seeing your children then joint should be the way to go, no?
    Shared custody, unless it's been 50/50, both parents can co-parent and provide the children with things they need etc.
    But to only increase time so you don't have to pay more is just bull!
    Just want some feed back on everyone's feelings.

  • #2
    I guess maybe if you know for a fact that the ex is living off this money or demanding more and more then I can see why.
    I dont want to spend more than I need for our child, would love to put aside money so we both dont have to dish out the big $$$$ when our child goes to become a doctor...
    ha ha just kidding, I ment for a proper education

    Comment


    • #3
      it's not either-or.

      You will have sole OR joint. (sole means one parent makes decisions, joint means both parents make decisions)

      And at the same time, you will have shared OR non-shared (describes if time is split within 40/60, which then affects CS payments).
      Last edited by dinkyface; 02-16-2010, 10:25 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        My understanding of it is sole- one parent has physical and legal custody of the child(ren)
        Joint- both willing to be able to communicate while the child(ren) reside with one parent and the other has access (dont know how else to call it) and both make decisions
        Shared- 40/60 or 50/50 split, cs is less or given to the parent with lower income while each parent provides the child(ren) with necessities when with each parent

        Comment


        • #5
          Is it possible to have sole physical custody and joint legal custody?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tugofwar View Post
            Is it possible to have sole physical custody and joint legal custody?
            Joint custody should always be preferable. As pointed out before joint custody means both parents make decisions on the child's behalf. Where the child lives is an entirely separate matter.

            I think its a matter of vocabulary in that custody applies to both situations. Anyone got a better single word to describe the living arrangements of a child. Thats two words. Can anyone make it one word?

            Comment


            • #7
              I thnk it is Sole Physical Custody vs Shared Parenting and Sole Legal Custody vs Joint Legal Custody.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sole = One parent makes all the decisions, and has the children > 60% of the time.

                Joint = Both parents make major decisions, but one parent has the child(ren) greater than 60% of the time.

                Shared = Both parents make major decisions, custody shared 50-50 or 60-40.

                Shared is supposed to be your default situation by law, barring instances of abuse/mitigating circumstances.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Just a question, who came up with the 60/40 rule?

                  Based on a typical year of 365 days, on average each month has 30.4 days. So, if one parent has the children 12 days a month, he/she would only have the children 39.5% of the time. And, according to the "law" this is considered as a sole custody situation for the parent that has the children for the 60.5% of the time.

                  In my situation, we have the children 50/50 of the time. Based our respective incomes, I'm expected to pay my ex about $2000/month (that's the full setoff approach). Now, it I had the children only 3 extra days a month, my ex would have to pay me $500/month.

                  Let's consider this for a moment, based on "the system", if I were able to get the children only 3 extra days a month, instead of paying $2000/month I would receive $500/month. Wow, that seems reasonable! I would go from -ve $2000/month to +ve $500/month, a swing of $2500/month ($30,000/year) for a difference of 3 days/month.

                  That's how important that 60/40 rule is. Check out the case laws, hundreds of people go to court to argue that the other parent doesn't have at least the 40%. Isn't that silly, using court time and wasting our money to figure this out. The system is setup to have people fighting for the $$$$. Just have a sliding scale, you have the kids 35% of the time, you get 35% of the pot, simple.

                  In my case, if I could have my children with me 100%, I would not give a damn about the $$$ that my ex could give me. The biggest thing she took away from me when she decided to leave the marriage to try out other dudes, was 50% of my life with my children. I would take that back with no money.

                  JDaddy

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I hate the 60-40 rule too, but imagine how much EXTRA bickering (not to mention FRO screwups) there would be if every 5% change meant a recalculation of CS!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      JDaddy, Im with you on that. Why does it always come back to money....If my ex would have left alone, I would not be here and I would not have asked for a dime. She left because she was not happy with ME ....but my kids were very happy , so why should the kids suffer because she and I were not happy? If a parent can not afford the kids on their own and the other parent can and wants the kids ....why not have the kids stay with the parent who can afford them , and save the courts time and money? (of course as long as both parents are good parents)

                      Also I think ...in my opinion, there would be far less bickering if money was left out of it. I do think you would start to see a trend of the custodial parent not putting up so much of a fight when the other wants to see the children. Money is used far to often as a way of "sticking it" to the other parent just out of spite. Again not all situations are the same so I dont know what the answer is ...but the way it is now is insane. All the money wasted on lawyers and courts ...should be spent on the kids and living, not spent fighting over seeing the kids.

                      Comment

                      Our Divorce Forums
                      Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                      Working...
                      X