SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Beauty and the Banned
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (110)12/22/2004 6:40:49 PM
From: Kevin Rose  Read Replies (1) of 691
 
Every custody battle is tough, and the best interests of the child are rarely served. It really is the best interests of the child, given the realities and rights of the parents. For example, the 'best interests' of the child might be to force both parents to live close together, especially if neither parent has a significant other (thus, giving the child both mother and father).

My opinion is that it should be treated as any other case where there is a divorce, and one parent moves out of state. I don't know how judges handle these things; that is, do they normally give the child to the mother, or the one that stays? I suppose there are a number of factors, including which will give the child a 'better' home.

As far as conflicting state laws, maybe the state where the union was granted should be the 'juristiction' state?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News