.webp)
.png)
The primary consideration in determining custody arrangements is the child's best interest. When judges make decisions regarding custody – i.e. whether to award joint or sole custody to parents – they do so while making reference to this standard. Ultimately, courts want whatever is best for children, and what is best for children doesn’t always align with what the parents desire. In many cases, judges are compelled to rule against the express wishes of parents because the evidence of what is best for the children pushes them in that direction.
When judges utilize the best interests of the child principle, they take into account various factors. Judges make their final decision after carefully considering all relevant factors. Many different factors may begiven weight in the context of these analyses. Depending on a child’s age or maturity, a child’s own stated preferences may be a relevant factor. In the case of Karanikas v. Cartwright (2013), controversy arose when a father was displeased with how a judge conducted an interview with a child. Let’s take a closer look at this important case.
Overview of the Case
The couple in this case had one daughter during their marriage. Initially, the couple shared joint physical custody (and joint legal custody) of their daughter, but this arrangement was later changed and the mother received primary physical custody; the father had visitation rights. In2012, the mother notified the court that she intended to relocate (from Maryland) to Pennsylvania. Because the father contested this relocation, the court was compelled to hold a hearing on the matter. Whenever a parent with primary physical custody seeks to relocate, and the other parent contests, a hearing is required to determine whether the relocating parent should be allowed to move forward.
The father wanted the judge to directly ask the child in open court about her preference with respect to living arrangements. The father believed that his daughter preferred to live with him, and so the father wanted this factor to be considered in the relocation analysis. In open court, the judge ultimately declined to ask the child, as the judge believed the child would be placed in an uncomfortable position. However, in his private chambers, the judge eventually did ask the child about her preference; she replied that she had no preference at all. The father appealed the outcome, as he believed that the judge mishandled the interview and, ultimately, unfairly biased the determination. The trial court allowed the relocation to Pennsylvania.
Outcome & Discussion
The father argued that the trial judge should have been disqualified because he failed to conduct the interview with the child in a reasonable fashion. He contended that the judge’s behavior constituted an “abuse of discretion,” and that the judgment should be thrown out as a consequence.
The appellate division rejected the father’s argument. For one thing, judges are necessarily “required” to accept a child’s stated preferences, because child preference is taken on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, a child’s preferences may not be considered, such as those in which the child is not mature enough to give a reliable opinion. Furthermore, in this case, the appellate division found that the judge acted reasonably by not interviewing the child in open court, and then conducting a private interview in his chambers. Plus, a child’s preference is only one factor to be considered when a judge makes a determination. Even if the child had stated a preference to live with the father, a judge could’ve still ruled in favor of the relocation and that would’ve potentially been legitimate. A child’s preference is part of a global analysis, it doesn’t exclude other factors from being considered.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you want more information on this topic, or another related family law matter, reach out to one of the top level attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8963.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
