A Family Friendly Approach to Resolving Child Access

Posted by Michelle May O'Neil on August 22, 2011

When it comes to establishing each parent’s individual roles and their levels of involvement, influence, and time spent with the children, the terms most discussed and debated are joint custody, sole custody, and visitation. Generally, physical child custody (whether sole, shared, or split) really comes down to the amount of time spent with one’s children. Custody in the legal sense (that is, legal custody) governs who will make what types of decisions affecting the health, education, and general welfare of the children and under what circumstances such decisions will be made.

Parent and child un-friendly terms

Basically, without further definition or limitation, a parent with sole legal custody calls all the significant shots with or without the other parent’s “consent” or input. The term custody often provokes anger and resentment between bickering parents. The word custody in its basic and primary sense suggests possession and control.

In moderate to highly contentious cases, the initial fight for control is often a key catalyst to a perpetual battle. The children’s feelings and emotional well-being often get lost in all the posturing that accompanies one’s desire to show the other parent who is in the driver’s seat.

The counterpart to custody is visitation. I “visit” clients in jail. Priests “visit” the dying in hospitals and nursing homes. Doesn’t “visitation” suggest a short stay? Generally, we visit people or places that we don’t see too often. When we are young we shouldn’t be “visiting” our parents, we should be spending time with them. A parent’s perception of terms like custody and visitation often fosters power-based and position-oriented discussions. This is usually not productive when the lives of our children are at stake.

Changing words for the better

In recognizing the power of suggestion and influence that can be derived from legal terms and principles in the area of family law, legal wizards have made significant efforts in the last decade or so to use more appropriate terms when discussing how to govern the lives of our children and the parent-child relationships that are affected by separation and divorce. These days, custody and visitation are more appropriately discussed in terms of child access and parental involvement.

Parents who are caught up in “child access disputes” should take special care to focus their respective and combined efforts in arriving at a fair and reasonable “parenting plan” and a “residential schedule” that works best for their children.

No schedule = no stability

When there is an ongoing fight over child access, it is important to realize that the term stability, in the context of fighting over the division of parental time, is an oxymoron if there is no agreed-upon schedule. When there is an ongoing power struggle to maximize or minimize parental time, the life of the child is anything but “stable.”

Children adapt. The theories or justifications of years past, the “traditional visitation schedule” if you will, that subscribed to the notion that a child needs to only regard one parent’s house as “home” and that he must sleep in the same bed every night is far less important than often proclaimed.

A 50-50 schedule works

While it is not presumed that 50-50 is best for all children in all situations, it sure seems like a fair place to start. Furthermore, I have found that if the parents truly opt to act in accordance with the children’s best interests and if each parent operates from such a position of theoretical and practical equality, it is far more likely that one parent will voluntarily, if, when, and as needed, make the sacrifice of diminished time if it is truly beneficial to the children’s schedule.

Once the power struggle for control and the claim for the overwhelming majority of time are abandoned, it simply will not be as important when compared to what may genuinely be in the children’s best interests.

Court orders must be precise

If the division of time is not mutually satisfactory, or if it is not otherwise possible to arrange a basic schedule with a certain amount of predictability (along with situational flexibility, respect, and cooperation), a court ordered schedule will ultimately be forced upon you. In such situations, any written document or court order must leave nothing open to interpretation. This is still far easier and far less damaging to the children than the constant tug of war that often will occur in parental skirmishes.

How to create a schedule

There are many ways to approach the development of a residential and access schedule. Rather than explain or justify any of them, let’s start with a few basic principles.

  • There is no moral entitlement to anything more than equally dividing the time the children spend with each parent.
  • There is no legal entitlement to equal parenting time.
  • If you and the other parent were both completely committed to working out a schedule that maximizes each parent’s time with the children, you could do it.
  • The children’s best interests are usually served when measured within the reasonable and practical limits of life in general and balanced in particular with the parenting styles and attributes of each parent.
  • If each parent felt secure that they would truly have reasonable and liberal time and access with their children, without being unreasonably rebuffed, the counting of overnights would become less important and a more stable schedule (whatever the percentage of time comes to be) would be more likely to develop on its own.
  • The best schedule is one that minimizes conflict and maximizes the children’s time with each parent.

Although maximizing parental time is very important, it should yield to the best interests of the children. And obviously, each parent’s differing views about what is or is not in the children’s best interests is one of the many contributors to child custody chaos. The desire for power and control are other major contributors.


This article was excerpted for Divorce Magazine with permission from the book Stop Fighting Over the Kids by Mike A. Mastracci

Where We Stand as the Legislature Ends

Posted by Michelle May O'Neil on May 31, 2011

This Legislative Action Update was posted the Texas Family Law Foundation site yesterday by Gary Nickelson.

The 2011 Regular Session of the Texas Legislature expired at midnight May 30th. Whew! That was a lot of work by a lot of people.

It’s great that 10 of the 11 bills of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Texas have passed both houses. Of those, 6 have already been signed into law by Governor Rick Perry. Here are those bills and their effective dates:

  • HB 841 - State agency name updated to DFPS - effective immediately
  • HB 905 - Admissibility of child hearsay - effective September 1, 2011
  • HB 906 - Indigent client appeals in SAPCRs - effective September 1, 2011
  • HB 1404 - Military deployments and kids - effective September 1, 2011
  • SB 785 - Mistaken paternity - effective May 12, 2011
  • SB 820 - Possession of very young kids - effective September 1, 2011

Regarding the other four bills, the Governor has until midnight June 19th to sign, veto or allow to them to go into effect without his signature. Those bills and their effective dates - if they become law - are:

  • HB 901 - Spousal maintenance update - effective September 1, 2011
  • HB 908 - Remedy for fraud on the community - effective September 1, 2011
  • SB 789 - Extended protective orders - effective September 1, 2011
  • SB 819 - Dating/family violence protective orders - effective September 1, 2011

We regret losing HB 910, which allows single people to use gestational agreements. We made headway again, but we’re just not there - yet.

The Texas Family Law Foundation will continue to report to Texas Family Lawyers on the legislative session, as long as there are bills alive down in Austin.
 

 

Dallas divorce specialist teaches lawyers at seminar

Dallas divorce lawyer Michelle May O'Neil presented a speech on pretrial appellate remedies entitled Mandamus and More.  The continuing education conference for Texas divorce lawyers was titled Family Law on the Front Lines and it was held at the Hyatt Regency Hill Country Resort June 18-19, 2009.

Ms. O'Neil discussed the standards for pursing mandamus appellate remedies when a trial court makes an error in the middle of a case, prior to trial, that requires review before a trial can be held.  She, together with co-presenter Rick Flowers of McEvily and Flowers in Houston, discussed the seminal mandamus case of Walker v. Packer that set for the standards for seeking mandamus as requiring a 1) clear abuse of discretion by the trial court, and 2) lack of adequate remedy by appeal at the conclusion of the case.  Further, she reviewed the impact of the 2004 Texas Supreme Court opinion in In re Prudential, which expanded the examination of the adequacy of appellate remedy by adding a balancing test of the detriments versus benefits of mandamus review.  Lastly, Ms. O'Neil examined the 2008 Texas Supreme Court opinion in McAllen Medical Center, which clarified the Prudential balancing test to include an analysis of the expenditure of money, time and judicial resources if mandamus is not considered.