Posted by: koherston | March 10, 2010

Howe v. Howe

After a long custody trial where the parents focused on disparaging one another, the trial court designated the father as the primary residential parent because the court felt the father was the parent more likely to encourage a close relationship with the other parent.  Affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals notes this factor is often dispositive when the trial turns into a mud-slinging contest.  The wise lawyer will remain cognizant of this when assailing the opposing party (and when preparing his or her client to testify) in a child custody contest.

Howe v. Howe (Tenn. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2010).


Responses

  1. […] The Court of Appeals agreed with Father and sent the case back to the trial court “to establish a suitable schedule of supervised visitation.” This result is consistent with other cases holding that a court should establish the least restrictive visitation schedule that will allow the maintenance of a parent-child relationship. The Court of Appeals also reminded Mother of her obligation to encourage the children to have “a close and continuing parent-child relationship” with Father (for more on that issue, see my earlier post). […]

  2. […] I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: a parent should do everything he or she can to encourage, foster, and promote the child’s relationship with the other parent.  Failure to do so may very well result in a change of custody. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: