This may be true in many cases, but legally the other parent could easily pick the kids up from the third party and establish temporary custody rights. Once there is a court order for temporary custody, it is very hard to change.Yitzchak said:Oh, one afterthought. The best place for children of divorcing parties is often with a relative. Because in my experience neither parent who is involved in a divorce is in the shape to care for their children. They are just not able to emotionally for some time afterwards. Some parents may put on a better front than others but they are just not in a place to focus on the emotional needs of the child when their whole world is falling apart.
Also putting the children in the place of choosing one parent over the other parent is a terrible thing for a child. a loving third party is often a good neutral place while the emotional transiiton takes place.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard of moms (or dads) losing custody of their kids because they left them temporarily, assuming they should be able to get them back when they got their life together.
Don't kid yourself. The courts give the status quo a lot of weight, even when the situation is only temporary. That's why Marcia Clark fought for custody of her kids while she was in the middle of the OJ Simpson trial, working 6 am-10 pm, and having no time for her kids. Of course they would have been better off with their dad during this time. But she was a lawyer and had many lawyer friends. They told her that if she let them stay with their dad temporarily, she would have a very hard time ever getting them back.
This is hard. The courts are supposed to do what's best for the child, but there is a very strong presumption that what the parents do when they first separate is what they think is best for the children long-term.
Upvote
0