In Grace v. Wood, 1982 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 7, *1, 39 Pa. D. & C.3d 72, 72 (Pa. C.P. Jan. 21, 1982) the Courts were confronted with the decision of whether to award joint custody. Both parents had remarried and ended up living within three miles of each other. At some point the father had relinquished physical custody of the two minor children as he worked out of the country. He returned and remarried and began living close to the mother of the children. The mother had also remarried.
The children were interviewed and it was determined that both children had warm relationships with both parents, their step-parents and their step-siblings. The Court stated: “The overriding issue before us is whether the children’s best interests will be served by their legally being placed under joint custody of both the natural father and mother, rather than remaining under the sole custody of the mother. We have concluded that the children’s interests will be so served.”
The Court also stated that the fundamental principle, now firmly entranced in the law of this Commonwealth, is that our polestar is the best interests and welfare of the children. Com. ex. rel. Spriggs v. Carson, 470 Pa. 290, 368 A.2d 635 (1977); Com. ex rel. Parikh v. Parikh, 449 Pa. 105, 296 A.2d 625 (1972); Wenger v. Wenger, 267 Pa. Super. 134, 406 A.2d 555 (1979); Com. ex rel. Grillo v. Schuster, 226 Pa. Super. 29, 312 A.2d 58 (1973).
The major question before the court was not the determination of how much time the children were to spend with each parent, but instead the rights to make major life decisions for the minor children. Reading between the lines here, the father and mother did not agree on the schooling issues and other life decisions confronting the children. The Court felt both parents were warm and loving. The Court relied on logic from an out of state court – The Missouri Court of Appeals in Lewis v. Lewis, 301 S. W. 2d 861, at 863 (Mo. App. 1957):
“Where the father and mother were proper persons, both are not only entitled to reasonable access to their children, but the best interests of the children will in fact be served by an arrangement where they may associate with both parents … it can hardly be denied that the boys, having reached the ages of eight and 10 years, stand in a position where they need guidance, supervision and love and affection of their father as well as their mother.”
The Court observed the father and was impressed by his love and interest in the children – which they found was an important positive factor in the custody ruling. Moreover, the children also indicated to the Court that they wanted to spend time with their father. The boys had already had alternating physical custody and seemed to handle the situation well – likely influenced by the parent’s proximity. This preference was also an important factor. In re Snellgrose, 432 Pa. 158, 247 A.2d 598 (1968); Carlisle Appeal, 225 Pa. Super. 181, 510 A.2d 280 (1973); compare Com. v. Hickey, 213 Pa. Super. 349, 242 A.2d 806 (1968). The Court also noted that the joint custody arrangement also was minimally disruptive to the lives of the children.
The Court stated that: “We believe the benefits to the children of having their parents share responsibility for major decisions outweighs the detriments. We expressly disapprove of the common situation where the noncustodial parent is ousted from the child’s life, and barred from the decision-making process. Being the custodial parent in no way accords the right to have the other parent kept in the dark. If a sole custodial parent has the ultimate authority, possessing the power and the legal right to decide, then it inexorably follows that the noncustodial parent’s beliefs are capable of utter disregard. Such result we here seek to avoid, for we believe it not in the best interests of the children to have one parent so powerless. In expressing such general disapprobation, we do not suggest that Sara has so excluded Brewster; rather, this must not happen in the future.”
Moreover, the Court noted: “Sole custody tends both to isolate children from the noncustodial parent and to place heavy financial and emotional burdens on the sole caretaker… see Bratt [Joint Custody], 67 Ky. L.J. at 275; Miller, Joint Custody 13 Fam. L.W. 345, 354-57 (1979) … Moreover, because of the absolute nature of sole-custody determinations, in which one parent ‘wins’ and the other ‘loses’, the children are likely to become the subject of bitter custody contests and post-decree tension. Id. at 355. The upshot is that the best interests of the child are disserved by many aspects of sole custody.”
Thus, the Court determined that joint custody was not only better for the children – but it was also beneficial considering the circumstances.
The takeaway here is that being a good parent and providing a good household environment is a lodestone in custody determinations and further that in general Courts will likely prefer arrangements that empower parents equally in custodial and decision-making circumstances.