Paxton's Case Study

Child relocation laws and best practices in the United States vary from state to state. Child custody in Arizona is defined as “legal decision-making” for the child and visitation is known as “parenting time”. The term “child custody” is no longer used, effective January 1, 2013. The court can order one or both parties to have legal decision-making authority for the child(ren) and consider many factors, falling under A.R.S. 25-403. In the case of joint legal decision-making authority, both parents must work together to make decisions regarding the child. If one parent is granted sole legal decision-making authority, they make decisions about the child without consenting the other parent as long as it

Randy Rand, Deidre Rand, and Richard Warshak developed the Family Bridges program (Warkshak, 2010). “The Family Bridges workshop has helped families with alienated children throughout the U.S. and other countries for the past 23 years” (Family Bridges: A Workshop for Troubled and Alienated Parent-Child Relationships, 2004-2013). The program was created for participation by the rejected parent and the child. It is a four-day residential, educational and experiential program. Participation in the intervention occurs when the court has made an interim or permanent award of custody to the rejected parent, and has referred the parent and child(ren)to Family

Identify and investigate these contemporary issues relating to family law and evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses to these issues

     According to many the custody of a child should be determined with the best interest of the child in mind. However, it is not easy for a

Child custody have been an issue for many years but no clear rules have been established until approximately in the 1970’s. In the early colonial years, the arrangement was unappealing to children and their mothers and possibly doing psychologically damage. Luckily, history has evolved and children’s well-being has become a priority in divorce cases.

The aim of Australia’s family law while responding the ever changing values of society, is to achieve justice in any activity it undertakes. The success of this is valued and determined by whether any significant action has been taken as a result, and what the effects of such actions are on improving the situations of all parties involved. The effectiveness of family law on changing values cannot be determined when regarded as a whole. However, when broken down into certain values, such as in the topic of best interest of the child during separation and the issue of surrogacy, it can be seen that Australia’s family laws are not effective in levelling with the community’s changing values.

Again, Section 24 authorizes the court to determine immediate “removal of a child from his home for the only reason to protect the child from serious abuse or neglect.” See Care & Protection of Robert. According to G.L. c. 119, Section 1, the court must “take into account the presumption that a child’s best interests generally are best served if the child is able to remain with her natural

Family law is the most complex aspect of the Australian legal system as it is constantly under review and reform pursuing to adopt society’s continual change in values and principles. The changing of laws in an attempt to be parallel with society is a strenuous process. Nevertheless, legislations are reflective of contemporary society’s values and ethics. Numerous legal issues arise in regards to family including, same sex relationships, domestic violence and divorce ideally on the best interest of the child, where family laws have been imposed to protect individuals and aim to achieve justice.

With fault based divorce in the 1960s, child custody depended primarily on the child’s age. If the child was under seven years old, also known as the ‘tender years,’ the mother would receive physical custody. This was because of the belief at the time that women are good caregivers and it was their job to take care of the children at home. However, if the children were older, custody would be granted to the parent of the same sex. Sometimes judges would also award custody of children dependent on martial or sexual conduct of the spouses. When custody was awarded in this way, the presiding judge could be more focused on the rights of the parents than what is best for the child in that situation. Either way, it was quite noticeable that child custody was based on the judge and their opinion, which could change from case to case.

Kline Pruett, M., Williams Y., Insabella, G., and Little, T.D., 2003) Counselors who Are Court-Appointed as Child Custody Evaluators. Retrieved from

Decisions about the circumstances under which children may be removed from their parents and placed in state-supervised foster care raise constitutional as well as policy questions. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deprive life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”The Supreme Court has long established that the Due Process Clause provides “heightened protection” against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests, the oldest of which is the fundamental liberty interest of parents “in the care, custody, and control of their

In 1997 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) created the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to replace the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), which was created in 1968. Like the UCCJA, the new and improved UCCJEA served the purpose of “deter[ing] the removal or kidnapping of children, eliminat[ing] interstate jurisdictional competition, and prevent[ing] states from relitigating custody decisions from other states.” (Ehrlich, p. 411) Since its creation, the UCCJEA has been a major go-to reference for Courts in all states except Massachusetts and Vermont, who have not yet adopted said act, when considering the technicalities of jurisdiction for child custody cases.

Procedural History: Plaintiff filed for divorce on January 2013 and sue for custody or visitation right to the child in Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The Supreme Court determined without a hearing that the plaintiff lack standing because she was not the biological or adoptive parent of the child and gave sole custody to the defendant. The Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division.

In Reel v. Harrison, 118 Nev. 881; 60 P.3d 480; 2002 Nev., “First Judicial District Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that § 125C.200 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by restricting a custodial parent's fundamental right to travel. The trial court also concluded that even if § 125C.200 was constitutional, the mother was still permitted to relocate the minor child to New Jersey, based on the career and educational opportunities available... and the ability to maintain reasonable visitation with the father”.

For the most part, parents have the best interest of their children at heart. However, there are unfortunately many cases throughout the United States where parents are unable to, for one reason or another, take care of their children. Sometimes, this can be seen as a health issue of the parents. Sometimes, parents are unable to raise their children well due to physical, financial, and/or emotional issues. Other times, parents do not have the best interests of their children in mind and can be neglectful or abusive to them. In these circumstances, the state may become involved and step into