Divorced parenting presents the former spouses with all manner of challenges that intact couples do not have to face. One of the most significant is that after a divorce, both former spouses must remember that in their dealings with each other, both of them are still equally the parents of their children.

Today, courts are very open to custody arrangements that cooperative parents negotiate, but if custody is disputed, very often the mother ends up as the custodial parent receiving child support and the father becomes the noncustodial parent paying it, and he visits his children under the terms and conditions of a schedule. This routine, though admittedly not perfect, permits both parents to be actively involved in the lives of their children.

However, what frequently happens is that the noncustodial father, even one who demonstrates good faith with prompt payment of child support, slowly drifts out the lives of his children. Moreover, the divorced father who remarries and has a second family with a new wife may move toward the vanishing point in the lives of his children from earlier marriage. When Dad drifts from the picture — for example, missing promised outings with his children or not showing up for school events — children frequently blame themselves.

Judges, social workers, family counselors, custody evaluators — all stress the need for both mother and father to be active parents of their children, who suffer terribly in the divorce of their parents and who frequently fantasize about their reunification.

Among the many reason to make a heroic effort to avoid a divorce war is that when the marriage is over, divorce parents must still work together to be good parents. By the same token, former spouses who continue the war after the peace treaty has been signed — that is, those who continue to fight with their former spouses about, for example, returning the children a few minutes late — make effective parenting very difficult.

Admittedly, divorce parenting is difficult. The noncustodial father is not physically present much of the time and thus he misses many of his children’s best moments because they happen spontaneously. And the custodial mother may become overburdened because she and she alone is with them all the time. However, this actually underscores the truth of divorced parenting: both parents are still equally the parents of their children.

The movie Kramer v. Kramer poignantly depicts the heartbreak of a father trying to retain custody of his young son. Despite his superior competence as a parent (even after she won the case, the mother suddenly decides she is not equal to parenting), young Kramer loses custody to his wife when the judge decides that it would be in “the best interest” of the boy to be with her.

This phrase, the best interest of the child, sets the gold standard In marriage and family law and in divorce actions where judges sit like King Solomon and decide agonizing questions about the welfare of a child when one parent disputes the other.

Unlike the Biblical King Solomon, family court judges cannot suggest cutting a child in two as a means of finding the best parent.

This means a judge must assume the role of all-knowing parent in deciding the welfare of children, and as a practical matter, the judge has a great deal of discretion in deciding what is or is not in the best interest of a contested child. Statutes, case law and past practice may guide him or her, but in the end the judge decides.

In many jurisdictions, the best interest of the child means that in a custody dispute the child will end up with his or her mother. Unless a woman has demonstrated gross incompetence as a mother and parent, in most cases in most jurisdictions minor children in contested custody end up with their mother.

Courts have increasing been asked to consider the presence of a cigarette smoker in a child’s home — be it a parent, stepparent, or third party — in determining the best interest of the child in custody and visitation cases.

These cases typically involve situations where what is called “secondhand” smoke in the home poses a health hazard to children who have respiratory problems.

Courts have said that presence of secondhand smoke is one of many factors that may be considered in custody cases. In an 1999 Alabama case, an appeals court upheld the decision a lower court to transfer physical custody of a child to the father because his mother continued to smoke in the child’s presence despite the child’s history of asthma and severe respiratory infections.

Courts have also ordered parents to refrain from smoking in the presence of their children. In a 2002 Ohio case, In re Julie Anne, the court heard extensive evidence that the custodial mother and her live-in boyfriend exposed a child who had no pre-existing health problems that would be worsened by secondhand smoke. On its own motion, the court ordered that both the mother and the father not to smoke or allow “anyone else to smoke in the presence of the child.” In this case, the court found three separate authorities for its order: 1) the doctrine of parens patriae, which is the idea of the state as parent; 2) the best interests of the child; and 3) the United States Supreme Court. “[A] smoker has a right to privacy to treat his health in whatever manner he chooses, but this right does not include the right to inflict health-destructive secondhand smoke upon other persons, especially children who have no choice in the matter. A man’s home is his castle, but no one is allowed to hurt little children — even in his castle,” the court stated.

Courts now consider the smoking habits of parents in determining the best interest of the children, but at the same time have said that the mere fact that a parent smokes is not determinative. Instead the courts have ordered parents not to smoke in the presence of the children.

One of the most difficult and complicated issues to resolve in child custody cases happens when the custodial parent wants to move a child away from an easy visitation distance of the noncustodial parent.

As American society becomes increasingly mobile, as more and more women attain positions in the work force where transfers are frequent and indeed likely, and as more and more noncustodial parents find themselves saying goodbye to children, no jurisdiction has escaped the need to address this thorny custody issue. Courts, recognizing the effects a move has on children, struggle to craft evenhanded arrangements that are fair to both parents.

The relocation of children by the custodial parent (who is often the mother) to places removed from easy visitation by the noncustodial parent (who is often the father) has given rise to movements known as “fathers’ rights” — men who believe they are getting the short end of the stick in the arrangement.

Very often in these cases, the custodial mother asks a court for permission to relocate for the best of reasons — a new job or the prospects of a new marriage. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that citizens have a right to travel in the nation, and many courts have been guided by this in deciding that a custodial parent has the right to relocate with a child. In many jurisdictions, therefore, the burden of proof is on the noncustodial parent, who must argue that the move is in bad faith. Many courts lean toward the custodial parent on the thinking that what is good for her (in most cases) is also good for the child.

In general, states evaluate relocation requests in ways that range from granting the relocating parent the right to move, to requiring that same parent to prove that the relocation is in the best interest of the child, to a combination of both. In dealing with relocation, some courts seem to be moving in the direction of the best interests standard.

In the midst of a divorce mom may decide she needs to go to work and her best bet is in another state. She up and moves the children, starts her job and begins her new life. Dad is left in the state that the original divorce/custody papers are filed. What now?

Some states may require mom to move back to the original state pending custody resolution. Some states may even hold a hearing to determine if mom can relocate with the children, even if it is for the betterment of the family.

It is best to not relocate until you have custody resolved or at least both mom and dad agree on the relocation. Tearing a family apart even one state away can wreak havoc on the children. The courts will make their determination on relocation as to what is in the “best interest” of the children anyway so make sure moving isn’t being done for punishment.

With some of the states recently passing legislation regarding smoking in public places, how does smoking affect custody? Courts have a “duty” to protect the innocent of a divorce - the children. Some courts liken parental smoking to child abuse and neglect.

Studies show that secondhand smoke can produce life-threatening issues in children.

Mom will no longer be around to make dad go outside to smoke. Living in his new one-room apartment, rather than a five-bedroom family home, dad may feel he has a right to smoke where he chooses, which includes the very living space his children will visit.

Make sure you check your local courts and laws dealing with parental smoking and how that could affect custody. If you have any concerns a little research goes a long way in protecting your children.

Trust is an important characteristic for any relationship. If you have trust, then you have the base for a good parenting relationship going forward. The trust needs to extend past the safety of your child to trusting that the other parent is trying hard to be a good parent, following your parenting plan, parenting values, morals, etc.

Often times trust does not exists between the parents, due to the marital breakdown. If this becomes your situation, do not be alarmed. Allow for the trust to recreate itself within the new parenting relationship. This is a new relationship you are building, so you should try to give the other parent an opportunity to gain your trust.

Strategies and Tactics to Establish Trust.

- Be on time for all meetings or visitation drop-offs and pick-ups.

- Return telephone calls promptly.

- Give straight forward and honest answers to questions asked about your child by the other parent.

- Cooperate (not necessarily agree) with the other parent as much as possible throughout the divorce process.

- Compliment the other parent on his or her parenting abilities or responsibilities.

In doing the above, you hope that these actions are reciprocated by the other parent. Please remember that trust is not something that is established overnight.

Many custodial parents wish this to become true. Be careful what you wish for, especially when it has more of an affect on your life and your child’s that you can even begin to imagine. The last thing you should ever want is for the other parent to become uninvolved. Be glad that you and your child have the support of the other parent, even if it is minimal. All children deserve the opportunity, if possible, to have two parents growing up.

Unfortunately the statistics show that after a divorce and/or separation has taken place that a large percentage of the non-custodial parents become at least partially uninvolved in the life of his or her child. Parental desertion can be caused by many different things, so it is tough to actually provide a perfect remedy for getting the uninvolved parent back on track.

Your child can overcome the trauma of losing a parent, so long as you continue to provide as much positive support as possible. Look to friends and relatives for any extra support you and your child may need. The experience of divorce and/or separation is tough enough on your child, let alone losing a relationship with a parent he or she loves. Do not expect to completely replace the shoes of the uninvolved parent, but keep working as hard as you can to do so!

Strategies and Tactics for the Uninvolved Parent

- Try to figure out what is causing the other parent to be uninvolved. Is it drugs/alcohol? a new relationship? health reasons, etc.?

- If you can narrow in on what the reason for the non-involvement is, try to reason with the non-involved parent, but be sure to always keep your child’s best interest in the forefront of all decisions.

- Do not criticize the estranged parent for not being involved. Criticism will only drive him or her father away. Do everything you can to say positive things to reinforce that your child wants him or her to be a part of the child’s life.

- Do not get down on yourself for not being able to do the job of two parents. If you allow yourself to get down, you will only be postponing your child’s recovery.

- Read a few books on “Single Parenting”. This will give you a lot of helpful tips that you won’t have to learn the hard way. There are so many great resources that will help you save time, energy, and money for your child.

When a court is forced to make a decision on child custody, they primary focus of the court is to establish and arrangement that is in the best interest of the children. In making this decision, the court will often refer to a list of factors that are to be considered prior to making the final custody order. This list of factors does vary from state-to-state, but most states address the following:

(1) The realtionship each parent has had with the child;

(2) The ability each parent has to provide for the child on a daily basis;

(3) The current and future housing arrangement;

(4) The willingness of each parent to cooperate with the other to allow for an ongoing relationship with both parents;

(5) Any evidence of abuse;

(6) The age of the child;

(7) The child’s wishes;

(8) The education of the child;

Physical custody is simply defined as the parent with whom the children will reside with. If a custody order is structured with a shared or joint physical custody arrangement, this means that the children will actually reside with both parents for a period of time that far out ways the typical overnight visitation schedule (50-50 or 60-40 etc.). This type of custody arrangement is not the norm, but more and more parents are exploring as an option, especially if they intend to live close to one another and within the same school district.

The courts are only willing to award a custody arrangement like this if it seems as though the parents can work together and it is deemed to be in the best interest of the children. You can only imagine how a shared or joint physical custody arrangement could be difficult on the children. The courts like to see a schedule in which the children live with each parent for a significant block of time. This way a routine will remain in tact for the children.

Before introducing this type of arrangement to your spouse or the courts, be sure to buy generic viagra examine whether or not it is truly feasible. Also, do not get joint physical custody confused with joint legal custody which is a more common type of joint custody that is awarded.