The power to grant and take the rights to child custody and visitation during or after a divorce rests with the Family Court system in California. The standard applied, the best interests of the minor child, is generally the same in all 50 states, with some nuances from state to state. The process may vary from state to state, and in California, depending upon which County your case is in the mediation may be confidential or non-confidential. Mediation will generally be required if your custody issues have not reached the level of an emergency before the Court makes any forced ruling.
In California child custody and visitation mediation serves the purpose of allowing the parents a chance to agree on custody and timeshare arrangement before the Court makes a ruling; thus, the Family Court’s power to decide these critical issues generally arises when the parents do not or cannot reach an agreement. If the parties cannot agree in mediation, then the Family Court will decide. Visitation rights are not taken or denied lightly. Family Courts in California carefully weigh these issues every day, changing the direction and shape of families every time they do.
First off, in order to deny child visitation, a Court needs to first find that the visitation would be detrimental to the child(ren) involved. This finding will be in the face of a legal presumption set forth in the California Family Code that it is in the best interests of the minor child(ren) to have frequent and continuing contact with both parents, so there will need to be evidence to rebut the presumption before a finding of detriment can be made. Recent criminal convictions, dirty drug tests, findings of Domestic Violence, documented evidence of child endangerment, documented evidence of child abuse or neglect, and things like these will generally make a finding of detriment possible. If the same thing happen to you in Texas, family attorney in Houston, TX can give you the best legal advice.
The Courts in California generally will not deny visitation unless there is proof to support a finding of detriment. This burden of proof issue can frustrate parents immensely at times, as their opinion of what’s best will often not agree with that of the Court. What you know is actually going on when the other parent is with the child(ren) is regularly not good enough, as the Court will usually want proof from some source other than just your testimony.
When you do get proof of something showing detriment the Courts in California will often still allow the other parent some visitation with the child(ren), but will make that visitation conditional upon the presence of a supervisor. Supervised visitation is a tool used by the Courts to avoid cutting off the child(ren) completely from a parent, while still taking guarded steps to protect the child(ren) from harmful issues the parent may have. Supervised visitation is common in cases involving drug use and/or Domestic Violence.
In cases where child visitation rights are denied, it is usually not forever. It is possible to have the issue revisited at a later point, especially if conditions have changed to make an argument parenting is possible again. An adjustment to visitation can be requested, in which case the Court would have a hearing on the matter, and decide again if visitation is possible, within the best interests of the minor child(ren) affected.
The child visitation hearing process can be complicated by many things, including technical legal rules and simple wrong focus (parents often tell the Courts what is best for them, and sometimes fail to even mention what is best for the child (ren)), so having proper legal representation is critical for the best possible outcome. A competent attorney will help preserve your legal rights, and put the best foot forward with the Court. Remember, the Court will be comparing your arguments with the arguments from the other parent. You do not want to lose out on time with your child (ren) just because you filed the wrong form or failed to mention some critical detail(s).
Visitation rights can be denied by making the basic and critical mistake of arguing with the other parent or arguing with the Court. Informing the Court about what is best for the child (ren) is fundamentally different from arguing with the Court, but when emotions are at high tide and you are so certain that you are right that no one could possibly have anything valid to say to contradict you it can be difficult to see the difference between informing the Court and arguing with the Court. The Court Judge who will decide your case has surely seen many cases before yours where a parent is in Court to fight with the other parent, and the focus is on the battle between the parents and not on what is best for the child (ren). Turning the Courtroom into a battlefield will regularly undermine your claims that you are caring, sensitive, and loving, so you should be careful of this.
Arguing with the Judge regularly yields poor results. While you may have good reason(s) why your anger at the other parent is so deep and wide that you cannot even figure out which words would fairly describe just how evil they are, the Judge does not know or understand the depth of your ire, and may misinterpret your wrath as a mental health issue and rule against you. Many bad parents have been awarded more time by the Courts than they should be awarded simply because the other parent erupted in the Courtroom, like Krakatoa. Do not erupt on the Court. Stay focused on your child (ren), and the results will be better.
Leave a Comment