{"id":12890,"date":"2024-09-23T16:39:54","date_gmt":"2024-09-23T23:39:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sanjoseattorneys.com\/?p=12890"},"modified":"2024-09-24T16:46:01","modified_gmt":"2024-09-24T23:46:01","slug":"12890-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sanjoseattorneys.com\/cn\/12890-2\/","title":{"rendered":"So you want 50\/50 custody Pt. 1 (A Blog Series)"},"content":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s been long understood that children benefit from having married parents. Studies show that overall, these children tend to be better supported financially, do better in school, have lower rates if risk-taking behaviors, and tend to be more accomplished as adults, which leads most laypeople to assume that, naturally, separated and\/or divorced parents should have equal custody of the minor child(ren), if the courts are doing their job right. Afterall, the US has the world’s highest rate<\/a> of children living in single-parent homes, so isn\u2019t 50\/50 the closest possible thing to a traditional parental arrangement and thereby in the child\u2019s best interest?<\/p>\n

Well, the California courts don\u2019t see it that way.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In the state of California, there are some custody “presumptions”, including (1)<\/strong> California Family Code<\/em> \u00a7 3040<\/a>, which states that parents should have joint custody<\/em> (meaning shared<\/em>, but not necessarily equal<\/em>) unless otherwise appropriate; (2)<\/strong> California Family Code<\/em> \u00a7 3020, which states that a child should have frequent and continuing contact with both parents<\/em>; and finally (3)<\/strong> California Family Code<\/em> \u00a7 3020<\/a>, which states that the health, safety and welfare of the child are the primary concerns when determining what constitutes their \u201cbest interest\u201d<\/em><\/strong>. There are fundamental reasons that 50\/50 custody is not presumptive<\/em>, and these reasons always boil down to one key factor: that a family law custody order should always be what the child needs, not what the parent does. Mind you, it is not that 50\/50 cannot<\/em> be the best custodial arrangement for a child, but the court does not presume that this is the case.<\/p>\n

The court must first take into account the family\u2019s specific circumstances when ordering a timeshare; the first, perhaps most obviously, is pure logistics:<\/p>\n