Anon wrote in news:1190357073.328009.51810
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

Interesting questions. The custody order simply states:

"The parents shall share joint legal custody."
"The parents shall share joint physical custody."

Then goes on to state when the child is in the care and custody of the
father and the mother. Essentially it's split evenly, but there are a
few variances which give slightly more time to the father. Since
custody time is so close and the father makes roughly three times what
the mother makes, he must pay her child support. Still, the
California code is full of language like, "if the custodial parent
[blah, blah, blah] the the noncustodial parent [blah, blah, blah]"
What I haven't found anywhere is a definition of "custodial parent".

Years ago, when most of these laws were written, the courts awarded
custody to one parent and visitation to the other, so it all made
sense. Mom had custody, so she was the "custodial parent", dad
didn't, so he was the "noncustodial parent". But these days, the
courts are awarding "joint custody" and "shared custody". So, to
apply these laws the courts would have to first figure out who's the
CP and who's the NCP. In the code each get very different
priveledges. Yet, I haven't found a legal definition for these terms
in the code anywhere.

Can someone let me know what the courts use to determine who's the CP
with "shared custody" arrangements?

My money is on the following: The mother.

It would likely be up to the judge's discretion, which means: the
mother.

In the unlikely event that the overall benefit to the State would be for
the CP to be considered the father, then the judge MIGHT rule that it
was the father.

With laws written as you describe them, there isn't really a straight
answer, or a written legal one, just a "policy" one, which means
"judicial discretion", which likely means the mother will be considered
the CP.

I, too, have a divorce decree stating that neither I not my son's mother
is "custodial", but there are many legal documents out there labelling
her as "custodial" and myself as "non-custodial" because I have to pay
her CS. No doubt if things were to ever come to a head between my ex
and myself, these documents, which every snake-tongued weasel from CSE
that I talk to insists have no legal ramifications, WOULD INDEED be
allowed to carry legal weight in court. I have no doubt that they would
be admitted as having "set a precedent", and the same weasels who tell
me not to worry today would be there nodding their heads in sage
agreement.

- Ron ^*^