Petitioner was awarded primary residential parent and final decision-making authority. Respondent requested an equal parenting time schedule and joint legal decision-making authority. An equal parenting time schedule was not in the child’s best interest due to the distance between the parents’ respective homes.
Background & Key Facts:
Petitioner resided on the East side of the Valley. Respondent resided over an hour away on the West side. The parties were exercising an equal parenting time schedule, as the minor child was not yet in school. There was significant discord regarding where the child would attend school.
CASE / Strategy:
Petitioner obtained documentation regarding the minor child’s special needs. Communications with Respondent demonstrated a lack of agreement to most issues. Petitioner was also able to provide disrespectful communication by Respondent.
Outcome:
Petitioner was awarded primary residential parent and final decision-making authority. Respondent requested an equal parenting time schedule and joint legal decision-making authority. An equal parenting time schedule was not in the child’s best interest due to the distance between the parents’ respective homes.
Client Impact:
Petitioner was satisfied with the outcome of the Order. Petitioner requested to be the primary residential parent with final say and she was able to get the same.
Why This Win Matters:
The minor child was spared from a very long daily commute to attend school and services. The minor child’s special needs make it most reasonable to have a primary residential parent.
