The Legal Distinctions Between “Sole Custody” Versus “Shared Parenting”
For many parents contemplating a divorce or dissolution of their marriage, a primary concern is which parent shall have “custody” of the child or children of the marriage. I shall begin the article by addressing the differences between the two parenting systems in Ohio – “sole custody” and “shared parenting”.
- The parents have different names or titles: In a situation where one parent has “sole custody” of the child/children, that parent is designated as the “residential parent and legal custodian” and the other parent is designated as the “non-residential parent” or the “non-custodial parent”. In a shared parenting situation both parents have the same title. They are both designated as the “residential parent and legal custodian” of the child or children. For school district reasons of residency and tuition, one parent’s residence is typically designated as the residence of the child for school district purposes. The parent whose residence is the residence of the child for school district purposes may have a slight advantage over the other party as he or she has the ability to change residences with the child changing school districts accordingly. For example, in a “shared parenting” arrangement wherein Mother’s residence is the residence of the child for school district purposes, if Mother chooses to move from Beavercreek, Ohio, to Centerville, Ohio, the child’s school district changes from Beavercreek to Centerville without a need to return to Court. Unless, of course, the Father believes the change in school districts is not in the “best interests” of the child or children.
- The parents have different parenting time schedules, also known as visitation schedules: In a situation wherein one parent has “sole custody” of the child or children, the parent who is the “non-residential” or “non-custodial” parent generally has visitation with the child or children on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. Some parents agree that the “non-custodial” parent shall also have overnight visitation on his/her alternate Sundays. The “non-custodial” parent is also granted visitation on one or two weekdays per week for a three (3) hour period of time usually from 5:00 p.m until 8:00 p.m. that same evening. Clearly, the parent who has “sole custody” of the minor child or children has much more time to spend with the child/children of the marriage than the “non-residential” parent. In “shared parenting” arrangements, some parents seek to spend approximately equal time with the child or children of the marriage. This can be arranged by the child or children moving from one parent’s residence to the other parent’s residence each week (usually on a Saturday or Sunday evening). Other parents continue with alternating weekends but having one parent with overnight visitation on three to four nights one week and for two to three nights the following week resulting in each parent having the same number of overnights each month.
- The parents have different child-support obligations: Again, in a situation wherein one parent has “sole custody” of the child(ren), the other parent is designated as the Obligor for child-support purposes. He or she is ordered to pay child support to the “custodial parent” for the benefit of the minor child of the parties pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines adopted by the State of Ohio, or as they may agree. It is my experience in this field that the Obligors, usually Fathers, firmly believe that the child-support obligations are too high and that the Obligees, usually Mothers, firmly believe that the child-support obligations are too low. In situations wherein the parties have “shared parenting” of the minor child(ren), there is a provision in the Child Support Calculation Worksheet for the Obligor’s child-support obligation to be deviated downward depending upon the time the Obligor spends with the child. Accordingly, if Father is the Obligor in a “shared parenting” situation and if he has parenting time with the child or children for 50% of the available parenting time per month, more than likely, he would be entitled to a decrease in his child-support obligation.
- The parents have different decision-making considerations: In a situation wherein one parent has “sole custody” of the minor child or children of the parties, that parent has a major role in decision making. He or she can make the following decisions:
- Who shall be the pediatrician and the dentist for the minor child or children?
- Shall the child or children attend public, private, or parochial schools?
- Who shall be the babysitter or child-care provider for the minor child or children?
- What sports or extra-curricular activities shall the child or children be involved with?
- Shall the minor child or children have braces or counseling?
- Shall the minor child or children attend church and/or participate in religious activities?
- Shall the minor child or children have pierced ears or long or short hair?
In a “shared parenting” situation, the parents should discuss and make mutual decisions regarding the foregoing issues as well as other important decisions which are in the best interest of the children.
Ideally, “shared parenting” certainly works best with parents who respect one another, communicate well, and who both wish to operate under a “shared parenting” arrangement. But not all Ohio Courts take such a narrow view. Some will order “shared parenting” believing it is still in the best interests of the kids even if the parents’ communications are fractured and one party opposes it! It is important to know the Judge’s philosophy on this issue.


























As we all know, the typical family from the 1950’s television shows such as “Leave it to Beaver” have become a rarity over the years. A couple celebrating their golden wedding anniversary is not so commonplace. Today, approximately fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. In the traditional family, estates usually involve wills and the use of “joint and survivorship” ownership between husband and wife or “beneficiary designations” to ensure that upon the death of a spouse everything would pass to the surviving spouse. However, in today’s modern family, there may be a second or even third spouse and children from prior marriages. How does an individual take care of his or her current spouse yet protect his/her children from a prior marriage?
I would like to share some constructive fee-cutting suggestions for you to consider implementing after you have done your “due diligence” in selecting the right attorney for you and your issues. Many of the cases I have handled over the last 30 years are family law matters which are engagements typically based upon the number of hours spent in the representation. The amount of time to complete these cases varies based upon many factors, including the nature of the issues, contentiousness of the parties, and the cooperation level existing between both counsel. Recently, I have been asked by several clients what they can do to help reduce their attorney fees. Certainly, this is an excellent question especially with money being so tight and all of us having to deal with our poor economy. Each attorney would no doubt answer this question differently. So, be sure to ask your attorney about his or her own particular preferences. Here are some of my simple tips to reduce your attorney fees:
Our responsibility as parents is to nurture and protect our children. We do everything possible to ensure their physical safety and to care for their emotional and psychological needs as well. It seems a bit odd to think that many children and teens feel like it is their responsibility to protect us.
On July 1, 2009, I received a decision on one of the more interesting cases I have worked on since embarking on my legal career. The case started out as a custody case in Juvenile Court, but quickly spiraled into a full-scale federal trial; and subsequently, an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It’s safe to say that this was not your typical custody case. What made this case different, among other things, was that the family had moved to Ohio from Israel and the mother had returned to Israel. While in Israel, she decided to pursue custody and filed a Petition for the return of the minor child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, claiming that our client, the child’s father, had kidnapped the child and wrongfully retained him here in the United States instead of allowing him to return to Israel.
In an odd wrinkle, the marriage in Israel was a religious marriage that was not officially recognized here in the United States as a legal marriage, so the father filed for custody rights in Juvenile Court in Ohio. This was an ongoing battle until February, 2008, when the mother filed a Petition under the Hague Convention in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for the return of the child. Those of you who think that the federal judicial system moves slowly are normally correct; but in this case, because it was on an expedited docket, we conducted extensive discovery and pretrial proceedings in less than two months (including depositions in Ohio, Israel and Kosovo). Most of the depositions required us to find a translator who was fluent in Hebrew. Finally, we had to secure a number of documents from Israel.
The Court of Appeals determined the case on the basis that there was no wrongful retention. It stated that since both parents had equal rights of custody under Israeli and Ohio law, there was no wrongful retention. There was no wrongful removal since both parties agreed to take the child to the United States, and there was no wrongful retention since both parties had equal rights. At most, the Court determined that there may have been a breach in the rights of Mother’s access to the child. That was not enough to overturn the decision of the trial court. It determined that there was ample evidence on the record to support the trial court’s decision. A dissenting opinion was filed that would have reversed the decision and remanded for a more thorough analysis of why Israel was not the habitual residence of the child, rather than focusing solely on why the United States was his habitual residence. Click 