Minnesota Divorce and Family Law Blog

Child Custody - The Label, the Impact on Support and the Actual Schedule

When child custody is disputed, it usually comes down to three things: (a) the label, (b) the impact on child support, and (c) the actual schedule.  If someone wants joint physical custody, it is because (a) they like the idea of telling other people they have "joint physical custody;" (b) they want to pay less child support, or (c) they actually want to have the children in their care about half the time.  If someone wants sole physical custody, it is because (a) they like the ideal of telling other people they have "sole physical custody;" (b) they want to receive maximum child support, or (c) they actually want to have the children in their care most of the time.  It can be surprising how often the dispute is NOT about the actual schedule. 

Typically, the label matches the support calculation, which matches reality.  But not always.  If one parent is really hung up on the label, then there could be a "joint physical custody" arrangement in which the children spend most of the time with one parent, and the child support paid from one parent to the other is not reduced to reflect the "joint" arrangement.  It is not uncommon in a joint physical custody arrangement (both by label and by actual schedule) for the higher earning parent to pay "non-reduced" child support to the lower earning parent (oftentime to obviate the need for spousal maintenance).  It is important to note, though, that in almost all cases in which the label does not match the support calculation and/or the actual schedule, that discrepancy is a product of a negotiated agreement, and not a court decision.  The typical court decision will make the label, the support calculation and the actual schedule all correspond.  If one parent is hung up on the label or the support calculation, it is important to attempt to address that issue outside of court.

How Specific Should Your Parenting Plan Be?

When devising a parenting plan that will govern the parents of minor children regarding custody and parenting, some parents desire specificity, and others desire flexibility.  All parenting plans have a degree of specificity, and a degree of flexibility, so the issue here is whether you prefer relatively greater specificity or relatively greater flexibility.  

An example of a flexible parenting plan is one based largely on the varying work schedule of one or both parents.  Because the parenting time is scheduled around work, it is not possible to set forth very far in advance the specific dates and times the children will spend with each parent.  An example of a specific parenting schedule is one in which one knows right now where the child will be at 10:30am on Christmas morning of 2015.  There are pros and cons to both approaches.

The terms of the parenting plan are there to be enforced, if needed.  So the plan may provide many specifics that the parents do not mutually enforce, such as a firm hour for exchanges, or a specific numbers of days for each parent's vacations with the children.  The parents may vary from the written plan because both parties find such variances to be mutually acceptable.  It may or may not be necessary for the parents to formally modify the plan to incorporate the changes, depending on (a) whether the change will be ongoing; and (b) whether at some point a dispute will arise about whether the variance is a "done deal" or not.  

If the variance is ongoing and/or there is some likelihood of dispute in the future, the plan should be modified in writing, to memorialize the new arrangements. For some parents, to memorialize every variance would be a constant, never-ending task.  So a balance must be struck between the specific aspects and the flexible aspects of the parenting plan.