By: Michael Granata

Michael Granata — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:13:54 +0000

Hal, I see your point but my response would be that parents that play tug-of-war with the preferences were already in an acrimonious parenting relationship and were going to litigate the issue of preference regardless of what tone and tenor petitioner’s attorney takes. In my opinion at least with a written preference the litigator had an alternative way of approaching a potentially toxic topic. It seemed that most Judges’s viewed the written preference as an avenue that opened the door for petitioner to be entitled to hearing – irrespective of the issue of whether the grounds for modification had basis or were groundless. It seems to me that by abolishing the written preference, you have forced litigants to prove the present circumstances significantly impair physical health and emotional development and thus by extension both sides have to posture more aggressively than was necessary with written preference. We are in a results driven field where it’s (usually) easy to ascertain who ‘won’ and who ‘lost’ on a particular hearing. I think you truly succeed when you can keep tensions low while still obtaining outstanding results – everyone wins including the child.

By: Hal Davis

Hal Davis — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:10:47 +0000

My experience under the old system is that the kid would spend the weekend with Mom, and Monday morning they’d file the child’s preference to stay with Mom. The next weekend the kid would stay with Dad, and guess what. The following Monday Dad’s lawyer would file a preference to stay with Dad. The kid just wants to make both parents happy, and failing that, the parent in front of them right now. I don’t think a judge has ever taken the written statement of a 12-year-old child at face value, and will almost always require a social study or at least a meeting in chambers with the judge.

Comments on: Texas Decides to Abolish Children’s Choices

By: Michael Granata

By: Hal Davis