Child Divorce Case Study

Beth Walston-Dunham (2011) explains that in deciding on which parent to grant child custody, the courts usually place great consideration on the best interests of the children, before other factors. These are the interests that ensure that the child’s psychological and emotional wellbeing is upheld in the aftermath of a divorce. A divorce brings with it very dramatic changes into the lives of the children. Because of these, the courts have been tasked to examine a number of factors that affect the life and needs of the children after a divorce. The courts have majorly granted child custody to the parent who offers the most suitable parenting environment that meets the needs of the children as well as one that is least disrupts their life, (Walston-Dunham,

These include; sole custody, joint custody, joint legal custody and joint physical custody. In making such a determination, there is a general agreement that there shall be no presumption in favor of any particular form of custody, legal or physical, (Georgia Code, 2006). Both parents have equal parenting rights as well as equal custody rights of their children. The basic duty of the presiding judge is to determine which type of custody should be given in each particular case, and such a determination has to be based on the best interests of the child or children (Gude, 2007). For one parent to seek exclusive custody of a child or children, that parent must prove that joint custody of the child or children will not be in the best interest of the child or children. As McGough & Hitt (2012) note, most appellate courts in the state of Georgia have made decisions that favor the award of joint physical custody to the parents. This is because it enables them to have an equal standing to the welfare and upbringing of the children. The type of physical custody is also influenced by the fitness of the parents to take care of the children. Such considerations were made in the cases of Cook v. Cook (2006) and Welch v. Welch (2004). In Cook v. Cook (2006) there was evidence that both parents were capable and fit to be awarded custody of the children. Where such

The school must have tried the use of supplementary aids and related services and where they fail to provide desirable outcomes, the recommendation to place the student in a special education setting should be considered. This is shown in the case of Greer v. Rome City School (1991) where the parent to a disabled student successfully argued for inclusion based on the fact that the school had not provided adequate supplementary aids and services that could be sufficient to ensure an inclusive placement at the school.
The parties should adequately discuss issues such as the need to provide a Response to Intervention Program (RTI) before deciding whether the student’s disability requires special education and related services. Where it is determined that the outcomes of a disabled students subjected to RTI programs in a regular education classroom cannot progress, then it will be warranted to remove that child from that setting and place him or her in a more restrictive classroom environment. This is evidenced in the case of Beth v. Van Clay