In continuing an analysis of one of the crucial pieces of family law in Louisiana and how this law may be seen in the practice of a divorce lawyer, this article deals with Louisiana Civil Code Article 134(4) which focuses on the amount of time that a child has been living in a €stable, adequate environment€ along with the court's desire to maintain this.
Many times, a child develops a network of friends, other families, and relationships through their schooling and in the environment which they grow up in. As many people can understand, uprooting a child from their social network can be very damaging psychologically and emotionally to the child €" this is sometimes referred to by psychologists as €attachment theory€ and what will happen to a child with €broken attachments€. A court can take into consideration this social network when making a custody determination.
Just because a child does have a social network however, does not guarantee that a court will view it favorably. There could be a hypothetical situation where one parent can offer a more secure and productive environment than the other can. For example, if a child has been living in an impoverished, drug-filled neighborhood, with sub-par schooling and social opportunities, a court may not consider this environment determinative. Having said this, there is no law against being poor, and if a child is not suffering some sort of direct harm from their environment that can be documented, a divorce lawyer may have difficulty in showing why one parent should be favored over the other.
Another instance where the €continuity€ of a child's living situation may not matter as much in is the situation where a child is very young. Many children have very malleable and easily adaptable minds €" some psychologists believe that the younger a child is, the easier it is for the child to mend a €broken attachment€. If for example a child is only of the age of five or six, a divorce lawyer would likely argue that transplanting them to another environment entirely would not have a deleterious effect on their psyche, as contrasted to a child nine years old. Obviously, the latter child has presumably grown thicker and more emotional roots to their environment and formed an attachment with their primary care-giver, and a move at this time could be quite damaging.
Often, section (4) may not be as important for a divorce lawyer as the other factors because parents often live in the same city and not enormously far apart from each other. Ideally, for the children's sake, this would be the case. The proximity of the parents would mean that a child's custody may not have the same negative effect on their friendships and schooling. In a situation like this one, section (4) probably is most applicable such as where one parent who has not had frequent and continuing contact with the child decides to get back into the child's life upon discovering that the child is not in a safe environment.
Will Beaumont practices as a divorce lawyer in Southeast Louisiana, particular in the New Orleans, region. This article is simply information about one portion of child custody law. It is not legal advice and should not be construed as such.
Many times, a child develops a network of friends, other families, and relationships through their schooling and in the environment which they grow up in. As many people can understand, uprooting a child from their social network can be very damaging psychologically and emotionally to the child €" this is sometimes referred to by psychologists as €attachment theory€ and what will happen to a child with €broken attachments€. A court can take into consideration this social network when making a custody determination.
Just because a child does have a social network however, does not guarantee that a court will view it favorably. There could be a hypothetical situation where one parent can offer a more secure and productive environment than the other can. For example, if a child has been living in an impoverished, drug-filled neighborhood, with sub-par schooling and social opportunities, a court may not consider this environment determinative. Having said this, there is no law against being poor, and if a child is not suffering some sort of direct harm from their environment that can be documented, a divorce lawyer may have difficulty in showing why one parent should be favored over the other.
Another instance where the €continuity€ of a child's living situation may not matter as much in is the situation where a child is very young. Many children have very malleable and easily adaptable minds €" some psychologists believe that the younger a child is, the easier it is for the child to mend a €broken attachment€. If for example a child is only of the age of five or six, a divorce lawyer would likely argue that transplanting them to another environment entirely would not have a deleterious effect on their psyche, as contrasted to a child nine years old. Obviously, the latter child has presumably grown thicker and more emotional roots to their environment and formed an attachment with their primary care-giver, and a move at this time could be quite damaging.
Often, section (4) may not be as important for a divorce lawyer as the other factors because parents often live in the same city and not enormously far apart from each other. Ideally, for the children's sake, this would be the case. The proximity of the parents would mean that a child's custody may not have the same negative effect on their friendships and schooling. In a situation like this one, section (4) probably is most applicable such as where one parent who has not had frequent and continuing contact with the child decides to get back into the child's life upon discovering that the child is not in a safe environment.
Will Beaumont practices as a divorce lawyer in Southeast Louisiana, particular in the New Orleans, region. This article is simply information about one portion of child custody law. It is not legal advice and should not be construed as such.
SHARE
