Discrediting Parenting Skills

Despite popular belief, discrediting the parenting skills of an estranged spouse does not necessarily prove that the complaining party is the more fit parent in regards to receiving sole custody of a child. Take, for example, the case of Angela Voelkert. Ms. Voelkert recently made headlines when she elicited incriminating statements from her husband regarding herself and their children by way of a fake Facebook profile. Upon accepting the friend request of one “Jessica Studebaker”, a scantily clad 17 year old that supposedly went to high school with his daughter, Angela’s husband, David, opened up about his deteriorating marriage and his ongoing custody battle. David disclosed information such as having put a GPS device in Angela’s car so that it would be easier for somebody to “take care of her”. He even went as far as to ask Jessica if she knew any “gangbangers” who would put a cap in [Angela] for $10,000.00″. Armed with this documented assault on David’s character, Angela had no doubt that she would be able to easily convince a Court to grant her sole custody of the parties’ daughter. Unfortunately for Angela, however, David was suspicious of her scheming ways. Instead of exposing his wife as a fake, David indulged her and used the opportunity to prove that she was in fact the ill-fit parent, memorializing his plan in a notarized affidavit prior to engaging in relations with “Jessica”. The affidavit supported his contention that he suspected “Jessica” was his wife by stating “I am lying to this person to gain positive proof that it is indeed my ex-wife trying to again tamper in my life.” He added, “In no way do I have plans to leave with my children or do any harm to Angela Dawn Voelkert or anyone else.”

David’s scheme, although genius, was unnecessary in terms of being granted custody of the parties’ daughter. Courts determine custody by focusing on the best interests of the child in question, and the fact that one parent lacks proper parenting skills does not necessarily mean that the other parent will be granted sole or even joint custody. For example, in the May 27, 2011 case of M.R. v. A.D., the Supreme Court of New York County decided that neither party was capable of meeting the needs of J., “a sweet, rambunctious and energetic little boy with significant learning deficits”, on their own, or in conjunction with the other party. After a ten day custody trial, the Court determined that while the mother was nurturing, she was unable to provide firm and consistent boundaries on J’s behavior. Contrastingly, J’s father set firm standards on J’s behavior but was not warm or affectionate. Based on the finding that J needed both structure and nurture, the court opined that “neither of these parents is a better parent than the other to the degree that either of them should be privileged over the other as the custodial parent.” The Court also decided that joint custody would not be in J’s best interest, relying on
Braiman v Braiman, which holds that joint custody is not appropriate where the parties are hostile and cannot communicate, as was the case with J’s parents. In an unusual decision, the Court assessed each party’s parenting strengths and determined “spheres in which each party will be the final decision maker.” For instance, the mother was granted decision making over extra-curricular activities and religion and the father would determine matters related to J’s health and education. Although uncommon,
M.R. v. A.D. provides proof that Courts are more concerned with the best interests of the child than with how much dirt one party has on the other. Furthermore, as
M.R. v. A.D.’s unique resolution proves, the Court has the authority to modify a parenting schedule in the fashion believed to be most suitable for the child’s needs.

If you are a parent considering divorce and are concerned about your child’s best interests throughout the process, Jay D. Raxenberg can help.