Opinion ID: 2270548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: primary residential custodian

Text: A child cannot simultaneously reside with both parents, and in most cases, the child will spend more time with one parent than the othera fact that, in many cases, mirrors the family's situation prior to the parents' separation. Accordingly, in joint custody arrangements, the parties will often agree, or the court will designate, that one of the parents will act as the primary residential custodian. [34] Although this termlike joint custody itselfhas not been statutorily defined in Kentucky, it is generally employed by attorneys and courts alike to refer to the party with whom the child will primarily reside. In such situations, the other parent is awarded what is referred to as visitation, time-sharing, or parenting time with the child. [35] However, even when joint custody involves essentially equal physical custodyas in Susan and Phillip Fenwick's caseone party may nevertheless be designated the primary residential custodian for other purposes. [36] While joint custodians, as previously stated, share major decision-making on all child-rearing decisions unless the parties or the court elect otherwise, designating a party as the primary residential custodian logically confers on that party: (1) the primary role in minor day-to-day decisions concerning the child; (2) the responsibility for providing a residence, i.e., a home base, for the child, and (3) the normal routine care and control of the child. Such designation may also carry with it additional legal significance, e.g., a dependency tax deduction, [37] residency for school purposes, [38] and child support. [39] As such, a trial court must again consider the child's best interests in connection with its decision to designate one of the parties as the primary residential custodian.