Opinion ID: 2581730
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Joint Legal Custody

Text: The superior court awarded the parties joint legal custody of the three minor children, but recognized that Lindsay's frequent absences overseas meant that Avis would make most major decisions regarding the children. [26] On appeal Avis argues that it was error not to give her sole legal custody. Avis never expressly sought sole legal custody at trial, but her pretrial memorandum stated that she doesn't see how [joint legal custody] will work. We consider this issue absent any argument that Avis failed to preserve this argument for appeal. On appeal Avis asserts that she and Lindsay have difficulty communicating, and points to the trial comment of Lindsay's attorney that Lindsay does not have a particularly good relationship with Mrs. Lumpkin and  and would prefer not to have to contact her. The superior court nonetheless concluded, Mr. Lumpkin it's uncontroverted has been responsible in dealing with his children's educational needs, that he has been providing a sufficient amount of well, a significant amount of support and there is a basis for granting of joint legal custody. The superior court continued: This decision to award joint legal custody is done because I think the parties can work out major differences. It's not meant to be a hindrance for Mrs. Lumpkin who will need to continue to make those primarily  primary on the spot decisions. No evidence in the record justifies a conclusion that the superior court abused its discretion by awarding joint legal custody of the children. [27] We therefore affirm this award.