Opinion ID: 2000657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Definitions of Joint Legal Custody and Joint Physical Custody

Text: Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-364(5) (Reissue 1998) allows a trial court to order shared or joint custody of minor children when, inter alia, both parents agree to such an arrangement and [i]n that event, each parent shall have equal rights to make decisions in the best interests of the minor child in his or her custody. Section 42-364(5) does not define joint custody as either legal or physical joint custody nor do other Nebraska statutes. Many, if not most, states that have defined joint custody differentiate between joint legal custody and joint physical custody. In Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 595-96, 660 A.2d 485, 491 (1995), the New Jersey Supreme Court noted: In common parlance, the term joint custody can mean the sharing of both physical and legal custody of children, or the sharing of legal custody, but not physical or residential custody, between divorced parents.... Therefore, we reaffirm that [p]roperly analyzed, joint custody is comprised of two elementslegal custody and physical custody, and find it important to break down the term joint custody into legal and physical custody in reviewing a court's determination of child support. Quoting Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 432 A.2d 63 (1981). See, also, Van Driel v. Van Driel, 525 N.W.2d 37 (S.D.1994). Joint legal custody has been generally defined as joint `authority and responsibility for making major decisions regarding the child's welfare,' Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. at 596, 660 A.2d at 491. See, also, State of Cal. ex rel. Struck v. Struck, 526 N.W.2d 500 (S.D.1995). In contrast, joint physical custody has been described as joint `responsib[ility] for minor day-to-day decisions' and the exertion of continuous physical custody by both parents over a child for significant periods of time. Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. at 596, 660 A.2d at 491-92, relying on Beck v. Beck, supra . Some states numerically quantify, by statute or by case law, the amount of time a child spends in the custody of a parent in order to determine if there is joint physical custody. See, Wright v. Gregorio, 855 P.2d 772 (Alaska 1993); Gomez v. Gomez, 119 N.M. 755, 895 P.2d 277 (1995); Southwell and Spettel, 119 Or.App. 366, 851 P.2d 599 (1993); Udy v. Udy, 893 P.2d 1097 (Utah App.1995); Ewing v. Ewing, 21 Va.App. 34, 461 S.E.2d 417 (1995); Cranston v. Cranston, 879 P.2d 345 (Wyo.1994). In the instant case, the decree provided that Paul and Ann each had joint legal custody of both of their children, but neither party was designated primary physical custodian of the children. Ann admitted that since the entry of the decree, Paul physically had the children in his care 38 to 40 percent of the time, and she did not dispute that he provided them with all aspects of their daily needs including shelter, clothing, food, toys, and emotional care during those periods. Other courts have held that if trial evidence establishes a joint physical custody arrangement, courts will so construe it, regardless of how prior decrees or court orders have characterized the arrangement, and we agree with this approach. See, Tweeton v. Tweeton, 560 N.W.2d 746 (Minn.App.1997); Grage and Grage, 128 Or.App. 409, 876 P.2d 350 (1994); State of Cal. ex rel. Struck v. Struck, supra ; Udy v. Udy, supra . Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Paul proved that in addition to joint legal custody, he shared joint physical custody of both children with Ann.