Opinion ID: 2360195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Only Two Options Considered

Text: Finally, the Father contends that the Family Court erred in failing to consider the full panoply of placement alternatives available. In this case, the Family Court was deciding a petition for a modification of custody filed by the Father that requested primary placement with him every school year. The record reflects that Casey preferred to have primary placement every school year with her Mother. Although the Mother desired to have primary placement, she did not file a petition for primary placement and testified that continuing to alternate primary placement annually would enable Casey to establish a stronger relationship with her Father. Accordingly, the Family Court stated that it was faced with the unenviable position of determining whether to continue the current [alternating] primary placement arrangement or to grant Father primary placement of the child. As between those two choices, the Family Court held that Casey's best interests would be served by continuing the joint custody arrangement with primary placement being alternated annually on a school-year basis. Therefore, the Father's petition to modify custody was denied.