Columnist Sandra Thompson: Judge makes tough call in custody case

Trying to maintain a normal relationship between a 4-year-old girl and her divorced parents, a Family Court judge has devised a not-so-normal custody arrangement.

The girl will live two months with Dad, then two months with Mom, alternating for one year.

The problem is that Dad lives in Las Vegas, and Mom lives in Mexico.

Consider Dad's concerns: He says the living conditions in Mexico are deplorable; the opportunities are limited. Could a Clark County court enforce a custody order in a foreign country if Mom doesn't return the girl for his custodial time?

Consider Mom's concerns: She wants to live with her extended family in Mexico, where she says she has better opportunities for employment and medical treatment for her epilepsy.

Consider psychological concerns: Can a "back-and-forth" relationship foster stability in a child's life?

Consider the judge's concerns: How to ensure that the girl has a loving connection with both parents.

At first glance, a two-month split seems outrageous. But as with most Family Court cases, there is more here than meets the eye.

In a system that's often criticized for not acting in the best interests of a child, the judge in this case, according to a review of the court proceedings, tried to keep the focus on the child.

At the outset of the case, Judge Dianne Steel ordered the parents, Mark and Martha, to mediate the custody issue, saying: "Just let this little girl be a little girl." In the meantime, Martha had primary physical custody and Mark had weekend visitation.

But Martha's desire to move to her native Mexico with the little girl was unacceptable to Mark, so they were at an impasse. The most important decision of their lives -- the custody of their daughter -- was left up to the judge.

Mark contended Martha's epileptic seizures prevent her from properly caring for their daughter. Martha said new medication is helping to control the seizures.

During a nearly six-hour Family Court trial in late April, there was conflicting testimony on the frequency and severity of the seizures. There also was conflicting testimony on the roles Mark and Martha played in their daughter's life.

Martha's sister and mother came from Mexico to live with Martha at varying times, bolstering Mark's contention that she rarely was left alone with the girl because of Martha's seizures.

Martha said Mark was verbally abusive, had a violent temper and hit her once. Mark said that's not so. No evidence to fully support Martha's allegations was brought up at trial, although her attorney said he had seen bruises on Martha.

Steel said she didn't want to hear "he-said, she-saids." She wanted facts about what the child's life would be in Las Vegas and Mexico.

Martha said her daughter would have a better life in Mexico. The judge replied, "But she won't have her daddy."

In response to Steel's question, Martha said she would not leave the United States if the judge ordered the girl to stay in Las Vegas.

In the end, Steel said Martha had good-faith reasons to move to Mexico, but she expressed concern about it. She also wanted Mark to show that he could be a hands-on caretaker.

Steel could have awarded Martha primary custody and given Mark holidays and summer visitation. But as she told Mark and Martha at the outset of the case, "When a child moves away from a parent, the relationship takes a 75 percent nosedive. It's tough to make up on holidays and weekends." So Steel chose the temporary two-month split, imploring both parents to "take yourselves out of this and look at this child."

Mark, who is scheduled to take his daughter to Mexico July 1 for her time with Martha, is seeking an emergency stay of the custody order.

Martha's attorney said Steel's ruling is "a little bit out of the ordinary but it's a cautious order."

It also was one tough decision to make.

archive