There is no doubt that cases regarding child custody are some of the toughest cases there is. But these cases involve people who go to the courts in the hope that the latter provide some arbitration. A resolution has to be reached, somehow. Most of these cases are decided on by single judges. However, sometimes we also encounter child custody cases that are so complicated that a single judge would not suffice. Therefore, we would end up with three to five judges taking the bench for that particular case. You would find child custody cases handled by multiple-judge appellate benches when an appeal is in order and further arbitration is required.
Cases on child custody are decided on using the relevant constitutional laws and other statutes. There are a lot of constitutional and statutory guidelines you can look into when it comes to deciding these cases. It is the responsibility of the courts with the original jurisdiction to keep close tabs on these specific guidelines. They are going to risk facing an appeal later on if they fail to keep up with these guidelines. And judges who are found (during appeal processes) to have failed to heed obvious constitutional and statutory guidelines are often ridiculed and sometimes even reprimanded. Their credibility will be put into question. Soon, the public would not even believe that they have the right and the authority to be wearing the robes of a judge or be sitting behind the bench. No judge in his or her right mind would even want to entertain that possibility. Thus, they make sure they take into account these statutory and constitutional guidelines when making decisions on child custody cases is in order. Often though, this close adherence to the constitutional and statutory guidelines can lead to a situation where the judges make decisions that look odd to the laymen, and this is where things get tricky.
Reference is made to the existing body of jurisprudence when it comes to the task of making judicial decisions on child custody cases brought in court. It has been the practice of most judges in family courts to look up the decisions made by other judges on similar cases in the past. Prior child custody cases' decisions are then taken by all judges as a binding precedent, consequently becoming their "go-to" when they find themselves handling a similar case. If, for instance, the federal Supreme Court made a general decision in a particular kid custody case, that decision becomes 'binding' to all state courts dealing with similar matters. Judges can only depart from such decisions if they feel that the matters before them are 'distinguishable' from the ones where the Supreme Court decisions were made.
Pay attention to all the details and the facts of the child custody case, no matter how small, since they would aid greatly in coming up with a final decision. If, for instance, the general principle is such that mothers are automatically given the custody of all kids under the age of 10, but it is demonstrated that a particular mother is a drug junkie and is irresponsible, an 'odd' decision can be made to give custody of the kids to the father. Legal precedents, the constitution and the relevant statutes are merely guidelines; decisions on child custody cases should still be made based on their own merits and the circumstances surrounding the case.
Are you in search of divorce attorney reno nevada ? Get instant legal advice by visiting http://surrattlaw.com/ , Surratt Law Practice, considers "intentional parenthood" to include controlling your property, creating your family and organizing your life right now, as well as planning for death and potential disability. Surratt Law deliver's the highest quality legal representation in all areas of the law through efficient, aggressive and honest legal professionals.