Hart Vs Hart Case Study

691 Words2 Pages

]In the case of Hart v. Hart, Michael Robert Hart (Father) was granted sole legal and primary physical custody of the minor children he shares with Kari Rose Hart (Mother) with an additional order that Mother’s time with the children be supervised. This order a divorce in 2003 at which time Mother was awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the children, followed by her remarriage and relocation with the children to Texas in 2005, Father’s relocation for 6 months to be near the children in Texas, Father’s return to Arizona after not finding steady employment, Mother’s separation from her new husband and subsequent move to an apartment with the children (that resulted in a change of schools). Father filed a petition for mediation …show more content…

In a contested custody hearing, the court must make specific findings regarding all relevant factors and the reasons that make it in the best interests of the children (Section 25-403(B)). Failure to make the necessary findings equates to an abuse of discretion. The Arizona Court of Appeals, in reviewing the decision of the family court do not find reference to any of the ten enumerated factors required to be addressed per statute. Relevant facts are noted, but no findings of fact are made regarding the applicable factors: 1) wishes of both children and parents regarding custody, 2) interaction and relationship between children and each parent (and in this case, paternal grandmother as Father lives in her home and will rely on her to provide care), 3) adjustment of children to home, school and community, 4) physical/mental health of children and parents, 5) which parent is more likely to provide frequent and meaningful contact with the other parent, 6) which parent has a history of providing primary care, 7) the presence of coercion/duress in obtaining custody agreement and 8) whether there were any false reporting of child abuse or neglect. While evidence was present regarding several of the factors, the family court did not document the weighing of statutory factors with findings (which is required by statute). Thus, it can be presumed that, had they done so, it may have resulted in a different

Open Document