Summary: Sally Bright V. Nudity

I. FACTS
Sally Bright (Petitioner) filed for divorce against John Bright (Respondent) and received temporary custody of their 14-year-old daughter, Chastity. The courts ordered that John receive visitation rights every weekend after requesting he requested custody. Both parties still want custody of their child.
John now identifies as being homosexual, and recently he has met a male companion who may live with him someday. Chastity says she feels “weird” around John’s new companion.
According to a psychologist, John has multiple problems, including an alcoholic consumption issue.
On several occasions, John has physically abused Sally. He has never done so in front of Chastity, nor has he ever abused her either.
II. SHOULD SALLY BRIGHT (PETITIONER)

MAINTAIN CUSTODY OF DAUGHTER, CHASTITY?
According to the testimony of Dr.

Frank Edwards, John (Respondent) is alleged to have a drinking problem, though he denies the problem exists. Sally says that he drinks excessively on occasion. Dr. Frank Edwards closes his testimony by saying, “This could be dangerous, especially if he were transporting the child while intoxicated.” According to NJ Rev Stat § 9:6-8.58A (2016),
“When a child is placed in the custody of a relative or other suitable person or the Division of Child Protection and Permanency pursuant to section 34 of P.L.1974, c.119 (C.9:6-8.54), because of a finding of abuse or neglect, the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part shall order the parent and, when appropriate, any other adult domiciled in the home to undergo substance abuse assessment, when

necessary.”
John Bright would need to seek substance abuse treatment if addiction is truly an issue, and if tests come back positive, before Chastity may live with him. Whereas, Sally Bright is clear of any addiction.
A. WOULD IT BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST IF PETITIONER MAINTAINS CUSTODY?
N.J. Stat. § 9:2-4a states that, “…the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Though, neither of the Doctors’ testimonials disregard John as suitable of maintaining custody, he still displayed behavior worth noting.
While living together, John has physically abused Sally on several occasions.

Chastity has never been present during those times. He has also never abused their daughter, while Sally has never abused John or Chastity.
John may argue that he will never abuse Chastity in the future, since he has never done so in the past, but findings of domestic abuse should affect the outcome of custody cases such as this one (see, e.g., Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655, 665-666, 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 756). His drinking problems may have attributed to his abusive nature towards his wife too.
Though Sally would be moving to another part of the country, on a lower pay rate than John, Chastity’s mental and physical well-being will be better off if she stays with her mother.
According to N.J. Stat. § 9:2-4, “it is in the public policy of this State to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents… it is in the public interest to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy.” Under this statute, the rights of both parents shall be equal. Sally and John may be able to agree upon joint custody of Chastity in the end, but only if a mutual agreement is

reached.
III. CONCLUSION
Awarding custody of Chastity to John Bright (Respondent) may endanger her well-being, physically and even mentally. Sally Bright (Petitioner) has been involved in her daughter’s life just as much as John, and she shows the least signs of any mental issues or abuse in the past.