Fluency in English Does Not Make You the Better Parent

Mother [M] and Father [F] were married in 2013. Together they had one child, [S].

In August of 2016, F became physically violent against M. He pushed her, slapped her several times, and then chocked her. Then, he grabbed her by the arm and physically forced her and S out of the house. He locked the door to prevent them from coming back in. M had no income nor possessions for herself or S (a toddler at the time), so they went to live with her family.

M filed a complaint against F. He was arrested, but the district attorney decided not to file charges. However, M was granted a temporary restraining order against F preventing him from contacting M, S, and M’s family.

In October of 2016, F filed for divorce from M. He requested joint legal and primary physical custody of S. Later, a family court services [FCS] counselor recommended the court order joint legal custody, primary physical custody to M, and supervised visitation for F. FCS also recommended F attend a series of parenting classes. The court ordered the recommendations of FCS. The court also made its findings based on California’s Family Code Section 3011, which states that there is a presumption that perpetrators of domestic violence are not candidates for physical custody of children.

At a later hearing, after completing the parenting classes and following his supervised visitation agreement, the court granted F’s request for unsupervised visitation of S.

In March of 2017, F requested primary physical custody of S. F argued that on his visitation days, he would take S to public places so S could learn English. F also spoke to S in English to improve his language skills. He took S to meet with F’s family, where they spoke English to S, and he spoke in English with S every night when he phoned S. M spoke very little English. Her native language was Chaldean, a middle Eastern language based mainly in Iran and Iraq. Although she tried to take English classes, she was having difficulty finding them in her language.

F argued that since he was spending so much time with S, and teaching him English, he should have primary physical custody.

The court found that F had rebutted the 3011 presumption, and granted joint physical custody of S to F and M. M appealed.

The Appellate Court agreed with M, that the fact F spoke English and M did not, did not mean he was a better candidate for physical custody of a child. However, the Court upheld the trial court’s decision stating the F was able to overcome the 3011 presumption by his physical interactions with S and his completing of fourteen weeks of parenting classes.

Categories: Child Custody
Internet Marketing Experts

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.