Also known as: physical custodian · residential custody
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A right in family law by which a person lives with a child and exercises day-to-day care and control over the child. The right encompasses actual possession together with responsibility for the child's physical supervision and routine needs. It stands apart from legal custody, which concerns authority to make major decisions about education, health, and welfare.
Preston Pratt and Piper Patel separated and could not agree on where their daughter would live during the school year. They had signed an arbitration agreement covering all child-related issues. The arbitrator accepted jurisdiction because the disagreement directly concerned physical custody and scheduled a hearing to allocate day-to-day residence.
Pierce Patterson moved into Phoebe Park's apartment after their divorce and stayed most nights to feed, bathe, and put their son to bed while Phoebe worked late shifts. School and medical records still listed only Phoebe's address. The court nevertheless found that Pierce held physical custody because he lived with the child and performed daily care on a regular basis.
Pamela Phillips and Pavel Petrov agreed after separation that their daughter would alternate weeks between their two homes. Each parent handled the child's meals, homework, and bedtime during the weeks the child stayed with them. The decree awarded joint physical custody because both parents exercised actual day-to-day possession on a substantial schedule.
After her parents' separation, the longtime nanny made daily decisions about the child's school and activities in cooperation with Preston Pratt, who had the child living in his home four nights each week. The nanny sought recognition as a consistent caretaker. The court examined whether the nanny's decisions occurred alongside the parent who already held physical custody.
Baltimore City Department of Social Services placed Maurice in shelter care during the CINA investigation. Once the case settled, Jacqueline Bouknight regained physical custody and resumed living with and caring for her son on a daily basis. The Supreme Court noted that the temporary shelter placement had not extinguished her right to actual possession and control.
Maurice M. was hospitalized at three months old with a fractured left femur and other indications of severe physical abuse. Hospital personnel observed respondent Bouknight shaking Maurice and handling him improperly. This led them to notify the Baltimore City Department of Social Services of suspected child abuse. In February 1987, the Department secured a court order removing Maurice from Bouknight's control and placing him in shelter care. Several months later, the shelter care order was modified to return Maurice to Bouknight temporarily. Following a hearing, the juvenile court declared Maurice a child in need of assistance and placed him under the Department's continuing oversight pursuant to a protective supervision order. The order required Bouknight to cooperate with the Department, continue in therapy, participate in parental aid and training programs, and refrain from physically punishing Maurice. Eight months later, the Department returned to juvenile court fearing for Maurice's safety. BCDSS caseworkers related that Bouknight would not cooperate with them and had in nearly every respect violated the terms of the protective order. On April 20, 1988, the court granted BCDSS' petition to remove Maurice from Bouknight's control for placement in foster care. BCDSS officials also petitioned for judicial relief from Bouknight's failure to produce Maurice or reveal where he could be found. The court issued an order to show cause why Bouknight should not be held in civil contempt for failure to produce the child. Maurice was not produced at subsequent hearings. At a hearing one week later, Bouknight claimed that Maurice was with a relative in Dallas. Investigation revealed that the relative had not seen Maurice. The next day, following another hearing at which Bouknight again declined to produce Maurice, the juvenile court found Bouknight in contempt for failure to produce the child as ordered. The court directed that Bouknight be imprisoned until she purged herself of contempt by either producing Maurice before the court or revealing to the court his exact whereabouts. Bouknight's claim that the contempt order violated the Fifth Amendment was rejected by the juvenile court. The Court of Appeals of Maryland vacated the judgment upholding the contempt order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Sandra Banning and Michael Newdow shared physical custody of their daughter under a state order that placed the child with each parent on alternate weeks. The same order granted Banning exclusive legal custody, including sole authority over educational decisions. The Court recognized that the parents' alternating residence schedule constituted shared physical custody even though decision-making authority remained with one parent.
In 1892 a national magazine proposed that schoolchildren recite a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Congress first codified rules for the Pledge in a 1942 joint resolution and amended the text twelve years later to add the words "under God." California law requires every public elementary school to begin each day with appropriate patriotic exercises. The Elk Grove Unified School District satisfies the requirement by directing that each elementary class recite the Pledge once daily, while permitting students who object on religious grounds to abstain. Michael A. Newdow, an atheist whose daughter was then enrolled in kindergarten in the district, filed suit in March 2000 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against Congress, the President, the State of California, the School District, and its superintendent. The complaint sought a declaration that the 1954 amendment adding "under God" violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and an injunction against the district's daily recitation policy. The district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint on July 21, 2000. A divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed, holding that Newdow had standing as a parent and that both the 1954 Act and the district policy violated the Establishment Clause. After that decision, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow's daughter, moved to intervene or dismiss, stating that she held sole legal custody and that the child was a Christian who had no objection to reciting or hearing the Pledge. On September 25, 2002, a California Superior Court enjoined Newdow from including his daughter as a party or suing as her next friend. The Ninth Circuit subsequently held that Newdow retained Article III standing as a noncustodial parent under California law. In February 2003 the court amended its opinion to omit any determination of standing to challenge the 1954 Act itself. At a September 2003 hearing the Superior Court announced that the parents now share joint legal custody but that Banning makes the final decisions if they disagree. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider both Newdow's standing and the First Amendment question.
Physical custody concerns the right to have the child live with the custodian and to provide day-to-day care and supervision. Legal custody concerns the right to make major decisions about the child's education, health care, and activities. A parent may hold one without the other.
Supporting sources
…adolescent years and his language, identity, and culture and traditions. That a ne exeat right does not fit within traditional physical custody notions is beside the point because the Convention’s definition of “rights of custody” controls. This uniform, text-based approach ensures international consistency in interpreting the…
…judge to terminate permanently the natural parents' rights in the child. §§ 631(c), 634. Termination denies the natural parents physical custody, as well as the rights ever to visit, communicate with, or regain
…for leave to intervene, or alternatively to dismiss the complaint. App. 82. She declared that although she and Newdow shared "physical custody" of their daughter, a state-court order granted her "exclusive legal
…a child has been given by order of the court, other than the child’s parent or legal guardian”). Although Bouknight surrendered physical custody
Courts look to whether the person lives with the child and performs routine care such as feeding, bathing, bedtime routines, and school transportation on a regular basis. Formal title or address on records is not controlling when the functional pattern of residence and daily responsibility is clear.
Supporting sources
A nonparent may qualify as a consistent caretaker by living with the child for a substantial period, regularly exercising care, and making day-to-day decisions in cooperation with a person who already holds physical custody. The nonparent must also show a bonded relationship formed with parental consent or when no parent is able or willing to perform parenting functions.
Supporting sources
Temporary placement in shelter care during a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding does not terminate the parent's underlying right to physical custody. Once the proceeding ends and the parent resumes living with and caring for the child, physical custody is restored.
Supporting sources
A court may issue a temporary order enforcing another state's specific physical-custody or visitation schedule even when it lacks modification jurisdiction. The goal is to preserve the status quo and prevent unilateral interference with an established residence arrangement pending proceedings in the proper forum.
Supporting sources