In a joint custody setting the court can award the primary residence of one parent to the other parent. The reason the court can do this is because the parent with custody determines who has access to the child. Usually in cases where the parents have lived together for a long time, the court can award the primary residence of one parent to the other parent if the child is of an age and maturity where the parent with custody is able to provide a stable home environment for the child.
So the court can also award custody to one parent if the child has a developmental disability and needs support. This is not just about the child’s age or maturity. Even if the court could award custody to the child’s parents, the court could also award custody to the other parent if the child is of a high level of maturity or has a low level of developmental disability.
That is not to say that when a child has a disability, that they are automatically entitled to have the child with them. This is a decision that the court makes on a case-by-case basis. The court can even award joint custody if the parents have a similar level of maturity in the home.
There are a few points that need to be considered as part of the decision. First of all, in a joint custody arrangement, the court is granting the child custody of another person, regardless of whether the other person has a higher level of maturity. So, for instance, if a child is a high level of maturity and has a low level of developmental disabilities, that child can be awarded custody of another person with a lower level of maturity.
When a child has an appropriate level of maturity, it doesn’t make much sense to give the court the right to decide if and when they want to move to a higher level of maturity. If the child does have a higher level of maturity, then the court may need to consider whether the other person in the custody of the child has a higher level of maturity.
I’ve heard it suggested that the court might need to consider whether the other person in custody is a higher level of maturity than the child, or whether the child is a higher level of maturity than the other person(s). In some cases, the court might even decide that it is in the best interests of the child to move with the other person(s) to a higher level of maturity.
I think it’s in the best interests of the child to move with the other persons, for safety, and as such to have a higher level of maturity for the child.
The court will likely want to be sure that the other person involved is a higher level of maturity and is capable of making the most of the child’s resources to take care of them. I think this is especially important in cases involving family members who are not a part of the child’s life.
I think this is particularly important in cases involving family members who are not a part of the childs life.
I think this is especially important in cases involving family members who are not a part of the childs life. We don’t want to put any of our siblings in a situation where we’re dealing with a child with a special need, or one that may be challenging for our own kids.
