Subject: PAPI HB 1723 - Courts MUST change SUPPORT awards for Joint Custody

Testimony of Howard M. Goldsmith, Esquire
before House Judiciary Committee's Public Hearing
On House Bill 1723 Pertaining to Presumptive Joint Custody
March 16, 1998 - Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

"Good morning. My name is Howard M. Goldsmith. I am an attorney in
Philadelphia, practicing family law. 

... I have tried many custody cases representing both men and women...I am
OPPOSED to this bill for many reasons.

...I have found, with the many cases that I have tried in custody, that one
area where the Judiciary has, for all intent and purposes, done a GOOD job
is in the custody area

...I firmly believe that there MUST be PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY for ONE in
order that one parent has the primary responsibility for the child

...Shared custody cases caUses too much RELOCATION of the child, and it
PREVENTS a parent from relocating even when this would be advantageous to
ALL involved.

... Once the parents go to the courts for help in custody disputes, they
are
in an ADVERSARIAL proceeding.

... I have to disagree with Section 5304.1 concerning joint custody. If, in
fact, joint custody means legal and physical custody, joint means together
and joint means sharing, I do not think there is any choice but to state on
the record that there MUST be an adjustment in SUPPORT since there is no
non-custodial parent, both parents are custodial, and if the joint custody
becomes equal then, by virtue of the fact that joint custody is equal, it
would, in and end of itself, constitute a sufficient REDUCTION in the
SUPPORT. The Supreme Court DOMESTIC RELATIONS PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
has
been laboriously working on a formula with reference to this very subject.
It certainly is UNFAIR for a parent who has a child percent of the time to
have to PAY the FULL SUPPORT ORDER; by virtue of definition, if there is
joint custody and it is equal there SHOULD be an ADJUSTMENT.

... I respectfully suggest that this proposed legislation should be
defeated."

==================================================

NOTE: Howard M. Goldsmith, Esquire is a member of the Supreme Court
Domestic
Relations Procedural Rules Committee. His testimony here is contrary to the
recommendation of this committee.

==================================================

Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee - Members
	http://www.courts.state.pa.us/pub/appeals/rules/drc.htm

==================================================

Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee
429 Forbes Avenue
Suite 300, Allegheny Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
412-350-4541
fax: 412-565-2336

Established by order of the Supreme Court on June 30, 1987, the Domestic 
Relations Committee strives to simplify domestic relations practice by 
recommending amendments to the procedural rules relating to support, 
custody, divorce and protection from abuse. 

Committee Members
Honorable Max Baer, Chairman

Mark M. Dalton
Gary G. Gentile, Esq.
David S. Rasner, Esq.
Joanne Ross Wilder, Esq.
Honorable Paul P. Panepinto
Howard M. Goldsmith, Esq.
John C. Howett, Jr., Esq.
Leslee Silverman Tabas, Esq.
Honorable Jeannine Turgeon 

Staff
Sophia P. Paul, Esq., Counsel
e-mail: spaul@.court.state.pa.us

==================================================