Q: Is domestic violence in a home grounds to lose joint custody? Also is not having a steady job going to affect your case?

A: This question relies on the premise that all judges throughout New York State will rule the same way given the same facts, and that is not the case. Differing judges will consider domestic violence to varying degrees: some will take a hard line approach, while others may not consider it at all.

Initially, "joint" custody is ear-wash for "joint legal custody" which is actually no custody at all. Legal custody refers to the decision-making the custodial parent engages in when raising a child: which school will the child attend, which church, which music school, which physician will the child see. "Joint" custody is always offered to father so as to make him believe he won something when in reality, the residential custodial parent makes all the decisions with input from the non-custodial parent unless agreed upon differently. A recent legal fad making the rounds is to grant dad half custody with the child which means there is chaos in decision making because two cooks are spoiling the broth.

One large factor in a judge's decision as to domestic violence violence is the existence of a police record of domestic violence. If the judge looks into his bench top screen and sees no police activity regarding the parents, then that will result in no sustainment of the claim of abuse. Another judge will assume the truth of a claim of domestic violence and act beyond the scope of his authority. It all depends on the judge.

Not having a steady job is now the norm across the U.S. As the Fed raises interest rates from a near zero percent over the last decade, bank loans have disappeared and businesses are reducing in size and people are becoming jobless and unable to pay down debt. For people who lost high paying jobs, they face an imputation of income for child support because the law of the 90s has not kept pace with the 2020's economic reality. Judges especially reside in the past when it comes to statutory authority. However, there are policies in place that hold poverty as not a factor in a custody decision. Joblessness is not an indication of unfitness for parenting. However, again, this factor depends on the judge.

Relocation is a difficult subject for most judges. If they grant a relocation, the state loses desperately needed child support matching funds. Every family law case has the potential to bring federal dollars to the state. This means every judge in New York is conflicted: the judge must rule on the facts and law, but also must keep an eye out for bringing in federal money. The chances of relocating will be slim to none, but the reasoning will always be that dad deserves to see his child rather than here goes another matching fund out of the state.

The lack of the father being present for the child is irrelevant as the family court's job is to reunite estranged parents and collect child support matching funds from the federal government for the state. Harping on the fact that dad is not around will only reinforce the orders bonding father and child.

For these reasons, the asker must retain counsel. She will be led around by the nose should she appear in court alone facing all these interests.