Peter Andre Seeks Full Custody: Good Idea?

On May 22, 2009, British singer Peter Andre met with his attorneys to discuss custody options among other issues in his divorce battle with his estranged wife, Katie Price, also known as Jordan. The bild.com article insinuates that Andre’s lawyers advised him to seek full custody of his children so that he could have a better chance of betting at least shared custody.

While I am far from an expert on the divorce laws of England, Andre’s strategy would be advisable in some states in the United States but a poor idea in others. Some states, including my home state of Oregon, do not allow joint custody unless both parties agree. In Oregon and states like it, a custody battle before a judge produces a winner and a loser. No compromises. Compromises can be reached outside of court, by private agreement between the parties, but an Oregon judge cannot order joint custody unless both parties agree. Custody cannot start as sole custody for one person and then bargained down to joint custody. Even though custody differs from other realms that might invite compromises, with the parties meeting each other halfway, such an approach does not work in states such as Oregon.

Some states do allow their judges to fashion a joint custody award from the bench, even without the mutual blessing of the parties. In that kind of jurisdiction, and perhaps England is one such jurisdiction, parties can aim high and then settle for something in the middle. However, anytime a custody decision is surrendered to a judge, it becomes a risky crapshoot. Family court judges have wide latitude, and their decisions are rarely overturned, usually only in cases where there has been a clear abuse of discretion. By far the best approach is for the parties to work out their differences so that they can come to an agreement with which each of them can be satisfied, instead of a judge’s ruling that may leave both parties unhappy.