Analysis of Wages v. Wages - Case Study Example

The case was filed in court by the mother with the aim of having her marriage to her husband be disillusioned. The mother was granted custody of the child after the court entered her final judgment (Sharp, W. and Antoon, 2005 , p. 65). Dissolution of the marriage was also approved on the same day that is October the 28th 1993. The father, Aubry D. Wages, was required to pay child support to the mother. IssuesAfter the case was heard and a judgment was given, the mother got married to another husband and decided to relocate.

They two newly wedded couple moved from their current place to Kentucky. The couple moved with their two children. In light of the decision to move to Kentucky, the mother went to court again requesting a change of custody. She argued that the move to relocate was based on her strong belief that it would be disadvantageous to their child. In her motion, she requested that she did not want to end the relationship between her daughter and her former husband. The father responded by accusing her former wife as a woman who lacked motherliness prior to their divorce.

He also pointed out that the mother’s current husband had left her twice and that she had two different jobs and was not in a position to cater for their child appropriately. He wanted to be granted full custody or be relieved from paying child support (Sharp, W. and Antoon, 2005, P.73). He also wanted to stop paying for the child’s hospital insurance unless the court granted him full custody of the child. The father’s motion to modify custody was granted but the mother’s plea to change custody was not as the father did not meet the required standards that necessitated a change of custody.

Rules and analysisWhile the mothers intention to move to Kentucky and leave the child with her former husband was with good intention, it was perceived that it would result in a significant change of circumstances. She was also not best suited to have custody of the child as the former husband had more people whom would help him raise the child much better than the mother would. There was no significant evidence found by the court that moving the child to Kentucky would result in a great change in circumstances.

The father was not granted custody. (Sharp, W. and Antoon, 2005, P. 73)ConclusionThe second ruling was made based on the present facts. Custody was not granted to the father as the mother’s motion to change custody was denied. The reversal of the earlier judgment was as a result of the mother’s failure to show the court that she was better suited to have custody. An appropriate visitation schedule was deemed to be better than changing custody basing on the facts present at that moment.