It is rare for courts to award sole legal custody. Legal custody is essentially decision making for the children’s major life decisions – typically health, education and religion. It seems like, no matter what, joint legal custody is pushed, even where one or both parents have no ability to communicate, cooperate or co-parent at even a basic level.
Courts, as well as custody experts, will often try to use parent coordinators or co-parenting therapy as a panacea to fix what in most cases is an unfixable situation. But does that really make sense? In cases where there was domestic violence and/or coercive control, do those things only serve as tools to further abuse the victim.?
In any event, as previously noted, it is rare that sole legal custody is ever awarded or even recommended. I had a case where the husband was possibly plotting the murder of wife and child, and there were documented findings of abuse by DCPP, and tort claims for abuse of the wife where she sustained significant injuries, and a chilling custody evaluation report by a COURT APPOINTED expert, etc., where the judge would not recommend anything other than joint legal custody even though the husband would agree to nothing.
But hope springs eternal and every now and then, like sightings of Big Foot or the Lochness Monster, comes a case where a court actually granted sole legal custody. That was the case in M.G.I.M v. K.Z., an unreported (non-precedential) Appellate Division case released on February 25. 2026.
While this case was a relocation case where relocation was granted by the trial court and affirmed on appeal, the interesting part of the case was the fact that the court changed joint legal custody to sole custody.
Now, Factor 1 of the custody statute is “the parents’ ability to agree, communicate, and cooperate in matters relating to the children.” However, too often, this is glossed over when it is clear that one or both parents fails miserably in this regard. Quite frankly, given that some type of shared parenting is frequently ordered, one would think that this factor should be the most important, because without it, shared parenting is seemingly unworkable or at least very difficult.
In M.G.I.M., as to factor one, the trial judge found:
“There is no ability for these parties to communicate and cooperate. The overwhelming quantity of evidence shows that their capacity to communicate, cooperate, and agree as to the best interests of the children is completely nonexistent. As the [p]laintiff testified, credibly, any suggestions regarding plans or choices for the children are met with either silence, disagreement, or heavy criticism. These disagreements range from issues as minor as daily activities for the children to major decisions concerning their schooling and medical
care.
I would bet that his finding could be made in many, if not most cases where custody is tried.
In justifying the decision to grant sole legal custody, the Appellate Division noted as follows:
“After making these findings, Judge Walsh noted that his decision to grant plaintiff sole legal custody was “not a difficult one.” He further found that, in light of the “unabated history of domestic violence” and defendant’s “absolute inability . . . to modify his behavior or even recognize any fault,” he saw “no reason to believe that these parties will ever be able to effectively communicate let alone work together to make decisions in the children’s best interest.” Judge Walsh also observed that although plaintiff was willing to compromise and
consider the opinions of other people, the evidence “at each and every turn” demonstrated defendant “neither trusts nor respects her opinion or anyone’s . . . .” Judge Walsh also concluded defendant’s reported threats to kill plaintiff and her family also supported his decision. Although defendant testified they were the result of cultural differences, the judge determined “there is no culture anywhere on earth where this would be acceptable behavior.”
Ok – death threats are not the norm but a lot of the rest of it is in contested custody cases.
In affirming the award of sole legal custody, the Appellate Division held:
“We disagree with defendant’s contention that Judge Walsh improperly balanced the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. We are satisfied Judge Walsh properly considered and prioritized the best interests of the children and based his decision on the record. As plaintiff testified and the judge considered, the record reflects a situation where it was “impossible to communicate, let alone reason and try to make any decision” regarding the children, based, in part, on defendant’s refusal to acknowledge his need for change or therapy. As Judge
Walsh explained, the children were exposed to regular and normalized strife and discord that is particularly acute when the parties were making even simple decisions. We are satisfied that the “overwhelming” record supports Judge Walsh’s decision to award plaintiff sole legal custody as it is in the children’s best interests and will allow plaintiff to make appropriate decisions regarding their educational, medical and related needs.
While defendant’s issues in this case may have been more acute than others, the basics regarding impossibility of communication, making even simple decisions, etc. is pretty common in high conflict custody cases. In some cases, both parties are equally or relatively equally at fault – so I suspect that judges may feel like “a pox on both their houses” and let them have at it with PCs and other professionals until the last child is emancipated. But in cases where the problem clearly lies with one of the parties, this opinion serves as a reminder that sole legal custody remains an option.
[View source.]
