- 7 -
hours of the day, yet claim the entire day for himself. Because
the custody order provides for the custody to change at different
times on different days, we determine physical custody in this
case on a hourly basis.
Based on a calendar prepared by Ms. O’Hara and received into
evidence at trial, respondent determined that during 1998 the
children were in the physical custody of Ms. O’Hara for a minimum
of 4,898 hours and in the physical custody of petitioner for a
maximum of 3,862 hours. The calendar follows very closely to the
schedule in the custody order. Both petitioner and Ms. O’Hara
testified that the custody order was strictly followed. We
believe that the calendar accurately represents the custody of
the children for 1998.
On brief, petitioner argues that the hours allotted to Ms.
O’Hara are inflated because her hours contain time when the
children were attending school. Petitioner claims that while the
children are in school they are not in the physical custody of
either parent, but are in the joint legal custody of both
parents. Petitioner attached a monthly calendar to his brief,
which, from the standpoint of the exact days and nights the
children were in the custody of either parent, is essentially
identical to the calendar prepared by Ms. O’Hara. The calendars
differ in that petitioner’s calendar excludes the hours of each
day that the children spent in school from the time allotted to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011