In the disputes over child custody, the court will take two actions for the determination of modification of custody awards, if a parent is openly cohabiting with a partner. According to the first action (“per se” standard), the court will automatically modify the child custody on the parent having non-marital cohabitation. However, I the second action that is “nexus,” the court will look that either modification in child custody on a parent’s non-marital cohabitation will cause any adverse impact of the development or emotions of the child. If court finds any evidence against cohabitation of parents then the custody will be modified. It is still a debatable issue that for the modification in child custody on a parent’s non-marital cohabitation, which action will be selected by court and in what circumstances.
With the consistent ruling of the court, exposure of a child to an unmarried cohabitation is a firm reason that depicts custody change. In different current cases, the appellant court acknowledged model of Supreme Court allowed the cohabitating parent to retain the custody of their child. The appellant court often lacks the reasonable proof that proves that being in cohabitate parenting environment the child will be harmed implicitly rejects the appeal of supreme court regarding the modification in child custody on a parent’s non-marital cohabitation.
However, a standard that establishes a reputable belief that cohabitations not at all acceptable for a child’s custody. This standard burden the cohabitating parents too who threatens the child and provide him other harm. Additionally, this standard also provides an opportunity to cohabitating parents for the evidence production ensuring that the child is not at risk nor suffering from the harmful effects of the unmarried cohabitating relation of parents. If a parent is in cohabitating relation and also want to retain child custody, then the parent is needed to prove that if the court makes any modification in child’s custody then the child will disturb and experience more harm with other parent.
A rebuttable belief would avoid the severe consequences of law in which cohabitation is irrefutable evidence of unfitness. The manifestation of the highlighted standards would also contribute to the nexus modification of interconnected rule as applied currently, which in turn indicates pronounced issues related to proof for the non-custodial parents under the light of tendency possessed by the court for considering an only direct sign of harm, instead of potentially prolong harmful effects.
To obtain modification the custody of child in association the unmarried cohabitation in parents, the appellant court will demand evidence that the unmarried cohabitation parent undergo sexual intercourse in the physical presence of the child. Furthermore, the court also asks for evidence that such behavior of parent impact on child anyhow and harm child. Virginia’s custody judicial pendulum is swung from an outward irrefutable presumption that sided non-custodial parents for the present use of nexus approach that is completely biased in favor of cohabiting parent. However, throughout the conflicts, the child’s best interest would not meet.