Yes. The most important thing for kids during a divorce is stability. The best way to give them that stability is to keep them with the parent who has always been their main caregiver. It's better to focus on who actually did the parenting work than for a judge to try and guess which parent is 'better.' The court created a checklist to help judges figure out who the primary caretaker was. Since the first judge didn't use this rule, the case was sent back to figure out who the primary caretaker was and give that person custody.

Yes, the first court made a mistake. I think that when both parents want to take care of young kids who can't say which parent they prefer, the court should give the kids to the parent who has been taking care of them the most. This is because it's good for kids to have a stable life and stay with the person they're used to. The first court focused too much on Dana's family and not enough on who was actually taking care of the kids every day. We're sending the case back to the first court to figure out who the main caregiver was and to look at all the important factors again before deciding who should take care of the kids.

Yes. When both parents seek custody of a child too young to express a preference, and one parent has been the primary caretaker, custody must be awarded to that parent unless they are proven to be unfit. The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest of the child, which is best served by providing emotional and psychological stability. For a young child, this stability is overwhelmingly provided through the relationship with their primary caretaker, the parent who provides daily nurturance and care. Disrupting this intimate bond is rarely in the child's best interest. This 'primary caretaker' rule provides a more objective and predictable standard than an abstract assessment of parental fitness, reduces the chance that custody battles will be used as bargaining leverage in divorce proceedings, and ensures meaningful appellate review. The court remanded the case for the trial court to determine which parent was the primary caretaker at the time the dissolution proceeding commenced.

Yes, the trial court erred. I hold that when both parents seek custody of a child too young to express a preference, and one parent has been the primary caretaker, custody should be awarded to the primary caretaker absent a showing that that parent is unfit to be the custodian. This rule is based on the recognized need for stability in children's lives, the uncertainty of other indicia of a child's best interests in custody decisions, and the pressing need for coherent decision-making on the trial court level and for effective appellate review. The trial court in this case overly emphasized the desirability of the extended family's environment provided by Dana and disregarded substantial evidence favoring Kelly as the primary caretaker. The statutory criteria, particularly those concerning the best interests of the child, were not adequately considered. The primary caretaker preference, supported by expert evaluations and evidence of Kelly's role, was not given due weight. We adopt the indicia of primary parenthood set forth in Garska v. McCoy to aid trial courts in determining which parent is the primary caretaker. The case is remanded to determine the primary caretaker and reassess custody based on all relevant statutory factors.

Marriage of Pikula v. Pikula

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot