What is a custodial agreement

Deciding what kind of custody agreement is right for your kids and custody situation can be hard. Let’s explore the leading variances between sole and joint agreements to offer a better idea or which agreement will match your situation best.

Sole Child Custody Agreements

There are two different kinds custody, legal and physical. A sole custody agreement may determine quite a few. Legal custody is the term for any authority parents must make decisions and also have responsibility for a kid. Physical custody means actual time each parent must spend with a young child. One parent could possibly have sole physical custody of a youngster, this means the child’s primary care and residence has been that parent. If a parent or gaurdian has sole legal custody of a young child, that parent provides the right to make all legal decisions with the child including decisions about medical treatment, religious beliefs and education.

When the idea of “sole custody agreement” can be used, it usually involves circumstances where one parent has sole physical custody. Occasionally, a parent or gaurdian has sole legal custody, but that doesn’t happen often. If a mother or father has sole physical custody of a kid, the little one spends the majority of his or her time with one parent (aka custodial parent) and contains visitation using the other parent (aka non-custodial parent).

A sole custody agreement negates the desire to work out issues of visitation. Issues including how transportation is handled for visits, how changes are created to the visitation schedule, when the right of first refusal needs to be a part of the agreement are typical issues that needs to be addressed.

Joint Child Custody Agreements

A joint agreement is created when parents share legal and physical custody in their child. Each parent cares and provides the child into their home to get a significant amount of your time (even though it may not be split equally). As part of an joint agreement, single parents are involved in raising the kid.

One parent may pay supporting your children as part of an joint arrangement and both mom and dad agree to share other expenses because of their child. An effective joint agreement should detail how finances of raising your child is handled. There may also be provisions which help the plan work better. Provisions might include information about how to end disputes, how changes are created to the agreement and exactly how transportation is resolved.

Agreement in restraint of trade void

Many employers attempt to protect their business by requiring their employees to agree to never compete to get a specified time as long as they leave the business. However, employee noncompetition agreements at the moment are invalid in California. Last week the California Supreme Court regarding Edwards vs. Arthur Anderson, LLP, reaffirmed and strengthened legislation. Employers might not hire around the condition that employees sign a noncompetition agreement with limited restrictions (i.e., no contact or solicitation of this company’s clients for the short time). The Court held by investing in only a couple of exceptions, noncompetition agreements are illegal in California. If an employer terminates employment because a member of staff refuses to sign a noncompetition agreement, the employer might be liable to the staff member for wrongful termination damages.

How The Law Changed – The California statute prohibiting employee noncompetition agreements is incredibly short. Section 16600 in the CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE reads: “Except as provided with this chapter, every contract during which anyone is restrained from participating in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any sort is to that extent void.” For some time employers have interpreted “restrained” in what the law states to mean “prohibited.” They have considered restricting employees for the limited length of time after leaving the business to comply with legal requirements. However, on August 7, 2008 the California Supreme Court rejected the limited restriction theory and held that limited restrictions restrain competition and therefore are illegal, closing the doorway tightly on employee noncompetition agreements in California.

When Noncompetition Agreements May Be Used – Noncompetition agreements will still be enforceable in partnerships then when a business ownership interest is offered. Also, companies can stay away from the use of their authentic trade secrets. What the California law prohibits is restraining competition.

The California Supreme Court Case – On August 7, 2008, the Supreme Court decided Edwards vs. Arthur Anderson. Raymond Edwards, an avowed public accountant, was hired by Arthur Anderson, LLP becoming a tax manager because of its Los Angeles office. The offer was contingent on Mr. Edwards signing a noncompetition agreement that prohibited him from doing work for or soliciting certain Andersen clients for limited periods following his termination. When Arthur Anderson was dismantled after its Enron related indictment, it sold the tax group managed by Mr. Edwards and used the production from its noncompetition agreement as leverage to have employee releases if they were hired because of the buyer in the tax group. Mr. Edwards wouldn’t sign the production and hasn’t been hired with the buyer. Edwards sued Arthur Anderson, claiming how the noncompetition agreement he signed was invalid to be a restraint on competition in violation of section 16600 in the BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE. The California Supreme Court held that except as given by statute, noncompetition agreements in employment agreements were invalid. Open competition and employee mobility were cited because legislative policy advanced by section 16600 on the BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE. The Court’s ruling is meant to support that policy in California.

Review Employment Contracts To Avoid Liability – If you have employees in California, your attorney should research your employment agreements and employee handbook to actually are in full compliance with the legal requirements.