Bird Nest Custody

It's a form of custody where the children stay in one home, and rather than visiting, or living with one parent or the other, the parents live with the kids on a set schedule. This was the custody arrangement Hard Rocker Ted Nugent had with his wife during a period of separation in the 90s.

In this arrangement, each parent maintains their own separate residence where they live when it is not their turn at the "bird's nest". When one parent arrives for his/her designated time, the other leaves immediately to minimize the presence of both at the same time. The separate residence could be a rented room, staying with friends or relatives, or the parents could share the cost of renting a two-bedroom apartment, with each having a secured bedroom.

With Bird Nest, a specified access or visitation of the other parent is arranged for one evening a week, for dinner or some other activity.

The In-Residence-Parent does not date others during this time, including lunch and/or after work drinks. Of course, this would include not having a Significant Other stay overnight.

In cases where this has resulted from a divorce involving home ownership, the children remained in the family home. This form of custody ends when the youngest child reaches the age of majority (and with hope, moves out), this marital property will be disposed of in accordance to the provisions of the Divorce Decree.

The primary argument against this form of custody is that parents cannot be expected to give up any possible future romantic involvements, as well as having more children, for this. But, why not?

Had the marriage, or even cohabitation, remained intact, this would have been the price paid for the children. Are the children any less important just because the parents failed in area of family? They deserve parents putting them first over all else. They are the contribution we are making to the future of our society. Shouldn't that contribution be the very best?

• Lamont v Lamont 2000 Va. App. LEXIS 434 (Court of Appeals of Virginia)
• Greenough v. Greenough 2003 CanLII 2363 (Ontario)

The idea of Bird Nest Custody is still not commonly known, though it has been more than 20 years since the ruling in Virginia in Lamont v Lamont.

In Canada, the Courts broke ground when it order Bird Best Custody even though it had not been asked for by either party. Justice Quinn, in Greenough stated:

"In Lamont ... the court made a bird's nest custody arrangement in which the children (aged 3 and 5 years) remained in the home, with the mother staying in the home during the week and the father on the weekend. I think that the benefits of a bird's nest order are best achieved where the children are able to stay in the matrimonial home, particularly if it has been the only residence that they have known...."

"Time and time again I have seen cases (and this is one) where the children are being treated as Frisbees. In general, parents do not seem to appreciate the gross disruption to which children are subjected where one of the parents has frequent access. In this regard, I do not believe there must be evidence that the children are suffering before the court is free to act. To me, it is a matter of common sense. At the risk of falling prey to simplistic generalities, I am of the view that, given a choice, I do not see why anyone would select a living arrangement which involved so much movement from house to house."