Briefly, the parties maintain the former family residence for the children and then rotate during their respective visitation times. Each parent maintains a separate residence where they live when it is not their turn at the bird nest. It would be costly to maintain three residences and most divorcing couples are already strapped financially.
In the United States "Bird Nest Custody" was the result of a ruling in Virginia more than 20 years ago. It is still not commonly known, not commonly used and is not part of any federal or state custody laws. It was the ruling in Lamont v Lamont. It's has been used by a couple of celebrities but few people would have the resources to carry out such a plan. There is a reason it never "caught on": It's expensive and impractical in most cases. Most divorced families in this age are struggling just to make ends meet. They hardly have the resources to indulge in the bird nest concept. In fact, this absurd concept would make it impossible for the parties to move on.
Bird nest custody is when parents divorce in hope that they will cause little disruption in their child's everyday life.
Agree on Bird Nest Custody. see link
That's the common tactic in order to go for full custody, but hopefully the judge will order bird nest custody. see link below
Depends on the argument, but Bird Nest Custody may be better. see links below
That is dependent of evidence. Consider counter filing for Bird Nest Custody. See link
Why would you want it? Joint custody is best for the kids.
That's a bird-so a bird best, if you mean how do they build-specify
It's better to have Bird Nest Custody. see link
As for Joint Custody of Them. See Bird Nest link And remember - you are not losing either parent.
Yes. This is common in Bird Nest Custody cases. see link
For what? If child support, depends on your state, and whether you have primary, joint physical, or bird nest custody.
No, as the judge does not what to change what the children have become accustom to. Try Bird Nest. see link