Also known as: physical custody
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
The maintenance and upkeep of real estate and its improvements. A mortgagor commits waste by materially failing to comply with mortgage covenants addressing physical care without the mortgagee's consent, thereby impairing the security.
Day-to-day living with a child and the exercise of supervision and care. Physical care forms a core component of physical custody and supports determinations of consistent caretaker status for nonparents.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
The maintenance and upkeep of real estate and its improvements. A mortgagor commits waste by materially failing to comply with mortgage covenants addressing physical care without the mortgagee's consent, thereby impairing the security.
MetroBuild LLC halted construction on a mortgaged tower, removed installed windows and HVAC units, and left the structure exposed. Riverbend Bank claimed the removal and resulting deterioration impaired its security. The conduct breached the mortgage covenant on physical care and constituted waste.
1 common questions
A mortgagor breaches the covenant by failing to maintain the property in a reasonable manner or by removing improvements without consent. The breach constitutes waste when it impairs the mortgagee's security. Courts examine whether the mortgagor allowed deterioration or violated express maintenance obligations.
Supporting sources
Day-to-day living with a child and the exercise of supervision and care. Physical care forms a core component of physical custody and supports determinations of consistent caretaker status for nonparents.
Christopher stayed most nights at Tabitha's apartment and handled Gavin's meals, school routines, and bedtime. The arrangement satisfied the living-with and day-to-day-care elements. The facts illustrate physical care under the statutory definition.
The nanny lived with Gavin for years and made daily decisions about school and activities in cooperation with the parents. Under the statute the nanny exercised physical custody by providing ongoing day-to-day care. The court evaluated whether that role supported a custody petition.
Kaitlyn and Ruth agreed that Melissa would alternate weeks between their homes. The schedule allocated substantial periods of physical care to each parent. The arrangement illustrated shared physical care under the statutory definition.
4 common questions
Physical care involves living with the child and handling daily supervision. Legal custody concerns the right to make significant decisions about education, health, and activities. A person may exercise physical care without holding legal custody.
Supporting sources
…of the child are served by a parenting arrangement that best maintains a child's emotional growth, health and stability, and physical care"; "best interest of the child is ordinarily served when the existing pattern of interaction between a parent and child is altered only to the extent necessitated by the changed relationship…
…adolescent years and his language, identity, and culture and traditions. That a ne exeat right does not fit within traditional physical custody notions is beside the point because the Convention’s definition of “rights of
…judge to terminate permanently the natural parents' rights in the child. §§ 631(c), 634. Termination denies the natural parents physical custody, as well as the rights ever to visit, communicate with, or regain
…treatment by spiritual means alone as satisfying any parental obligation not to neglect a child or to provide a child with physical care. We shall subsequently discuss this statute in connection with the defendants' claim, rejected by the trial judge, that the spiritual treatment provision in G.L.c. 273, § 1, protects them…
…a child has been given by order of the court, other than the child’s parent or legal guardian”). Although Bouknight surrendered physical custody
The nanny regularly made day-to-day choices for Gavin while the parents worked late shifts. She cooperated with the parent who held physical custody on major issues. That pattern helped establish the nanny as a consistent caretaker eligible for custody consideration.
Maya allowed her parents limited daytime visits with her son but refused overnight stays. The grandparents petitioned under a best-interests statute. The court had to decide whether to override Maya's decision on the child's physical care arrangements.
Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel never married but had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. Jenifer and Gary Troxel are Brad's parents and the paternal grandparents of the children. After Granville and Brad separated in 1991, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought Isabelle and Natalie to their home for weekend visitation. Brad Troxel committed suicide in May 1993. The Troxels continued to see the children on a regular basis after his death. In October 1993 Granville informed the Troxels that she wished to limit their visitation to one short visit per month. In December 1993 the Troxels filed a petition in Washington Superior Court for Skagit County under Rev. Code Wash. § 26.10.160(3) seeking visitation rights. The statute provides that any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time. The court may order visitation when it may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances. The Troxels requested two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks each summer. Granville proposed one day of visitation per month with no overnight stay. In 1995 the Superior Court ordered visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both grandparents' birthdays. Granville appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that nonparents lack standing to seek visitation under the statute unless a custody action is pending. The Washington Supreme Court granted review, held that the Troxels had standing, but affirmed on the ground that the statute unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment.
View caseRegular overnight stays combined with day-to-day caregiving can satisfy the living-with and care elements. Formal title to the residence or school records listing only one parent do not automatically negate the functional reality. Courts focus on consistent presence and responsibility rather than documentation alone.
Supporting sources
A nonparent qualifies by living with the child for at least twelve months, regularly exercising care, making day-to-day decisions alone or with a parent who has physical custody, and forming a bonded relationship with parental consent. Compensation for care does not automatically disqualify the nonparent.
Supporting sources
A fit parent's decision on the child's care receives special weight under due process. Courts may not substitute their own best-interests judgment without finding unfitness or harm. The presumption protects parental authority over third-party visitation requests.
Supporting sources