Yes, it can. To explain this, we should begin by defining what custody is. Through custody, a person (or social assistance center) assumes the care and attention of a human being as well as his or her objects of personal use.
Custody is always for the direct benefit of its receiver, and empowers the person exercising it to determine limits and rules of conduct.
For the purposes of this article, by ” receiver” of the custody we will understand the children from the couple. Although, of course, custody can also be exercised over an adult, in the event that he/she is unable to fend for him/herself due to his/her mental or physical condition.
Considering the concept of custody referred to above, under normal conditions, the ideal for the minor is that both parents continue to exercise custody over him/her. In order to have that balance where both the father and the mother take care of the minor, and shape his behavior.
Of course, if any of the 2 parents is unfit to exercise the custody (for vices, mental problems, etc.), the legal thing is that only the one who is fit exercises the custody. And whoever does not have custody, should only exercise his or her right to “cohabitation”. In the necessary times and limits so that this cohabitation does not affect the child, and allows him/her to enjoy the company of the parent who does not have custody over him/her.
The term custody is often confused with the term “with whom the child sleeps”. Or “with whom the child sleeps most of the week”. These are different concepts. It is possible that the 2 parents have joint custody, and the child sleeps all week with the mother (to give an example).
The decision regarding “with whom the child will sleep”, should be based on what is considered best for the development of the child. If he/she sleeps more nights with the mother, with the father, half and half, or the option that is said to be the least aggressive for the child: that the child does not change house, and that the fathers are the ones who alternate nights in “the children’s house”. And it is the parents who have to go from one house to another.
The economic implications of the latter option are obvious. But the justification in terms of justice is equally obvious: why are the children to blame for the separation?
