What does "primary custody" really mean?

[Tennessee Dad]

This has been a subject of question since my orders were received in 2004.  

Background:  My orders state "that the Order (i.e., MDA from 1997) be modified such that primary custody be with the petitioner father, my name."  The original MDA stated Mother should have "custody and control" of our then 3 month old daughter.   (It was an agreed order, as I didn't think I had any chance of getting custody of an infant from the Mother.  Then, when things got bad enough, I filed and received custody of our then 6yo.)   I assumed under the original order that Mother had "sole" custody, and did as she pleased (she consulted me only when she wanted to).  Now, I assumed, I had "sole" custody, but have been told by some that is incorrect.  Order does not say full or joint anything, and does not address residential or legal,  only says "primary".

Now, questions:

1.  What exactly, in your opinion, does "primary custody" mean?  

2.  Am I correct that all parts of the original order not addressed in new order remain the same, i.e., medical expenses split equally, etc.?  

Thanks for your opinion; you have been a great source of information and help to me and many others!

[socrateaser]

>Now, questions:
>
>1.  What exactly, in your opinion, does "primary custody"
>mean?  

It means joint legal and day-to-day physical. This is a guess, until you tell me what the original order awarded, because as your new order appears to not have terminated the original one, whateever was previously ordered remains in force except as modified in the new order.

So, if the other parent had sole custody before, i.e., sole legal and physical control over and care of the child, then by awarding you primary custody, the other parent's rights would be diminished to joint legal and secondary physical custody.

>
>2.  Am I correct that all parts of the original order not
>addressed in new order remain the same, i.e., medical expenses
>split equally, etc.?  

Yes.