Coping with the death of a parent would be easier if you kept your home, school and friends, and made far more difficult if you lost those as well.
Do they ever ask the child what it wants? I remember when I was adopted, the judge asked me who I wanted to stay with. It certainly wasn’t the only thing that factored into the decision but I know the judge wanted me answer.
As to the OP, no, I don’t think on the face of it this shoudl be considered a valid reason to lose custody. It may be a valid reason to contest custody; Chris thinks he is doing the right thing, but if Pat is a perfectly good parent except for this, well, all parents fuck up sometimes.
‘Which of your parents do you want to die?’ 
Indeed, but there’s no evidence that the kid would lose any of those. The parents work at the same place, so they can’t live too far apart. They might be in the same school district. The kid certainly has a room at each home already.
even a partial liver transplant is not 100% safe, there is a chance of death, or prolonged infirmity resulting from the procedure.
It is better to keep the custodial arrangements steady, especially when dealing with a critically ill child.
In addition to that, have you ever had major abdominal surgery? I have, there can be several months of recouperation required. How is the custodial parent going to care for the critically ill child when they themself are bedridden? How about after the initial recovery period, there can still be months when you are unable to lift and carry and be very active - how do you still manage to care for a critically ill child when you are unable to do even light housework? My doc did not want me driving my car for a month after my very simple and minimally invasive da vinci hysterectomy … imagine how long it is after being gutted like a fish to remove part of a liver?
They don’t work in the same office, however. If they loved close by each other then it’d be extremely unusual to have the kid spend every weekend and all the school vacations at the non-custodial parent’s place - that’s what happens when parents live a long way apart and have an amicable split. If they live close by, the custodial parent has the kid for some part of the holidays, usually some weekends too, and the child (depending on age) goes to the non-custodial parent’s place some weekdays.
Basically, either the parents live a long way apart or the kid doesn’t actually have that custody arrangement - it simply doesn’t happen.
Since Chris keeps Sean all summer long, it seems likely that he could take care of Sean if Pat were incapacitated after surgery.
Someone else commented on how far away the two live. It must be the same metro area, since Sean stays with Chris every weekend and this is not Star Trek.
Chris & Pat must live fairly close to another another, since Sean stays with Chris on weekends. The arrangement I described is basically what my little sister and her ex husband have with my favorite niece, and they live in the same city.
In my jurisdiction, what you say is true, but is applied in an initial custody determination. Here, the initial determination has already been made. We’re talking about a modification of custody. In my state, the standard for modification is “a material change in circumstances adverse to the best interest of the child.”. Usually, that means something has changed in the custodial household since the date of the last order.–ie, momma has become a crackwhore, Daddy got caught with enough crystal meth to turn on everybody in a tri-county area, custodial parent no longer able to provide proper care…something like that. Best interest of the child still applies, just under another layer of material change in circumstances adverse, etc.
On the facts given, I don’t think Chris can prove a material change in circumstances adverse to the best interests of the child. The illness is not Pat’s fault. Pat’s cowardice is indicative that Pat is pond scum and oughta be horsewhipped on the courthouse steps, but probably not grounds for a modification…unless it can be shown that the cowardice was so disgusting to the child that the child now has a deep seated antipathy toward Pat. That would probably take lots of litigation and psych evals and such. Very Spendy.
And Pat is full of shit. If Pat does the right thing, and donates because that’s the best match, but dies on the table, Chris automatically gets custody against any third party, unless Chris can be shown to have abandoned the child, severely abused/neglected the child, or to be otherwise unfit.
So your sister never has your niece at the weekend or in the holidays? Man, that is probably the shittiest possible arrangement for your sister - she gets all of the hard work and none of the fun. The kid’s Dad would also have pretty much no social life. Or does your neice actually stay at her Mom’s some weekends and in the holidays?
Getting to a place to spend the weekends does not imply that Chris lives close enough for the kid to go to the same school.
Going from weekends and holidays to every week is a big change for most children.
I thnk Chris has a right to think Pat is a weasel and to not buy her explanation. But absent other disparities, thats not enough to change things drastically and going for custody can be more about his beef with her rather than whats best for the child.
Some information of the level of difference might matter too? As in if it goes from a 95% chance of success to a 80%, thats quadrupling the chance the child might die, even though both are a high chance of success. Alternately, going from 55 to 50 wouldnt be much practical difference.
Also is there any custody dispute history, ie is Pat having to worry about him arguing for custody on the basis of her potentially being laid up from a liver operation or the like?
Otara
Pat’s excuse for leaving the matter to Chris is not very convincing.
The downside for going with Chris as donor.
Chris might die.
Sean is more likely to die.
The downside for going with Pat as donor
Pat might die
Chris gets custody
There is no personal sacrifice going on for Pat in the chosen option.
It seems to me that I know how the wise Solomon would rule on this.
I said ALTERNATING holidays. I’m not sure of the weekend arrangement.
I voted “Need more information…”
I think Chris has a point, and Pat failed to act in the child’s best interest, based on the doctor’s recommendation. But I am not satisfied that this is sufficient reason to rule Pat an unsatisfactory custodial parent.
Part of understanding this question would be finding out what the child’s chances of survival were anticipated to be, in the case of each parent donating. Also part would be how much better a custodial parent each would be in all the other ways that matter.
Besides, it sounds treacherous. I suspect Chris of plotting to use this against Pat, and think that if this were the case, Chris should have aired the supposed objection back when the decision was being made.
If I were Chris, I wouldn’t have aired any objection at the time the decision was made, merely because I would have been so furious at Pat I would have been fighting the impulse to commit assault.
D’oh! You’re right, Oak - I’m pretty sure that the “material change” standard would be applied in my jurisdiction as well. And in most others - my bar review class, rightly or wrongly, claimed that there’s very little variation in child custody law from state to state.
(Everything I know about family law, I learned from BarBri … isn’t that unsettling?)
Absolutely not, because Chris went along with it. He therefore agreed with the decision and has no right to then try to punish Pat for a decision they both made.
Had he tried to convince Pat otherwise, he might have a case. But there’s nothing wrong with Pat not wanting to do it, and trying use logic to persuade him. That’s what normal people do.
Chris is being just as selfish as Pat–but at least Pat didn’t do it passive aggressively. Thus option 2 is the closest, albeit the soundness of Pat’s argument is irrelevant.
That’s your own personal failing. If you can get so mad that merely responding to the guy would make you lose control and physically hurt himm, then I wouldn’t think you should ever have custody. What happens when the kid eventually makes you that mad?
I know you jest, but of course I meant “Which parent do you want to stay with?”
Chris’ argument would have some merit if stated before the fact.
I sure wish the OP had used names other than the unisex names Chris and Pat. The OP read like some cross between the SNL Pat skit and “Who’s on first?”. I had to work at it to keep it straight who was who. I guess it was to avoid a sex bias or allow for “modern” families. Oh and the kids name should have been moon unit.