Lawyers Support Same Sex Marriage
The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers released a statement in support of same sex marriage.
"More than 90 percent of Academy members said the children of same-sex couples should have the same protections as children of man/woman marriages. These include the rights of children to maintain their relationship with both parties to a same-sex couple relationship and the rights to support, inheritance and Social Security benefits. Similarly both parties to the same-sex couple relationship should share all rights and obligations with respect to raising children."
Of course they do, same sex marriage will inevitably lead to same sex divorce and contentious and protracted custody battles. Same sex marriage could be a potential windfall for divorce lawyers.
The full press release can be viewed here: American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Supports Same-Sex Marriages, Rights of Same-Sex Couples
Contrast this view with this letter by the President of the Iowa State Bar Association, Kevin H. Collins, to Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack in response to Iowa Bill HF 22:
IOWA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
Kevin H. Collins, President
115 Third Street, S.E., Suite 500
PO Box 2107
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406-2107
(319) 365-9461
FAX (319) 365-8564
e-mail khc@shuttleworthlaw.com
April 26, 2004
The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Governor of Iowa
State Capitol
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
RE: HF 22 Joint Physical Care
Dear Governor Vilsack:
On behalf of all Iowans, I respectfully urge you to veto HF 22 - Joint Physical Care.
At its meeting on April 16, 2004, the Family Law Section of the Iowa State Bar Association considered the Act, formerly known as HF 22, which has been passed by both houses and awaits your determination. The Family Law Section voted unanimously, except for one member, to recommend a veto of this legislation. The committee's view is that the Act creates a passive presumption of shared joint physical care and that passive presumption is not consistent with the standards of best interest of a child.
The best interest of a child is essentially a legal question of "what does this child need and how can these parents contribute to this child's needs?" By creating a presumption of joint physical care, there is an implied idea that a child is a calendar. Physical care is in reality an award of the right to maintain a child's primary residence. Certainly a child needs two parents after divorce. Joint physical care does not assure that right in any particular regard. Where parents are able to maintain two primary residences, consistent schedules, shift the quantity of time between homes as a child's needs, activities and stages of development require, shared physical care certainly is a good option for parents who have good communications.
Shared physical care ought to be an option that the courts should approve if reached by agreement between the parents. There was a concern under current judicial practice that judges were rejecting joint physical care even though the parents had agreed. The Family Law Section believes that a parenting plan which provides for joint physical care ought to be approved by the court unless a court finds it contrary to the best interest of a child to order shared physical care.
HF 22 created a passive presumption of joint physical care. This does not allow the court to inquire appropriately into the best interests of a child and make a good determination based on a careful fact review.
The Family Law Section and the ISBA urges a veto of this bill.
You should be aware that the Family Law Section intends to take up a careful review of parenting plans and the appropriateness of joint physical care and, hopefully, make recommendations to the 2005 legislative session.
This legislation is not beneficial to Iowans and I urge your veto.
Very truly yours,
KEVIN H. COLLINS
hc@shuttleworthlaw.com
Can you see the difference between the two? I surely can and it is patently obvious that the only thing these lawyers are concerned about is the continual padding of their bills by parents abused in an inherently contentious and unfair legal system.
"More than 90 percent of Academy members said the children of same-sex couples should have the same protections as children of man/woman marriages. These include the rights of children to maintain their relationship with both parties to a same-sex couple relationship and the rights to support, inheritance and Social Security benefits. Similarly both parties to the same-sex couple relationship should share all rights and obligations with respect to raising children."
Of course they do, same sex marriage will inevitably lead to same sex divorce and contentious and protracted custody battles. Same sex marriage could be a potential windfall for divorce lawyers.
The full press release can be viewed here: American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Supports Same-Sex Marriages, Rights of Same-Sex Couples
Contrast this view with this letter by the President of the Iowa State Bar Association, Kevin H. Collins, to Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack in response to Iowa Bill HF 22:
IOWA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
Kevin H. Collins, President
115 Third Street, S.E., Suite 500
PO Box 2107
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406-2107
(319) 365-9461
FAX (319) 365-8564
e-mail khc@shuttleworthlaw.com
April 26, 2004
The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Governor of Iowa
State Capitol
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
RE: HF 22 Joint Physical Care
Dear Governor Vilsack:
On behalf of all Iowans, I respectfully urge you to veto HF 22 - Joint Physical Care.
At its meeting on April 16, 2004, the Family Law Section of the Iowa State Bar Association considered the Act, formerly known as HF 22, which has been passed by both houses and awaits your determination. The Family Law Section voted unanimously, except for one member, to recommend a veto of this legislation. The committee's view is that the Act creates a passive presumption of shared joint physical care and that passive presumption is not consistent with the standards of best interest of a child.
The best interest of a child is essentially a legal question of "what does this child need and how can these parents contribute to this child's needs?" By creating a presumption of joint physical care, there is an implied idea that a child is a calendar. Physical care is in reality an award of the right to maintain a child's primary residence. Certainly a child needs two parents after divorce. Joint physical care does not assure that right in any particular regard. Where parents are able to maintain two primary residences, consistent schedules, shift the quantity of time between homes as a child's needs, activities and stages of development require, shared physical care certainly is a good option for parents who have good communications.
Shared physical care ought to be an option that the courts should approve if reached by agreement between the parents. There was a concern under current judicial practice that judges were rejecting joint physical care even though the parents had agreed. The Family Law Section believes that a parenting plan which provides for joint physical care ought to be approved by the court unless a court finds it contrary to the best interest of a child to order shared physical care.
HF 22 created a passive presumption of joint physical care. This does not allow the court to inquire appropriately into the best interests of a child and make a good determination based on a careful fact review.
The Family Law Section and the ISBA urges a veto of this bill.
You should be aware that the Family Law Section intends to take up a careful review of parenting plans and the appropriateness of joint physical care and, hopefully, make recommendations to the 2005 legislative session.
This legislation is not beneficial to Iowans and I urge your veto.
Very truly yours,
KEVIN H. COLLINS
hc@shuttleworthlaw.com
Can you see the difference between the two? I surely can and it is patently obvious that the only thing these lawyers are concerned about is the continual padding of their bills by parents abused in an inherently contentious and unfair legal system.
Labels: Bar Association
posted by Meg at 1:38 PM
1 Comments:
I forecast some very unhappy same sex couples once Domestic Relations court gets their meathooks into them.
Post a Comment
<< Home