Sharing Parents the Best Answer - North Dakota

Sharing Parents the Best Answer

From the article:

Information was also given that social science research supports shared parenting, and that the so-called "best interest standard" is really no standard at all.

A study was also presented stating that 70 percent of young adult children of divorces wanted equal time with the absent parent and that the remaining 30 percent wanted significantly more overnights with the father.

Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting Bill

Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting Bill

This is verbatim from an email:

Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, a Michigan shared parenting bill which will be heard by the House Families and Children Services Committee on December 6. Last week NOW issued an "Action Alert" against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children's Michigan affiliate, the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan, and others, are rallying support for the bill.

You can access a list of Michigan legislators, their phone numbers and their email addresses by clicking here.

The Case for HB 5267

Michigan NOW makes its case against shared parenting and HB 5267 here.

I laid out the case in favor of HB 5267 and discussed many of NOW's criticisms in my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and I wrote:

"HB 5267 is primarily sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-Horton), who has been joined by 10 other legislators. When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially equal time with their children. The principle behind the bill is difficult to dispute--as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children...

"NOW claims that HB 5267 'places the interests of parents over the child's interests.' Yet when researchers have examined children of divorce, and studied and queried adult children of divorce, they've found that most prefer joint custody and shared parenting.

"For example, a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of divorce 'express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,' and cite the 'benefit of remaining close to both parents' as an important factor.

"When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents' divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that 'living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.' His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003.

"Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan's Best Interest of the Child Test. Both the Michigan Bar and Michigan NOW assure us that this system is effective and should not be changed. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children's relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents.

"Moreover, the custody decisions based on the factors are often subjective and arbitrary. Under HB 5267 a court cannot deny requests for joint custody without stating its reasons on the record.

"Michigan NOW also asserts that HB 5267 will 'further impoverish children of separated or divorced parents' because in Michigan, as in most states, the amount of physical time divorced parents spend with their children and the concomitant expenses are calculated into the child support obligation. These fears are also unwarranted.

"Research demonstrates that joint custody leads to higher rates of child support compliance. This isn't surprising, since parents who are permitted little role in their children's lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for them. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids.

"While Michigan NOW is correct that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, they ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 40 or 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?

"Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will put abused women in harm's way. According to DOVE, HB 5267 'sends a clear message to battered women and children that the 'rights' of a batterer take precedence over their safety and wellbeing.' Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for joint custody--battered mothers should and would receive sole custody.

"Unfortunately, NOW, DOVE and other misguided women's advocates seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces--ones where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will ensure that children won't see one of the two people they love the most pushed to the margins of their lives."

You can access more information about HB5267 on Family Rights Coalition of Michigan site.

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Defeated

Yuck.

This is from the Minot Daily News:

Measure 3, the shared parenting initiative, made a good showing early, but was ultimately defeated. Getting the issue on the ballot has raised awareness of concerns regarding child custody and child support. We expect the Legislature to take up some of those same issues in the near future.


Carey Roberts mentions this legislation is his most recent article: Bush Needs to Rein in Feminist Operatives

Excerpts:

And then there were the bureaucrats at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) who didn’t like the idea of divorced fathers seeing their kids. So in direct violation of federal ethics rules, they took it upon themselves to tell the North Dakota legislators to defeat a shared parenting initiative.

Their reasoning? It’s better to let fatherless kids become drop-outs and juvenile delinquents – that way the state can rake in millions of federal welfare money.

Shame on ACF head Margo Bean for tolerating these bureaucratic shenanigans.

To his credit, President Bush did manage to shoehorn $150 million into last year’s welfare reform law to promote marriage and fatherhood. But that money will do little to stem the destructive effects of Clinton time-bomb programs like the Violence Against Women Act.

I don't understand NOW, feminists or "reproductive rights."

I am re-posting this as after just re-reading it I realize that I am even more convinced that what NOW has become may be the single most insidious force in modern society actively working against American families. Originally posted in Feb 2006.

I have to admit - as much disgust as I feel at a legal system that appears to systemically award custody based on gender instead of equally or on merit- I am not one to completely discount "maternal instinct."

I do feel as though often parents offer different supports to their children. A lot of the times these differences lie in stereotypical traits - mothers are more empathetic and nurturing while fathers are more pragmatic, physical and better equipped to teach boundaries. NOT ALWAYS - but a lot of the time. This is not to say that either contribution is more important but that often parents help teach their kids differently.

I'll bite when a woman claims the bond between mother and child at childbirth is stronger. I understand that the intimacy of breastfeeding is not easily duplicated by a father. I believe that more often the mother stays home with the child(ren) and is therefore more demonstrably involved in the day to day activities. I'll even temporarily agree that a stay at home mom (or stay at home dad for that matter) should enjoy spousal support along with child support until that party is able find a position with which they can adequately support themselves - not just the first cashier position in the want ads. (Now this forces the question of what is adequate and just how long but I'm not writing legislation here so lets just use the term reasonable. I know this a cop out but I will never be convinced that every case can be handled with some "joint custody, no support" position. There are stay at home Parents and often this arrangement resulted as a joint decision based on the children's best interests - the parent at home should have a reasonable expectation of temporary support in this realignment of the family structure).

I don't understand, however, why women keep beating the "pay discrimination" horse when it is so clear that more women take time off work (and plan to take time off work) to care for children. Not just maternity leave time but often for the first few years of the child's life. Time off for maternity leave should not result in pay disparities but certainly a woman coming back to the workforce after SEVERAL YEARS can not honestly expect to make a salary comparable with the man who worked through her entire period off. Would that not be discriminatory?

NOW lists their "top priority issues" as: Abortion Rights/Reproductive Rights, Violence Against Women, Constitutional Equality, Promoting Diversity/Ending Racism, Lesbian Rights and Economic Justice.

On the NOW site they list the median salary for male registered nurses as $36,868 and female registered nurses as $35,360. So the woman makes 96% of the males salary... This is certainly not the .74¢ for every dollar they were talking about the paragraph earlier. Nor is a male teacher at $33,800 with a female at $32,292. Could these small disparities have anything to do with more women taking time off to care for children? I can't prove it but it seems a hell of a lot more reasonable than as a result of pervasive wage discrimination.

They do get to the .74¢ with their salary numbers for computer operators- but the final example of cashiers have women making 83.3% of the males salary. I can't begin to consider all of the variables that would have to be accounted for in order to fully compare salaries by gender but I can say that it seems irresponsible to continue to cry about .74¢ on the dollar and then only produce one example of such a disparity while completely ignoring the fiscal impact on mothers who ELECT to stay home either temporarily or permanently after their children are born.

I don't understand feminists who assert that they need an "Equal Rights Amendment" while simultaneously fighting against all legislative efforts to equalize parenting post divorce. I'm not talking about the cases in which the father/mother is a demonstrated abuser of any ilk - but the run of the mill divorce with two involved and caring parents.

I would think women would prefer such a system as if one begins to think logically about who should be preferred in a custody case (as though any parent should be instantly preferred without considering the case and facts) it would have to be men. At least from the speculative point of who is less likely to abuse their children (if we want to use the issue of who *may* be abusive) it seems women are more frequently the perpetrators of abuse or neglect of children.

It appears children in mother headed households are also more likely to be under the poverty line when compared with father headed households. The CRC has a wonderful chart but you can see the census info here. Now, one might say that this is a result of men not paying child support effectively forcing these women into poverty. I mean, come on, you have seen those "deadbeat dad" commercials. Except that actual "deadbeat dads" account for somewhere around 10% of those who have accrued arrearages in child support. In reality, far more non custodial mothers default on their support orders than fathers.

I can't imagine why men would be at all hesitant to pay - it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that some researchers are now claiming as many as 30% of "fathers" may not be biologically related to their children.

So NOW stands for equal rights - but not equal rights for men or children. Their rights come after our wonderful feminist population has been sufficiently (*equally*) served.

They also list "lesbian rights" as a top issue - listing Equal Marriage Now as a related issue. Not being particularly religious, I won't go into what a conflict this position could be for a religious woman - but honestly, how can you claim to desire "equal" marriage rights for gay women while publicly bashing the fatherhood movement?

In this link there is a heading titled "Relocation Laws Keep Women in Their Place." That is asinine - relocation laws keep children in their communities. Women can go wherever they want - they may just have to do so by voluntarily leaving their children. To in any way assert that women should be able to move at will with children (moving them away from their fathers and community) just because they are women may be the pinnacle of an outright discriminatory and inherently UNEQUAL position. This is a quote from the link above: "Feminists vow to educate legislators and judges that ex-husbands are sometimes more interested in exerting control over and making life difficult for their former wives than in maintaining beneficial relationships with their children and that the needs of the children and custodial parent must be given priority."

Absolutely no commentary on how children do better with meaningful contact from both parents. No mention of the hypocrisy of this position. No substantive mention of the welfare of the children - just a warning about "abusive or controlling ex-spouses and sexist judges" with no evidence to back up the claim that either of these alleged groups are conspiring to keep women in their geographical place.

And finally, "reproductive rights." I'm sorry but considering it takes both genders to "reproduce" should not reproductive rights be offered to both parents? Not in the cases where the mother is in danger but in truly elective abortion should not both parents have the opportunity to offer to raise the child? Is it fair to the child or to the father to let a woman unilaterally decide to abort a child just because it is "her body?"

I'm not anti-abortion per se but I certainly think that provided a father willing to raise the child it is just insane to allow the woman to abort just because she wants to. How did women make unregulated fetus killing a primary position? Again, this also seems a very difficult position for a woman of a religious background. Apparently you cannot be religious and "dedicated to making legal, political, social and economic change in our society in order to achieve our goal, which is to eliminate sexism and end all oppression." (That is what NOW says it stands for anyway - can't say I'm convinced).

I find that I am not resolutely anything one way or another. There are tenets of all political parties that I agree with, there are self described feminists that can make a lot of sense as are there proponents of the fathers movement that are reasonable and dedicated to what I consider worthy and laudable goals.

But I'm sorry - most of what I see on the NOW site looks like crap. I simply cannot begin to comprehend an organization who purports to seek equality but uses the most unequal of methods.

And really, the thought that goes through my head every time I read feminist nonsense of this ilk - all of these efforts have and will visit themselves on the boys of this country. I'm quite sad for my 8 year old stepson - he has a long road ahead.

I found this quote today ~ apparently Ms. Lewis was an actress.

You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman. ~Jane Galvin Lewis

SD Shared Parenting meeting

SD Shared Parenting meeting

The South Dakota Coalition for Shared Parenting will be meeting at the Sioux Falls Downtown library November 1, 2006 from 7PM till 9PM.

The library is located at 201 North Main in Sioux Falls. If you have questions about locating the library please call them at 367-8720.

We will be working out plans for getting information to the Taskforce on divorce, custody, and education.

Please pass the word to anyone who would like to be at the meeting and bring a friend.

http://www.sdsharedparenting.com/

New Website - North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative

Equal Parents Week Rally - Michigan

Dads of Michigan will be holding an Equal Parents Week Rally on September 27th.

Excerpts from the website:

DADS OF MICHIGAN will observe Equal Parents Week (EPW), September 24 – September 30, 2006. Equal Parents Week brings attention to the need for both parents to share their parental rights and responsibilities equally, the right of children to be raised and nurtured by both parents, and the right of families to exist and function as a family. These are civil and human rights inherent and inalienable to all families. Our recent national tragedies further highlight the importance of parents and family. Public and home candlelight vigils observing EPW and the victims of terrorism will also take place on September 27 across the nation and world.

How courts discourage shared parenting in N.D.

How courts discourage shared parenting in N.D.

Excerpts:

The initiative addresses this issue by establishing a framework in which neither party has an incentive to go to court. Far from removing courts from the process, the initiative directs the court to put the appropriate burden of proof for removing a parent from their child's life on the parent who is objecting to the child keeping a substantial relationship with both parents.

Courts should not be in the business of picking winning and losing parents. They should maintain and uphold each parent's interest in their relationship to their children to the maximum extent possible.


Other articles about the shared parenting initiative in North Dakota:

Measure complies with federal law

State wants to protect revenue stream

Stand up to federal bullying, North Dakota

A House Divided - MA

A House Divided

The SJC's pivotal ruling on a joint custody case leaves a blended family caught in the middle and split in two

Excerpts:

Tristan and his 12-year-old brother, Spenser, are at the heart of a case the Supreme Judicial Court decided last week on the thorny question of whether a divorced parent with joint physical custody can move the children out of state.

The boys' mother, Betsy Shanley Coleman, who has a toddler by her second husband, wanted to return to her hometown of Bristol, N.H., where her new husband and his ex-wife share equal custody of their two sons. Shanley Coleman's ex-husband, James Mason, who lives in Nashua, N.H., wanted his sons, Tristan and Spenser, to stay in Chelmsford.

In its unanimous decision, the SJC upheld a 2003 family court ruling that ordered the boys to remain in Chelmsford schools and propelled Shanley Coleman to split her time between Chelmsford and Bristol, 90 miles apart, and sometimes rendezvous with her husband midway between the two towns.

The SJC, which had plucked the case from the docket of pending appeals, outlined a fundamental difference between cases in which one parent has physical custody and cases of joint custody. Although the well-being of a parent influences the well-being of the child, the SJC found, the benefit a parent may derive from moving carries considerably less weight in determining the children's best interests when custody is shared than when it is not.

``While a joint physical custody agreement remains in effect," Justice Judith Cowin wrote for the court, ``each parent necessarily surrenders a degree of prerogative in certain life decisions, e.g., choice of habitation, that may affect the feasibility of shared physical custody."

The SJC's decision not only guides future cases involving relocation and joint custody in the Commonwealth but also promises to generate wider interest because the SJC is a well-respected court and few state supreme courts have considered the subject. The ruling, says Jeff Atkinson, author of ``The American Bar Association Guide to Marriage, Divorce & Families," strengthens an emerging trend of courts looking at each case based on its particular facts without a presumption for or against allowing the move. It also comes in one of the most wrenching areas of family law.

The SJC pronouncement that pleases Mason leaves Shanley Coleman dismayed and awaiting action on her separate petition in family court for sole custody. Their sons, who the trial judge noted had expressed interest in spending more time with their father, now clamor to move to Bristol and live primarily with their mother.

Shanley Coleman and Mason, who met as co-workers in a software company, wed in New Hampshire in 1985, and during the first years of their sons' lives Mason cared for them while Shanley Coleman worked. When they divorced in 1998, they agreed to move from Hampton, N.H., to within 25 miles of Chelmsford to be near her job in Lowell and his in Lexington. They agreed to joint legal custody. They also established a parenting schedule that favored Shanley Coleman when school is in session but, as with many divorce agreements in recent years, did not label the arrangement either joint physical custody or sole physical custody with visitation.

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce

Excerpts:

The North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative is based on the belief that all parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children, and that no fit parent can lawfully be denied custody of his or her children. Under the Initiative, when family law courts adjudicate a divorce, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a mother or father is unfit, all parents will have joint legal and physical custody of their children.

The CCCRC claims that the Initiative places the interests of parents over the interests of children. Yet when psychologist Joan Kelly examined children of divorce, she found that they “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. An Arizona State University study queried adult children of divorce, and found that more than two-thirds believed “living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.”

Glenn Sacks Updates

This is all verbatim from an email

SB 1482 Update

In the face of over 3,500 calls, letters and faxes opposing SB 1482, the hearing on the bill has been postponed from today to Tuesday, May 9. Thanks to all of your for your participation.

As I noted in my action alert NEW CAMPAIGN: Move-Away Bill Will Harm Children of Divorce (April 18, 2006):

"Under SB 1482...a parent seeking to block a move is specifically prohibited from citing most of the evidence that could provide a basis for restraining the move. Nonmoving parents are prevented from citing the move's impact on their children's relationships with them or the effects of the children losing their schools and friends. This directly abrogates current California case law which says that the children's relationship with their nonmoving parent must be considered when deciding a relocation case.

"The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, which we originally formed to defeat SB 730, is working with the California Alliance for Families and Children to defeat SB 1482."

New York Shared Parenting Bill Held

In a disappointing though not surprising vote, the New York Assembly Committee on Children & Families voted today to hold over A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill. Four committee members voted in favor of the bill (see below), and the rest voted to hold, citing concerns about alleged technical issues or flaws in the bill.

This bill has been locked up in committee for 12 years. Jim Hays, president of Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, who sponsored the bill, told me that with the four "yes" votes and all the media attention, this is the closest they've ever come to getting it out of committee. He has asked me to tell you that it was the 8,000 calls, letters and faxes you generated which helped bring it this close, and to thank you.

The Assemblymemebers voting in favor of the bill were Ruben Diaz Jr., Karim Camara, Michael Benjamin and Vincent Ignizio.

Shared Parenting Bill Would Help New York's Children of Divorce

Shared Parenting Bill Would Help New York's Children of Divorce

More Glenn Sacks...

Excerpts:

According to a meta-analysis conducted by psychologist Robert Bauserman and published in the American Psychological Association‘s Journal of Family Psychology, children in joint custody settings had fewer behavior and emotional problems, higher self-esteem, better family relations, and better school performance than children in sole custody arrangements.

A Harvard University study of 517 families conducted across a four-and-a-half year period measured depression, deviance, school effort, and school grades in children ranging in age from 10 to 18. The researchers found that the children in joint custody settings fared better in these areas than those in sole custody.

A study by psychologist Joan Kelly published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review found that children of divorce “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor.

When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents’ divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that “living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children."

Research demonstrates that joint custody also leads to high rates of child support compliance. This is no surprise--parents who are permitted little role in their children’s lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for their children. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids.

According to a study in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, over time joint custody serves to help reduce conflict between divorced spouses. When Texas Woman's University conducted a study of the effects of post-divorce discord on children aged 8 to 12, they found that joint custody does not expose children to greater parental conflict. Bauserman’s research found that divorced couples with joint custody report less conflict than those in sole-custody settings.

Societal Shift in Role of Fathers

Societal Shift in Role of Fathers

This is the latest article from Wendy McElroy.

Excerpts:

On March 28, the New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee is scheduled to hear Bill A330 on shared parenting. The bill seeks to establish "the presumption in matrimonial proceedings for awarding shared parenting of minor children in the absence of an allegation that shared parenting would be detrimental to the best interests of the child."

In short, a parent seeking sole custody (most commonly the mother) would assume the legal burden of proving why a shared arrangement would harm the child.

Father's rights advocates view New York as "a battleground state" not only because of the influence its policies exert but also because New York is one of the few states to resist a national trend toward statutes favoring joint custody.

Because A330 is vehemently opposed by mainstream feminist organizations like the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women, the bill's hearing may become raucous. But, given that almost three dozen State Assembly members have endorsed the bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, A330 stands a good chance of passing.

Shared Parenting Showdown

Read the latest Glenn Sacks newsletter (including updates on New York Shared Parenting Bill A330) by clicking here.

DIVORCE SUCKS

All of this discussion and cataloging of joint custody initiatives has resulted in *at times* forgetting my real position on divorce/custody. DIVORCE SUCKS even under the best, most amicable of circumstances.

Sure, I started this site because of my disgust at a legal system that appears to treat dads as little more than a source of funding. And I know that with no fault divorce - if this is the route your spouse wants to take you have few resources to impede the divorce.

I certainly would not advocate begging anyone to remain in their marriage - but then, who am I kidding? As a child of divorce between two parents with few differences other than conflicting outlooks - the kid left in me wants to scream stop it any way you can even if it means you have to drop to your knees and plead.

The adult in me is disgusted at that idea. I knew that my mother was cheating and I will be the first to publicly say that the best thing that ever happened to my father was their divorce. (The ensuing custody war is something else entirely). And yet, I still hear my seven year old voice wishing they "would get back together" and that things should just PLEASE go back to normal. During this period I loved and hated them both. I knew my mother had made the decision, I knew she had been cheating and I resented the almost instant presence of her new boyfriend in our home. But my dad had abandoned us (I can rationalize now that he obviously did not) but then I couldn't get my head around how he could leave OUR HOME and then let this new man show up, sleep in his bed, boss us around, etc....

Hmm, do I still have unresolved issues about my parents divorce? Absolutely.

The following is from an article printed earlier this month: Even 'good' divorces can make life highly stressful for children

Marquardt discovered that, even in "good" divorces where both parents worked together to make the situation as comfortable as possible for the children, 52 percent of those surveyed said that life was stressful, compared to 6 percent from happy marriages.

And the situation tended to make them feel isolated from both parents. In response to the survey question, "In thinking back on your childhood, when you needed comfort, what did you do?", 69 percent of children in intact families said they went to a parent, but only 33 percent of children of divorce did.

This and other data led Marquardt to the conclusion that - although children are better off after divorce when there was abuse, serial infidelity and other serious problems - they are not better off when divorce ends a "low-conflict" marriage.

"The children of low-conflict couples fare worse after the divorce because the divorce marks their first exposure to a serious problem. One day, without much warning, their world just falls apart," she writes in her book Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce. Along with complete survey data and her analysis of it, the book also includes examples from her own life.

She describes a low-conflict marriage as one "in which parents divorce because they are unhappy or unfulfilled, or have other problems that are not seriously threatening." According to studies, she said, about two-thirds of marriages that end in divorce could be described as low-conflict.

She said she would not presume to tell people that they should stay together just for the sake of the children. What she would hope, she said, is that people who know that their spouse is a good person and a good parent will take her findings into account before going ahead with a divorce.

So what to do (if you are in what was described above as a low conflict marriage)? One of my first suggestions would be as soon as there is talk of divorce visit the uptoparents.com site and both go through the commitments. Try to aware your spouse of the research regarding children of divorce. Explore counseling/therapy to address issues within the marriage. And whatever happens - do not forget who will suffer the most and always keep the welfare of your children at the forefront of your mind.

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts - Michigan

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts

Excerpts:

One thousand seven hundred employees now work full-time in Friend of the Court offices as referees, counselors, clerks, and support staff in all 83 Michigan counties. In addition, many employees of the criminal justice system devote a major portion of their workday to this last vestige of debtor's prison.

So it is no surprise that there was consternation in Lansing over a federal plan that cut nearly a quarter billion dollars in Michigan subsidies for child-support enforcement. But one state legislator, Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton, has introduced a bill that could reduce the need for devoting so many resources to child support enforcement.

It would simply amend the Child Custody Act of 1970 to create a presumption that parents who divorce maintain joint custody of their minor children. Both would retain the legal right to authorize medical treatment, have access to school records and so forth. Both would have physical custody of their child(ren) for alternating and substantially equal periods of time.

The legislation makes provision for rebutting the presumption of joint custody -- if a parent is either "unfit, unwilling or unable," or moves residence so far away as to preclude maintaining established school schedules. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, it will simply give defendants back some control over their own fate.

Bills in New York would require courts to treat mom, dad equally

'Shared parenting' seen as custody solution
Bills in New York would require courts to treat mom, dad equally

Excerpts:

A.330 in the New York State Assembly would guarantee "statutory presumption of joint custody" in divorce cases "so that both parents can continue to share in the responsibilities and duties of the children's upbringing."

The bill, sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg, states that continuing contact with both parents through "shared parenting" is in the best interests of minor children – as well as their parents.

Under the legislation, courts would be required to award joint custody unless something were brought to light to prove such an arrangement would be detrimental to the children. That fact would have to be proved by the party seeking sole custody.

"Shared parenting," the bill states, means "both parents would remain legally responsible and in control of their children so that both parents share in the care and upbringing of their children."

States the legislation: "Currently, there is no preference for shared parenting in New York. The court may award joint custody, but in practice rarely does so."

Weisenberg's bill has been endorsed by the New York City Council and fathers' rights organization Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. A companion bill in the Senate is S.291.

Another similar bill pending in the Assembly is A.6670 by Assemblyman Brian Kolb. One of its provisions is to change state statutory language so the term "visitation" for non-prime custodial parents is substituted with "parenting time."

Proposed initiative would revamp child custody laws - North Dakota

Proposed initiative would revamp child custody laws

Excerpts:

BISMARCK - A proposed ballot measure would revamp North Dakota's laws on child custody in favor of having parents share joint physical custody of their children.

The measure, which was submitted to Secretary of State Al Jaeger on Friday for review, would also limit child support payments to "the actual cost of providing for the basic needs" of a child.

The measure would establish joint physical custody of children in most divorces, which is defined as having the children spend equal time with both parents. A joint physical custody arrangement would prevail unless one of the parents was judged unfit, the measure says.

Jaeger reviews ballot initiatives to ensure they are in proper legal form, and writes a short description of what the measure does. He must provide the measure's ballot title by March 1.

To place the measure on the November ballot, supporters must gather signatures from at least 12,844 eligible North Dakota voters by Aug. 8.

Time to get serious about child visitation

Time to get serious about child visitation
by KATHLEEN PARKER

Excerpts:

Bitter parents who try to block their formerly beloved's access to the couple's child(ren) following divorce might think twice in New Hampshire, where a proposed bill aims to make life difficult for uncooperative custodial parents.

How difficult? By inviting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate the offending parent for child abuse and neglect.

The idea behind such legislation is that children of divorce should continue to have access to both parents, assuming there's no reason to protect a child from one of his parents. While child visitation orders are taken seriously in theory, the legal process of enforcement is usually time-consuming, laborious and expensive. In practice, the failure to take them seriously leads to an ever-widening, and predictable, trajectory of distance between the child and visiting parent.

Bickford's bill (HB 1585) would make it easier for parents denied visitation to seek remedy, while promising grief for parents who don't cooperate.

First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect.

Common sense tells us what we seem to need studies to demonstrate — that children need two parents and manage divorce best when they have equal access to both.

While family courts are increasingly trying to ensure that children have that access by awarding joint or shared custody, emotionally distraught humans don't always follow directions.

Meanwhile, courts and the state historically have been more effective in enforcing child support than visitation such that we have entire bureaucracies built around support collection tied to federal incentives. For every dollar that states put up to collect child support monies, for example, the federal government matches with two dollars. Other incentive funds are also available to reward collections.

But the proposed bill is not without critics. As with any law related to personal relationships, this one could be tricky to enforce. Imagine a HHS social worker knocking on your door to ask why you didn't let Johnny see his daddy last weekend.

Such well-intentioned laws also could backfire. As one close observer put it in an e-mail exchange, "Getting (HHS) involved is usually the worst thing to do. They usually side with the 'Mom who is concerned about letting the kids go to their father' and, they (investigators) may decide that neither parent is fit. And take custody of the kid(s)."

Indiana Senate Bill 40

Usually I don't blog from home but I wanted to get this up. This is copied verbatim from an email.

Dear Friends of Indiana Families:

Senate Bill 40 increases the requirements on a person who has court-ordered parenting time (including grandparent visitation) and intends to move.

Bill information can be found here.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing on Wednesday, 1/11/2006 at 9am in room 233 of the Statehouse. It has the backing of the Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee (a committee of the General Assembly), the Domestic Relations Committee of Indiana Judicial Administration (the "guidelines" folks), the Family Law Section of the Ind State Bar Association, Children's Rights Council, Parent's and Children's Equality of Indiana and a lot of parents!

In spite of that, I'll tell you that this is the Committee where most family law legislation dies. If you can come to the committee hearing, please do so and let them know of your support by your presence, if not your testimony on its behalf.