[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« An Overview Of The Anti-Feminist Men's Movement | Main | Friday Random Ten - The "Dedicated To The Heretik" Mix »
April 29, 2005
Nevada - Presumptive Joint Custody
Here is a fathers' rights-friendly article about the presumptive joint custody bill in Nevada. I have already posted that Nevada ended up rejecting presumptive joint custody. Fathers' rights activists weren't happy about it, and I posted some of their thoughts. Please go to my post about the Nevada joint custody presumption being rejected to read more about this.
Nevada custody bill draws fire
3/22/05, third day of testimony on a Nevada bill that would alter how child custody is determined...
SB109, introduced by Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks, would establish the presumption that
joint custody is in the best interest of a child, even when both parents don't agree to joint custody. Current law holds that presumption to be true only when both parents agree to joint custody.Washington said he offered the bill because he has heard from so many fathers who have gone through the court system trying to get visitation and joint custody.
"There's mounting frustration among fathers that basically have been - they feel - snubbed by the courts. It's not to say one parent is better than the other parent," Washington said after the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. "But it's at least to say that with joint custody there's equal footing and there's equal rights for visitation and to participate in the child's life."
The presumption would not apply when a parent has been convicted of certain crimes or has committed
acts of domestic violence, and the courts also could call for an investigation to see whether joint custody is inappropriate.Those who lined up to testify said on one hand that joint custody hurts children's development because they don't have one place to consider home, while others - mostly fathers - said custody proceedings tend to favor the mother and that keeps them away from their children.
"The first step needs to be taken," said Garret Idle, a Reno Realtor who is filing for full custody of his two children. "The current system drives families apart."
Jeff May, a legislative police officer and father of a 9-year-old, said he wishes he could see his daughter more often than every other weekend, during half of the summer and on half of the holidays.
"I know I'm speaking for thousands of daddies statewide," he said, adding that those fathers also would testify if they weren't busy at jobs so they can make their child-support payments on time.
"This ultimately comes down to the children. This is all about the children," he said, adding, "Dividing the time equally I think would be fair."
The bill will be considered in work session, perhaps more than one time, in the coming month, said the
committee's chairman, Sen. Mark Amodei, R-Carson City. "Obviously this issue is not one that lends itself
to a quick and simple solution," he said.
Posted on April 29, 2005 at 09:36 AM | Permalink
Comments
How can both parents have "equal rights to visitation" when the kids are being full time looked after, fed, clothed and educated by just one parent (almost always the mother)? The person who does all the hard work should also make the decisions about who can and can't see the kids and when.
Posted by: Cruella at Apr 29, 2005 10:09:59 AM
See, I don't really understand the issue of Joint Custody from the father's point of view. I mean, if he really wanted to see his child more why can't he arange it with the mother? Free child care, especially by someone both the mother and child trusts, is a boon to most single women as well as remarried mothers. Obviously this requires an amicable split, which I don't think is as rare as it seems to be, but I don't feel like the only choices are joint custody or only seeing your child every other weekend.
Since most divorced women want their children to see more of their fathers I just don't see this vast conspiracy to stop men from spending time with their kids. They'd just have to actually work at it. Maybe be the NC parent picks the kids up from school to go to lessons or sports on various days. Setting a schedule that gives a child one permanent home but lots of time with both parents is obviously ideal - but there's no reason to get the courts involved unless there are extenuating circumstances of abuse/deliberate attempts to keep one parent away. Considering the number of fathers who don't take near the amount of visitation they are legally allowed to, I fail to see this as a major issue of injustice.
Posted by: Rebecca at Apr 29, 2005 10:38:43 AM
Rebecca: See, I don't really understand the issue of Joint Custody from the father's point of view. I mean, if he really wanted to see his child more why can't he arange it with the mother? Free child care, especially by someone both the mother and child trusts, is a boon to most single women as well as remarried mothers.
When I first divorced I discussed this very issue with one of my mom friends. The "big secret" was that, due to visitation schedules, moms had more time off than they ever had during the marriage. Fathers actually had more hands-on time with the children, assuming they didn't shunt them off to their new girlfriends/wives or mothers when it was their time to be with them. While married, the moms were on call all the time, since they had taken on the primary caregiver role. Now, divorced, they had every other weekend off where they could do whatever they wanted, since the kids were in dad's care. They also had one or two evenings per week where they got a breather because the kids were with dad. He had responsibility for them during his visitation time that he usually didn't take on when the couple was married. Most mothers know this, and they welcome dad's further involvement.
Rebecca: Obviously this requires an amicable split, which I don't think is as rare as it seems to be, but I don't feel like the only choices are joint custody or only seeing your child every other weekend.
Even when the split is amicable, joint custody is still hard to pull off. It's hard on the kids, who have to keep track of where they're supposed to be. They have to keep track of their belongings when going back and forth. It's hard for their friends to keep track of where they will be on a given week/day. Their friends complain that they frequently miss when the kids are with whatever parent. Sometimes their extracurricular activities sometimes end up giving way to the joint custody schedule. Plus, if mom or dad has remarried, the kids may feel as if they are in competition with stepchildren.
Rebecca: Since most divorced women want their children to see more of their fathers I just don't see this vast conspiracy to stop men from spending time with their kids. They'd just have to actually work at it. Maybe be the NC parent picks the kids up from school to go to lessons or sports on various days. Setting a schedule that gives a child one permanent home but lots of time with both parents is obviously ideal - but there's no reason to get the courts involved unless there are extenuating circumstances of abuse/deliberate attempts to keep one parent away. Considering the number of fathers who don't take near the amount of visitation they are legally allowed to, I fail to see this as a major issue of injustice.
That's one thing fathers' rights activists fail to point out - that most moms want their children to see more of their fathers. These parents work with both their own schedules and what their children need. Visitation interference cases aren't that common. It's a good idea to see what is going on in the relationship to see why there may be visitation interference. The visitation issue that doesn't get covered is when dad has visitation but doesn't exercise it. He either doesn't show up or keeps rescheduling visitation because he has other things to do. Those dads aren't affected by this big fathers' rights call to penalize "parents" who interfere with visitation.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 29, 2005 11:08:23 AM
That's one thing fathers' rights activists fail to point out - that most moms want their children to see more of their fathers.
I wish that were the case in my situation.
In my particular case, when my first wife and I divorced, my daughter was so small (only 4) and my ex was only working part time. I was paying alimony and child support.
I didn't think a 50/50 split was the right thing to do at that time because I was traveling so much.
But now that my daughter is older (14), every-other-weekend is just not enough. As I've stated on this blog before (and I'll say it again even though I know I'm going to get responses which claim to "know" that I'm not telling what I really want), my daughter needs more father than she's currently getting. Yes, folks, it is about my child. Or course it's about ME, too, I love her to pieces and the more we are together the better.
You'd be wrong to assume this is only about getting rid of my child support obligation. I pay my amount on time every month, haven't missed a payment. I don't begrudge her the money; she doesn't spend money the way I would (and that's one reason we're not together anymore), but my daughter is well looked-after, so I have no questions. From a practical standpoint, if my daughter was with me half the time, yes, I would expect my support obligation to reduce.
But, my ex begrudges any extra time I'd like to have with my daughter. I have many, many documented instances of it.
A presumed-joint custody in the courts would have been irrelevant in our case, since we both agreed my ex would have primary physical custody and I would have visitation. We did not need the courts to judge on the matter. One thing I failed to have the foresight for, though, is how much it would be beneficial for my daughter to spend more time with me as she grew older and my travel decreased, so I didn't even think about getting that into the decree. Stupid me.
Since then, I've brought up the subject with my ex a couple of times. I've asked her what she would think about splitting custody more 50/50 or so. She is totally closed to the idea. Frankly, I think she thinks I'm not so good a parent (another issue leading to us not being married), so she's dis-inclined to agree that more time with me is beneficial to our daughter.
Posted by: Scarbo at Apr 29, 2005 12:43:35 PM
"The first step needs to be taken," said Garret Idle, a Reno Realtor who is filing for full custody of his two children.
Inadvertently I'm sure, Mr. Idle gives away the show.Joint custody, sharing, equality -- just a lot of pretty words. The man wants FULL CUSTODY. Full control. Hmmm. How much you want to bet he won't be too interested in letting the former Mrs. Idle see the children then, much less be subjected to the "indignity" of 50/50?
Scarbo, I'm not unsympathetic to your plight at all. Having sort of survived an expensive and totally pointless attempt to get the courts to enforce my visitation against a control freak father, I can certainly identify with your feelings. The Ex begrudges the time I spend with my daughter too. Sad.
Posted by: silverside at Apr 29, 2005 3:01:57 PM
Silverside, do you know Mr. and Mrs. Idle? If not, please don't make assumptions. She might be a drug addict or living with a man who beats her or whatever.
I agree that assuming everyone wants joint custody is silly. I do not believe in 50/50 physical custody because then the kids really don't live anywhere, but I DO believe in liberal visitation rights - most of the time.
Just as all families have different child support obligations, they have different ideas regarding custody and visitation.
Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Apr 29, 2005 5:05:14 PM
If there wasn't so much bias in the courts in favor of women, would this be a "Men's Rights" versus "Women's Rights" political issue? If this wasn't a gender based political issue, could we more effectively work to determine what truly is in the best interests of the children?
It would seem to me that society has evolved in such a way that either parent can frequently be found to be adequate in parenting abilities, and therein lies the difficulty for judges.
This increasing difficulty, caused by men's increasing roles as caregivers actually serves to exacerbate the bias issue. Judges look for a way to make a decision that has legal precedence to support it. The majority of legal precedence favors mothers, thus the bias is perpetuated, even in cases where it is not warranted.
It is the cases in which that bias is not warranted that are problematic- if the judge can easily show a preference for one parent, a presumption of joint custody is irrelevant. In other words, having that presumption as law will have no effect, positive or negative.
However, in those cases where there is no easily identifiable parent of preference, if mothers "lost" as frequently as fathers do, this would cease to be a gender issue. The purpose of a presumption of joint custody is the equivalent of the Civil Rights Act and the Disabilities Act- to eliminate discrimination based on no other criteria than (in this case) gender. When this bias is eliminated, men and women can stop quibbling (as on this website/blog) and work together in the interests of the children.
That is the purpose of a legislated presumption of joint custody.
Posted by: boredm1970 at May 3, 2005 10:50:48 PM
I met my husband when his 2 boys were 5 years and 7 years, they are now 12 and 10 and they have what you would call joint custody, 3 days with mom, 4 days with dad, then 4 days with mom and 3 days with dad, alternating. Finally my husband gets a promtion allowing him to support his children in every way, ( I don't mean child support) that is a given and he has paid it every month like clock work, what I mean is the finer things in life if you will. The promtion is out of state so he moves with the intention that the mother and him agree to the children living with her for 2 years then after the 2 years they live with him. why not? sure the law says that the fit parent should be the custodial parent, but in this case, both are fit, so now that he moves out of state with the intent he will share a lifestyle with his children. the 2 years are up this year 2005 and to our surprise she tells him no the children cannot live with him. I guess my statement is that who is anyone to speak on these matters as if they speak of them from expierence,having none, should really put themselves in the other parents shoes! And who is anyone to determine the rights of the child? why should the child suffer the consequences of the parents who just had a run of bad luck? I believe that motherhood is OVERRATED if you ask me. I am a mother of a beautiful healthy 18 month old who I adroe but guess what, she adores her father just as she adores me, so is it fair to say "what if we split up" our daughter should be with me at all times and just have to live with visitation rights with her father beacuse we failed to uphold our end of the bargin>? How can we say as a society that we will FORCE a father to pay child support but deny his rights as a father or even limit them to little, or none. I guess it is easier to pass judgement upon the father beacuse society says that fathers are deabeats who never want to see their kids, or pay child support, so I guess then it is the GOD given freedom right that we speak of in the constiution that says we have the right to deny a fathers rights of an HONEST father as opposed to ALL FATHERS. Somebody better take a good hard look at the child's behavioral patterns, education, and mental stability when living with just the mother without seeing the father regulary, just really how appropriate is it for the child to live with just the MOTHE?
Posted by: Shannen at May 18, 2005 7:53:48 PM
Cruella: A child is no more one parent's property than it is a CD collection to be divided merely because a parent wants it so. Visitation shouldn't be left to when Mom feels like it or feels Dad's good enough to be around the kids.
Countess: There should be penalties for parents who miss too many scheduled visitations. I'm also glad most mothers do want more of their ex's presence in their kids lives. Alas, you don't get the bad apples now and again and I suppose that'll keep those family law courts rolling ad infinitem.
Posted by: DP_in_SF at Aug 30, 2005 8:47:26 PM
"When this bias is eliminated, men and women can stop quibbling (as on this website/blog) and work together in the interests of the children.
Right, dream on...
Mothers are not going to stop "guibbling" as you call it just because men are okay with these weird custody arrangements, so they can pay less child support.
Sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you. I can tell you right now for myself I would NEVER have agreed to any of my child, especially as infants, going into one of these Joint Custody arrangements where they were out of my care for three, sometimes four days every week. No mother is going to go along with that willingly. The bottom line is that I'd be more suspicious of a mother who was okay with that arrangement.
What will happen over time, it's happening already actually, is that women will continue trying to find ways to conceive while heading men off from having legal rights to children right from the beginning, from conception. It's that simple.
Thus, we will continue seeing these odd family formations and court cases as society continues trying to bring women back into the fold.
I predict it won't work and we'll have more babies from single women using sperm donation, foreign adoptions and other unorthodox methods to create families ALONE.
Where will it end, who can say...I have no idea and I seriously doubt if anyone else does either. But this is what the selfishness of men has wrought, this mess.
Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 30, 2005 9:17:43 PM
It is sad to see a father that desires joint custidy of his children not be able to have it because the courts are in favor of the mother. My very close and dear friend is going through a very rough time. He has his children the first three weekends (Friday - Sunday) of the month and every Wednesday of the week (the last Wednesday overnight). The sad part about his situation is that he barely has food for them to eat when they are over due to the amount of child support he is paying. Since his divorce (four years ago) he has not missed a payment, but since the courts are in favor of the mother, she (the mother) was able to go to court three years later and lie about him not paying any child support. No one infomred him that child support checks should have been made directly to the mother. How could any human being not want the father of their children to be in their lives 50% of the time, unless it is about money. No desirving father should have to struggle to have food in the house when he has them just about the same amount of time as the mother. I watched as he had to tell his children he could not take them shopping for school clothes (for the first time in 13 years) because he did not have the money. How does this court system expect fathers to support their child if they can not afford a place to live. I know there are a lot of irresponsible fathers but I also personally know very responsible fathers who are being subjected to the same unfair treatment as the fathers who don't take care of their children. Good fathers should not have to suffer because of the wrong doings of the bad ones.
Posted by: Ivy at Aug 31, 2005 7:57:40 PM
"Good fathers should not have to suffer because of the wrong doings of the bad ones."
Well I'll admit that child support guidelines are ridiculous. I mean I just heard the Countess say her husband pays $1,000 monthly for ONE CHLD. AND that of course is just HIS proportional SHARE, as the custodial parent is suposed to be contributing as well.
To me that's way over and above what is required to raise a child at a decent standard of living.
BUT I don't think the solution is constantly fighting for more visition time to lower child support payments. The solution is to more realistic assess the amount of support the non-custodial parent should be paying. I think when we work that out, MOST problems will be solved.
But frankly I believe a lot of the androgynous society crowd is still going to be disappointed, as I still see most mothers wanting custody and most fathers letting them have it. Personally, I just don't think men are as interested in children as women are.
Sorry but I just don't believe they are.
Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 31, 2005 8:31:27 PM
This is so bothersom to me. EVERY Dad has a right to see there children reguardless ifthe mother is getting child support or not. If the Dad of your child wants to be a stable part of there childrens lives than there is no reason he should not. My boyfriend pays $1000. per monthe for one child and that includes all her childcare but only sees her 3 days a month. He has talked to her mother and she refuses to let him see her anymore than that. We are now being told that to try and change the origanal order of custody (child was 6 months old)is not going to happen unless we can prove her unfit. The Ex wife has now moved to Californa and we are made to drive to get her and drop her off.This man has done everything in his power to be a part of his daughters live and is denied EVERY time. Women need to relize that not all men want to be a part of there childrens lives so be gratfull if you do have a man that does. I know first hand because I have 3 Children that for 3 years I have not recieved child support for(all have same father) but that is there dad and I will never take that away from them no matter what. We may of had our problems but those had nothing to do with the kids and why punish them for the mistakes there parents made.
Posted by: LJ at Sep 29, 2005 10:18:50 AM
i want to know why a father still has rights even when he is very violent to the mother and yells at the children scaring them.
i would like to know why is it always the womans fault if the husband bits up on her, and how is it that a man can still get custody of the children when he is doing drugs and spending all the money on them and they're lights gets cut off twice in less than a month and now they're are losing they place to live because of his drug problem and he tells her if she takes the kids he will kill her so she really don't know what to do.
can you please help us with this problem and can you tell us about the laws on custodies cases in wilmington n.c.
thank you!
melissa
Posted by: Melissa at Jun 9, 2006 3:59:03 AM
