[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« Shockome Case Makes Poughkeepsie Journal | Main | Iowa Judge Cited For Domestic Assault »
May 13, 2005
Massachusetts - Presumptive Joint Custody
Massachusetts will soon be hearing testimony for and against HB 919, a bill for a presumption for shared parenting.
The term "shared parenting" sounds good, but it is nothing more than a euphemism for joint physical custody. Good parenting cannot be legislated. Shared parenting has little to do with parenting, and everything to do with dividing up the time a child spends with each parent. It turns parents into calendars who are overly concerned with their schedules.
The bill seeks to cut the following section: "When considering the happiness and welfare of the child, the court shall consider whether or not the child's present or past living conditions adversely affect his physical, mental, moral or emotional health." It is a bad idea to cut this section. The child's present or past living conditions should be of paramount concern when deciding custody. A child can have "frequent and continuing contact with both parents" without having a shared parenting order in place. A presumption that [...] the parents shall have shared legal custody and shared physical custody of said child" places adult demands over the happiness and welfare of the child. It also treats all families as if they are the same, and they are not.
Custody should be determined on a case-by-case basis. One particular form of custody, such as joint custody, should not be forced on parents when other forms of custody would be more appropriate for them and especially for their children. Joint custody is already an option for parents who choose to try it on their own. There does not need to be a presumption for it. 90% of parents settle without the need for court intervention in deciding what form of custody is best for them and for their children. Most parents do not choose joint custody because they recognize how hard it would be on them and especially on their children. They also recognize that in most cases the mother had been the primary caregiver of the children, and they believe she should continue in that capacity. That is why mothers most often get sole custody. It is not due to bias against dads in court. When dads make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time.
Courts are not biased against fathers. Lynn Hecht Schafran found in "Gender Bias In family Courts", published by the American Bar Association Family Advocate, that "Despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts [gender bias] task force, for example, reported that fathers receive primary or joint custody in more than 70 percent of contested cases."
"The various gender bias commissions found that at the trial court level in contested custody cases, fathers won more than half the time. This is especially significant in light of the fact that not only do fathers win more often in court when they take these cases to trial, but also that an overwhelmingly higher percentage of fathers gain primary custody -- by any means -- than were ever the primary caregiver of their children during marriage. Statistically, this dashes the argument that 'only the strongest cases are taken to trial,' and in fact indicates an extraordinary bias against mothers and the value of mothering and mothers' work."
Last week, California rejected a presumptive joint custody bill. I had testified against that bill. An earlier bill from 1996 had also failed. New Hampshire recently sent one off to study, which means that the bill is dead. Maryland has rejected presumptive joint custody twice already. I had provided testimony against the bill both times. Presumptive joint custody has been rejected in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the U. K. The Guardian reported in an July 2004 article entitled "Divorce Plan Puts Children First", that Lord Falconer, the constitutional affairs secretary, said: "There cannot and will not be an automatic presumption of 50-50 contact. Children cannot be divided like the furniture or the CD collection."
While joint custody may work for parents who freely choose to try it, joint custody has been shown to be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict between their parents. When one parent wants joint custody and the other doesn't, there will be conflict between those parents that joint custody will not aleviate. Paul Amato noted in his article "Contact With Non-custodial Fathers and Children's Well-Being that "In a large California study, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that joint custody is sometimes used to resolve custody disputes. They found that joint custody was awarded in about one-third of cases in which mothers and fathers had each sought sole custody. And the more legal conflict that occurred between parents, the more likely joint custody was to be awarded. Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent."
The children's needs are often ignored when people talk in favor of presumptive joint custody. Joint custody asks a lot of children. It is harmful to children who cannot handle the restrictive schedule. Many of them cannot handle the shunting back and forth between homes very well. They also must keep track of which home they are to be in on a given day, which is stressful for them. They lose track of their friends, and their extracurricular activities suffer when parents pay too much attention to when the children are to be with them. They miss birthday parties, sleep-overs, and evening school activities because their parents are too concerned with the joint custody schedule. Many children like to join theatre groups, bands, and sporting events that are unfairly subjected to the joint custody schedule, where their parents focus more on when the children are supposed to be with them, than on what their children would like to do with their own time.
In the cases where joint custody has worked, the families had these qualities in common: the parents had an amicable relationship, their divorce was amicable with little or no conflict, they had higher-than-average incomes, they had only one child, neither parent (especially the father) had remarried, they lived within close proximity of each other, they had flexible job schedules, the child could handle the joint custody arrangement, and the parents chose freely between themselves to try joint custody and they chose to make it work.
There should not be a presumption for joint custody in Massachusetts. It ignores the desires of most parents, who don't want joint custody. It also ignores the contributions of the primary caregiving parent, most often the mother, and it ignores the needs of children. It ignores the child's development as the child ages. Hopefully, Massachusetts will reject a presumption for joint custody, as California recently did.
Posted on May 13, 2005 at 08:55 AM | Permalink
Comments
Trish, what are your thoughts with regards to why these bills are being thought up in the first place?
Do you think that the men requesting/supporting this kind of legislation are merely mistaken in their beliefs (about family court bias, about the effects of joint custody on kids, etc.), or do you think they have some other agenda?
Posted by: Scarbo at May 13, 2005 1:53:44 PM
Our "agenda" is to be treatd fairly by the Famil Court system and to have MORE time with our children. Do you knowwhat happens when parents had an amicable relationship, their divorce was amicable with little or no conflict, they have higher-than-average incomes, they have only one child, neither parent (especially the father) had remarried, they live within close proximity of each other, they haveflexible job schedules, the child can handle the joint custody arrangement and the MOTHER says she does not want the Fathr to have equl time; THE FATHER DOES NOT GET EQAUL TIME WITH HIS CHILDREN. To th family court system, men ar just wallets. They want us to shut up and pay the money. Well sister, that will one dy be a thing us the past. Our agenda; WE WANT RESPECT. We matter. And most of all, we love our children and want to hav as much time with them as possible.
Posted by: Mike at May 13, 2005 2:31:27 PM
I highly endorse proofreading before hitting POST, sorry about that last message...
Posted by: Mike at May 13, 2005 2:33:29 PM
Scarbo, it's both. Plus, fathers see their child support lowered or eliminated with joint custody. They don't talk about that much, for obvious reasons.
The most important thing is that a lot of children can't handle the joint custody schedule. This is what Dr. Judith Wallerstein had to say about children and joint custody:
Joint custody can be helpful in families where it has been chosen voluntarily by both parents and is suitable for the child. But there is no evidence to support the notion that "one size fits all" or even most. There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for the idea that different custody models are suitable for different families. The policy job ahead is to find the best match for each family. Sadly, when joint custody is imposed by the court on families fighting over custody of children the major consequences of the fighting are shifted onto the least able members of the family--the hapless and helpless children. The children can suffer serious psychological injury when this happens."
(Page 304 in Second Chances)
Joint physical custody is good for some children and bad for others. Some children can make friends in two neighborhood and are able to go back and forth. But many children cannot do this. They feel that they belong nowhere. They complain that the coach will not let them bo on the team if they cannot be there all the time. They complain that they get cut out of activities like birthday parties and sleepovers. They have, as a group, fewer extracurricular activities and sports anad they miss it and feel like second class citizens. Siince fathers remarry more quickly than mothers and more remarry children have most contacat witih stepmothers. Many in joint custody feel that they play second fiddle to the children of the stepmother who are there all the time. There is a good deal of evidence from Princeton studies that stepmother relationships with the children of the first marriage are not as protective and certainly less
affectionate than those of their mothers.
In a major Stanford University study over one third of the over 1000 children who started out in joint physical custody gravitated within two years to their mom's home. These mothers by that time have for all intents and purposes sole custody, but they also have the lower child support award that goes with joint custody. They are raising their children with less money than they are warranted.
So many children need sole custody and others can benefit from joint custody. Children come single file. Group studies and the averages that people derive from them should never be used to frame the life of the single child. I wrote about how to choose custody at length in my new book "What about the Kids." The factors to be conbsidered include the age of the child, the temperment of the child including flexibility , the interests of the child. and the relationships with each parent, and other factors which are clearly relevant to the child's development.
---
In the cases where joint custody has worked, the families had these qualities in common: the parents had an amicable relationship, their divorce was amicable with little or no conflict, they had higher-than-average incomes, they had only one child, neither parent (especially the father) had remarried, they lived within close proximity of each other, they had flexible job schedules, the child could handle the joint custody arrangement, and the parents chose freely between themselves to try joint custody and they chose to make it work.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 13, 2005 2:34:56 PM
"Do you knowwhat happens when parents had an amicable relationship, their divorce was amicable with little or no conflict, they have higher-than-average incomes, they have only one child, neither parent (especially the father) had remarried, they live within close proximity of each other, they haveflexible job schedules, the child can handle the joint custody arrangement and the MOTHER says she does not want the Fathr to have equl time; THE FATHER DOES NOT GET EQAUL TIME WITH HIS CHILDREN."
Uhm, no. Those are the cases where joint custody DID work. Remember that the parents were able to communicate and work together; there was little or no conflict. That was a major factor in making joint custody work. Maybe not for a long period of time, such as custody reverts to a more traditional mother custody/father visitation after dad remarries, and dads remarry more often and sooner than moms. That's a common scenario. Your opinion that mom didn't want the father to have equal time is wrong. He did have equal time, and things worked fine. Those are the cases where it did work, albeit temporarily. The needs of the children and of the families changed, and so the form of custody changes. The problem is that when joint changes to sole by the parents agreement, mom is still stuck with the child support ordered when it was joint custody, so she had less money to work with than she should have with sole custody.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 13, 2005 2:41:33 PM
I disagree with you about a Mom being stuck with the child support ordered wen joint custody was ordered. In CA. child custody is based in part on how much time each parent has with the child. If the division of parenting time changes, the parent with more time, and hence the potential need for additional funds, need only file a motion with the court for modification of the child support order. You probably do not even need an attorney to do this.
Posted by: Mike at May 13, 2005 3:10:06 PM
Just to be clear...I do not believe that equal parenting time is appropriate for all sitautions. It obviously is not. But in situations where is it appropriate, one person's desire NOT to share equally the parenting responsibilities should not trump the other parent's desire to equally share these responsibilities.
Posted by: Mike at May 13, 2005 3:15:22 PM
Mike, this is about when custody reverts from joint back to sole custody in the event that (usually) dad remarries. They don't go through the court. Mom is happy that she gets the kids more often, but the child support remains according to the joint custody schedule. The California Gender Bias report also noted that dads try to schedule their joint custody according to the amount of time they need to get their child support lowered. Here's an excerpt:
---
According to "Achieving Equal Justice For Men And Women In The Courts - The Draft Report of the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias In The Courts" [The California Gender Bias Report - 1990], Dr. Mary Duryea, director of Family Court services in the Alameda Superior Court stated the following:
"And you get things -- like you overhear people in the hallway saying, now, how many days do I need to get before my child support obligation is reduced, and you get a mixture of motivation in people coming in and asking for more time with their children, when what they're really asking for is less money."
Per the same report, a San Diego certified family law specialist stated:
"But one that happens quite frequently in this county and in other counties, perhaps, is a father, for instance, suggesting that joint custody, joint physical custody is very important to him. That he wants not only quality time, but quantity time with his children, and I think that that's a wonderful wonderful motivation as long as it's in good faith."
"Now, one thing that I'm finding quite often is that dad says that, and dad gets that, and dad also gets something else when he gets that, generally, he gets a smaller child support award. And then, lo and behold, dad doesn't exercise that joint custody that he fought so vehemently for."
"All of a sudden he's on a more traditional, once every other weekend, once a month, maybe on Christmas, all of a sudden the children aren't hearing from dad at all, and what mom has is the children on a full-time basis, which she probably likes, but she has half as much money as she would have had had it meant a traditional child custody and child support situation."
"Her remedy, then, of course, is to go back to court, and more times than not there's a financial disparity. It's going to cost mom to go back, if she even has any money to obtain the services of an attorney, she probably is going to get a token award of attorney's fees at the end."
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 13, 2005 3:20:34 PM
"Just to be clear...I do not believe that equal parenting time is appropriate for all sitautions. It obviously is not. But in situations where is it appropriate, one person's desire NOT to share equally the parenting responsibilities should not trump the other parent's desire to equally share these responsibilities."
So would you be against a presumption for joint custody/shared parenting, because it would not be appropriate for all situations, as has been previously discussed? Don't you think that parents should decide on their own to try joint custody without it being forced on them by the courts and the legislators?
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 13, 2005 3:23:08 PM
Good point Trish. Any man who simply wants more time with his child so he can reduce his child support is a loser. It's important to note that the report you cite is 15 years old. Men have changed. Attitudes about being a father and being responsible have changed. I do not know one father who does not take his parental responsibilities seriously. Is it so hard to believe that there are some Fathers who just want to be with their children more than a few hours everyother weekend?
My timeshare is 37%. I would gladly increase it to 50% and continue to pay child support. What I want is more time with my son. The money is meaningless. When I'm laying on my death bed, I want to be able to look back and remeber all the things my son and I did together. I want to take that memory with me. I want my son to grow up with many memories of the activities and special moments we shared. Everything I do between between the times that we are together is just stuff I have to do until I see him again.
Posted by: at May 13, 2005 3:35:35 PM
That report may be 15 years old, but what it stated is still in practice today. Far too many men want joint custody as a means to lower their child support. It went on in the '90s and it's going on today.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 13, 2005 3:43:52 PM
Thanks, Trish. I'm trying to understand what you see the fathers doing.
You've stated that you think they're trying to lower or eliminate child support. I guess what you're saying is that you see the fathers trying to hide that "real" agenda behind the presumed custody legislation?
You've stated and provided cites for opinions/data (none of which I've followed, by the way, too busy! I'll trust your paraphrasing of what I would find there) disavowing fathers' claims of family court bias. Do you think fathers, again, are blowing smoke when they claim this, and, again, that their "real" agenda is lowering child support? I guess I'm wondering why, when I tune into the MRA discussions, I hear claim and after claim after claim that the courts are oh-so-biased, but yet you're finding articles claiming they're not. I suppose if I had the time I could find articles claiming that they indeed are.
(This is sure seeming like a case of "anybody can prove anything".)
I guess what I'm searching for here an understanding of your cynicism regarding the responsible factions of the fathers' rights groups. The stuff I've come across seems pretty sincere and logical to me. No, really, it does! I also detect a lot of hot-headed rhetoric and I mostly just ignore it; instead, I search for the ones who deep down believe there is something wrong with the system, and simultaneously honestly believe that hearing their concerns, their opinions, is not the same as harming women or making women lesser than men, but instead really shows the love these men have for their children.
Posted by: Scarbo at May 13, 2005 3:57:14 PM
Probably true. But, to be fair, there are probably some Mothers who want more parenting time to qualify them for higher child support payments. It works both ways.
Posted by: Mike at May 13, 2005 3:57:32 PM
Scarbo, I think that part of the problem is that some fathers don't understand how shared parenting really works. It can be very hard on the children. Remember what Dr. Judith Wallerstein wrote about them missing birthday parties, sleep-overs, etc., because they are stuck with that schedule. A particular set of parents can pull off shared parenting, as can a particular set of children (and the children's ability to handle joint custody must be paramount) and it's mainly because they have chosen it of their own free will and they wanted to make it work. Even then, there have been problems, especially when parents remarry and when one parent needs to relocate for any reason. I think a lot of dads don't really understand how demanding shared parenting can be. They fall for the fathers' rights rhetoric about "children needing frequent and continuing contact with both parents" and about "equality," but they don't understand how hard it can be on them, their children, and it's also expensive. They don't get it. They are afraid that joint custody will "steal" their children from them because fathers' rights activists tell that that's what will happen. It simply is not true. Attachment theory holds that when a parent, including dad, has a close, attached relationship to his child, that divorce and death do not sever that attachment. Most moms want dads to maintain contact with their children. They welcome it. I think that fathers' rights activists put a lot of bad ideas in fathers' head, and then the guys end up scared to death over things that won't happen. So, they demand "shared parenting" because they don't know what else to do. Fathers' rights activists cause more problems than they fix.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 13, 2005 4:24:24 PM
Mike: "Probably true. But, to be fair, there are probably some Mothers who want more parenting time to qualify them for higher child support payments. It works both ways."
No, it doesn't. Noncustodial parents pay on average only 19% of their income towards the household income of custodial parents. Most mothers don't get much child support regardless of the kind of custody they have. Mothers who want sole custody want it because they know they've been the primary caregivers of their children from day one, and the father did not act in that role. In most cases, mom gets sole custody because the parents decided out of court that she should have it. When fathers make an issue of custody, they get some form of it at least half the time. They are upset because they may ask for joint physical custody, and most often they get joint legal. Plus, when they ask for joint physical, if child support was an issue for them, many of them are unhappy with the child support they are still ordered to pay, if they are ordered to pay it, because they think it is still too high.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 13, 2005 4:53:22 PM
Father's right activists may not have solved many problems, but they are not the cause of the problems. Mothers who do not see a need for a child to maintain a close loving relationship with the Father, who shout "I've been abused" to get a restraining order to get a Father thrown out of the family home and gain an advantage in child custody are the problem. You'll never understand what I am talking about unless you have been there and done that.
Posted by: at May 13, 2005 4:55:19 PM
Anonymous: "Mothers who do not see a need for a child to maintain a close loving relationship with the Father, who shout "I've been abused" to get a restraining order to get a Father thrown out of the family home and gain an advantage in child custody are the problem."
Wrong.
MYTH: Restraining Orders Are Easy To Get.
All A Woman Need Do Is Lie Or State That She Is Afraid,
And She Can Force An Innocent Man Out Of His Own Home
The WBA Law Journal
May, 1999, Vol. III No. 1
Why Attorneys Should Routinely
Screen Clients for Domestic Violence
By Pauline Quirion, Esq.
Excerpts:
In the recent landmark decision, Custody of Vaughn, the Supreme Judicial Court has observed that "[t]he very frequency of domestic violence . . . may have the effect of inuring courts to it and thus minimizing its significance." A 1994 study of batterers based on the database used to track restraining orders concluded that:
[t]he high frequency with which RO's [sic] are issued might lead some skeptics to assume that these orders are granted too easily for minor offenses and almost any man is at risk of being a defendant. The data from the new RO database in Massachusetts reflect otherwise. Men against whom RO's have been used are clearly not a random draw from the population. They are likely to have a criminal history, often reflective of violent behavior toward others.
Research suggests that false reports of family violence occur infrequently. Although many believe that women especially will lodge false charges of child abuse or battering against their spouses in an effort to manipulate or retaliate, the rate of false reports in these circumstances is no greater than for other crimes.
First batterers minimize and deny the frequency and severity of their abusive conduct. Similarly, victims often underreport and may minimize the abuse. They may be embarrassed or fear that disclosure will lead to retaliation by tthe abuser, financial hardship or personal stigma. In addition, some practitioners fail to appreciate that abuse cuts across all class lines and stereotype abuse victims as primarily indigent. These dynamics make it easy for an untrained practitioner to gloss over information pointing to domestic violence and which may be relevant to a client's case or continued safety.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 13, 2005 5:00:37 PM
"MYTH: Restraining Orders Are Easy To Get.
All A Woman Need Do Is Lie Or State That She Is Afraid,
And She Can Force An Innocent Man Out Of His Own Home..."
With all due respect Trish, it's no myth.
It happens all the time. And some of the 'men'(not father's rightsters but men) that you're hearing from are living proof.
I've said this many times and I'll say it again.
I've never heard of a study that was more reliable than actually going out and actually witnessing divorce trials and PFA hearings as they occur. Many of these hearings are open to the public.
I've seen women, while waiting to attend their own PFA hearings, slap the devil out of their children for misbehaving right there in the hallway, while waiting to be called in to their own hearings. I've sat in on countless hearings where those same women have said, "I think he COULD hit me," even though there was no testimony that he actually did. And as a result, orders known as 'Exclusive Possession of the Marital residence' which is granted to the mother, are used to boot dad out of his home.
For every one woman who came in with a black eye, there were 20 who came in claiming fear of being hit.
And remember, we're talking about restraining orders which require no burden of proof. Because they're called 'Protection from Abuse' orders, they carry the same stigma as an actual domestic violence criminal indictment without the burdon to prove...
So dads wind up demonized during the remainder of the divorce process and as a result, those same orders that the law says are 'inadmissable' on the front end, become ammunition on the back end.
Trish, I suggest actually attending some divorce hearings just as a matter of research on this subject.
Posted by: Masculiste at May 13, 2005 7:07:52 PM
I am engaged to my long-time boyfriend, and we've lived together for over a year. I know first-hand that he is no abuser. Years ago, his ex-wife, claiming to be "afraid," filed a protection from abuse order, sent 5 cruisers to the house, and forced the children from their father, WITH NO PROOF WHATSOEVER. Thank god for presumptive joint physical custody in my state! Without it, these two children would grow up believing that their father was an abuser. They would never know the truth. Without it, one lie would have taken away their father.
Bottom line - There needs to be more serious consequence for filing false allegations of abuse. This woman got off scott-free.
Restraining orders ARE easy to get. If you don't believe me, try to get one. Make up whatever "past abuse" you want. Don't worry-- nothing will happen to you.
Posted by: Amy at May 16, 2005 2:16:45 PM
Amy said: "Bottom line - There needs to be more serious consequence for filing false allegations of abuse. This woman got off scott-free."
I agree Amy and it sounds like your situation is very similar to my boyfriend of more than 2 years. He's barely seen his daughter for about 2 years and it is devestating to he and his daughter. His ex refuses to stop until she's made my boyfriend suffer as much as she possibly can. Because of the laws in our state most likely my boyfriend will never have a real relationship with the daughter he raised the first 4 years of her life.
Posted by: me at May 25, 2005 4:18:20 PM
I just found this interesting discussion, a bit late...
It amazes me how much discussion on this topic
occurs between people who have zero first-hand experience with co-parenting. Neither the fathers
nor the mothers who are so vocal about it seem to personally know the score... so I have to pipe up.
I live in Mass, and am very familiar with the ballot question history here. I have been
practicing co-parenting for 10 years, have friends
who have gone through the welfare-style system
and pay child support, and have other friends who
do joint custody. The pattern I see is that
joint custody produces much cleaner divorces even
if there was initially conflict, because people
are not tied together by the courts and preoccupied about the X's income.
1. A common tactic of those who are paid to object is to claim that joint custody is impractical,
or that it only works when both parties agree.
This is piffle.
My divorce was high-conflict, but through 2.5 years of mediation, then lawyers, we narrowly avoided court.
Not through mutual agreement, but due to a threat of mutually assured destruction if we went to court.
In this odd way, we obtained equal powers.
The courts should ensure individual rights to begin with.
After 10 years of practicing equal parenting, my experience illustrates how joint parenting works
- even when it arises from a high conflict divorce.
The key to success is to negotiate a detailed contract that partitions authority so parents have
disjoint responsibilities, thus limiting conflict. Parents must admit the other is competent and agree not to accost the other in front of the child, or consequences apply.
Email works wonders for that part.
My son is 12 now, gets straight A+'s, and is much better adjusted than a comparable neighbor who was raised in the culture of welfare-state divorce. In fact, my son's highest aspiration is to be a lawyer. If you ask him why
he says "because I like to argue". The point? To isolate children from human conflict is to deprive them of a real learning opportunity.
My son and I are close thanks to our co-parenting arrangement. In effect, I retained a right to shift my role from "primary earner" to working part time in order to replace lost parenting time. I'm lucky I got divorced in New Hampshire.
In Massachusetts, I would likely be branded a criminal for "avoiding child support"! I would
be forced to pay my enemy to care for my child - forced to pay many times what it actually costs, and forced to labor - my efforts a mockery of
the work I previously did from devotion.
There are many like me, but you don't hear from
us because we are busy making our lives work -- without the courts. Sure, shared parenting is complex, but I know intact families who have worselogistical problems. ANd the alternatives
are barbaric for society.
The paid arguments used against joint parenting
are easily refuted with logic and example.
2: How can a state that upholds individual
rights regarding marriage be so backward regarding divorce?
The reasoning used in the Goodridge decision (re gay marriage), recognizes a class of people denied certain rights by biases of the court. This "scarred" population suffered a hardship.
There is a much larger population of parents who
are denied an equal role in raising their own
children, based simply on their parental
orientation. The primary earner is punished by
being bereaved of parental rights. The bond
between parent and child is often stronger than
that between spouses, and to sever that is to take
life.
This is severe scarring, emotionally and financially.
The economic and social hardship wrought upon
society at large by these discriminatory practices
is deep, systemic, and very very costly, -
especially compared to those hardships imposed by
gender role bias in marriage.
The current practice of favoring one parent based
on their gender role is based on "soft" science
ambiguous statistics about subjective
observations, or Wallerstein's novels. There is
little evidence to say that punishing the primary-earner parent by taking away their rights
is in the interest of children. There IS evidence
to suggest that equal parenting benefits children and thus society. It's just like the 'science'
that was used to prove that homosexuality was a disease.
Because the evidence for this practice is so
inconclusive, the courts must uphold the standard
established by Goodridge, of individual rights -
for children and both competent parents.
3: The public is adamant on this topic, especially compared to its support for gender blind marriage.
In November, in MA, a ballot question for presuming joint physical custody received 85% approval. The language in the referendum was very clear. Although the ballot was non-binding, the mandate is clear. This was a historical result. 85% is too unanimous a result to have arisen from any gender or party bias.
By comparison, the public support for gay marriage is at around 49%.
If the courts uphold the rationale behind the Goodridge decision for marriage, they must agree to uphold equal rights for divorcing parents, regardless of their parental orientation.
Posted by: Mark at Jun 16, 2005 10:24:18 AM
Hopefully Mass. will be a model for the rest of the country.
Posted by: Masculiste at Jun 16, 2005 4:57:14 PM
