« I Am So Relieved | Main | An Op-Ed On Domestic Violence And The Mack Case »
July 30, 2006
I Am Published In The Grand Forks Herald!
It's in the Grand Forks Herald, North Dakota, in response to a column that Glenn Sacks and Mike McCormick had written.
Posted on Sun, Jul. 30, 2006
VIEWPOINT: Don't force 'shared parenting' on children
By Trish Wilson
BOSTON - Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks have written a lot of misconceptions about shared parenting in their viewpoint, "Initiative helps children of divorce".
"Shared parenting" is a feel-good euphemism for joint physical custody. Shared parenting has been rejected in Maryland, Colorado, Tennessee, New York, Illinois, Nevada, California, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. A shared parenting bill has been shelved in Massachusetts; it is dead for the time being.
Custody should be determined on a case-by-case basis. One particular form of custody (such as shared parenting) should not be forced on parents when other forms of custody would be more appropriate for them and especially for their children.
Shared parenting already is an option for parents who choose to try it on their own. There does not need to be a presumption for it. Ninety percent 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 shared parenting 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 because of 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 get 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." While shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting has been shown to be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict between their parents. When one parent wants shared parenting and the other doesn't, there will be conflict between those parents that shared parenting will not alleviate.
Shared parenting 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 can lose track of their friends, and their extracurricular activities can suffer. They can miss birthday parties, sleepovers and evening school activities.
In the cases where shared parenting 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 shared parenting arrangement, the parents chose freely between themselves to try shared parenting - and they chose to make it work.
There should not be a presumption for shared parenting in North Dakota. It ignores the desires of most parents, who don't want shared parenting. 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, North Dakota will reject a presumption for joint custody, as many states and countries have already done.
---
Wilson is a member of the National Network On Family Law Policy and the Family Court Reform Coalition.
Posted on July 30, 2006 at 03:05 PM | Permalink
Comments
Well done, Countess. The text is nicely accessible for those new to the issue, as well.
Posted by: Victoria Marinelli at Jul 30, 2006 11:15:07 PM
Excellent article!
Posted by: RJ at Jul 31, 2006 11:08:20 AM
Let us not forget the fathers that contest custody are in many cases doing so to gain control of the children to further control and abuse the mother. Also the courts are ignoring the mother's claims of abuse to herself and her children and labeling her with PAS as an reason to award the father custody.
Posted by: RJ at Jul 31, 2006 11:12:24 AM
You fail to understand that a presumption of Joint Physical Custody generally helps the parent with lesser financial resources which is primarily women as it will keep MOST cases out of court which are not friendly to persons w/o money...CA-NOW's own research shows that in joint cases most eventually revert to an every other weekend visitation pattern on their own anyway. So the more disinterested parent will eventually stop taking most of their parenting time at some point. Additionally many states are now beginning to give child support according to INCOME instead of custodial status...so even this objection to Joint Custody is becoming moot...
Thus, these presumptive Joint Custody laws will help women over the long haul...not hurt them...
It seems that many women's advocates are living in a time warp where mothers who were primary caretakers generally got custody...that doesn't happen so much today. It USED to happen BEFORE high child support was a factor...NOW just about every case is turning into a litigated one as men realize that courts are biased in their favor. It's considered progressive and trendy to give fathers custody today. Thus men rarely stipulate custody to the child's mother anymore, as used to happen in the past, since it costs them too much in child support and other assets if they do.
If you look at the statistics objectively you can see that over the last decade or so between custodial fathers and paternal grandparents acting in lieu of their sons, that literally millions of mothers are losing custody of their kids...and the numbers are increasing every year and going against MOTHERS. Any objective review of census data, American Association of Retired Persons numbers, etc., will show you this...
Your stance HURTS women as you are operating from assumptions that were true in the past but not the case any longer. Many of you appear to conveniently forget about Mack's first wife and what she must of gone through when they gave that nut Mack sole custody of their kids...so presumptive Joint Custody is the lesser of many many evils that can befall women and children...
Posted by: NYMOM at Jul 31, 2006 12:54:28 PM
NY Mom--the article isn't talking about a choice of shared physical custody, it is talking about legislation that mandates it, giving women and children no choice in the matter. Mandatory shared parenting is an economic disadvantage to primary caregivers who make less money than the other parent and receive no support to provide for their children when in their care. It also sets the bar very high for domestic violence victims to keep from getting shared physical parenting with a dangerous partner, as we all are learning the courts often minimize the DV or discount it altogether. I hear your argument that for protective parents, 50/50 custody is better than none. The unfortunate reality is that abusers generally start out fighting for sole legal and physical custody and ask for the moms to be extremely limited in their visitation with their children, and often get it. Because the DV isn't often recognized by the courts, a mom trying to prove why mandatory shared parenting isn't safe for her child would be seen as "unfriendly" and "uncooperative". These mandatory shared parenting laws simply make it all that much harder for protective parents to do just that--protect their children.
Posted by: strawberry note at Jul 31, 2006 2:15:23 PM
Yet I know it mandates it. Which is what is good about it as these mandates for 50/50 head off the incentive for everyone to head for court except for the worse cases. Also many states are beginning to change their laws regarding child support to address the issues you mentioned about women making less money and needing support even with 50/50...
Probably courts could be better for the worse cases if they weren't so overwhelmed by the ordinary cases trying to get custody, more visitation, overnights, etc., to lower high child support...
It's like everyone heading for the emergency room for standard medical treatment, physicals, etc.,...
This mandate steers most people to the 'doctor's office' and leaves the courts to handle the few harder abuse cases...which really need to be looked at by professionals.
Remember Darren Mack got sole custody of his children from his first divorce.
Posted by: NYMOM at Jul 31, 2006 2:50:38 PM
Something else to consider (don't knw if it was - if so I apologize for saying it again) is that in cases of dv, the father often uses the courts as another form of control. And as in my own case, my ex uses the "shared" parenting clause in our decree to further control me. Example? This past weekend our child and I stayed 15 minutes away from home where she had a sleepover with friends. By our decree I had no choice but to provide him with a contact number. He telephoned these people before we even arrived so he could "make sure" I was telling him the truth. Another example? He contacts our childs daycare on a daily basis to see if she was absenmt and to see what hours she attended that day. If she is absent I get to hear him question me through our child as to why she was not in daycare.
Two words for this and all the other behaviors he is allowed to get away with: LEGALIZED STALKING
Posted by: Neenna66 at Jul 31, 2006 10:36:37 PM
He probably has another more practical reason for doing this as well: trying to record the times that your daughter is with other people so he can make a case later for sole custody for himself. Be careful as your daughter leaves daycare and heads off into school as this is when they usually make their move. Since many Judges consider a child leaving daycare to attend school as an automatic change of circumstance which can justify a change in the terms of the original custody agreement.
Many of these things that women think is just control or stalking behaviors are really well-thought out schemes to switch custody when the kids start school. A lot of these fathers rights groups (funded with taxpayers monies btw) give men pointers in all these sorts of sneaky tricks.
I was just reading one of their sites the other say which was telling a father in a joint custody agreement (where the mother was primary) but the physical time was almost 50/50 that he should begin offering the mother to pickup/dropoff the child more from the daycare center...this way the staff at the daycare could testify for him later that he was the main one always picking/dropping the child off. He was supposed to act like he was doing the mother a 'favor' saving her driving time, etc., but this was not a favor but a sneaky way to get himself identified as the primary parent.
Then they told him to register the child in his school district BEFORE the mother could find out...this way he had two points in his favor: the daycare has him down as the pickup/dropoff person and he already has the child registered in his school district for September...
Viola...return to court and he's got sole custody just before school starts.
A number of them on the site claimed they got custody of a child from its mother this way themselves.
So do NOT assume he is contacting these people about your daughter's location JUST for control issues...it could all be part of a well-laid plan to change the terms of your custody agreement and get himself named as sole custodian...
So watch it...
Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 1, 2006 10:50:45 AM
Excellent points NYMOM!
Posted by: RJ at Aug 2, 2006 12:27:51 PM
Thanks NYMom!!!! I have already laid plans out to stall him in his tracks as far as school goes. It will take place right after Christmas of this year and possibly before and she will be in the school where her daycare is. I also think that right now it is about control - he wants to let me know he knows what I am doing. He has done it before when I have been late to work for various appointments - he says I know you did not get to work until 10:30 (or whatever time it was) and he is right every single time. And I know he is not getting this info from my work themselves, so where else can it be coming from other than he is stalking me? It is not just about our child - it is about me too.
And on another note - more evidence of his true agenda. We have had difficulties (that is putting it mildly) during exchanges. I suggusted an alternate plan for the exchanges - one where we would not even see each other. His repsonse to that plan? Oh good I can stay home and watch tv so I don't have to interupt my sunday show to bring her back to you. I interupt my daily schedule to do things for him so he can have contact with our child and while inconvenient, our child needs a father in her life. Actually, she needs a good father in her life, but since he is her father I will settle for at least half of the equation (the father part) and try to keep it where they have contact with each other. It is just so hard for him to do anything for me to maintain contact with her. Spring break - she was gone for a week and I had no contact with her. Weekends I have no contact with her. Christmas I had no contact with her. And I shouldn't according to most everyone because that is his time with her. Well why doesn't it work the same way in reverse? When I am spending "my time" with her - why does he have carte blanche to interupt at will?
Posted by: Neenna66 at Aug 6, 2006 11:27:55 AM
One last point before going off to my day. A comment on this blog states:; "Additionally many states are now beginning to give child support according to INCOME instead of custodial status...so even this objection to Joint Custody is becoming moot..."
If you check into most laws (I know for my state this is true) they have exceptions to the rule. If a ncp has the child more than a certain percentage of the overnights during the year then they can ask for and recieve an exception to the child support mandated by the state. I believe the percentage in my state is 40%. So if my ex has our child one overnight a week then he could get the child support cut by at least 20%. So much for shared parenting "helping" the lower income mother.
Posted by: Neenna66 at Aug 6, 2006 11:34:35 AM
Well people must work together to make things better.
I lurk on other blogs and see that many people from diverse groups have the basic ideas down on what things "should be"...the problem is getting the reality to match what should be...
There are many special interests that stand in the way of ever settling these issues...one big special interest being the many professionals who make MONEY off the chaos that goes on in family court right now...from lawyers right through to social workers who function as Evaluators.
So yes, the idea exists that child support for lower income mothers should depend upon income, not visitation, yet there are those who stand to make money if this never gets enforced properly...and let's face it, many of them are men who are STILL the majority in most legislative houses in every state and how many men want this idea to be common...just like they 'gutted' the Colonna ruling in PA so that it would only apply to a small group of high income cases and not guideline support...
The trick is to stay involved and keep working on these issues in order to achieve fairness for all parties...not just the ones with the most money to hire the sneakiest attorney...
Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 7, 2006 8:33:11 PM
Thanks so much for posting this. I actually live in Fargo, and have been following this whole issue...especially since it could directly affect me.
I divorced 5 years ago and really wanted to try shared parenting with my ex. He, however, wanted sole custody (so that he could leave the state with the child), and we ended up in a bitter legal battle where he had me investigated for various forms of abuse three separate times.
The court found that it was in the best interest of the child to have him live with me because my ex couldn't keep a job, had made false allegations of abuse, and several other factors. Even with all this, my ex claimed that I was awarded custody because of a bias toward women in ND courts.
Even though I wanted joint custody to begin with, I don't honestly see how it could have worked given how vindictive my ex was and still is...not to mention he always intended to leave the state. My life is also considerably more stable than my ex's. So, based on my experience (which I admit may be biased), I really think that the courts do a good job of determining custody. I dread to think how things may have turned out had a law such as this been in place. Shared parenting is a great idea...but I don't think it would work if it's forced on parents by the court.
It also seems an awful lot like several of the fathers just don't want to have to pay child support. I've asked people "who decides the actual costs of the child's basic needs"? That's the wording in this initiative...and no one can answer me. I've also heard that revising the child support in this manner would make ND ineligible to receive federal funds for things like TANF, which would hurt the neediest people the most.
I didn't mean to go on (and on and on), but I do want to say thank you for getting some information on legit studies (with citations!) out there. I really don't want to see this thing pass.
Posted by: cbr at Aug 8, 2006 8:45:58 PM
"I dread to think how things may have turned out had a law such as this been in place."
But there are many studies from women's groups claiming bias in the family courts against mothers...wherein 70% of men who litigate win either Sole or Joint Custody anyway. So what about all those mothers who lose custody of their children to men like your ex, many like you rightly said just trying to get out of paying child support????
Shouldn't we be thinking of the impact on that large group who are facing bias during litigation; not just the few like you who get lucky and manage to get sole custody.
Is that fair or right???
The court worked for you, so forget about every other woman and child????
"I've also heard that revising the child support in this manner would make ND ineligible to receive federal funds for things like TANF, which would hurt the neediest people the most."
I have never heard this but anything is possible.
However just to let you know that most non-custodial mothers are low in income...making about $15,000 or less annually vs. $40,000 for custodial fathers...so NOT getting Joint Custody and then NOT being able to pay their child support can lead to these women never being able to visit their kids again. As warrants get issued for them if they fall behind and they are unable to utilize the courts to enforce their visitation if they are behind in child support.
So there are other issues at stake not just one woman won her case so let's forget the millions of other women who lose.
Presumptive Joint Custody also automatically helps the parent with less money to litigate. Which is still generally women. What about all those women who can't afford to litigate, so have to settle?
Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 9, 2006 4:38:27 AM
Well, if any of you are interested they have turned in over 17,000 signatures, we will know for sure if it is going on the ballot in about two weeks. Believe me if it gets there it will pass because it is the right thing.
If you really give this some thought it is not a bad thing, I have collected over three hundered signatures and have talked to many people about this, I have heard of every situation, what everyone is worried about is the money, plain and simple, and it makes me sick.
I would like to address the Tanf that everyone is talking about, we already have child support guidelines in ND the meet the Federal Guidelines nothing will change that and it will not affect our funding except the amount only because the amount is based one how many dollars are run through the system, if more divorced parents get shared parenting yes there will be less dollars funneled through the courts and less federal dollars but nothing like what they are saying
Now be reasonable, this change will not affect everyone only those who want it and those who it will work for, basically it boils down to alot of scared people out there worried they are going to lose thier child support. If you are talking or worried about lower income well they probably aren't getting much child support anyway this way the father can take them half of the time and allow more freedom for the the mom to work or go to school or what ever. If the man does not take the child half of the time then I guess he will lose his right to have shared parenting.
Couples that make about the same amount of money are already doing a variety of things like sharing custody with no child support.
When you start talking about couples that do have a little money well thats when the battles begin! Comepare it to the divorce, if there is money theres going to be a fight if there isn't any money to fight over the divorce is usually peaceful.
Posted by: dvmom at Aug 20, 2006 9:07:39 PM
Hi,
I have just begun a nightmare with my ex after him basically being out of scene
for the last five years. My daughter is now 8, he moved back to town, down the street,
and was awarded 50% physical custody after I had no attorney. I am now getting
no child support, lost the collection that I had on child support from him, and my daughter is scoring low at school and 'doesn't know where she lives' anymore. He uses every excuse he can to manipulate the schedule to see me, control me, and the like. She is constantly moving
from house to house, so now I am saving money to go back to court and hopefully
get our old schedule back. What a nightmare all in the guise of 'Father's rights of
equal involvement'.....he is very vindictive and uses all kinds of manipulation to
abuse me emotionally. The bottom line is it doesn't hurt me -- it hurts my child.
I'm also at a loss to see how any type of stability could be achieved by having
a child move houses every two days? She is on a two days w/ him, two days with me
then every other weekend schedule.....
Posted by: Rebecca at Aug 21, 2006 6:03:05 PM
She will adjust, just remember they do not stay young forever and the more you fight with him the harder it will be for her. If he is a control freak the less reaction you show him the easier it will get. I have to say good for you go back to school get a good job show your daughter what your made of she will be proud and so will you. Don't bother going back to court unless you can prove him unfit as a parent it will do you no good the lawyers will just take your money.
Posted by: dvmom at Aug 23, 2006 5:36:04 PM
I agree with the "don't bother going back to court".
The thing is that NOW statistics showed that many of these court ordered joint custody situations eventually turn into standard EOW visitation anyway as the less interested parent just stops picking up the kid for all the scheduled visitation...
So if you hang in there and act like it doesn't bother you, he might get tired and slowly start disengaging...
I don't think you will ever be able to change the court order however as that will mean he'll have to pay child support if it's changed and then he'll fight you on that...
Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 25, 2006 9:56:22 PM
Ah ND: the land of the crazies.
At least the Shared Parenting Initiative is not near so hideous as the family law reform initiative. Both are pretty bad, but flri is downright evil.
Posted by: Antigone at Aug 25, 2006 11:01:16 PM
