A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

In the Best Interest of the Children...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 1st 03, 07:09 PM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default In the Best Interest of the Children...

In the Best Interest of the Children
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n...lroy070103.htm
MensNewsdaily.com
July 1, 2003
by Wendy McElroy

A new legal term is creating debate across North America: the "rebuttable
presumption of joint custody." (search) It means family courts should
presume that divorcing parents will equally share the legal and physical
custody of children unless there is compelling reason to rule otherwise.

Advocates say children are more likely to emerge from divorce with both a
mother and a father in their lives unless, of course, one parent is shown to
be unfit. Why is this idea controversial?

PC feminist organizations, like NOW (search), claim that the rebuttable
presumption of joint custody would cripple the current standard, which is
"the best interests of the child." They claim the family court system
(search) blindly turns children over to abusive fathers. Instead of joint
custody, such feminists wish children to remain with "primary caregivers" --
overwhelmingly, the mothers.

The much publicized California NOW Family Court Report 2002 recommends,
"Abolish the tendency to assume joint custody is always in the best
interests of the child. This is a false presumption with no support in
reality...Sole custody [should] default to the primary caregiver at
separation."

In short, father's rights (search) advocates want joint custody to be the
default position at separation. PC feminists want sole custody for the
primary caregiver. Both situations would be rebuttable; that is, they could
be revised by a court with cause.

Such feminists assume that the welfare of children conflicts with the
parental rights (search) of non-primary caregivers, who are overwhelmingly
fathers. Yet both groups claim to be furthering the interests of the child
in promoting their preferred form of custody.

Each side of this debate can point to specific cases in which it is clearly
in the interests of a child to be in the custody of either the father or the
mother, not both. But specific cases do not make for good sweeping laws. If
fathers can be said to benefit children in a general manner, then men as a
category should not be slighted in custody arrangements simply because some
bad fathers exist. The same statement could be made of mothers.

If children need both mothers and fathers, there should be a presumption of
joint custody (search) upon separation. When exceptions to the rule arise,
when a father or mother is an inappropriate parent -- for example, he or she
is physically abusive -- then the custody arrangement would be "rebuttable."

In arguing for the importance of fathers, joint custody advocates point to
research such as 100 studies presented and analyzed in The Importance of
Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence," an essay published by the
American Psychological Association (search). The essay concludes that good
fathering is as important a factor as good mothering in the "social,
emotional, and cognitive development" of children. Father-deprived children
were far more prone to drug abuse, crime, depression, and violence.

At least two aspects of child custody would be significantly impacted by a
joint arrangement. Monetary: money is far from the most important value
parents offer to children but it is an essential one. Joint custody may
alleviate a major complaint heard from sole custody mothers: deadbeat dads
(search) who do not pay child support reliably.

The Hartford Advocate repeats a theme common to father's rights advocates,
"There's an important link between the amount of contact a non-custodial
parent has with a child and the willingness of that person to pay child
support (search). In 1991, about 4.4 million non-custodial parents with
visitation privileges and/or joint custody owed child support. Of that
number, 79 percent paid all or part of it. By comparison, only 56 percent of
the 900,000 people with no visitation or joint custody rights paid all or
part of what they owed."

Physical: at the risk of stating the obvious, parenting requires regular
contact with children. Alienated parents complain vigorously about
"move-aways" -- custodial parents who move the children hundreds, sometimes
thousands of miles away. (Although relocation may sometimes be necessary for
reasons such as medical treatment, it is most often optional.) A study in
the June 2003 issue of the Journal of Family Psychology examined the
negative impact of moving-away on children. Father's rights advocate Glenn
Sacks explains that "among 14 variables [in the study] related to a young
adult's overall well-being, move-away status was correlated to significant,
negative impact in 11 of them."

Joint custody would place some additional demands on separated parents, a
greater demand for co-operation regarding children, for example. If so, this
could be a good consequence. Moreover, there might well be less hostility in
joint custody arrangements if only because power and responsibility would be
legally shared.

Family law varies from state-to-state. In many states, judges will not order
joint custody -- especially joint physical custody -- if one parent objects.
These are "hostile parent veto states." It should take much more than an
objection to strip someone of his or her rights as a parent. It should take
real evidence of misconduct presented in court. Because every time you deny
a person the right to parent, you are stripping a child of a mother or
father. The rebuttable presumption of joint custody is in the best interests
of children.


Wendy McElroy


  #2  
Old July 2nd 03, 12:24 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default In the Best Interest of the Children...

Dave dave@freedoms-door wrote:

: The language of the law must be changed and the Judges re-programmed to base
: all decisions on gender neutral equality. Therefore it would no longer be
: a question of mother or father but of parent. Once women are treated as
: equals to men in the court room then it will be only a matter of time before
: some sense of fairness comes to custody and child support law.


Agreed.

My attorney is a judge pro-tem in the family law court. He "believes" that
a child needs a primary residence vs. two residences. If he ever becomes
a judge, he'll have this nonsensical bias.

The laws are gender neutral. The rulings are not. It's sad to see the
courts not following the laws. If they were, we wouldn't see ~90%
maternal custody. That in itself is inexcusible.

b.
  #3  
Old July 2nd 03, 03:03 AM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default In the Best Interest of the Children...

Dave wrote:

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
In the Best Interest of the Children
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n...lroy070103.htm
MensNewsdaily.com
July 1, 2003
by Wendy McElroy

A new legal term is creating debate across North America: the

"rebuttable
presumption of joint custody." (search) It means family courts should
presume that divorcing parents will equally share the legal and physical
custody of children unless there is compelling reason to rule otherwise.

===
I am concerned that the apparent increase of mothers' violence
against children is not affecting custody orders but rather seems to be
a sweep-it-under-the-rug phenomenon. This situation alone should
prompt courts to realize that mothers are not necessarily the best

qualified
parent and that
joint physical custody might decrease pressure on either parent acting as
sole caregiver.
===


The language of the law must be changed and the Judges re-programmed to base
all decisions on gender neutral equality. Therefore it would no longer be
a question of mother or father but of parent. Once women are treated as
equals to men in the court room then it will be only a matter of time before
some sense of fairness comes to custody and child support law.


That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be at present. The situation will not
change until there is monitoring of custody decisions, both in court and
out of court (since what happens out of court is largely determined by
what would happen in court).

In other words, the statistics about custody should be collected. Once
people saw the numbers, particularly the numbers about custody awards by
particular judges, there would be overwhelming pressure for change.
  #5  
Old July 3rd 03, 10:34 PM
Meldon Fens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default In the Best Interest of the Children...


Dave dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
In the Best Interest of the Children
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n...lroy070103.htm
MensNewsdaily.com
July 1, 2003
by Wendy McElroy

A new legal term is creating debate across North America: the "rebuttable
presumption of joint custody." (search) It means family courts should
presume that divorcing parents will equally share the legal and physical
custody of children unless there is compelling reason to rule otherwise.

Advocates say children are more likely to emerge from divorce with both a
mother and a father in their lives unless, of course, one parent is shown

to
be unfit. Why is this idea controversial?

PC feminist organizations, like NOW (search), claim that the rebuttable
presumption of joint custody would cripple the current standard, which is
"the best interests of the child." They claim the family court system
(search) blindly turns children over to abusive fathers. Instead of joint
custody, such feminists wish children to remain with "primary

caregivers" --
overwhelmingly, the mothers.

The much publicized California NOW Family Court Report 2002 recommends,
"Abolish the tendency to assume joint custody is always in the best
interests of the child. This is a false presumption with no support in
reality...Sole custody [should] default to the primary caregiver at
separation."

In short, father's rights (search) advocates want joint custody to be the
default position at separation. PC feminists want sole custody for the
primary caregiver. Both situations would be rebuttable; that is, they

could
be revised by a court with cause.

Such feminists assume that the welfare of children conflicts with the
parental rights (search) of non-primary caregivers, who are overwhelmingly
fathers. Yet both groups claim to be furthering the interests of the child
in promoting their preferred form of custody.

Each side of this debate can point to specific cases in which it is

clearly
in the interests of a child to be in the custody of either the father or

the
mother, not both. But specific cases do not make for good sweeping laws.

If
fathers can be said to benefit children in a general manner, then men as a
category should not be slighted in custody arrangements simply because

some
bad fathers exist. The same statement could be made of mothers.

If children need both mothers and fathers, there should be a presumption

of
joint custody (search) upon separation. When exceptions to the rule arise,
when a father or mother is an inappropriate parent -- for example, he or

she
is physically abusive -- then the custody arrangement would be

"rebuttable."

In arguing for the importance of fathers, joint custody advocates point to
research such as 100 studies presented and analyzed in The Importance of
Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence," an essay published by the
American Psychological Association (search). The essay concludes that good
fathering is as important a factor as good mothering in the "social,
emotional, and cognitive development" of children. Father-deprived

children
were far more prone to drug abuse, crime, depression, and violence.

At least two aspects of child custody would be significantly impacted by a
joint arrangement. Monetary: money is far from the most important value
parents offer to children but it is an essential one. Joint custody may
alleviate a major complaint heard from sole custody mothers: deadbeat dads
(search) who do not pay child support reliably.

The Hartford Advocate repeats a theme common to father's rights advocates,
"There's an important link between the amount of contact a non-custodial
parent has with a child and the willingness of that person to pay child
support (search). In 1991, about 4.4 million non-custodial parents with
visitation privileges and/or joint custody owed child support. Of that
number, 79 percent paid all or part of it. By comparison, only 56 percent

of
the 900,000 people with no visitation or joint custody rights paid all or
part of what they owed."

Physical: at the risk of stating the obvious, parenting requires regular
contact with children. Alienated parents complain vigorously about
"move-aways" -- custodial parents who move the children hundreds,

sometimes
thousands of miles away. (Although relocation may sometimes be necessary

for
reasons such as medical treatment, it is most often optional.) A study in
the June 2003 issue of the Journal of Family Psychology examined the
negative impact of moving-away on children. Father's rights advocate Glenn
Sacks explains that "among 14 variables [in the study] related to a young
adult's overall well-being, move-away status was correlated to

significant,
negative impact in 11 of them."

Joint custody would place some additional demands on separated parents, a
greater demand for co-operation regarding children, for example. If so,

this
could be a good consequence. Moreover, there might well be less hostility

in
joint custody arrangements if only because power and responsibility would

be
legally shared.

Family law varies from state-to-state. In many states, judges will not

order
joint custody -- especially joint physical custody -- if one parent

objects.
These are "hostile parent veto states." It should take much more than an
objection to strip someone of his or her rights as a parent. It should

take
real evidence of misconduct presented in court. Because every time you

deny
a person the right to parent, you are stripping a child of a mother or
father. The rebuttable presumption of joint custody is in the best

interests
of children.


Wendy McElroy



Terms and definitions may change but the end result will be the same.
Children will be unreasonably deprived of their fathers. Those who wish to
use the system to punish, oppress or destroy, will still be able to
regardless of definitions.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Children REALLY React To Control Chris General 444 July 20th 04 07:14 PM
HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY Malev General 0 December 12th 03 04:53 PM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U John Smith Kids Health 0 July 20th 03 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.