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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NH: New Hampshire gets serious about child visitation
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...13/182425.html
New Hampshire gets serious about child visitation Jan 13, 2006 by Kathleen Parker Bitter parents who try to block their formerly beloved's access to the couple's child(ren) following divorce might think twice in New Hampshire, where a proposed bill aims to make life difficult for uncooperative custodial parents. How difficult? By inviting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate the offending parent for child abuse and neglect. This relatively revolutionary move was the brainchild of Maine psychiatrist Dr. Stevan Gressitt, who has been working with legislators to put some teeth into visitation enforcement. New Hampshire HHS Commissioner John Stephens endorsed the idea, and a bill sponsored by state Rep. David A. Bickford (R) heads to committee Tuesday. Gressitt is hoping for a domino effect if the bill passes in New Hampshire. The idea behind such legislation is that children of divorce should continue to have access to both parents, assuming there's no reason to protect a child from one of his parents. While child visitation orders are taken seriously in theory, the legal process of enforcement is usually time-consuming, laborious and expensive. In practice, the failure to take them seriously leads to an ever-widening, and predictable, trajectory of distance between the child and visiting parent. Bickford's bill (HB 1585) would make it easier for parents denied visitation to seek remedy, while promising grief for parents who don't cooperate. First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect. Gressitt contends that denying a child his parent out of vindictiveness is a form of child abuse, but Bickford, a non-clinician, says he isn't ready to go that far. He explained to me that the bill supposes some parents may block access to hide abuse and that, therefore, the case warrants investigation. He did say, however, that should there be a finding of psychological or emotional harm - a form of abuse - then the custodial parent could be prosecuted, referred for needed treatment, or lose parental rights. I feel your cringe. Who wants government bureaucrats breathing down parents' necks to see who got little Johnny for the weekend? I'm happy to lead the chorus saying family matters are none of the state's concern - let the adults hash out their visitation schedules. But abuses of this mannered approach assume qualities not always present in some adults and often leave non-custodial parents (usually fathers) bereft and angry. Common sense tells us what we seem to need studies to demonstrate - that children need two parents and manage divorce best when they have equal access to both. While family courts are increasingly trying to ensure that children have that access by awarding joint or shared custody, emotionally distraught humans don't always follow directions. Meanwhile, courts and the state historically have been more effective in enforcing child support than visitation such that we have entire bureaucracies built around support collection tied to federal incentives. For every dollar that states put up to collect child support monies, for example, the federal government matches with two dollars. Other incentive funds are also available to reward collections. While fathers' organizations long have pushed for stronger visitation enforcement, there are also some 3 million non-custodial mothers in the U.S., according to David Levy, CEO of the Children's Rights Council, a nonprofit group that advocates for shared custody. Levy applauded the New Hampshire bill, saying that the proposed bill codifies the idea that it's important for children of divorce to continue to have both parents. But the proposed bill is not without critics. As with any law related to personal relationships, this one could be tricky to enforce. Imagine a HHS social worker knocking on your door to ask why you didn't let Johnny see his daddy last weekend. Such well-intentioned laws also could backfire. As one close observer put it in an e-mail exchange, "Getting (HHS) involved is usually the worst thing to do. They usually side with the 'Mom who is concerned about letting the kids go to their father' and, they (investigators) may decide that neither parent is fit. And take custody of the kid(s)." Such is the mess we have made of our lives. In the best and least of all worlds, the deterrent effect of such a scenario would make visitation abuses less common and enforcement unnecessary. That way, only the bad guys lose. Or gals, as the case may be. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New Hampshire gets serious pretending to be serious
This relatively revolutionary move was the brainchild of Maine
psychiatrist Dr. Stevan Gressitt, who has been working with legislators to put some teeth into visitation enforcement. I note that in this juridiction there are two whole floors of the courthouse building devoted to funds transfer enforcement whereas there is not even a broom closet for visitation enforcement. First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect. First, an expedited hearing, big hairy deal. Next, so the same judges who have hooked their political careers to making politically correct rulings are now to magically make the right and not PC ruling? Even bigger hairy deal. This is the same as the Jim Crow county clerk proclaiming, "Good news, from now on we will no longer enforce the voting grandfather clause but instead rely on a poll test to ensure 'a high quality voter base'", adding "you can trust me on this, I'm white". Since the government has decided that it is appropriate to require fathers to prove at their own expense that they have been transfering sufficient funds to their ex's, then it would seem appropriate for NH to require mothers to prove at their own expense that they have been providing full visitation. Just as C$ has refined itself to the point where the government intervenes over funds transfer without any effort or involvement of the mother, why not have a system allowing the government to intervene automatically over visitation without any effort or involvement of the father. C$ is just another political vote buying scheme and the politicians are happy to pretty up its appearance anytime it looks like this scheme might be threatened. And as we've seen on this NG, there is no shortage of the vocal gulible who embrace tyranny when it is prettied up. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New Hampshire gets serious pretending to be serious
"abdd" wrote in message
... This relatively revolutionary move was the brainchild of Maine psychiatrist Dr. Stevan Gressitt, who has been working with legislators to put some teeth into visitation enforcement. I note that in this juridiction there are two whole floors of the courthouse building devoted to funds transfer enforcement whereas there is not even a broom closet for visitation enforcement. First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect. First, an expedited hearing, big hairy deal. Next, so the same judges who have hooked their political careers to making politically correct rulings are now to magically make the right and not PC ruling? Even bigger hairy deal. This is the same as the Jim Crow county clerk proclaiming, "Good news, from now on we will no longer enforce the voting grandfather clause but instead rely on a poll test to ensure 'a high quality voter base'", adding "you can trust me on this, I'm white". Since the government has decided that it is appropriate to require fathers to prove at their own expense that they have been transfering sufficient funds to their ex's, then it would seem appropriate for NH to require mothers to prove at their own expense that they have been providing full visitation. Just as C$ has refined itself to the point where the government intervenes over funds transfer without any effort or involvement of the mother, why not have a system allowing the government to intervene automatically over visitation without any effort or involvement of the father. C$ is just another political vote buying scheme and the politicians are happy to pretty up its appearance anytime it looks like this scheme might be threatened. And as we've seen on this NG, there is no shortage of the vocal gulible who embrace tyranny when it is prettied up. I fully agree with on this. There is much more reform that needs to be done and it must be finely detailed. So much so that the radfems haven't any wiggle room. But you've got to admit, that this is certainly a step in the right direction. IMO, NH, out of all the states, has actually -listened- to NCPs. NH has also come out as being the most critical of the C$ system and all it's flaws. It's my belief that if the NH legislature keeps pushing for more reforms of C$, then it won't be long before more states start to examine their own draconian rules and regulations and start to change them, too. That's not to say that I'm overjoyed at this attempt that NH is making. Far from it. But I do see it is a good first step in taking corrective action against an incredible injustice perpetrated against families. I only hope that it doesn't stop until rational thinking is the rule, not the exception. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New Hampshire gets serious pretending to be serious
Dusty wrote: "abdd" wrote in message ... This relatively revolutionary move was the brainchild of Maine psychiatrist Dr. Stevan Gressitt, who has been working with legislators to put some teeth into visitation enforcement. I note that in this juridiction there are two whole floors of the courthouse building devoted to funds transfer enforcement whereas there is not even a broom closet for visitation enforcement. First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect. First, an expedited hearing, big hairy deal. Next, so the same judges who have hooked their political careers to making politically correct rulings are now to magically make the right and not PC ruling? Even bigger hairy deal. This is the same as the Jim Crow county clerk proclaiming, "Good news, from now on we will no longer enforce the voting grandfather clause but instead rely on a poll test to ensure 'a high quality voter base'", adding "you can trust me on this, I'm white". Since the government has decided that it is appropriate to require fathers to prove at their own expense that they have been transfering sufficient funds to their ex's, then it would seem appropriate for NH to require mothers to prove at their own expense that they have been providing full visitation. Just as C$ has refined itself to the point where the government intervenes over funds transfer without any effort or involvement of the mother, why not have a system allowing the government to intervene automatically over visitation without any effort or involvement of the father. C$ is just another political vote buying scheme and the politicians are happy to pretty up its appearance anytime it looks like this scheme might be threatened. And as we've seen on this NG, there is no shortage of the vocal gulible who embrace tyranny when it is prettied up. I fully agree with on this. There is much more reform that needs to be done and it must be finely detailed. So much so that the radfems haven't any wiggle room. But you've got to admit, that this is certainly a step in the right direction. IMO, NH, out of all the states, has actually -listened- to NCPs. NH has also come out as being the most critical of the C$ system and all it's flaws. It's my belief that if the NH legislature keeps pushing for more reforms of C$, then it won't be long before more states start to examine their own draconian rules and regulations and start to change them, too. That's not to say that I'm overjoyed at this attempt that NH is making. Far from it. But I do see it is a good first step in taking corrective action against an incredible injustice perpetrated against families. I only hope that it doesn't stop until rational thinking is the rule, not the exception. Live Free or Die! and all that... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New Hampshire gets serious pretending to be serious
I fully agree with on this. There is much more reform that needs to be
done and it must be finely detailed. So much so that the radfems haven't any wiggle room. But you've got to admit, that this is certainly a step in the right direction. Well, compared to a jurisdiction where children are transported to view their father being arrested it is good news. The thing is, any appropriate change needs to have funded compliance monitoring with automatic non-compliance significant sanctions. After all, the written statute states custody as being gender neutral while judges always award payments (and custody) to the mother without a ripple. This was the basis for Affirmative Action, where the law stated that employment decisions must be race neutral but employers could always articulate a valid race neutral business reason for not hiring the black. So let's hear it for Affirmative Parenting and accept nothing short of it! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NH: New Hampshire gets serious about child visitation
Bravo! I fully applaud this. Yes there will always be exceptions and yes it will be difficult to implement, and yes, the rights and wants of the children should always come before the rights and wants of the parents (imo)... but it is a step in the right direction. Now, if only we could do this in Australia.... Cathryn. (fyi Dusty, a feminist: as a feminist I strongly support equality - for women and for men). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mother's Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Case | TrashBBRT | Child Support | 8 | May 21st 04 05:52 PM |
Parent Stress Index another idiotic indicator list | Greg Hanson | General | 11 | March 22nd 04 12:40 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |