Pa's New 50-50 Custody Legislation

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...
I'd be anxious about it myself. Is C$ to be assigned according to time or
does this mean even more plainly that NCPs get to support their children
AND
the ex because he'll have to pay while also directly supporting the
children?
Don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction but until seen in
practice, it may not turn out much better since I have some concerns that
the NCP can afford to pay C$ and support the children at the same time.
Phil #3

It is important to distinguish between what a new bill says and what a
politician says about it. In this case, the politician's comments are very
encouraging. The little bit posted about the bill's content shows me it is
way too rigid in how custody would be set up. The question to ask yourself
is - Do you really want the political process to dictate all the details of
joint custody? My answer is - No!

Recent trends in other states have been less rigid. Requiring parents to
develop Parenting Plans on how they will work together to raise their
children is a much more flexible way of establishing joint custody
provisions. Parenting Plans allow the parents to customize their agreements
to fit their own circumstances. That approach makes more sense to me.

Phil #3 wrote:
I'd be anxious about it myself. Is C$ to be assigned according to time or
does this mean even more plainly that NCPs get to support their children AND
the ex because he'll have to pay while also directly supporting the
children?

That remains to be seen. Here in Rhode Island, having your child in
your physical presence 50% of the time means a 10% "discount" on CS
obligation (so yeah, I'd be saving money if I just ditched my son and
never saw him again). Still, I think this only flies because it happens
so rarely here. I mean it's so ludicrously unfair I don't see how it
could be seriously defended by anyone who wasn't inherently corrupt and
on someone's payroll or puppet strings.


Don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction but until seen in
practice, it may not turn out much better since I have some concerns that
the NCP can afford to pay C$ and support the children at the same time.

Very true.

- Ron ^*^

In article et, Phil #3
says...

I'd be anxious about it myself. Is C$ to be assigned according to time or
does this mean even more plainly that NCPs get to support their children AND
the ex because he'll have to pay while also directly supporting the
children?
====
This bill, if passed, will undoubtedly require a change in the CS guidelines as
it specifically acknowledges that both parents will have to maintain a family
home. The bill now has the support of 34+ legislators and has a chance of
passing. That this comes out of PA is no surprise as it has been historically
one of the most, if not the most, father-friendly state. Even if the bill
doesn't pass this go-round, the legislators will gain a much better awareness of
father issues which will boost the national dialog similar to the
"no-college"/post minority support judges upheld years ago. Too, it gives dads
in other states a pretty good idea of the kinds of legislation they can present
to their legislators. There really is not a bad side to this--pass or fail
(Sorry Bob and Phil :-). BTW, the entire text can be found by Googling
"Pennsylvania House Bill 888" or some such.
====

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article 8WL3e.73905$7z6.36709@lakeread04, Werebat says...



Gini wrote:
In article W1E3e.73654$7z6.68189@lakeread04, Werebat says...


Where is the excited discussion about this? This is exactly what
people
here have been clamoring for, is it not? I'd be pretty damned excited
if this came up in MY state!

- Ron ^*^

====
My thoughts exactly--Perhaps we are better at clamoring than doing--And
we
wonder why things don't change. As an interesting aside--This bill came
about
because of a custody/visitation battle involving Belfanti's son who
spent a
fortune trying to stay in his child's life post divorce. Those among us
who are
always bemoaning the Democrats/liberals take note: Belfanti is a
Democrat..
====

LOL! So it took a power politician's son getting screwed over to get
some action! It's just like I said earlier, it's like the Salem witch
trials... As soon as the governor's wife got accused, "TWEET!
Everybody outta the pool!"

Heh.
===
Yup--All those threads, all that time we spent analyzing, arguing, and
pondering
how to change the system, or what the catalyst for change would be, were
all for
naught.
===

I disagree, Gini. I have it on (fairly) good authority that groups like
this are under the watchful eye of GovCo. They've been getting the idea
that the natives are very restless, so to keep the hoity-toity, fat cat
pensions - they decide to take some action to quiet us down a bit.

Trouble is, some of them will find a way to appease the likes of NOW and
ACES, come up with a way around our efforts and stick it to us once again.

I think we need to start the revolution as soon as possible... say today,
around 5PM, while they aren't looking..

In article , Dusty says...

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article 8WL3e.73905$7z6.36709@lakeread04, Werebat says...



Gini wrote:
In article W1E3e.73654$7z6.68189@lakeread04, Werebat says...


Where is the excited discussion about this? This is exactly what
people
here have been clamoring for, is it not? I'd be pretty damned excited
if this came up in MY state!

- Ron ^*^

====
My thoughts exactly--Perhaps we are better at clamoring than doing--And
we
wonder why things don't change. As an interesting aside--This bill came
about
because of a custody/visitation battle involving Belfanti's son who
spent a
fortune trying to stay in his child's life post divorce. Those among us
who are
always bemoaning the Democrats/liberals take note: Belfanti is a
Democrat..
====

LOL! So it took a power politician's son getting screwed over to get
some action! It's just like I said earlier, it's like the Salem witch
trials... As soon as the governor's wife got accused, "TWEET!
Everybody outta the pool!"

Heh.
===
Yup--All those threads, all that time we spent analyzing, arguing, and
pondering
how to change the system, or what the catalyst for change would be, were
all for
naught.
===

I disagree, Gini. I have it on (fairly) good authority that groups like
this are under the watchful eye of GovCo.
====
Get a grip, Dusty! Those CIA/FBI types aren't real good at finding things,
remember? Now those redneck cops on the beat, they're the ones you gotta watch
out for.
===
===

In article t, Bob Whiteside
says...


"Phil #3" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'd be anxious about it myself. Is C$ to be assigned according to time or
does this mean even more plainly that NCPs get to support their children
AND
the ex because he'll have to pay while also directly supporting the
children?
Don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction but until seen in
practice, it may not turn out much better since I have some concerns that
the NCP can afford to pay C$ and support the children at the same time.
Phil #3

It is important to distinguish between what a new bill says and what a
politician says about it. In this case, the politician's comments are very
encouraging. The little bit posted about the bill's content shows me it is
way too rigid in how custody would be set up. The question to ask yourself
is - Do you really want the political process to dictate all the details of
joint custody? My answer is - No!
===
Well, have you considered there could be a very good reason for the details,
like to leave judges little wiggle room to dance around? I think that's exactly
why it is so specific and that was a real smart move.
===

This bill is a big step forward, I hope it passes.

"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article t, Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Phil #3" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'd be anxious about it myself. Is C$ to be assigned according to time
or
does this mean even more plainly that NCPs get to support their
children
AND
the ex because he'll have to pay while also directly supporting the
children?
Don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction but until seen
in
practice, it may not turn out much better since I have some concerns
that
the NCP can afford to pay C$ and support the children at the same time.
Phil #3

It is important to distinguish between what a new bill says and what a
politician says about it. In this case, the politician's comments are
very
encouraging. The little bit posted about the bill's content shows me it
is
way too rigid in how custody would be set up. The question to ask
yourself
is - Do you really want the political process to dictate all the details
of
joint custody? My answer is - No!
===
Well, have you considered there could be a very good reason for the
details,
like to leave judges little wiggle room to dance around? I think that's
exactly
why it is so specific and that was a real smart move.
===

So let's say this bill passes. How will the courts view the rigidity of the
joint custody requirements in relation to real-life circumstances? If you
were the judge, how would you handle these very common parental
circumstances?

1. One parent travels on business and their travel schedule varies and is
not consistent.
2. One parent is a firefighter who works 2 on, 3 off for 24 hour periods.
3. One parent works graveyard shift for one month and then flips to day
shift for 30 days.
4. One parent is a flight attendant who works on-call for odd shifts/days.
5. One parent moves 50 miles to be closer to their new, better job.

Do you really want a judge dictating where you can work, which hours you can
work, what type of job you can hold, where you must reside, which
work-related employment criteria are acceptable, etc.?

In article et, Bob Whiteside
says...


"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article t, Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Phil #3" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'd be anxious about it myself. Is C$ to be assigned according to time
or
does this mean even more plainly that NCPs get to support their
children
AND
the ex because he'll have to pay while also directly supporting the
children?
Don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction but until seen
in
practice, it may not turn out much better since I have some concerns
that
the NCP can afford to pay C$ and support the children at the same time.
Phil #3

It is important to distinguish between what a new bill says and what a
politician says about it. In this case, the politician's comments are
very
encouraging. The little bit posted about the bill's content shows me it
is
way too rigid in how custody would be set up. The question to ask
yourself
is - Do you really want the political process to dictate all the details
of
joint custody? My answer is - No!
===
Well, have you considered there could be a very good reason for the
details,
like to leave judges little wiggle room to dance around? I think that's
exactly
why it is so specific and that was a real smart move.
===

So let's say this bill passes. How will the courts view the rigidity of the
joint custody requirements in relation to real-life circumstances? If you
were the judge, how would you handle these very common parental
circumstances?

1. One parent travels on business and their travel schedule varies and is
not consistent.
2. One parent is a firefighter who works 2 on, 3 off for 24 hour periods.
3. One parent works graveyard shift for one month and then flips to day
shift for 30 days.
4. One parent is a flight attendant who works on-call for odd shifts/days.
5. One parent moves 50 miles to be closer to their new, better job.

Do you really want a judge dictating where you can work, which hours you can
work, what type of job you can hold, where you must reside, which
work-related employment criteria are acceptable, etc.?
===
Bob, it starts with the *presumption* of 50/50 custody. The parents have the
option of making adjustments--or not.
===
===

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article et, Phil #3
says...

I'd be anxious about it myself. Is C$ to be assigned according to time or
does this mean even more plainly that NCPs get to support their children
AND
the ex because he'll have to pay while also directly supporting the
children?
====
This bill, if passed, will undoubtedly require a change in the CS
guidelines as
it specifically acknowledges that both parents will have to maintain a
family
home. The bill now has the support of 34+ legislators and has a chance of
passing. That this comes out of PA is no surprise as it has been
historically
one of the most, if not the most, father-friendly state. Even if the bill
doesn't pass this go-round, the legislators will gain a much better
awareness of
father issues which will boost the national dialog similar to the
"no-college"/post minority support judges upheld years ago. Too, it gives
dads
in other states a pretty good idea of the kinds of legislation they can
present
to their legislators. There really is not a bad side to this--pass or fail
(Sorry Bob and Phil :-). BTW, the entire text can be found by Googling
"Pennsylvania House Bill 888" or some such.
====

Perhaps you have no doubts but for myself, when it comes to the government,
any government, I have nothing *but* doubts.
Had someone told me before I was married that one day I would be prevented
from raising my child as I saw fit or described the current atmosphere for
men, I would have laughed at them. When it happened, I thought it an
anomaly; now nearly 40 years later I have yet to see any improvement in the
circus of 'family law' or individual's rights, in fact, it has gone so far
the other way, this is most definitely not the same country as when prior to
Johnson (LBJ, not Andrew) .
Had I known then what I know now, I would never have had children or married
and I can assure you neither will happen again regardless how this turns
out.
Phil #3