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.

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.

"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.

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...

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!

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).