I believe that the custody laws mustbe changed on teh state level. Many of the federal lawsuits filed, lacked standing and basic legal arguments to affect real change. However, the lawsuits did garner attention and when that is focused on State legislators, change occurs.
Several laws have finally been proposed in Minnesota to establish a presumption in favor of joint physical child custody in marriage dissolution proceedings. This could make a presumption for joint physical custody a reality in a very short period of time. A presumption for joint physical custody simply means that both parents would be equally situated as a custodial parents and the court could deviate from an order requiring joint physical custody with the children by making express findings that a deviaion is in the children's best interests.
Very few states currently have a presumption for joint physical custody. The nearest state is Wisconsin which has a presumption in its statutes that time should be maximized wity each parent. This has been inmterpreted by many of Wisconsin's Circuit Court Judges as a presumption for joint physical custody. As a result, custody orders, particularly those entered in Wisconsin's Western Counties where I practice (Polk, Pierce, St. Croix, Burnett, Barron, Dunn), generally award joint physical placement to parents on a substantially equal scehdule where the parents continue to reside in the same county or school district and where the parent's work schedules allow for equal parenting. In my experience, this has significantly reduced litigation on the custoody/placement issue in Wisconsin. There is support for that conclusion as well as the conclusion that a presumption for joint physical custody has a much greater impact on divorce proceedings.
Many studies have been conducted nationwide that conclude that a presuimption for joint physical custody may, in fact, have an impact on divorce proceedings themselves by reducing the divorce rate, presumably by reducing the financial incentive to divorce. For information on these studies review
http://www.proactive-coach.com/divorce/statistics/research-rates.htm
For some information on the benefits of joint physical custody, review http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/jointbenefits.htmor http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/liz/those-jointcustody-studies.html
In Minnesota, bill, SF 1408, was introduced by Sen. Sheila M. Kiscaden, Sen. Thomas M. Neuville and Sen. Dan Sparks on March 3, 2005, and seeks to establish a presumption in favor of joint physical custody in child custody cases. Parents would be required to enter a custody agreement within 90 days of the start of custody proceedings (HF779 Companion Bill). The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3, 2005.
On Feb. 22, another comprehensive family law bill, HF1191,
was introduced by Rep. Eastlund and others. Unlike Sen. Neuville's bill, this bill also addresses joint physical custody. The bill proposes "best interests of the child clarified relating to family law, joint legal and physical custody rebuttable presumption established, and child support guidelines provided."
Bill HF0779, which would also provide a presumption of joint physical custody (but does not include comprehensive family law provisions), was introduced Feb. 3 by Rep. Mahoney. Under current law, courts use a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody is in the best interests of the child. This bill adds language that "joint legal and physical custody is in the best interests of the child." The bill also adds that "...if the parents fail [to agree on custody or on a parenting plan] the court must use a rebuttable presumption, except as otherwise provided by this subdivision, that upon request of either party joint physical custody involving an equal division of time between the parties is in the best interests of the child."
Another bill to modify child custody presumptions, requirements and procedures, Bill SF0604, was introduced in the Senate on Jan. 31 by Sen. Wiger. The bill proposes, "modifying certain presumptions, requirements and procedures affecting child custody; modifying the purposes of juvenile court laws relating to child protection, separating intent relatingto cases of no alleged parental abuse from cases of alleged parental abuse; requiring appointed guardians to be learned in family law, requiring the supreme court to adopt rules specifying training and experience requirements; authorizing challenges to guardian ad litem appointments for good cause; prohibiting the court from considering the preference of the parent in placing children in removal cases.
If you support these bills write to your state senators and state representatives.
_________________
Minnesota Divorce visit Http://www.divorceprofessionals.com
Divorce Answers visit http://www.divorceinstitute.com
Several laws have finally been proposed in Minnesota to establish a presumption in favor of joint physical child custody in marriage dissolution proceedings. This could make a presumption for joint physical custody a reality in a very short period of time. A presumption for joint physical custody simply means that both parents would be equally situated as a custodial parents and the court could deviate from an order requiring joint physical custody with the children by making express findings that a deviaion is in the children's best interests.
Very few states currently have a presumption for joint physical custody. The nearest state is Wisconsin which has a presumption in its statutes that time should be maximized wity each parent. This has been inmterpreted by many of Wisconsin's Circuit Court Judges as a presumption for joint physical custody. As a result, custody orders, particularly those entered in Wisconsin's Western Counties where I practice (Polk, Pierce, St. Croix, Burnett, Barron, Dunn), generally award joint physical placement to parents on a substantially equal scehdule where the parents continue to reside in the same county or school district and where the parent's work schedules allow for equal parenting. In my experience, this has significantly reduced litigation on the custoody/placement issue in Wisconsin. There is support for that conclusion as well as the conclusion that a presumption for joint physical custody has a much greater impact on divorce proceedings.
Many studies have been conducted nationwide that conclude that a presuimption for joint physical custody may, in fact, have an impact on divorce proceedings themselves by reducing the divorce rate, presumably by reducing the financial incentive to divorce. For information on these studies review
http://www.proactive-coach.com/divorce/statistics/research-rates.htm
For some information on the benefits of joint physical custody, review http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/jointbenefits.htmor http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/liz/those-jointcustody-studies.html
In Minnesota, bill, SF 1408, was introduced by Sen. Sheila M. Kiscaden, Sen. Thomas M. Neuville and Sen. Dan Sparks on March 3, 2005, and seeks to establish a presumption in favor of joint physical custody in child custody cases. Parents would be required to enter a custody agreement within 90 days of the start of custody proceedings (HF779 Companion Bill). The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3, 2005.
On Feb. 22, another comprehensive family law bill, HF1191,
was introduced by Rep. Eastlund and others. Unlike Sen. Neuville's bill, this bill also addresses joint physical custody. The bill proposes "best interests of the child clarified relating to family law, joint legal and physical custody rebuttable presumption established, and child support guidelines provided."
Bill HF0779, which would also provide a presumption of joint physical custody (but does not include comprehensive family law provisions), was introduced Feb. 3 by Rep. Mahoney. Under current law, courts use a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody is in the best interests of the child. This bill adds language that "joint legal and physical custody is in the best interests of the child." The bill also adds that "...if the parents fail [to agree on custody or on a parenting plan] the court must use a rebuttable presumption, except as otherwise provided by this subdivision, that upon request of either party joint physical custody involving an equal division of time between the parties is in the best interests of the child."
Another bill to modify child custody presumptions, requirements and procedures, Bill SF0604, was introduced in the Senate on Jan. 31 by Sen. Wiger. The bill proposes, "modifying certain presumptions, requirements and procedures affecting child custody; modifying the purposes of juvenile court laws relating to child protection, separating intent relatingto cases of no alleged parental abuse from cases of alleged parental abuse; requiring appointed guardians to be learned in family law, requiring the supreme court to adopt rules specifying training and experience requirements; authorizing challenges to guardian ad litem appointments for good cause; prohibiting the court from considering the preference of the parent in placing children in removal cases.
If you support these bills write to your state senators and state representatives.
_________________
Minnesota Divorce visit Http://www.divorceprofessionals.com
Divorce Answers visit http://www.divorceinstitute.com