California Victory!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kitty C.]

Victory! Burton Pulls SB 730 in Face of Enormous Opposition
 
August 16, 2004
 

We have just received word that California Senate President John Burton has decided to withdraw SB 730--the bill to abrogate the LaMusga decision and create unrestricted move-aways.

Thanks to the thousands of you who responded to our campaign and supported us. Today the bonds between tens of thousands of California children and their noncustodial parents have been preserved.

Usually our side loses the battle in the media, which helps precipitate a defeat in the legislature. This time was clearly different. The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways garnered a ton of press attention, most of it quite favorable. To learn more about ACCAMA's impact, visit ACCAMA in the Media.

However, please remember that our opponents will be back next year, probably in January. There will be a different sponsor and a different bill number but they will be back. ACCAMA will fight any bill which disregards the loving bonds between children and both of their parents.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Way to go!

[harlequin]

I congratulate all of you from California- and I am saddened that this almost happened.  I am in New Mexico, which is pretty father-friendly.  Judge Anne Kass was in District One in NM until she retired.

One would think that Ahnold's connection with the Kennedys would have him coming down on the side of family values, and that he would veto such a bill if it ever got to his desk.  Besides the fact that the bill and the Burgess case were absurd.  So I would think y'all have a friend in Ahnold and that the whole concept would die if he kept vetoing it.

California is such a strange and wonderful place- first "Death Valley Days", now "Conan the Barbarian".  I don't remember Conan (the character) having a son, but I think he would come down on the side of a high degree of father involvement.

Come to think of it, doesn't Ahnold have two daughters?  I'll bet he's kind of a "girlie man" himself...  I would like to see the person that could keep him away from his children...

Y'all keep on keepin' on...

[MYSONSDAD]

There have been many positive developments for our side in the past week:

Numerous professional organizations have come out against SB 730. These include: the California Judge's Association; the State Bar of California, Family Law Section; the Los Angeles County Bar, Family Law Section; the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists; the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts - California Chapter; and the Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers - Southern California Chapter.

Psychologists Richard A. Warshak, Ph.D. and Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. released a statement this week urging the legislature not to pass SB 730. See Mental Health Professionals Condemn SB 730. Warshak and Braver co-authored a brief filed on behalf of the LaMusga children which was signed by over 50 mental health professionals. To read that brief, click here.

ACCAMA has now been endorsed by over 50 mental health and family law professionals. To see the list of ACCAMA endorsers, click here.

Governor Schwarzenegger has issued a statement condemning "gut and amend" bills like SB 730 and expressing his aversion to signing them. A recent Los Angeles Times article, Last-Minute Legislation Challenged (8/13/04), described such bills as legislation which "shows up seemingly out of nowhere and gets rushed through the Assembly and Senate without much public scrutiny." The article mentions SB 730 specifically, and one of Schwarzenegger's spokespeople said:

"A gut-and-amend is not going to be looked upon favorably unless there is a compelling public interest."

ACCAMA offers a special thanks to Assemblyman Tom Harman, Vice Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and his legislative director David Weaver for their assistance on SB 730.

To be removed from our list, please email [email protected].  

 



 
 
 

[MYSONSDAD]

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mcelroy/2004/mcelroy081904.htm

Child Custody Laws Poised for Change

August 19, 2004
by Wendy McElroy

This week, California became a flash point in the drive to amend child
custody laws across North America.

Senate Bill 730, which was abruptly withdrawn from consideration by the
legislature early Tuesday, would have countered a recent California
Supreme Court decision that affirmed the rights of non-custodial parents
in "move-away" cases. Examining how California came to this juncture is
instructive because conflicts on this issue are poised to erupt elsewhere.

"Move-aways" -- the relocation of a custodial parent sufficiently far from
the non-custodial parent as to impair or prevent the latter's ability to
exercise regular visitation with their children -- have been called "the
most contentious and fastest-growing kind of custody litigation" in
America. Although the number of "move-aways" nationwide is unknown,
divorce is often a cause of relocation. In California -- notorious for its
transient population -- "move-aways" have been particularly contentious.

On April 29, the state's Supreme Court ruled on LaMusga, a case in which a
custodial mother wished to relocate to Ohio with her two young boys. The
psychologist who evaluated the children testified that they benefited from
contact with both parents. The father argued that the move would de facto
terminate his regular contact and harm the children. The court agreed and
ruled "primary physical custody ... would be transferred from their mother
to their father if their mother moved."

Up until then, California's policy on "move-aways" had been based largely
on an earlier Supreme Court ruling Burgess (1996), which found that a
custodial parent had a presumptive right to relocate children. To block
relocation, the protesting parent had to successfully demonstrate "a
removal ... would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child."

In Burgess, the mother had relocated only 40 minutes away but lower courts
interpreted the decision to permit moves of thousands of miles, including
outside of the country. Courts also required the non-custodial parent to
demonstrate his presence was "essential" to his children's well being.

Through LaMusga, the Supreme Court signaled its disagreement with the
lower courts' interpretation of Burgess. It also found that the
"essential" standard placed an unreasonably high burden on the
non-custodial parent. The Supreme Court stated that the disruption of
contact with a responsible father constituted a "harm" to children.

The Supreme Court may have been influenced by Sanford L. Braver, who was
an amicus curiae in LaMusga -- that is, a party who is not involved in
litigation but advises the court on a matter affecting the case. A study
by Braver and his associates at Arizona State University, "Relocation of
Children After Divorce and Children's Best Interests," makes a strong
argument against move-aways. The first direct study on the effect of
"move-aways" upon children, it appeared in the June 2003 American
Psychological Association's Journal of Family Psychology and had an
immediate impact on the custody debate.

The study concluded: "On most child outcomes, the ones whose parents moved
are significantly disadvantaged. This suggests courts should give greater
weight to the child's separate interests in deciding such cases."
(Braver's findings contrast with those of author Judith Wallerstein, who
acted as an amicus curiae in Burgess. Wallerstein argued that "move-aways"
are generally in a child's interest because what is good for the custodial
parent is good for the child.)

Braver's study has been championed by those who believe fathers are
systematically devalued by our society. It has also been attacked by
feminist groups who advocate the presumptive right of mothers to custody
and relocation. NOW's position can be judged by the title of its analysis
of a Missouri "move-away" law: "Relocation Laws Keep Women in Their
Place."

A backlash will likely greet any shift toward father's rights in
"move-aways," and looking at California is once again instructive,
especially concerning the tactics used.

Father's rights advocates howled "Foul Play!" over the now-withdrawn SB
730, which was introduced in 2003. Originally titled "An act to amend
Sections 1773 and 1773.5 of the Labor Code relating to prevailing wages,"
the bill dealt with per diem wage issues. It was amended twice in 2003 to
fine-tune the code changes.

Then, on Aug. 9, 2004 -- approximately eight days before the bill was to
be presented to the legislature at the rushed end of its session -- SB 730
was entirely rewritten, though not renumbered, to become "An act to amend
Section 7501 of the Family Code, relating to child custody." It sought to
counter, if not outright reverse, LaMusga.

SB 730 had the appearance of legislation being sneaked in through the back
door. If so, it didn't work. In conjunction with father's rights
advocates, the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways
co-ordinated loud opposition.

According to the conservative estimate provided by radio host and men's
rights spokesman Glenn Sacks, more than 2,000 calls, letters and faxes
were received in opposition to the bill.

"Organizations of family law attorneys and judges have also spoken out
against SB 730," Sacks said.

Feminist groups pushed for passage. A war to change custody laws has
clearly been declared, not only in California but also across North
America. Hopefully, everyone will remember that the battle is not about
ideology but what is best for children.

Wendy McElroy


Wendy McElroy is the editor of
ifeminists.com. She is the author and editor of many books and articles,
including her new anthology Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the
21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her
husband in Canada. Other articles by Wendy McElroy can be found in the
MensNewsDaily.com archive.
------------------------------------------------