Article from Boston, Mass

[MYSONSDAD]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/11/05/changes_in_fathers_custody_rights_urged/?rss_id=Boston%20Globe%20--%20City%20/%20Region%20News

Changes in fathers' custody rights urged

By Elise Castelli, Globe Correspondent  |  November 5, 2004

Armed with voters' approval of nonbinding initiatives in more than 30
legislative districts, a group that wants to increase the parental custody
rights of divorced fathers is urging lawmakers to change state laws to
''uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and
legal custody of their children."

''As things stand now with sole custody given to one parent, the
noncustodial parent finds himself the fifth wheel," said Dr. Ned Holstein,
president of Fathers & Families, the advocacy group that pushed for the
initiative. ''The short amount of time spent together are painful times,
not happy times, because it reminds the child and the parent of what they
don't have anymore, an intimate relationship."

Under current state law, the judge in a divorce case determines custody in
the best interest of the child with the presumption of shared legal
custody. Generally, that means the child lives with one parent, and both
parents share in decision making. Advocates want to change the law to
encourage joint custody, shared by both parents, as the standard in
divorce law. Holstein said the change is needed ''because the parent is
removed from the child's life and doesn't know what is going on between
the child and their friends, teachers, baseball team, and things that
really matter."

Legislators in districts where the proposal passed said they would press
for change. If enacted, Massachusetts would become the 12th state to have
legal support for joint custody. Twelve other states give preference to
shared custody when both parties agree.

''I'll take this, but I want to be practical and come up with a law that
can work and most importantly work in the best interest of the child,"
said Representative Robert A. DeLeo of Winthrop.

DeLeo, who once worked in probate court and has handled family law cases
over the years, said that splitting time between two homes can be
disruptive, because a child's life is focused on school, friends, and
activities in their community. ''It's best for each child to have as much
time with both parents as possible, but I don't see how you can cut a
child in two," he said. ''You have to have some continuity."

The Massachusetts Bar Association opposed the change to shared physical
custody when it came before the Legislature because it took discretion
away from the courts and placed the best interest of the child second,
according to Denise Squillante, former chairwoman of the family law
division of the Massachusetts Bar Association.

''To create an automatic presumption takes away too much discretion from
the court," said Squillante, who has been practicing family law for 21
years. ''No two cases are the same. They all call on different facts."

Squillante said that in cases where judges determine that both parents are
fit, the courts should be allowed to maintain the current pattern in the
household to avoid disruption in children's lives.

''This [proposed] law is not the answer in my experience, because there
are very few situations where parents are able to work out a shared
physical arrangement," she said. ''Kids don't like to be bounced back and
forth and living out of a suitcase."

Holstein said, however, that shared physical custody will help quell many
problems faced by youth. He cited poor grades, substance abuse, gang
violence, and pregnancy, and said they are rampant among children in
single parent homes.

''This is a cost-free method to address the problems of youth by finding
ways to give them back their fathers instead of giving them programs," he
said.

  Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

"Children learn what they live"

[Kitty C.]

I see this EVERY time this issue comes up.......the naysayers claim that shared physical splits the child in two.  Like the child isn't already???  Wouldn't it be better for the child to ONLY change homes ONCE a week (one week on, one week off) than to change homes TWICE within approx. 48 hours (EOW) and then not see the other parent for 2 weeks???  What part about that don't they understand????

This guy's gonna get an earful from me...........

[Bolivar]

Elise Castelli, Globe Correspondent try's to be a real reporter, giving both sides.

I am NOT a reporter so I am picking out one retard statements and take a dump on it.  Warning this is going to be a bias post.


Squillante  the Sh*t head said [em] "that in cases where judges determine that both parents are fit, the courts should be allowed to maintain the urgent pattern in the household to avoid disruption in children's lives."[/em]



What I am about to say may seem like common sense, but give me a chance to explain.

First, When mom and dad are together they are going to have an agreement on how to run there life TOGETHER.

Second, when mom and dad are NOT together they will need a different agreement to run the family.

So Squillante and MOST judges reasoning currently is:
If in the family unit Dad works full time in the office and mom works full time at home.  When the family unit is broken up mom becomes CP because she has been around the children the most.  Dad will work full time and pay the bills for his NEW house and Dad will pay for Moms bills to help raise the children.

Do you see the problem here?

First, dad only gets to see the children every other weekend yet pays the bills for two house holds.

Second, why is it that dad going to work counts less in the nurturing of the children than mom?

Third, the partnership no longer exists, to assume that dad wants to continue his old roll in the partnership is ludicrous.

[font size =+2]The current system encourages the mom NOT to get along.  HOW? When mom creates havoc showing the court that Dad and Mom can NOT get along the courts will give one parent a CP status.  When the courts assign CP status -- it almost always goes to mom.[/font]

[MYSONSDAD]

My ex continues to having a hostile environment in order to avoid shared, joint or what ever. They are told to do this by their attorney.

I think who ever causes the hostility should automatically lose. How can a hostile environment be in the best interest of the chidl?

I am composing my letter as we speak...

"Children learn what they live"

[Bolivar]

Something positive :-)      http://www.custodyreform.com/




Posted by:hogtyed
on November 04, 2004 at 20:37:33:

I was on a website just now and an ad banner popped up. Not your normal one, as this one showed a father with a baby. It sparked my curiosity, so I clicked on it. It took me to BABY.COM. They have several videos there with fathers and their children.

 Excellent work by Johnson and Johnson and I'm gonna email them telling them so.

Just thought I'd share.

hogtyed

[Kitty C.]

Rep. DeLeo,

I happened to read with interest your comments in an article in Boston Globe regarding the voter support of the custody initiative.  I have been involved in a grass roots movement supporting children's rights for many years now, and I have to say that your quotes were no different than any other opponent of the issue.

From a paragraph in the article:

DeLeo, who once worked in probate court and has handled family law cases over the years, said that splitting time between two homes can be disruptive, because a child's life is focused on school, friends, and activities in their community. ''It's best for each child to have as much time with both parents as possible, but I don't see how you can cut a child in two," he said. ''You have to have some continuity."

Tell me which is more disruptive:  having a child change homes ONCE a week (with physical custody being one week each with either parent) or haivng to switch back and forth within approximately 48 hours (standard every other weekend) and not seeing the other parent for a full two weeks?  Why don't you ask the kids themselves?  One week on, one week off IS continuity to them!  Because they are able to maintain a continuous relationship with BOTH parents.  As it stands, they feel like they are 'visitors' in the other parent's home, not really having a sense of 'home' there because they cannot spend enough time there.  And the non-custodial parent is relegated to being a 'visitor' in his own child's life.

What would 'avoid disruption in children's lives' would be the continuity of them being able to see and live with BOTH parents equally, just like they did before the separation.  When it is madated by law that equal shared custody is the rule, other than the exception, both parents walking into divorce proceedings understand that fighting over who will get custody will not happen, thus removing any animosity and power plays that are all too common in the current system.  

I pray that your children or grandchildren never have to experience what it's like to feel like a stranger, out of place in their own parent's home because they can't spend enough time there for it to feel that way.  That they never have to go so many days without even seeing the other parent and then only being able to spend a minimal amount of waking hours with them.  I see it as a pervasive form of emotional abuse and neglect on a child.

My stepson lives only 2 blocks away from my husband and I.  We live in a very small, rural community in Iowa.  But we only see him from Fridays at 6 pm. to Sunday nights at 6 pm. every other week.  Four days a month.  Maybe only 26 waking hours in 28 days.  How can a child maintain a relationship with a parent when they're spending that little time with them!  My stepson has to have time to adjust between homes.  But with what little time he's with us, he barely gets comfortable when he has to go back.  That is NOT continuity, that is abuse.  There is NO way my husband can have any kind of impact on his son's life when they spend such little time together..........and there are millions of other parents (predominantly fathers) and children who suffer the same thing all over this country.

Denise Squillante also made a quote in the article:

''This [proposed] law is not the answer in my experience, because there are very few situations where parents are able to work out a shared physical arrangement," she said. ''Kids don't like to be bounced back and forth and living out of a suitcase."

Well, guess what?  They already are!  Why not give them the continuity and stability of being able to STAY in one parent's home long enough to make them feel like it is THEIR home too?  The State of Iowa just recently put into law a joint physical custody bill that we hope will pave the way in allowing children to have more meaningful relationships with both parents after divorce or separation.  This is an excerpt of what I wrote to Gov. Vilsack, in my letter expressing my reasons as to why he should sign the bill into law:

'Couples may divorce each other, but they do NOT divorce their children.  In our current court system, there is an adversarial atmosphere in regards to custody where NONE should exist.  Only in family court is there a third party involved who has no voice, the children.  If a couple brings a child into this world, that child should not be deprived of either parent just because of divorce.  They shared equal responsibility and rights before the divorce and should be allowed the same after.  The child enjoyed and needed both parents before the divorce and is entitled to both after as well.

This bill is VERY important in child custody issues, because it gives the message that BOTH parents are important, BOTH parents must be involved, and it takes away any 'power' that one parent might perceive to have over the other.  When joint equal custody is established, there is nothing to fight about.  When both parents walk into that courtroom, they will already know that fighting over the children will not happen, because they are BOTH equally responsible and BOTH have that right to the child, just as the child has a right to both of them.'

If you would be interested in reading my letter to Gov. Vilsack, I would be more than happy to forward it to you.  Gov. Vilsack spent over a month contemplating this bill, going out of his way to gather information from child health professionals to assist in his decision and was deluged with letters, e-mails, and calls from parents all over the US supporting this bill.  This was the last bill he signed into law the past legislative session and when he signed it, he was quoted to say that he felt it was the most important bill he had signed all session.

There are MANY non-custodial parents out there who are desperate to be involved in their children's lives.  There are millions of children in this country who already feel split in two because the current judicial system does not recognize both parents as being equal co-parents to them.  In the case of the new Iowa law, if only one parents asks for joint physical custody, it must be considered by the court, unless it is proven that one parent is an abusive threat to the child(ren).  Iowa has a legal definition of 'best interest of the children', in that only abuse is considered not in their best interest, as it should be.  No where does it say that only one consistent parent is in the best interest, something that many courts in this country seem to rule on.

Our children's future is on the line here.  We owe it to them to make their futures as bright as possible.  And if the good Lord hadn't meant for a child to have two parents, He wouldn't have created us the way He did, requiring both a male and female in order to have a child.  Children need BOTH parents, want BOTH parents, and must have both in their lives consistently in order to grow up as well rounded human beings, hence God's reasoning for creating us this way.  For the future of the children in your state, I urge you to seriously reconsider your stand on this issue.

Do it for the children......................


Kitty C.

[MYSONSDAD]

Thanks for the heads up. True Value is another one who has been working with fathers in their ads.

"Children learn what they live"

[MYSONSDAD]

For the last 30 years or more, it has taken 2 incomes to support a family. That is an intact family with one home.

When the divorce comes, all of a sudden it becomes a 1 income family with NCP supporting 2 homes....

"Children learn what they live"

[MYSONSDAD]

"Children learn what they live"

[Bolivar]

[font size ="+2"]
It is a work of art, a master piece!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some of my personal favorites in your letter.


*> .......... That is NOT continuity, that is abuse.

*> 'Couples may divorce each other, but they do NOT divorce their children. In our current court system, there is an adversarial atmosphere in regards to custody where NONE should exist.

*> When both parents walk into that courtroom, they will already know that fighting over the children will not happen, because they are BOTH equally responsible and BOTH have that right to the child, just as the child has a right to both of them.'

*> There are millions of children in this country who already feel split in two because the current judicial system does not recognize both parents as being equal co-parents to them.


And of course your last paragraph ties it all together.


*> Our children's future is on the line here. We owe it to them to make their futures as bright as possible. And if the good Lord hadn't meant for a child to have two parents, He wouldn't have created us the way He did, requiring both a male and female in order to have a child. Children need BOTH parents, want BOTH parents, and must have both in their lives consistently in order to grow up as well rounded human beings, hence God's reasoning for creating us this way. For the future of the children in your state, I urge you to seriously reconsider your stand on this issue.
[/font]


kitty C you are an artist!!!!!!!