Posted on 03/14/2008 6:22:27 AM PDT by ProCivitas
DIVORCED FATHERS and their children deserve a better deal than they're getting from the courts. A shared parenting bill in the state House would create a "rebuttable presumption" - that as long as both parents are fit and it is practical, both parents are entitled to equal custody of the children. Currently, custody almost always goes solely to the mother when she objects to shared parenting.
more stories like thisA "rebuttable presumption" is an easy concept.
The court starts with the common sense position that it is usually in the best interest of children that they be raised equally by both parents after separation....
According to divorcemag.com, fatherless homes account for 63 percent of youth suicides, 90 percent of homeless/runaway children, 85 percent of children with behavior problems, 71 percent of high school dropouts, 85 percent of youths in prison, and more than 50 percent of teen mothers. Dr. Robert Bauserman did a meta-analysis (a study of all the studies) of 33 studies between 1982 to 1999 published by the American Psychological Association. In total, 1,846 sole-custody and 814 joint-custody children were studied. He concluded that "Children in joint custody arrangements had less behavioral and emotional problems, had higher self-esteem, better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Excellent piece, and remarkable that it appeared on the Boston Globe Op/Ed page.
Good luck. My son was recently awarded primary placement of his son, over his soon-to-be-ex-wife’s objections. Our grandson’s guardian visited both their homes, and determined he would be safest in our son’s apartment. Great relief to us, as we’d assumed the courts favor the mother.
Shared Parenting is a silly myth with no basis in reality. It’s a feel-good attempt to reach a compromise between warring parents, but it does not work.
When Shared Parenting is tried, it always fails as the children suffer the most.
Ah, statistics. Divorcemag.com is conflating children who live with the mother after a divorce with children who never had a father in the home at all. Did Dr. Bauserman control for factors like the intensity of emotional conflict and social class, education and economic status in his comparison of joint custody versus sole custody?
The law is probably a good idea. My own cousin has joint custody of her daughter with her ex. She says when her daughter turns 12, she’s going to have her (the girl) petition the judge to give her mother (my cousin) sole custody. Now my cousin is the one who destroyed the marriage, and the girl adores her father, and he’s devoted to her. IMO, my cousin should be grateful to have custody at all.
This law won’t help in the really intractable battles when the parents will be making all sorts of charges, true or false, against each other. My brothers and I endured one of those as children.
Ping
So what do you suggest? Men should just give up?
I stongly disagree.
I guess that your use of the word “always” means that even one exception makes you wrong.
Guess what?
You’re wrong.
I had shared physical custody of my children for many years.
It worked out pretty well as far as I am concerned. I’d bet $$$$ that my children would concur as well as just about anyone who knows them.
So what do you suggest? Men should just give up?
In a lot of cases, the one out of the house wants connection, but the ex, doesn't want to have the kids have anything to do with the other spouse. And uses the kids as a tool for that end. It's not fair to the kids, or the one who wants the connection.
Shared parenting only works when the warring parents put aside their differences where the children are involved.
My ex used visitation as a carrot/whip. IF I did the things SHE wanted, I got to see the kids. Anything she was unhappy with, her fat body, the weather, if she was on the rag that day or just to be mean, I didn't see my girls at all.
And nothing the courts or the law could do about it either.
Stay married. Or don't have children.
Good for you. But what if your ex decided to move 1000 miles away.
What would you have done then?
Nowadays you’d let that happen about 3 times and then file contempt and mom would sooner or later learn not to do that because it would cost her time and money and she’d have to give you make-up time. My ex-dil learned but it cost her 5k because she had to pay legal fees for both sides and then pay for transportation both ways twice.
Things haven’t changed enough but they are slowly getting better and court orders aren’t something you can mess around with. Even the warring and the alienation can be addressed in court.
Man-hating FemiNazi lesbians infest the Massachusetts Family Courts. This will be a very tough law to get passed.
“Shared Physical Custody” precludes unilateral move-aways.
And it greatly reduces frivolous divorces in those states that have enacted shared parenting guidelines. ‘Course we’re all shocked, but it seems that women don’t file divorce so much when they can’t swipe the kids and extort money from their husband.
Pat response. And useless.
My son tried that. But she was pregnant by her boyfriend and walked. Now her house was raided and they found 800 baggies of heroin, drug paraphernalia and coke residue. The boys were removed, they cried for their Dad, IN COURT, and the judge gave the kids back to her. Only the 2 men living in her house were arrested and charged. The girl has changed since the marriage 10 years ago and gone off the deep end. Your pat answer doesn't help. And is INCREDIBLY naive.
OK, I’ll concede that Shared Parenting is a tool used to threaten women from filing divorce.
And since women file some 75% of all divorce suits, there must be something done to slow down the rampant divorce and custody battles that are tearing America apart.
But S/P isn’t the answer.
You want to know what is? You want to know what will work?
1.End No-Fault Divorce.
2. Tax penalties for divorced and unmarried parents. (Or put a positive spin on it: Tax breaks for families who marry then have kids and who stay married.)
But once divorce happens, then all bets are off. You can put a pretty bow (Shared Parenting) on the pacakge, but inside it’s still a pile of crap.
No matter how custody is awarded, divorce is hard on kids. If you add in vindictive parents, it's a horrible situation for the kids.
I'm very sorry for your son's pain, but are you telling me this woman was not like this before he married her?
If she wasn't, then something caused such a drastic change in personality. . .either some trauma or some medical/mental condition. If that was the case, divorcing her wasn't the answer. Getting her help was.
Ending no-fault divorce is a good idea. But, re your second point, I don't see much reason for taxpayers to subsidize families (Especially the non-family 'broken home' households that we subsidize so much nowadays).
If that was the case, divorcing her wasn't the answer. Getting her help was.
He didn't divorce her. SHE filed. Her Daddy is friends with the judge. What baby wants, baby gets, Daddy makes certain of it.
But the point is that taxpayers DON’T have to subsidize married traditional families.
That’s why these groups should receive tax breaks. Because we are the ones who keep America running.
Rather than the broken families on welfare. And even if a disfunctional family is not on welfare, they are still costing this country plenty as their kids are more likely to use drugs and go to prison. And they are less likely to get an education or a good paying job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.