Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Davis' Parting Shot at CA. Men
The Los Angeles Daily Breeze ^ | 10/28/03 | Glenn Sacks

Posted on 10/28/2003 8:30:27 PM PST by Oquendo

New California Move-Away Law Hurts Children of Divorce

By Glenn Sacks

Although almost completely lost in the events surrounding the recall election, California Governor Gray Davis just signed a misguided bill which will seriously undermine the welfare of California's children of divorce.

Senate Bill 156, which was passed by the legislature in September, grants a custodial parent the presumptive right to move children away from their noncustodial parent after a divorce. In so doing the law will allow the bonds between tens of thousands of children and their parents to be disrupted or destroyed.

Since the 1996 Burgess decision, California custodial parents, usually mothers, have been able to move children unless objecting fathers are able to demonstrate that the move would prejudice their children's rights or welfare. The lower courts have interpreted Burgess, which involved only a 40 mile move within the state, to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, these courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as New Zealand and Zaire.

In August of last year, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to revisit the move-away issue by hearing the LaMusga case, in which a Contra Costa County custodial mother sought to move to Arizona with her two young boys and her new husband. The boys' father fought to block the move, arguing that it would be harmful to his children because it would damage their relationship with him. This summer the mother went ahead with the move in defiance of a court order.

The father is unable to follow his children to Arizona because he operates a business in Northern California and has stiff child support obligations. This is a common problem for noncustodial fathers, whose financial obligations often chain them to their jobs in the original locale while they are powerless to prevent their children from being moved far away from them.

By successfully sponsoring SB 156, misguided women's organizations such as the California National Organization for Women and the California Women's Law Center have largely closed the door on the move-away issue before the California Supreme Court could decide LaMusga. SB 156 amends Section 7501 of the Family Code to specifically "affirm the decision in In re: Marriage of Burgess...and to declare that ruling to be the public policy and law of this state."

While even an intact family's move can be disruptive for children, according to a recent study published in the Journal of Family Psychology, post-divorce move-aways can be particularly damaging. The study found that among 14 variables related to a young adult's overall well-being, move-away status was correlated to long-term, negative consequences in 11 of them.

These negative consequences include: greater inner turmoil and distress from parents' divorce; more hostility in interpersonal relationships; negative feelings towards their parents; greater conflict between divorced parents; and greater problems in general life satisfaction and personal and emotional adjustment.

The study, conducted from a pool of 2,067 college students enrolled in an introductory level class at a large university, may even understate the damage of move-aways. As the survey's authors point out, many of the children most damaged by divorce and alienation from their noncustodial parents were not measured because they probably never made it as far as college.

Legislation such as SB 156 exemplifies the hypocrisy of the current public policy and discourse on fatherhood, wherein men are lectured to take responsibility for their children while at the same time their right to remain a part of their children's lives is often limited.

Gary, a Riverside, California noncustodial father of two, believes that move-aways wound children. He says:

"Before my divorce I devoted my life to my two girls. I coached their softball teams, volunteered on their school field trips, and took them to and from school every day. We were very close. After the divorce my wife quickly remarried and moved our kids out of state against my will. My relationship with my girls has been severely disrupted and may never be repaired. How could this be in the best interests of my children?"

www.GlennSacks.com


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: catrans

1 posted on 10/28/2003 8:30:27 PM PST by Oquendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oquendo
Davis is an evil creature. He won't be missed.
2 posted on 10/28/2003 8:39:02 PM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oquendo
I have custody of my nephew. A judge determined that his parents abandoned him, granted me custody and his parents visitation rights. They were ordered to pay child support.

His father pays no child support but does support his own alchohol and heroin/methadone habits. The boy sees his father once a month and always, without fail, comes back dirty and hungry. Last time he returned all excited about a game called Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Said he bought a whore, killed her then stole back his money. My nephew is eleven years old.

He will only go see his dear father again over my dead body!

3 posted on 10/28/2003 8:49:42 PM PST by goody2shooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goody2shooz
I knew a father once who was so evil he had blood dripping from his fangs.
4 posted on 10/28/2003 8:56:36 PM PST by Nick Danger (The Wright Brothers were not the first to fly. They were the first to LAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oquendo
Hillary has taught the women of the country that the father is the worse thing that can happen to a child. She is the smartest woman in the world afterall, so why shouldn't the lameduck agree with her and slap the face of the real men in the state on his way out?
5 posted on 10/28/2003 8:59:37 PM PST by ladyinred (Talk about a revolution, look at California!!! We dumped Davis!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goody2shooz
All kids are excited about the Grand Theft Auto game.. no biggie.

All kids also love their parents, no matter what they do to them.

Go easy on the boy. Love him and leave room in his life for his parents. Kids want their parents and if you get self rightous about it, they will resent it.

Blessings on you for taking the child in and loving him as your own.
6 posted on 10/28/2003 9:08:46 PM PST by LaraCroft (Ping a ding ding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
Hillary has taught the women of the country that the father is the worse thing that can happen to a child.

Not quite. Hilly has taught the country that the worst thing that can happen to a child is its own parents. Hilly wants a social wrecker in every home, a government snoop to make sure every child is raised according to exacting government standards. And, if not, well then...foster care and eventual adoption by people preapproved by Hilly's minions. Wonder if Hilly's been reading up on The Lebensborn?

I thank God every day that my children are grown and out of the house. I would not want to bring a child into a world where they could be removed from me on the word of a twenty two year old social wrecker and placed into foster care ... or worse.

7 posted on 10/28/2003 9:10:02 PM PST by ladysusan ("It was horrible, a monster...like, like, with the body of a crab and the head of a social worker")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oquendo
Recognizing the bias is the first step. Fighting is the second. The odds of winning in court are increased by playing it smart rather than letting emotions run amuck.

Been there and done that professionally and personally.
8 posted on 10/28/2003 9:39:24 PM PST by Young Rhino (http://www.artofdivorce.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goody2shooz
Given the circumstances that you described regarding your nephew, I am glad that you were granted custodial rights of this child. You have made a selfless decision to take care of your nephew and I applaud and commend you for it.

But abuse or abandonment are not issues being addressed in this bill/policy. It seems that the decisive factor is whether or not one parent has been awarded custody over another. Now this seems to be incredibly unfair to me, because there could be a myriad of reasons as to how the original custodial decisions are decided. I never thought that giving custodial rights of a child to one parent over another was a contest as to who is the "better parent".

Why would Davis ever get involved in something like this? The standard used before seems much more equitable than this policy. Since the Libs are always talking "about the children" for everything, are they thinking "about the children" now? How can it ever benefit a kid to be forced to live away from their Dad, especially one who is a good person and a good provider? This is just wrong.

Davis is a petty, mean, small minded and vindictive individual. I don't remember the numbers, but it seems that more men than women voted for the recall and for Arnold, Maybe I am crazy, but it would not surprise me if this action is a petty, retailiatory action against the "men" who did not keep him in office.



9 posted on 10/28/2003 9:50:27 PM PST by nicksaunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oquendo
This post has been added to the… California In Transition- Must read Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

Visit the new web site for the OC Chapter of the Free Republic!


10 posted on 10/28/2003 11:56:41 PM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oquendo
"...the hypocrisy of the current public policy and discourse on fatherhood, wherein men are lectured to take responsibility for their children while at the same time their right to remain a part of their children's lives is often limited terminated.
There. Fixed.
11 posted on 10/29/2003 9:56:21 AM PST by Way2Serious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LaraCroft
My ex-husband was a complete loser. He was verbally abusive, hateful and self-destructive. He divorced me finally after 19 years of a hellish marriage and I never asked him to reconsider. He was disabled; otherwise I am sure he would have stalked me after the divorce. He tried to do that during the divorce, before he was further handiacapped.

Anyway, during the divorce time, I was complaining one day at home about the kids' father, out loud, and my six-year-old son said to me, "I still like my dad."

I realized then that despite my anger at my ex, I would be wrong to taint his memory in the minds of my kids with my opinions. I vowed then to stop talking about him in front of my kids. I would state facts, not opinions, and try to understand him as best I could. I think it helped.

Your advice is right on. Good for you. :)
12 posted on 10/29/2003 7:57:53 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Free! Read my historical romance novels online at http://Writing.Com/authors/vdavisson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion
handiacapped = handicapped
13 posted on 10/29/2003 7:59:26 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Free! Read my historical romance novels online at http://Writing.Com/authors/vdavisson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson