Posted on 03/26/2006 12:43:21 PM PST by okiecon
Next week, an important moment will occur in the general trend toward recognizing the societal importance and legal rights of fathers.
On March 28, the New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee is scheduled to hear Bill A330 on shared parenting. The bill seeks to establish "the presumption in matrimonial proceedings for awarding shared parenting of minor children in the absence of an allegation that shared parenting would be detrimental to the best interests of the child."
In short, a parent seeking sole custody (most commonly the mother) would assume the legal burden of proving why a shared arrangement would harm the child.
Father's rights advocates view New York as "a battleground state" not only because of the influence its policies exert but also because New York is one of the few states to resist a national trend toward statutes favoring joint custody.
Because A330 is vehemently opposed by mainstream feminist organizations like the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women, the bill's hearing may become raucous. But, given that almost three dozen State Assembly members have endorsed the bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, A330 stands a good chance of passing.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Well, if one or more parent is to self-centered to produce a stable marriage, then joint custody seems like the next best thing, and should be the default condition.
Great News!
This is exactly what is needed.
I just hope it is REAL shared parenting ... none of this weekend parenting stuff.
NOW is against it, if that helps you decide.:')
It's a start but Dad's still must get around divorce lawyers biased judges, and "helpful" welfare workers.
Lots of interesting implications; for example if larger numbers of divorced parents are substantially sharing child-rearing responsibilities – including the the work / family conflicts – NY employers are going to have increased incentives to address these problems, but this will probably increase their costs and decrease competitiveness compared to states which don't have such laws.
The divorce lawyers call this the "divorce lawyers retirement plan". Because it will require the parents to return to court to arbitrate every dispute involving the children, in the so called "share parenting" arrangement, previously known as "joint custody".
The fact that the feminists oppose it is no indication of its value. Feminists oppose everything involving men.
All of this appears to really benefit the children very little. If the interests of the children were being considered, we'd be talking about returning to the Christian values that America has practiced for centuries which indeed did protect children, by ensuring that they grew up in stable homes with both a mother and father. Legislation is just about power. It's not about what's good for children.
My son who is 21 and back from Iraq knows well the consequences of pop culture and the prevalence of promiscuity in that culture. I've seen to it. He has decided on abstinence until he finds a wife. We have agreed on what kind of women would make a good wife for him and mother to his children. Although I will not choose her, I will have final approval over her. The very same way successful marriages and families have been made for millenniums.
Young men and women have no business making their own decisions about whom they will ultimately marry. I only have to think back to my own state of mind when I was in my twenties to know that truth.
To couch this legislation as a "Societal Shift in Role of Fathers" is a farce. If men want to shift their roles in society, let it be back to Biblical values, principals, roles and responsibilities, that indeed benefited society. All else is just a self serving power play.
Equal rights for men are always a good idea. Something like this is long overdue.
Well, I'm from a broken family and as much as I love each one of my parents, many times I wished they had just shipped me off to boarding school :')
I think this is a good step. Perhaps women will think a little harder before divorcing if they can't anticipate, "I keep everything, and he pays for it."
I think so too. There are bugs to work out but it's about time.
No, it will require women to actually PROVE that their ex-husbands are child-abusing monsters rather than the current system which allows them merely to imply it (since they are believed by the majority of family-law practitioners).
The difference in "shared parenting" and joint custody" is only in how one arrives at that arrangement. This legislation will only make it easier to acquire. The results of the arrangement are the same; it benefits only the lawyers.
In "shared parenting" a.k.a. "joint custody" every decision made by the now divorced parents concerning the child will have to be shared. Any disagreements about where the child attends school, their doctor, whether they participate in little league, whether the boy can own a rifle, or go hunting, play baseball, whether they attend church or which church they attend, etc. ad nauseum, can be contested by either parent and submitted for judicial arbitration. So any and every decision made by either parent in a "share parenting" a.k.a. "joint custody" is subject to be brought to court as long as the child is a minor. So who do you think that benefits? The child?
The divorce lawyers are going to love this legislation.
LOL. That is my default position as well.
Biblical principles are great, until your in family court and want to see your kids. Try telling a judge that he needs to rule in line with biblical principles. Oh yeah, Christians get divorced too. It takes two to tango, but it only takes one to walk.
As far as requiring parents to work together, would you rather see litigation involving that or litigation involving whether mommy can move the kids to Israel or not? The "we can't work together" excuse for sole custody encourgages conflict, does it not?
Oh yeah, I am sure divorce lawyers are against this as well. Less litigated divorces equal more settlements equals less work for divorce lawyers.
I have joint-legal custody of my daughter. What it means is that I can do whatever I want with her (take her hiking, rafting, to a movie or a play) when she is with me UNLESS the ex decides she wants to pay the legal bills to try to stop me.
Needless to say, she prefers hanging on to her money.
Compare that to a situation where I would have to ask my ex for permission any time I wanted to do something.
You can choose to ignore what I have written about the ongoing litigation that a law like this creates. Others I am hoping will see the reasoning based on my first hand experience and will not.
If I were a divorce lawyer, I would trade one sole custody divorce litigation, for 18 years worth of joint custody litigation any day.
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.