Posted on 09/26/2006 12:50:22 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
Jane is a successful career woman. She has moved up rapidly in a competitive field, and is advancing her career by attending business school at night. Bob works out of their home and does most of the childcare. If Bob decides he doesn’t want Jane anymore, should he be able to take her kids away and push her to the margins of their lives?
The opponents of the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative think he should.
Under the NDSPI, unless a parent is unfit, both parents in a divorce will have joint legal and physical custody of their children. By contrast, the North Dakota Concerned Citizens for Children's Rights Committee and its allies support the current system of awarding sole custody to the children's primary caregiver--that's Bob--and oppose the NDSPI. They contend that family courts should not require custodial parents to allow noncustodial parents like Jane to spend substantial time with their children after divorce.
This is wrong--Jane’s children love her. Even though she was not the children's primary caregiver during the marriage, it’s very harmful to take them away from her. It’s also wrong to punish Jane for pursuing a career and being her family’s primary breadwinner. Yet this is exactly what sometimes happens to working mothers--and very often happens to fathers--under the current system.
According to a study conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates and quoted in TIME magazine, today over one-fifth of fathers are their kids' primary caregivers. While this is often a very beneficial arrangement for families, it leaves women increasingly vulnerable to losing custody and being pushed out of their children’s lives after divorce, just as so often happens to fathers.
There’s a better way than the current win/lose custody system—shared parenting. Under shared parenting, children spend substantially equal time in each parent’s home. According to a meta-analysis published in the American Psychological Association‘s Journal of Family Psychology, children in shared custody settings have fewer behavioral and emotional problems, higher self-esteem, better family relations, and better school performance than children in sole custody arrangements.
While many women’s advocates have taken a misguided stand against shared parenting, there is a significant, outspoken minority which recognizes its benefits for women. For example, feminist attorney Karen DeCrow, president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977, says:
"If there is a divorce in the family, I urge a presumption of joint custody of the children…it is the best option for women. After observing women's rights and responsibilities for more than a quarter of a century of feminist activism, I conclude that shared parenting is great for women, giving time and opportunity for female parents to pursue education, training, jobs, careers, profession and leisure.”
Martha Burk, the Chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations who led the effort to open the Augusta National Golf Club to women, concurs. Burk, who was named Ms. Magazine Woman of the Year in 2003, explains that shared parenting provides women with greater economic freedoms and opportunities. She calls the current child custody system “mother ownership of children” and says that under this “harmful societal norm” judges “mindlessly award [sole] custody to the mother,” to the detriment of all parties.
Under the NDSPI, courts will instruct divorcing parents to develop a joint parenting plan. If the parents cannot agree on a plan, the court will facilitate one which allows both mothers and fathers to maintain a meaningful role in their children’s lives.
Shared parenting is advocated by a growing consensus of mental health and family law professionals. The NDSPI has gained the requisite signatures and will be on the November ballot. It is an opportunity to move North Dakota family law forward from the outdated, mom as caregiver/dad as breadwinner model towards an updated model which will benefit both children and their parents.
This article first appeared in the Grand Forks Herald (9/24/06).
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization. Their website is www.acfc.org.
Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
OH my...
and our children suffer....
uh huh yeah. great idear. Unless you can prove someone "unfit" ina court of law, they can micro-manage, intefere, and thwart everything you want tto do with your kid. wanna go to Disneyland? If the other parent gets word of it, they can raise all sorts of hassle.
this is a real dumb idea.
I was threatened when I took my daughter to Maine and my ex wanted to give me a hard time. she threatened to call the police saying that I was taking her across state lines without permission.
The no-fault divorce laws created this mess.
Shared Parenting = Marriage, for goodness sakes.
No fault divorce came about to to keep courts out of the business of trying to decide if two people asking for a divorce, and claiming infidelity, could then proceed. It was considered bad that two people wanting a divorce had to engage in "lying" to get one. Now look at the mess. No one stopped to consider that at least the TWO people wanted the divorce.
I agree it's a dumb idea. That's ALL the courts need is more reason to give mothers (and some fathers) the ability to give each other a harder time and make things more difficult than they already are. Especially those who are the vindictive type.
I speak from experience, but there are some mothers (and fathers) out there, that don't think about the best interest of the children (and neither do the courts), they just want to get at their ex and use the children to do so.
What I don't get, is with this "Shared Parenting" idea, where the children spend equal time in each parents home, how does that work when the parents live in two different states (500+ miles) apart? Equal time in each home would create problems with school, friends, etc and be more troublesome, I would think, to the child, than living the majority in one home and visits to the other.
I do agree though, that the current system is WAY TOO biased and not enough evaluation is done on BOTH parents to determine WHO is best suited for majority/sole custody. They should divide the time equally among those that live in the same town, but for those that live more than 50 miles apart, I would think a better way of dividing parenting time should be made. Just because one parent had more time with the child before the custody issue began, that shouldn't be the deciding factor that they get sole custody, imo.
You forget to take into consideration those parents, and there are PLENTY out there, that never got married, who had children out of wedlock.
Not every custody battle is because of divorce.
hey words "if you can work it out". it takes two willing parties to reach an agreement - unless you want to cede all control.
My ex didn't want to do anything other than cause trouble for the first three years. And she wasn't the custodial parent. Since I was the custodial parent, I had the responsibility. She was being spiteful and troublemaking (she's much better now). Had she the authotiry of joint custody, life would have been sheer hell.
Is there a reason why this is bass-ackwards? I think the current system, at least here in Ca, is inherently wrong.
Both parents should get joint custody in all cases unless there is a proven case of abuse or a mutual agreement between the parents.
Right now... Dads are screwed... and I should know, I'm on my way to court right now, in fact.
It is up to those parents to either stay close enough together geographically to make this feasable or the one that moves just has to give up ALL rights to the one that stays.
it is all about the kids, not the parents.
I get you, but when I read about person #3 I thought of guardian ad litem. A court-appointed person.
I think a child should be able to decide which parent to stay with, although I think it's best not to move a child. A child should never be used against the other parent. A parent should never badmouth the other parent; it's hard not to do that, but it's important.
Just because you and your spouse are splitting the sheets doesn't give you the right to poison your spouse's image in your child's eyes. Let the spouse do that without your help.
I see that my history lesson in how this nation got to this place was taken personally.
I am a traditionalist, Children NEED both a mother and father. Period.
I agree, it is about the kids, but some parents don't care.
People split up because they can't get along in the first place. And in a lot of cases, one parent doesn't give a rats patooti about how it may inconvenience the child or the other parent (and in some cases, may be happy it does cause inconvenience) about location, travel costs, distance, etc, and does whatever they want.
In my experience, the father and mother were never married and didn't have paternity established so the mother was able to take the child out of state without the father being able to protest. By the time the court date was set for custody, the mother already had the child in her custody, so it was granted, even though it was proven she was neglectful and used drugs, etc. The court didn't care, because she was already main caregiver and didn't want to uproot the child. And 2 years later, the mother again moved farther away to yet another state, and the court just slapped her hand, even though she never notified anyone (even the court) of the move until months later. Never mind how there's no stability, and the mother just ups and moves whenever she feels like it every 2-3 years and how it affects the child and his schooling, etc. Meanwhile the father has been in same city/state since it all begin.
I hope the courts listen to a child when they are 12, because from DAY ONE of this whole issue, he's wanted to live with dad. Mom won't hear of it though and all she cares about is the child support $$$$$$.
See my post #15.
I agree with you about the badmouthing. And it's true. If left to their own devices, they will end up looking worse to the kid, then if you tell them all you know.
If it is fair for a good parent (usually the dad) to get the kids every other weekend and some holidays then it should be fair for the other parent every other year, too. It isn't idea for kids to have two homes and two schools but it isn't idea to live with one parent and rarely see the other, either. 18 years max, isn't really that long and it's not about the parents but the kids. They need a mother and a father.
Lets keep it simple. Divorce and you both loose the kids.
Thanks for your input, and I agree. The whole point of separating is to get along for the child. Parents need to realize that. Sure, it's easier to hold a grudge, but hey, getting out of the relationship is trying to tell yourself to move on, already. Emotional baggage serves no one.
Children are more resilient than we think. Having two homes and two locations actually can be like having twice as much of everything.
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.