Posted on 03/18/2002 6:34:14 AM PST by AUgrad
That's OK. The public schools are working on this problem. Many of them have banned boyish behavior, boyish energy, and traditional boy games. They've gone as far as to ban recess and eliminate the on-premises playgrounds fer cryin' out loud. For the intractible boys who rebel and refuse to act like girls, there's Ritalin.
Can a father deny visitation for mom, after showing reason for the divorce? If there was sufficient grounds, yes. Does no fault divorce take this into account? No. Requiring grounds for divorce protect the children from indiscriminate denial of parental care. Where there is grounds for a divorce, there may be grounds for such denial. No-fault laws deal only with the marriage. The resultant implications for custody were not considered, I imagine because legislatures were confused about the application of the "best interest" standard in awarding custody. Had the argument been made that some, or many fathers may not allow visitation where no cause had been established, the idea would have died.
You also mentioned a lack of legal authority on this issue. If the common law right to paternal custody was abolished, I am unaware of the change. Case law, on the other hand has affirmed this right over and over. The case law clearly describes extrordinary circumstances justifying denial of this right. Parental rights are well established. A father's right over that of a mother is also affirmed. It's the court's improper use of the best interest doctrine that has muddied the legal waters. It can, however, be traced to application of laws dealing with guardianship and placement of wards(not guardianship by nature).
You are clearly the most clueless person on the surface of the earth.
I would say that guys need to plow through all that, and pursue at least joint residential custody.
I grant that a lot of guys are too much craven cowards to do so.
Anyway, all of that is distinct from the cases where perfectly fit fathers who DO want custody are royally shafted and rendered "visitors".
Such a rendering is a power that family courts should just plain not have.
No court should be able to deprive either parent of 50% of the time with their children, unless the parent is proven unfit under the strictest scrutiny standard.
Family court is a limited jurisdiction court. The problem with these courts is identifying which laws regulate particular issues, that may or may not be related to your dissolution action. Are they proceeding under juvenile court authority?
Parental termination laws are applied in a family court proceeding under juvenile court, or probate powers. A marriage dissolution is also handled in family court, and may include a custody determination, but, only when the state already has control of the children.
The termination of parental rights does require a strict scrutiny standard. Guardianship placement criteria for a state ward does not. They are controled by "best interest" standards. How many fathers do you know that have objected to a court assuming control of his children in a dissolution action? If a father posesses the right to guardianship by nature, a trial to terminate these rights is required before a court can lawfully take jurisdiction of a custody action in a dissolution proceeding. It's called jurisdiction of the cause.
As to joint custody, that kind of arrangement is the perrogotive of the father, if he maintains his right to the custody of his children. I don't know many men who would deny the kids' mother fair visitation, but the power to determine what is in the best interest of the children is vested in a father. This natural right is routinely abridged through trickery in a dissolution action. Normally, a father voluntarily stipulates to a custody arrangement, which is his right, but what he is not told is the court cannot interfere with his decision without cause. No-fault divorce does not mean no-fault custody. The two issues are regulated by different laws.
You'll find the "best interest" statutes were slipped into the dissolution chapter (revised statutes) without a clear reference to their original source. That's the problem with revised statutes. The purpose and subject matter of the law is described in it's title. When they are "compiled" in the revised statutes, the title is only found by a search through the statute's history. The heading of a chapter in the revised statutes does not always adequately describe the purpose of each provision.
You'll also find the case law relying on "best interest" standards are justified in cases dealing with extrordinary circumstances, where a court finds a parent's right to custody is challenged. The authority cited in these early cases are juvenile laws, justified by the state's inherent parens patriae powers. The reach of these laws are controled by the extent of this power. While it has been determined by the courts that the power will justify terminating, or temporarily suspending parental rights on purely economic grounds, the action otherwise relies on a finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
Changing the public's perception regarding a patriarchial system of government is required, if we want to accomplish any true reform in the area of family law. Challenging the court's application of the law is a daunting task. Are you ready to stand up for your rights?
Now factor in an equal rights amendment. Not yet passed in Minnesota, thank God. Can the people agree to change our form of government by such an amendment? Who becomes the head of the household in such a case? It doesn't work. It is necessary that men and women have different rights in matters of domestic relations.
Now you're catching on. That's why mostly women file for divorce since no-fault "liberated" them, and since the courts lost respect for natural rights, and since lawyers stopped challenging the courts taking charge of children without adjudicating the fitness of lawful guardians.
Obviously, not enough. That's the point.
Your fourth grader would have done a better job.
Rita Santucci was with my father in California after the war. That’s what I just found out from my Aunt. They had a baby boy. I wish I could find my half brother. Dad is pretty sick and frail. Lives in Reno.
Dad passed away 5/23/09.
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.