Ned Holstein on New Research on Move-Aways
February 3rd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"Mr. and Mrs. Miller have two sons. Mrs. Miller began an affair with Mr. Pizzino. After awhile, it was discovered and led to a divorce. Despite her misbehavior, Mrs. Miller was awarded physical custody of the children – no surprise there. Over the next year or so, she acquired a few contempt citations for interfering with Mr. Miller’s access to his boys. After awhile, she married Mr. Pizzino. There was only one problem: Mr. Pizzino was active duty military and was stationed in South Carolina.
"The new Mrs. Pizzino applied to the court to move to South Carolina with the two boys. She wanted to live with her new husband, of course. The GAL (a psychologist retained by the court) found that Mr. Miller was a great dad and the children were closely bonded to him. The psychologist recommended against the relocation, and the family court denied the moveaway.
"Now enter the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Under crazy Massachusetts case law, the Appeals Court found that mom’s history of interfering with dad’s access to the children was not relevant (!). Also, the children’s strong relationship with dad was not a good enough reason to prevent the move. Therefore, the family court judge’s ruling should be overturned and the kids should go to South Carolina.
"Somebody smarter than I please explain to me how this is good for the boys..."
Post-divorce move-aways are often a devastating blow to the relationship between children and their noncustodial parents. Below, Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of Fathers & Families, discusses some new research on the issue.
Moveaways: Another Scholar Looks at the Evidence. Are Children Helped?
Denver, CO–Still another scholar has concluded that moveaways hurt children in most cases.
Dr. William G. Austin of Denver reviewed 77 research studies and summarized them in the January, 2008 issue of Family Court Review. He concluded:
"Methodologically sound survey studies show strong effects on child outcomes due to residential mobility following divorce. The measurement of child adjustment problems . . . ranges from greater frequency of school behavior problems with younger children to lower academic achievement, greater teen pregnancy, and lower psychological well-being in older children."
Kenneth Waldron looked at over 70 published studies and reached similar conclusions in the Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in 2005.
As did Sanford Braver in the Journal of Family Psychology in 2003.
As did Richard Warshak in the Family Law Quarterly in 2000.
Unfortunately, Austin also wrote, “It would be unsound to use the research reviewed here as a basis for a presumption or bias against relocation of a child . . . ” Why do the psychologists usually oppose presumptions that would work well for most children? Because they hold the illusion that every case can be analyzed in depth by wise students of human behavior such as themselves. Lawyers file motions. Surgeons operate, and psychologists analyze.
They overlook the real world of crowded courtrooms, apathetic judges, no money for psychologists, and incompetent attorneys (if there is any attorney at all). In the real world, a presumption that works for most children is an absolute necessity.
In truth, there is already a presumption at work – but it is the wrong presumption, the one that says the custodial parent can leave with the kids. Even if not written into the statute book, it is very real in the courtrooms of many states. We need to replace the wrong presumption with the right one.
If there is no de facto presumption already in effect in Massachusetts in favor of moveaways, please explain to me the outcome in the case of Pizzino v. Miller...
Read the rest of it here--it's good stuff.
"));
19 queries. 0.367 seconds.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:55 am
That's basically what happened to me. The court psychs recommended I share physical custody. Basically I had won what I thought was best for the kids and best for all of us. So then the ex files to move out of state. And thanks to the Marriage of Burgess at the time, I was told I was going to lose....
February 4th, 2008 at 2:20 am
There should be a presumption of joint custody in divorce, obviously. However, (s)he who moves away should be prepared to give over custody to the stationary parent.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Until we can sue judges for malpractice, much as we do for doctors, there will be no change in the court system.
Unfortunately I wish this were not so. Judges have absolute power to go against the constitution and any other laws on the books. There is almost never any punishment for judges. Maybe an admonishment once in a great while.
The saying is... Nothing corrupts like absolute power. Judicial Watch is an organization run by Tom Fitton who would like to see judges sued for malpractice.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Our country has no problem stating to males that due to their having been born male, they can be drafted against their will into military service, and be compelled to risk -- and lose -- their lives in service of "their" country.
Fine.
But Massachusetts apparently feels that it is improper to put the onerous burden of inconvenience upon a "mother" that she must remain in reasonable proximity to the father of THEIR children, which children she had by exercising HER choice.
Is our country willing to impose any "inconveniences" upon women? Like the inconvenience of not ripping a child away from its loving father whenever she feels like it? As if her judgement and success in her next relationship will suddenly be any less worse than her judgement and success in her last (failed) relationship?
Duh!
Well, I think that if males, based purely on their gender, can be called up to serve and die for the good of "their" country, then it is totally fair that a "custodial" mother might be compelled to experience a little inconvenience too -- in the service of "her" children.
Finally, it disgusts me that in America, people get married and make vows of faithfulness to each other, and our putrid courts not only refuse to penalize those who violate their promise of faithfulness to their spouse, but actually REWARD the person who cheated!
Massachusetts is obviously a place where madness rules, the most vile individuals are rewarded, while the faithful, sane and hardworking (men) are punished -- and given the bill.
Wasn't there a book written by a Massachusetts father bearing a title about "Corruption in Massachusetts Family Courts"?
One wonders what happened to that book? And what happened to its author? Wasn't he a high school physics teacher who was clearly quite balanced and functional, while the "mother" was someone who was quite unbalanced and not nearly as functional?
Why do courts reward unstable, mentally disturbed and irresponsible mothers and punish stable and loving fathers?
Here's why: because they can count on unstable, mentally disturbed and irresponsible mothers for a steady stream of filings at the court. Conversely, stable and sane women don't want their families in court. Ergo, the court has to reward the nut-job women to keep up a steady flow of business for themselves and their beloved pig lawyers.
Think about it.
You will realize this is exactly what is going on in America's family courts.
Reward the liars, the cheaters and the nuts -- because they are the court's most reliable source of clients.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Because a move-away probably means an increase in child-support. This, in-turn, means more money from the Federal government to the state.
How rare a day it is when this is every truly about "the best interests of the children" and not about "the best interests of the state and the divorce cartel."
~Mister-M
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
This is the problem with basing decisions on broad principles. "The best interests of the child" is so vague that it can be invoked to justify anything and is therefore meaningless.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:49 am
"Now enter the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Under crazy Massachusetts case law, the Appeals Court found that mom’s history of interfering with dad’s access to the children was not relevant (!). Also, the children’s strong relationship with dad was not a good enough reason to prevent the move. Therefore, the family court judge’s ruling should be overturned and the kids should go to South Carolina."
Power and Control.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:52 am
" Why do the psychologists usually oppose presumptions that would work well for most children? Because they hold the illusion that every case can be analyzed in depth by wise students of human behavior such as themselves. Lawyers file motions. Surgeons operate, and psychologists analyze."
YES!
The hubris of these psychologists and lawyers is evil.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Michael H,
AND, "forensic psychologists" (a.k.a. "whores of the court") get to bill $300 per hour, while most health insurance would only pay them $75 per hour to sit in a room and provide "therapy" (sic) to a patient.
Family court is a dirty, and morally corrupt money train for greed-crazed "professionals".
February 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
A.P:
Your post in this thread is truly awesome!
Indeed you really outdid yourself on this one, and it really is worth printing on a million pamphlets and posting everywhere that there are potential victims.
AN
February 4th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Jerry--where did your ex take the kids? What was her stated reason?
February 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
In the case of my hubby's ex, we had no trouble showing that all her stated reasons for the move were bogus. Well, except for "My boyfriend and I spent all my money and then some and now I have to find the cheapest place possible to live." That one was true. However, as I recall the judge and investigator didn't even listen to our evidence addressing her "reasons" for the move, they just accepted them as valid.
After Burgess came LaMusga in CA. That was supposedly better, but in some ways it seems like it might have been worse for us. In either Burgess or something just post-Burgess (can't remember), the courts did examine the rationale for the move. In LaMusga, the standard is supposedly whether the move is "detrimental" to the kids, and the standards of detriment are flexible but seem to be something close to, "Are the kids going to die tomorrow? Will they NEVER see their dad again?" In any case, it is all voodoo from where I sit. I don't even see how LaMusga should have been applied in our case because we started out with a much larger fraction of custody than the dad in LaMusga, who started with something like two hours per week.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Here's a heretical question, since so much of the men's and father's movement is about trying to preserve their families and access to their kids in the wake of a divorce tsunami wave 70% of which are instigated by women.
What will happen when men have reliable birth control?
Do you think a whole lot of men who have been harvested through "oops I forgot to take my pill" pregnancies (shotgun weddings) and then 18 years of state-enforced child support would simply --- CHOOSE -- another lifestyle?
My basic premise is that domestic slavery is coming to an end and that is the dirty secret behind the gender wars and the desperate attempts by women to contrain men's choices.
Wait until men have real CHOICE.
A female, feminist President, anybody?
February 4th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
err.. "constrain.."
As in, prevent.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
It must be tough to be a woman in this country. So many rights, so few responsibilities. Thus, she is left with only her own strength of character to resist irresponsibility. We have seen the results. Not pretty. But women hold the existence of the next generation hostage, so what are you gonna' do?
I am reminded of the classic "Twilight Zone" episode about the little kid with the power to send people away to the "corn field" and do other nasty things to them just with the power of his mind, and who is thus able to hold his entire family and town as terrified hostages to his every whim. Everything he does is met with, "That's good, Billy, good!" So, ladies, whatever you do, it's good, very good ... .!
February 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
"Somebody smarter than I please explain to me how this is good for the boys..."
I don't think I'm smarter than anyone but I think the answer (as others have already mentioned) is this: It's not good for the kids. The phrase, "In the best interests of the children," is a smokescreen used by the courts. The court with dollar matching opportunites on collected child support and legal fees (which often means the man has to pay his and her fees) local and state courts are literally being paid to tear families apart. And as for why men are now the "approved' target, that would be fear...fear of losing that precious revenue stream. If courts put as much effort into actually giving men a fair shake in custody and divorce battles women would rise up in droves because of such "sexist treament" by the courts. So in response the courts have basiacally chosen to let women have free reign of the court system while taking in a nice profit for themselves. The woman gets to ruin the guy's life and the court gets a nice sum of money. Who cares if men are being left out in the cold?
February 4th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
"The removal shall be ordered only if the Court finds that the removal results in a direct benefit to the child which outweighs any detriment to the child, including but not limited to, that resulting from the loss of frequent and regular visitation with the non-custodial parent."
I hope that Ned Holstein is successful in creating a rebuttable presumption against these move-aways.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
My ex had an affair, moved out of the country, left our little boy with me for two years, then changed her mind and asked that he be sent out of the country to stay with her.
of course, the courts agreed and sent him away in the middle of the school semester.
According to the Court Order, "His life will be enhanced by the move."
The good thing is, the younger generation is catching on and refusing to get married. Where I work all the guys in their 40s trade stories about family court nightmares, and the guys in the 20s and 30s are staying single. I would be really worried if the younger guys were acting like morons and repeating the mistakes we made.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I wonder. How can a decent woman who will honor her vows and not steal a man's children, money and happiness ever provide sufficient assurance to a man these days? How can she overcome the tidal wave of negativity and distrust generated by so many of her sisters, and show that she is worth the risk? I have daughter of marrying age. What is she to do? Can a man truly love and trust a woman but feel the need to protect himself from her at the same time? It seems improbable, if not impossible.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Wow, this is a sore spot with me! I am so emotional about this one that I am not sure I can do a detached intellectual post on this.
So, let me say this: If you are a mom or dad that some misguided judge gave primary custody to and you move away for your own selfish irresponsible reasons and make it hard for the other parent to love and parent their children, I cannot possibly express all the bad things that I wish to happen to you!
February 4th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Our evaluator, the third one mind you, actually sat in the courtroom and said that she "often" approved the Mother moving away with the children, but would NEVER approve moving the kids away with the Father. The Judge threw out her report, but she of course did not approve the children being placed with the Father, though he was proven to be the better parent. It has nothing to do with what or whom is best for the kids, and it never will until money is taken out of the equation.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:09 am
When I saw this thread, I had to weigh in. Here is my story; Glenn may remember some of the details that I emailed to him when it happened. I live in Los Angeles and my two daughters, now 14 and 12, were raised here since infancy and have strong ties to the community through friends, teachers, grandparents (ex's), an aunt and a 1st cousin. Ex and I split in 1998 and I decided at the time that, for the kids' sake, they should stay most of the week with their mom, whose apartment location gave them entree into a fine elementary school. I had them every other weekend and wednesday overnights. We solidified this arrangement with a court-appointed mediator. A clear provision in the custody order was that the children would not be allowed to leave the state without the other parent's permission.
Fast forward to early 2006 when ex tells me she is getting married to a fellow she met from New York. He is CEO of a large company in New York City, lives in an apartment there, and has a teenage daughter there that he is supposed to have every other weekend. But ex and fiancee want to buy a house in Dallas, where his mother and brother live (and house prices are much cheaper). So she informs me she plans to take the children with her to Texas where her husband-to-be will visit her every other week or so when he is not traveling or seeing his own daughter in New York.
I tell her no way am I consenting to this, remind her of the custody order, and tell her furthermore, the children DO NOT want to go. In fact, all their friends and teachers signed a petition, hundreds of names, delivered to my ex, urging her to let them stay. We go to Family Court in downtown L.A. in early August '06. Each side presented our case with hired attorneys-- to the same female judge who in 2001 insisted I pay child support based on an amount she felt I was qualified to earn--not the lower amount (50% lower) that I was actually earning at a steady job. I should have known better...
After two successive days of trial, the judge makes her ruling: my ex is allowed to take the children and move to Texas. Judge explains that we live in a fluid society where people divorce, remarry, move and move again. I should just accept that that is the way of modern life. She said since the children are popular in school and would presumably make friends quickly in a new environment, there is no valid reason that the move would be detrimental to the children. Missing their father is irrelevant. Furthermore, since I had agreed in the beginning to let my ex have primary physical custody, that is the de facto standard and ex should retain that status. My ex and the kids were gone 3 days later. The "cannot move out-of-state" proviso in the original custody order turned out to be worthless.
If I had it to do over again, i would never allow my ex to have more than 50% custody. That fact that she had more was the nail in my coffin as far as this judge was concerned. Now I am "allowed" to see my kids one weekend every 6 weeks.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Note to The Psycho Ex Wife: I would recommend using a different moniker on a father's rights board. Unless you want to end up like Andrew Lesko in a biker bar.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:37 am
That's not a threat. It's a joke: - )
February 5th, 2008 at 7:18 am
To David M. I went through a similar experience. I think the court operates on three theories when it comes to these situations. 1. Your just getting back at your ex- because your still biter and want to make her life difficult. (Not at all the case. Most of us are just glad to get rid of the ex but love our kids.) 2. A Dad couldn't possibly care about his kids because deep down all men are bad. 3. And as Anonymous Pamphleteer says we can't "inconvenience" a mother.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Massachusetts family law sounds remarkably like California family law !!
Except Ca. has a female-friendly program of "allow purjury" even if it comes at the expense of the state.
If a woman with custodial-rights ( noncustodial women have to work real hard at it to end up that way ) wants a move away order & say...a family court mediator...denys such a motion via a report to the court...Hay- no problem !! They'll just replace the court appointed mediator with a more enlightened one !! Presto...move away granted !!
How do I know this ?? Because it happened to me.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Dave M: my conclusion based on everything I have seen is that there is no oversight on these judges rulings. It makes as much sense as whatever drivel was given to the Cambodians who ended up in the killing fields. We found the judge, knowing ahead of time that they would rule in favor of the mother, would pick through the testimony and randomly site some irrelevant detail as why they ruled that way. Everyone cites their cases and the pattern repeats itself over and over.
It's just too much power concentrated in one place but not enough firepower concentrated on that one place.
This blog is all about generating the political firepower!
February 5th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
It's so sad to read Betsy Barton's commentary that a judge wholy ignored hard-fought case law establishing rules for move-aways. Go back through the history of this by following the links Glenn provides. LA County fought this tooth-and-nail but lost. They then filed to have the loss "unpublished" so everyone else would be put through the same very expensive trial. Michael Robinson (CAF&C) was instrumental in achieving a monumental victory preserving this victory by keeping the case published.
He (and they) were given zero chance of succeeding because of who and what they were up against, but they did it.
To now read some judges have taken it upon themselves to lower the standards to gut the case law is sickening. It's something that demands to be appealed, but at $50,000 and up, these judges know you won't. There is a judical ethics committee, but I've read it is staffed only with pro-judge members who dispense excuses rather than doing their job.
DanH
February 5th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
All common sense says the kids should stay near their dad but we know that family courts have no common sense or sense for justice. That said, Mr. Miller should be happy that Mrs. Miller doesn't physically kill their children... we know of instances where that can happen. Gary Yannalfo
February 6th, 2008 at 10:25 am
"Our evaluator, the third one mind you, actually sat in the courtroom and said that she "often" approved the Mother moving away with the children, but would NEVER approve moving the kids away with the Father."
The job of "evaluator" is attractive to those people with a certain point of view.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
[...] Ned Holstein on New Research on Move-Aways "Mr. and Mrs. Miller have two sons. Mrs. Miller began an affair with Mr. Pizzino. After awhile, it was discovered and led to a divorce. Despite her misbehavior, Mrs. Miller was awarded physical custody of the children no surprise there. Over the next year or so, she acquired a few contempt citations for interfering with Mr. Miller s access to his boys. After awhile, she married Mr. Pizzino. There was only one problem: Mr. Pizzino was active duty military and was stationed in South Carolina. [...]
February 12th, 2008 at 8:09 am
The rabid right in the Republican Party, as represented by Rush Limbaugh and his cronies, supports onerous child support laws because they focus on the low income, usually unmarried, often dysfunctional, mostly black fathers who father children and then leave them to be supported by welfare. The lunatic left in the Democratic Party, as represented by NOW, supports onerous child support laws because they think we live in a patriarchy and want to empower women without requiring them to work for it. It is interesting that Senator Clinton with strong ties to NOW wants to remove one leg of this coalition. If successful, I wonder if the rabid right will then be able to see these onerous child support laws are more into empowering the judical branch of government to make law, to redistribute wealth, and to remove men from their child's lives than t hey are for the child. I worry, though, that they are so blinded by their own rhetoric and prejudice that they will not be able to see this, and once again they will have been out maneuvered by the Clintons.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
[...] To learn more, see my blog post Ned Holstein on New Research on Move-Aways. [...]
August 27th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
tuscxl
October 18th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
eqgfsc ibfdq
October 25th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
ucbrek
October 26th, 2008 at 12:01 am
oqcvt
October 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
viwknu hkwx opzlv bxusmc
October 29th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
iltube cbodr
November 11th, 2008 at 4:50 am
gqjelk
January 12th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
sinq zabglm qlirvg