Boston Globe Comes out Against Fathers & Families' Shared Parenting Bill, Holstein Responds
February 25th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
The Boston Globe recently discussed Fathers & Families' shared parenting bill at great length in their editorial A fair role for fathers. While it's somewhat annoying that the Globe does not endorse the bill, the editorial is in many ways very positive.
The Globe, which generally leans towards feminist views and positions, essentially agrees with the main arguments behind shared parenting, but opts for defending judicial discretion, excessively in my view.
Below Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of Fathers & Families, responds to the Globe.
A Win or a Loss? You Decide, Then Email Globe
Boston, MA--The Boston Globe panned Fathers & Families’ shared parenting bill, HB 1460, in a long editorial last Saturday, February 23.
If you think this editorial is a defeat, then you probably think Mike Huckabee has suffered a string of defeats -- “defeats” that have taken him from obscurity to primetime. Likewise, we have now made shared parenting primetime in Massachusetts.
This isn’t too satisfying if your child is slipping out of your life because an obtuse family court judge didn’t understand that she needs more of you than four days per month. And there is enough nonsense in the editorial to make any true parent bristle with indignation.
But for those of us who have the good fortune to be able to take the longer view, consider these big positives:
- Our movement, long considered the province of wingnuts, is now taken seriously.
- Fathers & Families is fighting for a vision “in which fathers have the time and access to be a positive presence in the lives of their children.”
- “It’s a goal with great merit.”
- “Children should have both parents in their lives sharing daily tasks such as homework and household chores as well as big events. . . "
- “. . . it makes sense for judges to maximize the role of fathers. . ."
- “One challenge, though, is expanding this culture [more shared parenting]. . . "
- “. . . the legal system can protect children. . . by making sure judges. . . protect the place of fathers as well as mothers. . . "
In other words, shared parenting is good! But they just don’t like our bill our bill as the solution.
Our job now is to build on this foundation. Please email the Globe at letter@globe.com with a copy to us at info@fathersandfamilies.org Tell them why your child needs shared parenting and can’t get it from today’s family courts. Also send a copy to Governor Deval Patrick. Our goal: 200 emails. Women, help us out -- your words count for a lot.
Keep four points in mind:
- Letters over 250 words are rarely printed.
- Talk about your kids, not yourself.
- Curb your anger. You are entitled to be angry, but venting will hurt our movement. Just tell the facts.
- Stay on topic. Don’t write about restraining orders, child support, the DOR etc.
We’d like to know what you think of the editorial, so leave us your comments below.
(Note: The editorial grew out of a meeting between two Globe editorial writers and Ned Holstein and Peter Hill. Peter deserves credit for seeking and obtaining the meeting.)
"));
19 queries. 0.479 seconds.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
This is, indeed, positive. Does anyone think that the Boston Globe would have taken such a bill seriously, or treated it so respectfully, several years ago? Men are finally awakening and making themselves heard, and in large part due to Glenn and the Internet.
We need to push on -- and remember, it won't help the cause if we come off as nutcases.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Even as an opponent of our bill, the implied tone, that father's have a real strong reason to be getting politically active, is the most important.
I think what struck me the most about the editorial is that it claimed repeatedly that judges do a great job with calling all the shots in Family Law. The most consistent thing that the people who have used family law courts agree on is that the judges are out of control and biased. Both women and men all hate the judges, and feel that their decisions are arbitrary and egotistical.
We need letters to clearly lay out just how bad the majority of people think the judges are.
What really struck me were viewpoints of the two entrenched family law profiteers:
"We trust the discretion of judges," says Fern Frolin, a lawyer and the chair of the Massachusetts Bar Association's family law section, who says there is already an appropriate shift toward more shared parenting."
-and-
"Charles Kindregan, a law professor at Suffolk University, soundly argues that a presumption of joint legal and physical custody could handcuff judges who should be free to consider the best interests of children on a case-by-case basis. "You don't need a presumption when you have facts," Kindregan says. "
While the majority of people who become familiar with Family Law feel that the courts, the Bar Association, the Lawyers, the court approved experts, and the DV industry are driven by raw corrupt criminality, the most sympathetic justification for their actions is that they just are misinformed and have no good information to go on.
And yet, these two well heeled profitteers, Frolin and Kindregan, still feel they can claim with a straight face that we should trust judges, because they have such good evidence.
The hubris is stunning!
February 25th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
"Charles Kindregan, a law professor at Suffolk University, soundly argues that a presumption of joint legal and physical custody could handcuff judges who should be free to consider the best interests of children on a case-by-case basis. "You don't need a presumption when you have facts," Kindregan says. "
With family court judges and the like daily engaging in massively well-documented child predation, family destruction, and the outright denial to men of their most basic inalienable rights, handcuffs is too good for the vast majority of these criminal serial child predators and serial perpetrators of kidnapping, violence, poverty, and all too often death.
With 1/4 of the world's prison population and 3.8% of the world's entire population, perhaps first-grader can do that math. J.D. must mean Just Democidal. (sp?)
February 25th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
To the editor:
I would like to urge you to support HB 1460.
Whether or not either of us believes this bill is worthy of our support is not important. The overriding factor is that every parent has a constitutionally protected right to the care and custody of their children.
Like it or not, the days of giving primary custody to one parent and expecting the other parent to become a “visitor” to their children are rapidly coming to a close.
In the final analysis, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to make the claim that the Globe was on the right side of this issue from early on.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Kevin Merck
February 25th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
The 'legal guild' needs to have the same protections as the 'weaving guild' or other such throwbacks in history ... NONE. Their collective hands are covered in filth and the blood of countless millions of Americans alive today.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Who's Your Daddy?
Dear Sir or Madam,
Good afternoon.
I read your editorial “A fair role for fathers.”
After three years of marriage, my wife divorced me. Privately she told me she was unhappy and I did not make her happy. Publicly she called me abusive. Blessed with an only son.
Without due process, but as a matter of routine, after a fifteen minute discussion before a family judge, I was awarded four days every month to parent our son; ordered to pay $2,600 monthly in support; $200,000 of my savings frozen; and, an order of protection entered against me for my wife.
After three years, one hundred court calls, $150,000 in legal fees, and three jobs, I lost a successful career; involved in a dozen incidents calling for police; imprisoned; filed for personal bankruptcy; car repossessed; and evicted from my apartment, but won joint custody to which 17% of fathers win. In February 2005, however, my wife in retaliation had my visitation suspended, and the Countty Circuit Clerk refuses to accept $19,000 in proof of payments as credit for court ordered support paid.
I regret saying, "I do," but miss a son and wife. A man is foolish to marry with America 's unilateral, no-fault, wife gets all laws.
At the end of the day by court order, I'm essentially a baby sittier for my wife, so she can start dating other men.
Sincerely,
Mark Ruffolo, MS, MBA
February 25th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Very encouraging, indeed.
Also encouraging (and amazing, given its staunchly feminist slant), in yesterday's Sunday L.A. Times Opinion section, they published an article effectively debunking the "1 in 4 college students will be the victimi of rape or attempted rape" myth, and pointed out that it has been used to fund a huge, and hugely under-utilized, rape "crisis" center system.
The tide may indeed be starting to turn ... .
We need to keep up the pressure!
February 25th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I feel for you Mr Ruffolo.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Mark Ruffolo: "after a fifteen minute discussion before a family judge, I was awarded four days every month to parent our son;"
In my view, the judge didn't care and neither does the Boston Globe.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:12 am
The Globe OpEd response was predictable. Holstein writes in his defense, " This isn’t too satisfying if your child is slipping out of your life because an obtuse family court judge didn’t understand that she needs more of you than four days per month. " Does Holstein's response make any sense to people? That the solution to only "four days per month" is a 50-50 split in co-parenting time? That would be like an anti-drunk-driving group claiming the only solution is to go back to Prohibition. It is these purposefully politicizing, extremist answers by father advocacy groups to the real pain and suffering of children that are "enough nonsense ... to make any true parent bristle with indignation". Let's start offering solutions to fatherlessness that are politically achievable and quit misleading fathers with "holy grail" goals that do nothing but create insurmountable opposition.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:12 am
My email:
In "A Fair Role for Fathers", the Boston Globe editorial staff states that Charles Kindregan, a law professor at Suffolk University, soundly argues that a presumption of joint legal and physical custody could handcuff judges who should be free to consider the best interests of children on a case-by-case basis.
The Boston Globe editorial staff should know that a presumption for shared parenting is rebuttable and based on the best interests of the children on a case-by-case basis. Please do not try to hide your bias against fathers and children with misinformation.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am
"That the solution to only "four days per month" is a 50-50 split in co-parenting time? "
(This family law feminist is pushing the idea that equal parenting time is forced on parents and splits children. I assume that the name Solomon was chosen to imply that children are "split.")
February 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I'm sorry to hear you story, Mark. I haven't seen my kids in 18 months after a judge determined in 3 seconds that they were old enough to decide for themselves if they wanted to see me and denied my motion for visitation.
One thing that needs to change is for people to be exposed to the huge financial incentives in the legal profession for mayhem - Americans don't trust politicians because of pork barreling and other corruption. The same lack of trust needs to be extended to judges and lawyers.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I've often thought that a constructive solution to the shared parenting dilemma would be to legislate a definition of each type of custody and leave each open to the judge and to possible future appeal.
That is, in NY state where I live there is really only one option: a custodial and non-custodial parent. You can talk all you want about shared parenting or joint custody, but in many states, like NY, they're all just intentions with an NCP a CP, visitation and straight child support guidelines regardless of parenting responsibilities.
So what I'm saying is why not start pushing for our legislatures to give us legal definitions, which can then be supported of each type of custody arrangement. This leaves judges to rule on a case by case basis and it could protect many fathers from the system.
I realize it's not perfect, but it would be a start, it would be passable and it could be the beginning of a sea change in how divorce and custody is handled.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:10 am
"Let's start offering solutions to fatherlessness that are politically achievable and quit misleading fathers with "holy grail" goals that do nothing but create insurmountable opposition."
A rebuttable presumption for shared parenting has been enacted by an increasing number of governments.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
In response to Solomon says …
“Who is the wise man? … He who sees what's going to be born.”
---" Does Holstein's response make any sense to people? That the solution to only "four days per month" is a 50-50 split in co-parenting time? That would be like an anti-drunk-driving group claiming the only solution is to go back to Prohibition. It is these purposefully politicizing, extremist answers by father advocacy groups to the real pain and suffering of children that are "enough nonsense ... to make any true parent bristle with indignation". Let's start offering solutions to fatherlessness that are politically achievable and quit misleading fathers with "holy grail" goals that do nothing but create insurmountable opposition.”
---“That would be like an anti-drunk-driving group claiming the only solution is to go back to Prohibition.”
Prohibition was brought on by the same type of mindless hypocrites who advocate removing a father from the child’s life in its own best interests. Prohibition was a huge disaster because it gave rise to racketeering, just the same as “father prohibition” has given rise to murderous criminals in our courts.
---“It is these purposefully politicizing, extremist answers by father advocacy groups to the real pain and suffering of children that are "enough nonsense ... to make any true parent bristle with indignation".
Accusing people of extremism, in most instances, seems to be a defense mechanism to deny reality. You can’t argue reasonably about the facts, so you resort to childish name-calling.
I’m sure if anyone wants to know what a “true parent” thinks they will be beating a path to your door.
---“Let's start offering solutions to fatherlessness that are politically achievable and quit misleading fathers with "holy grail" goals that do nothing but create insurmountable opposition.”
We can start by supporting HB 1460 and other measures like it nation-wide.
The only “holy grail” solution I’m aware of is to let our government continue to lavish the child support industry with mind-boggling sums of taxpayer dollars, in the nauseating pretense of the best interests of children, and expect the people to keep tolerating it.
Kevin Merck
February 26th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
First off....The Boston Globe ( and other newspapers like them ) ARE... the problem. This "sectular progressive" news entity published story after story over a long period of time that has MADE the problem what it is today. Then the Globe dose ONE story in defense of the "other view"...why ?? To provide cover for themselves...no other reason.
Do not overlook or forgive the power of the press. These SP-liberal socialist journalists have an agenda so get over it.
Boston is a liberal hell hole & the Boston Globe has played their hand in shaping all the forms of misery one sees there today...especially this matter. The Boston Globe dose not want shared parenting, for if it had... there would be no reason to do a story on this at all because it woulden't be an issue if the BG had done it's job and reported factually-honestly-without regard to political correctness, agenda or endorsement of politicians & judges who manufacture problems like these.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Solomon:
This one is for you.
I hope you enjoy it and I hope you open your eyes and let go of the hate.
The wisdom of the ages
Shall be brought to bear
Not by bigots or tyrants
But by those who care
Ignorance is the bliss of despots
Not men of peace
In the wisdom of the ages
Lies our release
Children need both their parents
It’s always been the case
To say it’s different now
Is an utter disgrace
Those who profit from duplicity
Always meet the same end
It’s been the same through the ages
And time without end
Kevin Merck
February 26th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Solomon, I'm glad you weren't feeling testy when you wrote.
You feel that I wrote something "in my defense." Not sure what I had to defend, other than a step forward for kids and parents, since the Globe is now on record in favor of shared parenting. Is there any other comparably liberal paper in the country about which that can be said? Or any major paper at all?
l guess you did not read our bill, since you seem to think it calls for a rigid 50-50 split of parenting time, which it does not. It is very flexible.
Then you write, "Let's start offering solutions to fatherlessness that are politically achievable and quit misleading fathers with "holy grail" goals that do nothing but create insurmountable opposition." Actually, I pretty much agree with your general advice here, and HB 1460 meets your description of politicallhy achievable -- after all, we have over 25% of the Massachusetts Legislature as co-sponsors of the bill, and we won 86% of the vote on a referendum on the matter a few years ago -- so I think we are coming along real well -- just not as fast as I would like.
Ned
February 27th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I do not think that a presumption of a 50/50% split is a holy grail, and unachievable.
There are families that do this. It may take a mom who is not as avaricious as the average mom, but if the government stops paying these avaricious mothers to get divorces, they will not then get divorces as often, and the overall efficiency of the society will rise.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
"Then the Globe dose ONE story in defense of the "other view"...why ?? To provide cover for themselves...no other reason."
I disagree. The Boston Globe spread misinformation and I believe it was deliberate.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
[...] Background: The Boston Globe recently discussed Fathers & Families' shared parenting bill at great length in their editorial A fair role for fathers. While the Globe did not endorse the bill, the editorial essentially agrees with the main arguments behind shared parenting. Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of Fathers & Families, responded to the Globe here. [...]