A thought about the way newspapers cover shared parenting legislation, child custody, fathers' rights, etc.
February 29th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
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 in his blog post A Win or a Loss? You Decide.
A couple thoughts about the way newspapers cover shared parenting legislation, child custody, fathers' rights, etc.:
They always seem to quote a string of attorneys opining on why shared parenting is not best for kids and why somehow dad shouldn't see his kids more than a few days a month, yet none of them have any training or expertise on children. They're not child development experts. They're not child psychologists. They're not psychologists of any stripe, nor have they usually had extensive experience with children.
I'll freely admit that the attorneys seem more credible on this stuff when they agree with me than when they don't, but I always wonder why the people who spent their graduate years studying tax law and wills and trusts are quoted as the experts on this vital children's issue, whereas the people who actually are experts on children aren't.
In the Globe piece, for example, Charles Kindregan, a law professor at Suffolk University, and Fern Frolin, a lawyer and the chair of the Massachusetts Bar Association's family law section, are both quoted against the bill. They do quote psychologist Marsha Kline Pruett who, not coincidentally, is in favor of the shared parenting bill. The lawyers oppose shared parenting, the psychologist is in favor--hmmmm.
Also, why are Holstein's credentials and expertise on children ignored? Ned is identified as "the founder and executive director of Fathers & Families," which is OK, but he also has a background in psychology, psychiatry, and pediatrics. He has a Masters Degree in psychology and cared for many children when he practiced medicine. He is on the faculty appointment at Mt Sinai School of Medicine in NY and is a member of the Public Health Committee on the Massachusetts Medical Society. Some of that certainly seems worth mentioning.
"));
19 queries. 0.454 seconds.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Charles Kindregan and the Boston Globe editorial staff are using misinformation about a shared parenting bill supported by 85% of voter's in a non-binding referendum in order to justify the continued ability of one parent to take away the parental rights of the other parent by using the force of government.
I have never wished cancer on anyone, and I never will.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Newspapers are like politicians in regards to shared parenting, which is portrayed by mainstream feminists and their countless financial beneficiaries as totally unworkable.
Mike
February 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am
One thing we do know: Mainstream media will not dare deviate from the feminist party line. Feminists call the tune and mainstream news outlets will dance to it.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
If you want an explanation for why the MSM is relentlessly feminist, follow the money. Media is not about disseminating truth, it is all about maximizing advertising revenues. Women control the vast majority of spending (of dollars earned primarily by men). Accordingly, MSM is not about to ever bite the hand that feeds it. Feminism's greatest triumph is convincing MSM and society that it speaks for, and for the benefit of, women generally.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
If my memory serves me right, I think I remember some newspapers actually taking an "official stance" back during the ND Shared Parenting Initiative (often negative, a couple positive).
Perhaps someday a newspaper will run for president.
Masculist XY
February 29th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Glenn, I am repeating a comment I just added to your other post on this subject. I agree with you. In an article by Kindregan excerpted below (Family Interests in Competition: Relocation and Visitation, 36 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 31 (2002)), he takes a dim view of the practical effect of shared custody laws. BUT note footnote 14 -- a couple of other attorneys are cited who support shared parenting arrangements. Why didn't the GLOBE article cite them? They were looking for someone with "authority" to support the GLOBE's position, I suspect. I agree with you -- other than telling how how courts have applied laws, the GLOBE shouldn't be talking to lawyers about these subjects. Except me, maybe.
Here is what the good professor said about shared parenting (he seems to doubt the practical workings of it) :
"Throughout this article, the traditional concepts of "custodial parent," "non-custodial parent," "custody," and "visitation" are used. To many people, these terms appear outdated and even offensive. Different and frequently conflicting concepts of parental and children's interests have created a plethora of terms to describe these interests. 13 Some advocates of joint physical custody reject the [*34] idea that after a divorce one parent should be the primary custodian and the other limited to visitation. These proponents argue that joint care by parents is a far better solution to family disintegration even if the parents are divorced or separated. 14 Notwithstanding these attractive theories, when parents no longer function together as a family unit one parent will usually assume primary care responsibility. This is true even in the relatively rare case when the parents previously agreed and the court approved a plan of joint physical custody."
Here is footnote 14:
"See generally Margaret F. Brinig & F.H. Buckley, Joint Custody: Bonding and Monitoring Theories, 73 Ind. L. J. 393 (1998) (recognizing positive relationships and greater support for children in joint physical custody situations); Andrew Schepard, Taking Children Seriously: Promoting Cooperative Custody After Divorce, 64 Tex. L. Rev. 687 (1985) (concluding joint physical custody promotes cooperation between parents and enhances child's relationship with both parents).
"Joint custody theories in large part evolved from efforts by proponents of father's rights who objected to the father being perceived as only a "visitor" with his child after a divorce. Homer H. Clark, Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States 20.5 (2d ed. 1987) (discussing influence of father's rights advocates on enactment of joint custody statutes). The enactment of legislation promoting joint custody in California, Cal. Fam. Code 3004 (Deering 2001), in 1979 influenced other states, but even in California the statute was later amended to de-emphasize any preference for such arrangements."
February 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The Albany Times Union a couple of years ago took our side on shared parenting in a couple of editorials which was great!
The other thing that gets me is how they keep saying that they don't want cookie cutter outcomes. Every case has to be decided on it's own individual circumstances.
Meh
The entire structure of the current child support system was enacted so that every outcome would be the same and be predictable. They don't seem to have a problem with that!
February 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Well put Glenn. It's rare that I have heard of an attorney , or for that matter a judge, that doesn't feel they know it all even outside of their profession.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
In my case the only thing preventing equal shared custody of my children is the child support money and the court order.
In every other way I out-parent and out --care the 'Custodial Parent'.
The Custodial Parent is custody of:
* The government's protection.
* My eaned dollars squandered frivolously.
Most fathers that I know who have older children who have not been subjected to out of state moveaways, incarceration and restraining orders describe a similar situation.
The single mothers of teenage children that I know sound like posters at feministing.com, and they live large.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The bar association helped established family court about forty-five years ago.
Lawyers created the rules and profit from the policies and procedures.
The latest statistic published by the bar association says that, in 1994, 4.7 million cases were filed in family court, which comprised 25% of all civil filings -- the largest and fastest growing segment of civil court caseloads.
http://www.abanet.org/family/familylaw/flqwinter07_charts.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/unifiedfamcrt/about.html
Who does the bar association blame for more cases? Not enough money - “Small budgets designated for the courts also create problems.” The association (lawyers) want judges and government employees of the divorce industry, who have many days off and a life time of benefits (Judges also make about $150,000 yearly) to have more money.
The judges in turn assign GAL (lawyer for kid), evaluators, mediation (more lawyers) during the divorce case. Jobs and money beget more jobs and money. However, the man, not the government, for the lawyers and court appointed experts.
Success in the divorce industry is about more jobs, bigger budgets, and larger caseload.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I understand the argument but it doesn’t matter whether it’s a lawyer or a psychologist making the argument against shared parenting when they’re both capable of being hired guns.
I could care less what either of the professions has to say about it.
The bottom line is the constitution protects the rights of parents to the care and custody of their children whether any of us likes it or not. Unless you can charge a person with abuse, and afford them all the due process guaranteed by the constitution, then you need to keep your nose out of it or face charges yourself.
Kevin Merck
February 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Psychologists aren't guaranteed to be particularly intelligent either. I once had an email exchange with a well known "expert" in child custody psychology whose web page lists a sequence of proposed visitation arrangements. The sequence explicitly recommends decreasing contact with the noncustodial parent with increasing conflict between the parents. When I pointed out that this is a recipe for allowing a malicious custodial parent to screw with the noncustodial in such a manner that he is completely helpless to do anything about it, all I got was a lot of embarrassed-sounding hems and haws.
Hence, if we can't get intelligent thought on the issue out of a psychologist, then I'd think it far less likely that we'd get it out of a lawyer. How a subset of the population that gets such an obviously perverse thrill out of screwing with people's lives got put in charge of something so important to so many escapes me. It's like employing kleptomaniacs to guard banks, or incompetent, sadistic carpenters as surgeons.
The status quo is so potentially pathological that I am sometimes led to wonder if it isn't deliberate. But still, even after several years of fighting the damned fools, I have difficulty imagining that they are really that evil.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
"They always seem to quote a string of attorneys opining on why shared parenting is not best for kids and why somehow dad shouldn't see his kids more than a few days a month, yet none of them have any training or expertise on children. "
Excellent !
To the Boston Globe: Why are you quoting attorneys about how shared parenting is not best for kids and how dad shouldn't see his kids more than a few days a month, when these lawyers have little or no training or expertise on children?
February 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Glenn said:
“They're not child development experts. They're not child psychologists. They're not psychologists of any stripe, nor have they usually had extensive experience with children.”
In most cases you are right about this propensity. In this particular case, however, the question was in reference to the pending legislation – thus asking the lawyers made some sense – despite that fact that I am more than happy and able to challenge their respective answers.
The questions to the lawyers should have been limited to issues of law – for example, the constitutionality (thus legality), the potential legal consequences of the legislation or (GOD FORBID) the reasonableness of the legislation.
Journalists should immediately discount, or better still not seek, non-expert testimony. In other words, don’t consult a lawyer on issues of sociology or psychology – unless they are trained in those fields. It is the old primary source issue – I kind of blame the journalists for this one Glenn.
The rule should be NEVER ask a family lawyer or a judge what is best for kids unless you want a decidedly lay (read that as - non-expert) answer.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Kevin Merck said:
“The bottom line is the constitution protects the rights of parents to the care and custody of their children whether any of us likes it or not.”
Unfortunately, Kevin that is not true. The only protection w/r to your argument is your right to due process.
I agree with your advice to the state -
“ . . you need to keep your nose out of it . . ..”
As I mentioned in the previous post –
The state says, in essence, that parents do not have any “rights” to parent their children. Although, that is NOT black letter law. (This always seems to come as a shock to parents). On the other hand, the state says that parents have to provide for their children (that IS black letter law), but strangely not, despite noises about, for example, “environment etc”, to “parent” them. The state does not say that the children have any “rights” to be parented by THEIR parents. What this boils down to, in essence, is that we have allowed the state to usurp our positions as parents and give them hegemony over our children – has a faintly familiar ring to it doesn’t it.
The founders and drafters of the Constitution probably could never have envisaged the sort of perfidy that goes on today – I suggest because it is so utterly irrational.
Michael H noted on the earlier post –
“Children's rights is a brand new article on Wikipedia and includes the following sentences:
"Children's rights to a relationship with their parents is increasingly recognized as an important factor for determining the best interests of the child in divorce and child custody proceedings. Some governments have enacted laws creating a rebuttable presumption that shared parenting is in the best interests of children."
February 29th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Presumed joint custody is probably not good for business. Also, many attorneys are either "friends of the groom or friends of the bride". Many divorce attorneys have a reputation for advocating for only one sex by sucking up to either women men by telling and being vicious to the other sex. These types by the way are the ones who are probably more likely to stoke the flames and make the divorce worse.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
What gets me is how they never challenge these
February 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Celia:
You’re wrong.
The 9th Amendment clearly prohibits this type of government intrusion. The founders were smart enough to realize that they couldn’t cover all the bases and that’s what they were attempting to cover with that Amendment.
The 14th amendment is also in play here and I don’t think I need to explain. I know you are a very intelligent woman Celia, and I respect your opinion, but I think you need to take another very serious look at the issue.
There is case law supporting the “Constitutional Right” to the care and custody of your children. I’m going to let you do the research.
Kevin Merck
February 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Bleh.
What gets me is how these journalists never challenge even the most blatantly senseless and/or insupportable assertions and claims that their quote sources provide. They virtually never provide any critical analysis whatsoever of their statements. They just quote them and that's it. There's not the slightest indication of any professionally skeptical thinking or investigation whatsoever.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Kevin – I am always glad to be challenged!
I appreciate the point you are making and I trust that you know that I have a massive problem with the current state of affairs. Furthermore, I AGREE that the 9th Amendment was certainly intended to cover such things as parent-child rights. Unfortunately, if you try to run this in a family court you will lose. If that were not so, things would be less dire on the “firing line”. The point I am making and one which I am sure you understand, is that the very special relationship between a parent and child does not have black letter law protection (unlike citizenship, the right to vote, to bear arms etc). I think it is a shame that the Constitution did not specifically enshrine those rights (obviously the drafters couldn’t believe that a right so fundamental could EVER be challenged by government or anyone else for that matter). The UN, bless its heart, has made some valuable pronouncements on these issues that we would be wise to adopt. I am sure you are aware of this.
If 9th Amendment issues aren’t sufficient to make the point, look at the problems we are beginning to encounter with respect to the 2nd Amendment – which speaks clearly (in my opinion). Despite the clear mean. This is why I say to everyone, stand up, be vocal, raise hell against the slightest infringement you encounter or become aware of -in the same manner as Tim Murray tells us to jump on even the slightest public display of gender bias.
Virtually all modern case law – correct me if I am wrong, of course – with respect to a “Constitutional Right” to the care and custody of "your children" has not been in relation to parents fighting each other over custody. These cases have been to do with third parties, in particular the state, taking children from parents – that is a related but different issue. None the less, I agree with you tenet.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Celia:
---“Unfortunately, if you try to run this in a family court you will lose.”
The Family Courts are not where this issue needs to be resolved.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Kevin Merck said:
"The Family Courts are not where this issue needs to be resolved.”
You are absolutely right! I suspect the troops are gathering.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Celia Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Kevin Merck said:
"The Family Courts are not where this issue needs to be resolved.”
You are absolutely right! I suspect the troops are gathering.
I guess I was wrong to have thought you were a reasonable person. Shame on me … again.
You’re as wrong as you can be Celia. I think it’s wrong for you to get on the internet and tell people they don’t have the right to parent their children. You really have “no idea” what you're talking about. The good thing is that you’ll be proven wrong in the coming years, but you will find a way to rationalize that too.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
"I guess I was wrong to have thought you were a reasonable person. Shame on me … again. "
OK, I think I missed something. I think Celia agrees with you, Kevin. I mean, she said " I AGREE that the 9th Amendment was certainly intended to cover such things as parent-child rights." I may be wrong but I read her as saying that Family Law courts are of no value to fathers' rights and the fight needs to be taken elsewhere.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
In response to Tim Murray Says …
That’s interesting Tim because I didn’t read that into it at all.
The reasonable person aspect of my comment was in response to this childish statement:
“You are absolutely right! I suspect the troops are gathering.”
I’m not saying I’ve never acted this childishly, Lord knows I have, but I’ve never acted that way toward Celia. This is the third time she has resorted to these immature tactics.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Kevin – I don’t know what you are talking about.
I say, unequivocally, that parents do have a right to parent their children and I further say that children have a right to be parented by BOTH their parents. The COURTS clearly say otherwise – NOT ME.
I have no idea where you got the idea that I am telling people that,
“ . . .they don’t have the right to parent their children.”
With all respect Kevin, YOU apparently have “no idea” what I'M talking about. My reference was to black letter law, to wit ,it is not so written, as opposed to natural justice.
I can only guess that you misunderstood when I said the troops were gathering. It was not a platitude. Let me explain – I meant that some people are circling the wagons in preparation to fight the “system” in higher courts than family courts and EVERYWHERE ELSE it has to be fought – I am in agreement with YOU – “The Family Courts are not where this issue needs to be resolved.”
I don’t know how much clearer I can make it. I am not about to rationalize anything.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Thanks Tim – you got it right.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Okay Celia, I’ll pretend that wasn’t an insult in the interest of reason.
I’ll admit that I may have made a mistake and that I am not always right about everything.
Let’s start over.
What’s wrong with my original statement?
Explain to me in a reasonable fashion why my statement is not true as you claim.
Kevin Merck Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I understand the argument but it doesn’t matter whether it’s a lawyer or a psychologist making the argument against shared parenting when they’re both capable of being hired guns.
I could care less what either of the professions has to say about it.
The bottom line is the constitution protects the rights of parents to the care and custody of their children whether any of us likes it or not. Unless you can charge a person with abuse, and afford them all the due process guaranteed by the constitution, then you need to keep your nose out of it or face charges yourself.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Addendum et apologia –
Just in case anyone else misunderstood my position – ie anyone thinks that I don’t believe that parents have a right to parent their children, please note that is not correct - the opposite is true. I thought I was quite clear on this issue.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
In concise form please.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Kevin concise is not necessarily precise but here goes.
You said:
“I understand the argument but it doesn’t matter whether it’s a lawyer or a psychologist making the argument against shared parenting when they’re both capable of being hired guns.”
Agreed.
“I could care less what either of the professions has to say about it.”
Fair enough. My only comment is that it seems to me, if comment is going to be made (which it inevitably is - eg published), then considered, informed comment is preferable to anecdote. We need the broader public on-side, not against us.
“The bottom line is the constitution protects the rights of parents to the care and custody of their children whether any of us likes it or not.”
Here is the problem. Where is your evidence?
I have great affinity with the Constitution and believe that it is probably the finest document of its type ever penned – its abuse and blatant legal transgressions against it comprise some of the reasons why I take the time to blog here and on several “law” sites.
I agree with your notion that the government should stay out of our personal relations – I couldn’t agree more.
That was fairly concise for me.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Not bad, and no Latin either, I’m impressed.
---“Here is the problem. Where is your evidence?”
9th and 14th amendments.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I guess I can't argue with that.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I just wrote the following comment and was ready to post it when I saw yours. Sorry if I misunderstood the comment about “the troops are gathering”. I’m not familiar with that metaphor. You’re a good sport Celia and I’m glad you’re on our side.
I meant the remark about the Latin in good humor. I hope you didn’t take that wrong. Is this a checkmate or are you thinking about your next move. You are on the ropes you know, and that’s the beauty of the constitution. Only a tyrant would argue with self-evident truth.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Take care it's lights out for me.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:03 am
Glenn,
Newspaper and magazine articles, books and more have been written about the decline of professional “journalism.” Sloppy reporting (remember the guy leaving his young toddler in the car while visiting a whorehouse? It had to be put under a microscope to find even a shred of truth to it.) and sloppy editing is the norm.
It’s telling that no one batted an eyelash when the New York Times laid off 100 in the newsroom or when the LA Times president was fired for refusing to downsize the newsroom.
Nobody seems to give a rip any more that our “news” is basically trash.
DanH
March 1st, 2008 at 12:27 am
Firstly, the Editorial in question is nothing more, and nothing less, than an Opinion held by one or more of the individuals on the editorial board of the newspaper. To have, and state an opinion, one is not required to seek out only individuals that you (the reader) would perceive to be experts.
At the end of the day, an expert is a person whose opinion you agree with. Everyone else is ultimately, an idiot.
Seeking out those who specialize in family law for opinions makes sense. They have more exposure to the issues than anyone else. Of course, once again, if their opinions do not mirror your own opinions, then they are not qualified to give an opinion. Funny how that all works, isn't it?
As for the Constitutional issues that are being raised here in this discussion, they have been raised countless times in the past. How you are viewing the Constitution is not quite the way that others view it. To date, all of the well meaning Constitutional challenges have failed miserably and predictably. They will continue to fail in all probability.
You can all "editorialize" as self anointed experts until the cows come home that the laws are unconstitutional. Until such time as a court will rule that the laws are, in fact, unconstitutional, the laws will continue to be constitutional. Arguing that they are unconstitutional is an exercise in futility.
Doc
March 1st, 2008 at 3:58 am
Celia,
Your treatment was fair and valid; however, I respectfully submit the endorsement of the UN and its stance is misplaced. Beginning with the Beijing conference on Women in 1995, and played out since, was the movement to affect change to the UN Charter by removing and forbidding the terms "mother" and "father" because they reflected a patriarchal construct and therefore, oppressive to women. Acceptable language in UN speak is "child bearer" and "child provider". The ensuing outcome of that, largely directed by European States, has been to further the idea that a male "provider" is irrelevant and more than likely abusive and in need of being controlled and regulated by law. I suspect what you are referring to is the UN promoting that children do have rights to be upheld and equally to those of adults, the "rights of the child proclamation". Here I struggle to find fault other than to suggest, taken in the whole context of rights as they relate to the variety of family constructs, the UN is waging the very same war on men and their rights and role as "providers". Symbolically removing the word and concept of "father" mirrors the western feminist fascination with totally eliminating the father from the family construct. So the UN's well meaning recognition of the "rights of the child" has been used to spread the war on the "father" globally. In fact, in three years there I have yet to hear anything that would be construed to view the rights of the child with regards to child abuse by the child bearer, or domestic violence committed by a child bearer. In the myopic paradigm, these social realities simply do not exist and dare not be mentioned lest one wish to draw unbearable ire and ostracizing. Spelled out here, the UN is interested in the rights of women and the rights of children, but it is most certainly not about the rights of men because it adheres to the feminist belief that men's rights do not need protecting because they already have all of the rights and created those rights solely for maintaining control and power over women and children. I think we both agree this is a deeply flawed and destructive belief because when if it came to the rights of the children versus the rights of women this latter trumps the aforementioned.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:23 am
Celia:
What do you think of Doc’s statements?
“As for the Constitutional issues that are being raised here in this discussion, they have been raised countless times in the past. How you are viewing the Constitution is not quite the way that others view it. To date, all of the well meaning Constitutional challenges have failed miserably and predictably. They will continue to fail in all probability.
You can all "editorialize" as self anointed experts until the cows come home that the laws are unconstitutional. Until such time as a court will rule that the laws are, in fact, unconstitutional, the laws will continue to be constitutional. Arguing that they are unconstitutional is an exercise in futility.”
March 1st, 2008 at 9:37 am
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):
[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.
It is self evident truth that the natural right to the care and custody of your children could not be more fundamental.
Think about it.
The “best interests of children” is not good enough. Who can say what those interests really are? It’s already been demonstrated that the “best interests” are not presently being served by the court.
The “best interests of children” will find its place in history next to “separate but equal” and “a women’s right to choose”.
Kevin Merck
March 1st, 2008 at 9:59 am
Sorry about the typos. I still had sleep in my eyes.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Glenn wrote, "...but I always wonder why the people who spent their graduate years studying tax law and wills and trusts are quoted as the experts on this vital children's issue, whereas the people who actually are experts on children aren't."
Really? I thought it was quite obvious. They have a vested interest in keeping the Divorce Machine churning out the income. One would think that the dolts who run many news organizations would go to the people who are "fighting for the children" everyday are experts on the issues (mistakenly).
It's all aboutt the Benjamins.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Goodness me, I thought this was over!
Doc said:
“Firstly, the Editorial in question is nothing more, and nothing less, than an Opinion . . .”
True.
“At the end of the day, an expert is a person whose opinion you agree with. Everyone else is ultimately, an idiot.”
With respect, that’s a bit tough. I think you are giving the definition of an expert opinion, not an expert. I consider someone who can provide irrefutable (provable or proven) evidence to be an expert. In other words, an expert provides evidence that can be put to the test and will inevitably prevail. An expert opinion, however, is a different creature entirely.
“Seeking out those who specialize in family law for opinions makes sense.”
You agree with me – although, for what it’s worth, I am not enamoured with most of them.
“As for the Constitutional issues that are being raised here in this discussion, they have been raised countless times in the past. . . . .To date, all of the well meaning Constitutional challenges have failed miserably and predictably.”
That’s a reasonable summation of what I was saying.
“They will continue to fail in all probability.”
I am not quite as pessimistic as you Doc. At some point, given sufficient impetus, I believe there could be a facial change in family law and perhaps some other areas. Some of the words involved in this will probably refer to the Constitution and a lot of the early effort, I suspect, will involve winning one battle at a time. Another answer is revolution – whether in fact or per se – ultimately the citizens can decide.
“You can all "editorialize" as self anointed experts until the cows come home that the laws are unconstitutional. Until such time as a court will rule that the laws are, in fact, unconstitutional, the laws will continue to be constitutional.”
I agree with the sentiment, which is more or less what I was saying earlier but not completely with the words. Put simply, I take some exception with the notion of second sentence. There are plenty of statutes on the books that have not been challenged but, prima facie, are unconstitutional. I think your point, however, is valid, they will remain in effect until struck down or modified, whether through being judicially-determined as unconstitutional or not. Another way out lies within the legislature’s purview to decide that a given statute is unconstitutional – although, I confess, I can’t think of any examples of this off hand.
“Arguing that they are unconstitutional is an exercise in futility.”
Well, in the immediate setting I suspect you are right. I have to say, however, that it does give people hope that some relief may come their way. I say this because there are good example to draw upon. The most notable of which was the civil rights “revolution” of the 1960s. In that regard, blacks in many of the states of the old south were legally disenfranchised – the Constitution was ultimately their leg to stand on.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Shame on me … again.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Wanderer said:
“Celia, Your treatment was fair and valid; however, I respectfully submit the endorsement of the UN and its stance is misplaced.”
I accept your point. I certainly am not giving express or implied carte blanche to the UN . . . on anything. I do, however, give them some credit, in the 1959 Declaration, with respect to the child it states, “He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents . . “. I take that to mean both parents. This is written. My point was there is not a word in the Constitution about parental-child rights.
As you quite correctly note, much of what comes out of that institution is platitudinous crap and highly mother-centric and overall pretty flawed.
You noted:
“Spelled out here, the UN is interested in the rights of women and the rights of children, but it is most certainly not about the rights of men because it adheres to the feminist belief that men's rights do not need protecting because they already have all of the rights and created those rights solely for maintaining control and power over women and children. I think we both agree this is a deeply flawed and destructive belief because when if it came to the rights of the children versus the rights of women this latter trumps the aforementioned.”
Too true, I regret even opening this can of worms.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Kevin Merck said:
“Shame on me … again.”
Celia said:
“The most notable of which was the civil rights “revolution” of the 1960s. In that regard, blacks in many of the states of the old south were legally disenfranchised – the Constitution was ultimately their leg to stand on.”
I suppose I should have added that –
“The Constitution ultimately prevailed.” It prevailed over the unconstitutional laws and practices carried out by the states.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
From Stuart Birks, NZ
http://econ.massey.ac.nz/cppe/papers/cppeip12/cppeip12.pdf
[The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 9.1] states that, "States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child." This could possibly be interpreted to mean that interim sole-custody arrangements are questionable, and that alternatives to shared custody should only be considered when they can be shown to be superior according to a "best interest of the child" criterion.
Article 5 says that: "States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents … to provide … appropriate direction and guidance".
• In Article 7 we see that: "The child shall … have …, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents".
• Article 14.2 says: "States parties shall respect the rights and duties of parents and, if applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child."
• Article 18.2 requires the State to develop appropriate institutions, which would include the Family Court: "For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of the child."
• Article 19.1, referring to mental violence, could be considered to apply to emotional abuse in the form of parental alienation: "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."
March 1st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I just wanted to add that the “opinion” I referred to was to help clarify my argument and to counter the statements made by Doc.
I think this quote does more to explain the true intent of the ninth amendment than anything I’ve heard come out of a lawyer’s mouth.
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”
-Thomas Jefferson
In other words the ninth amendment means just what it says. We should make every effort to be honest about the true intent, instead of finding creative arguments to give the government more power. Some of the founders argued against a bill of rights for that reason. It would be argued by tyrants that if the right wasn’t clearly enumerated it wouldn’t exist.
I think the founders would be beside themselves with murderous outrage at the notion some people think the government has the power to take people’s children under any pretense. If there is reason to believe the child’s wellbeing is in danger, then criminal charges should be brought against the accused parent and that parent should have all the due process guaranteed by the constitution.
The Family Courts need to be abolished.
Kevin Merck
March 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
The U.S (and Somalia) have not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In Troxel vs. Granville, the U.S. Supreme Court supported parental rights and held that
"The custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. A law that allows anyone to petition a court for child visitation rights over parental objections unconstitutionally infringes on parents' fundamental right to rear their children."
However, Family Courts ignore parental rights and support unilateral divorce based on self interest.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Kevin Merck said:
“I think the founders would be beside themselves with murderous outrage at the notion some people think the government has the power to take people’s children under any pretense.”
I agree and this is entirely consistent with what I said earlier in this post and many others:
“ . . . obviously the drafters couldn’t believe that a right so fundamental could EVER be challenged by government or anyone else for that matter . . .”
“The Family Courts need to be abolished.”
I agree - utterly – although, ultimately, the problem lies with the statutes. The mere existence of these “courts” has unquestionably exacerbated the problem and to some extent given this arm of the “law” an air of legitimacy and frightening legal inertia - thus my reference to the family law "juggernaut". I often refer to real courts versus “family courts”. I also usually put these words in quotation – “family court” – for a reason. None the less, if the statutes simply stated that:
Property distribution has to be contribution-based (where contribution has a reasonable (say, market-based) metric (not an equity-based, legally-contrived one that ensures lawyers and non-contributors get paid by the person who has contributed - (amounting to a legal form of punishment for the contributor)) and parents have a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting and the child has a right to parenting by both parents – the problem would largely be solved. I note that this is entirely reasonable in the modern context of gender equality.
Of course, my real belief is that non-contractural personal relationships are not the government's business.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
This topic raised the issue of lawyers having undue sway on this issue.
Even though Thomas Jefferson practiced law it’s clear he didn’t think much of lawyers. I guess things never really change that much. Lawyers were probably the same type of people then that they are now. I’m not an expert on Jefferson by any means, but I think he considered himself a farmer and common man more than anything else.
Lawyers got a bad wrap then for many of the same reasons they get a bad wrap now … they earned it. I think we should all realize that lawyers don’t own the law. They have to obey the “real law” the same as everyone else or suffer the consequences.
The law is always our friend. Lawyers on the other hand, well; here is what Jefferson had to say …
“If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?”
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
“It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”
"There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them."
“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
March 1st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Jefferson wasn’t alone either. I just remembered this one and felt I had to share it. This one is timeless and priceless.
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
-John Adams
March 1st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Celia and Michael H.,
Humbled by your input and contribution. No can of worms Celia, rather you are purporting an honest and humanist hope that the words of the declaration on the rights of the child be objectively observed. The problem is they are not because they have been actively hijacked and accorded secondary consideration. Viewing the manifestation of its implementation historically is the key hoping that change can be affected. Good stuff people!!!!!
March 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Michael H – good work I knew this stuff was around, I just couldn’t immediately put my hands on it.
Kevin Merck re Jefferson’s quotes -
Thanks for the reminder.
I also hasten to point out that Thomas Jefferson was a REVOLUTIONARY not a JURIST. His words helped foment the most famous revolution the world has seen – it was a revolution against bad government. Here are some more of his words which everyone should read once in a while as a reminder:
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
I’d call this “in your face” erudition!
As I have often said on this blog – change (toward a more just system) will require, as it inevitably does, a very high level of determined, broad-based (ie, with reasonable goals, engendering broad appeal) but focused endeavour. Glenn appears to take this broad-based approach (and I have to admire his commitment and tenacity). Jefferson’s quote (kindly supplied by Kevin) is germane:
“"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them."
This blog certainly serves to spread the word and helps to hone our “argument”. Jefferson’s words clearly speak to this, the Constitution is the foundation upon which legal, and perhaps even moral, challenge will rest but if we genuinely want to drive this we must use ALL legitimate means, not just legal, at our disposal to encourage, or if needs be, force the change. Is a manifesto in order?
March 1st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Michael H,
Thanks for The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 9.1 information. I've printed it for reference!
March 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
--“Here are some more of his words which everyone should read once in a while as a reminder.”
I agree. The reason those words are so appealing is because they contain the truth. It’s pretty hard to argue with the truth unless you are a self-serving tyrant.
I know I’m preaching to the choir and some of the choir is probably better informed than I am. I don’t want to take anything away from anyone. I just think we need to say the words in public so it can be foremost in people’s minds again. I’m tired of all the politically correct nonsense and I think a lot of other people are as well. People want to hear the truth, not some watered-down politically correct drivel.
The courts are supposed to protect our rights, not prey on us. There is no more serious crime in my mind, than the courts breaking the law and violating the rights of millions of people for profit, and calling it “the best interests of children”. It really doesn’t get any worse than that.
Just one more quote from perhaps the greatest guy who ever lived …
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
-Thomas Jefferson
March 1st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Historical quotes, are indeed wonderful to read. Unfortunately, historical quotes do not always adequately reflect the reality of the present.
One has a good, ethical, moral and even righteous lawyer / representative / Senator / etc. as long as he prevails in your favor, preferably without compromise. Anyone else is unethical, a shyster at best, and should be tarred and feathered at the very least.
Troxell is regularly brought out as a supporting decision for parental rights. However, it will not become a controlling decision for the simple reason that the facts of the case are much different than what is being complained of here.
To compare the current debacle of the family courts to the civil rights movement is, in my opinion, a grave mistake and a waste of words. Ultimately, there is no comparison.
Technically, a court order for visitation is a minimum that must be followed. If the parties to the court order choose to violate that court order by allowing and taking advantage of greater visitation / access frequency, they are not violating that court order, except for in rare circumstances where definite harm can be documented.
When we walk into divorce court we are pointedly asking the State to become involved in our personal lives as well as the lives of our children. It is our own failings as human beings that invite this intrusion into our lives. We can not then claim that this is an unconstitutional process. We chose, upon our own free will, to allow the State to sanction our marriage. Therefore, the State has a responsibility to monitor the dissolution of that sanction.
The state cannot treat those who have never been married differently as to do so would then be unconstitutional.
We look all to often for a single solution that will fit every situation. Unfortunately, that is next to impossible until there can be a uniform agreement of what really is in the best interests of children. That is an almost insurmountable problem as each child presents us with different needs.
Doc
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 am
Doc said:
“Historical quotes, are indeed wonderful to read. Unfortunately, historical quotes do not always adequately reflect the reality of the present.”
True but with quotes like these isn’t it ridiculous that they don’t. A group of 49 Nobel Prize recipients at the White House on April 29, 1962, were told by John F. Kennedy that never before had such talent been assembled in one room, except, perhaps, when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Kind of says it all.
“To compare the current debacle of the family courts to the civil rights movement is, in my opinion, a grave mistake and a waste of words. Ultimately, there is no comparison.”
Even if it were a mistake – why on earth do you say it would be “grave”? Anyway, I disagree, there is a clear comparison. The comparison is not the “family courts” – the comparator is the unequivocal, legal disenfranchisement of groups within our society. The present disenfranchisement consists, inter alia, of preventing a group from exercising its constitutional rights to property and to a trial by jury (civil). The legal poll tax and legal literacy tests in the old south legally prevented blacks from exercising their constitutional right to vote. Infringement of constitutional rights – that’s the comparison, it is clear.
“When we walk into divorce court we are pointedly asking the State to become involved in our personal lives as well as the lives of our children.”
That is an interesting analysis, however, you have to admit that many don’t “walk” into divorce court – they are dragged there by the STATE at the request of another PRIVATE citizen. This is nothing more than a state-sanctioned and state-enforced attack on an individual – usually the most productive member of the relationship (and in many cases of the whole group involved in this charade). This is a relatively modern phenomenon, one which survives because there is money to be made by everyone involved except the person being attacked – who inevitably will be punished for his productivity. The individuals involved in this attack (judges, lawyers, domestic partner) are not producing anything in the process, no wealth is created (no buildings built, cars manufactured, roads paved, lives saved), rather they steal the worker’s wealth and redistribute it amongst themselves. This sounds a lot like theft to me, state-sanctioned and ultimately, state-enforced – with no reasonable basis at law.
“We chose, upon our own free will, to allow the State to sanction our marriage.”
I don’t agree with that. The state has taken this upon itself. Prior to state usurpation, it was a function of church. Long before that it was a matter of pairing off. Individuals today really have no choice in the matter – the state has assumed this role of its own accord - it claims an “interest” – yet there is no evidence for the legitimacy of its claim.
With respect to children you say:
“We look all to often for a single solution that will fit every situation:
It is perfectly reasonable to start from a single position of equality (a neutral position) and work from there. A rebuttable presumption of equal parenting is reasonable, it will not make a good judge’s decision any more difficult – but even if it did, so what? The only apparent substantive impost on the judge will be a need to be more ACCOUNTALBE – obviously this will be in the best interests of JUSTICE, even if not in the best interests of the judiciary.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 am
Celia says: (in the realm of civil rights and historical statements) "The comparison is not the “family courts” – the comparator is the unequivocal, legal disenfranchisement of groups within our society. The present disenfranchisement consists, inter alia, of preventing a group from exercising its constitutional rights to property and to a trial by jury (civil)."
The rights to property is a double edged sword. In your response you later postulate: "The individuals involved in this attack (judges, lawyers, domestic partner) are not producing anything in the process..." This would lead one to believe that you oppose concepts like community property. In the divorce process both parties are exercising their constitutional rights to property. Are you perhaps advocating that the non-producing spouse / partner is nothing more than chattel property? As for the trial by jury issue, this is not an absolute right, as has been clearly defined by the courts over the last century or so.
Realistically speaking, given the dysfunctionality of a large portion of the people who utilize the family courts, a jury of rational people, after observing the antics of both parties, would probably be more inclined to award custody of the kids to the state and place them in foster homes. I have sat in on many divorce cases and reached the conclusion that neither parent was capable of parenting.
Celia says: "That is an interesting analysis, however, you have to admit that many don’t “walk” into divorce court – they are dragged there by the STATE at the request of another PRIVATE citizen."
This rationale, which I do not agree with, goes back to the old victim mentality statement of: "I was divorced against my wishes." Walked or drugged is merely a matter of semantics. Everyone has an option: They can simply refuse to go to court and then accept the default judgment that is rendered.
Celia says with respect to the State sanctioning marriage: "I don’t agree with that. The state has taken this upon itself. Prior to state usurpation, it was a function of church. Long before that it was a matter of pairing off. Individuals today really have no choice in the matter – the state has assumed this role of its own accord - it claims an “interest” – yet there is no evidence for the legitimacy of its claim."
The state took the project on at the request of the Christian community and a Christian based society. Society [b]is[/b] the the state at the end of the day, Society demanded that certain rules be followed when two people wish to dissolve their marriage and relationship. Your views may be, and seem to be, minority views, but you are still technically, part of the state.
All of us in society must live with the sins of our parents and grandparents when it comes to laws and societal standards and mores. Even today, we must live with the laws that are passed that we do not agree with - laws passed at the insistence of others that we share society with. The legitimacy of the state's claim to be involved in divorce is that is what society demanded in years gone by.
The rebuttable presumption issue is a difficult issue for everyone. I can see both sides of it very clearly. I do not see where a universal adoption of rebuttable presumption is going to make the divorce process any less contentious - if nothing else, I can see where it would become more contentious especially for those who have the money to hire lawyers. If any judge were to rule against shared custody, of course the party that was ruled against would claim that the judge was wrong. The appellate courts are very reluctant to second guess a judge on these types of issues. In the end, we will continue to see the same ill feelings towards the judiciary and all involved with it.
Unfortunately, the best interests of the Judiciary must be considered. Society demands that justice be swift. Society is not going to sit still for divorces that take 3 years to have an initial hearing. Society is also not going to sit still for having to hire more judges and build more courts to deal with dysfunctional families.
For every action in life there is a reaction. I can envision where an adoption of rebuttable presumption will ultimately put even more children in poverty. While it is nice to say that all fathers want to be involved with their children, the sad fact is that is not true. Men throughout the world have been walking away from their children for centuries. Yes, women do as well, but their numbers are small in comparison. The concept of rebuttable presumption does not provide for a safety net for the most vulnerable people. At the end of the day, it is the protection of the most vulnerable that will dictate what the laws will be.
Society - and thus, the state - demands this.
Doc
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
“This would lead one to believe that you oppose concepts like community property. In the divorce process both parties are exercising their constitutional rights to property. Are you perhaps advocating that the non-producing spouse / partner is nothing more than chattel property? As for the trial by jury issue, this is not an absolute right, as has been clearly defined by the courts over the last century or so.”
Community property is an anachronism. It stems from the time when men were paid dowries by the woman’s family, in exchange for his care and protection of her – it constituted her investment in the marriage. She and any children of the marriage were, as you note, his property and no one could take those - ever. Now that we are all equal, no dowries are paid and we all have the right and full capacity contribute equally to the communal assets. We ALL have the right to equal pay and the capacity to equal contribution. Property division should be based entirely upon contribution (using a reasonable metric – say market value for unpaid work and income for that which is earned). This is not rocket science. Bring this whole process into the modern context and use reasonable means to settle – not legal antics. It is about EQUALITY not men supporting fully equal and capable women.
“Realistically speaking, given the dysfunctionality of a large portion of the people who utilize the family courts, a jury of rational people, after observing the antics of both parties, would probably be more inclined to award custody of the kids to the state and place them in foster homes. I have sat in on many divorce cases and reached the conclusion that neither parent was capable of parenting.”
Agreed.
“This rationale, which I do not agree with, goes back to the old victim mentality statement of: "I was divorced against my wishes." Walked or drugged is merely a matter of semantics. Everyone has an option: They can simply refuse to go to court and then accept the default judgment that is rendered.”
Divorce isn’t the issue –dragging an individual, who has committed no crime, before a “peoples” judge is the issue. Domestic relations are “personal” not public. In my view they should be required by law to be contractual (written, not implied), if the state wants to have a say. The current acceptance of the implied contract clings tenaciously to the past notion of “man provides women nurtures”. The courts have it wrong – but they maintain this quaint notion because IT IS TO THEIR BENEFIT.
“The state took the project on at the request of the Christian community and a Christian based society”
Show me where that is written. Show me the referendum/plebiscite. It is not extant. This is a legal fiction.
“The rebuttable presumption issue is a difficult issue for everyone. I can see both sides of it very clearly. I do not see where a universal adoption of rebuttable presumption is going to make the divorce process any less contentious.”
Whether it is contentious or not is irrelevant – whether it is JUST is the only relevant issue. If, ab initio, one party to the hearing, almost inevitably the defendant /respondent is deprived of a fair and reasonable starting point – guess what – this is UNJUST – it is also unreasonable that a judge not be bound by the law to start from a position of legal equality for those appearing before him/her.
“In the end, we will continue to see the same ill feelings towards the judiciary and all involved with it.”
The ill feelings are currently engendered from the moment of the first filing. This is made all the worse by the fact that the judge has almost unlimited discretion (and concomitantly indiscretion) to pretty much do as he chooses w/r to custody. Simple instruction by the statute that he must start from a neutral position is in no manner going to tie his/her hands, not affect his/her determination. Apparent (and in my view real) bias encountered from the outset is one of the best ways imaginable to engender ILL FEELINGS.
“Unfortunately, the best interests of the Judiciary must be considered. Society demands that justice be swift. Society is not going to sit still for divorces that take 3 years to have an initial hearing.”
You’re joking – right? Review your state’s Canons. The judiciary has an over-riding obligation to mete out JUSTICE, the speedy component is minor in comparison with the other canons. Society first demands that JUSTICE be done, speedy is wonderful and all will be goodness and light if decisions are just and speedy – but justice comes first.
As to –
“Society is also not going to sit still for having to hire more judges and build more courts to deal with dysfunctional families.”
What? Society has no idea what goes on. Look what an industry the business of “law” in this country has become. America has five percent of the world’s population and seventy percent of its lawyers (in excess of 1 million).We spend more money on litigation than on research and innovation – what does that tell you. It tells me that we will be left in the dirt by societies that feel more compunction to fight others than to tear themselves to shreds all in the name of greed. I note that I went to law school (never practiced) so I have first hand knowledge of the inner workings.
“For every action in life there is a reaction. I can envision where an adoption of rebuttable presumption will ultimately put even more children in poverty.”
More doom and gloom “if fathers were given a fair and unbiased and most importantly JUST starting point” the sky will fall, darkness will envelop the land and all will surely be lost. Sorry I am not buying that one.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I just wanted to add a little to Celia’s post of the Declaration of Independence. We need to abolish the “Family Courts”, certainly not our entire form of government, and anyone who makes those kinds of remarks is also a tyrant.
I’m sure no reasonable person wants to throw such a precious baby out with this rancid bath water we call the “Family Courts”.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
-Thomas Jefferson
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
Doc: "When we walk into divorce court we are pointedly asking the State to become involved in our personal lives as well as the lives of our children. It is our own failings as human beings that invite this intrusion into our lives."
(Those opposed to parent's rights, children's rights and a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting conveniently forget that no-fault (unilateral) divorce allows one person, the person who will become the primary custodial parent, to walk into divorce court.)
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Doc: "Realistically speaking, given the dysfunctionality of a large portion of the people who utilize the family courts, a jury of rational people, after observing the antics of both parties, would probably be more inclined to award custody of the kids to the state and place them in foster homes. "
(Defenders of the state blame "antics" on the parents, when in fact the state offers winner-take-all incentives to one party of the divorce, and the state uses an adversarial system to separate parents and children.)
Fathers, who challenge for equal (or primary) custody, are viewed by some as having the "mind set of a batterer."
Fathers, who negotiate for extra custody (say two weekends out of three), are viewed by some as "not wanting primary custody of their children."
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
In response to Michael H. says …
That’s a great point and I’m glad you pointed it out.
I also feel it’s necessary to note for those who may be inclined to believe individuals referring to “white letters” and “black letters” that if a law is Unconstitutional then it’s not the law at all, regardless of ridiculous efforts to make it sound lawful and reasonable.
The simple fact of the matter is that every parent has the *inalienable right* … protected by the Constitution … to the care and custody of their children. If law enforcement has reason to believe that a crime has been committed then the accused needs to charged with a crime and afforded due process.
9th and 14th Amendments
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That’s the *real law* and the “Family Courts” are in direct violation. That’s the self-evident truth and only a tyrant, (lawyer or not) would argue otherwise.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Thank you, Kevin and Celia, for your contributions.
Doc: "Unfortunately, the best interests of the Judiciary must be considered. "
LOL. You don't have to worry about that. The agents of the family courts are looking out for themselves.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:53 am
My 2 cents:
Celia, thank you for your patience and analysis. You're amazing !
I think in much simpler terms (that support the sophisticated language you've all expressed):
- I provided 50% or so of the DNA necessary to bring this child to life
- By doing so, I accepted a responsibility to parent the child
- Our government should not be involved, but if they do, it should be in promoting the right thing (which is for me to follow thru with my responsibility)
- It is probably universally accepted that children learn from "watching/observing" their parent's behavior and response to situations.
- Why does someone in a black dress get to tell me that my child may "watch" and therefore learn from his mother 90% of the time, but can only "watch" and learn from his father 10% of the time ?
Although Celia is right in that the law (as it's practiced) does not support it, I believe that my rights as a parent are being violated ! I believe we need to ensure that parenting is an "inalienable right" that judges in family courts can't flippantly dismiss.
It's amazing that in this day and age, in this country, we're even having this argument !
March 6th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Lawyers and judges are hypocritical for the law states "shared parenting" yet they do not observe the laws but twist the laws ....There is lots of money to be made off a divorced dad who is fighting for his and his children's constitutional rights. - no wonder I have not seen my alienated children in 8 years ! These white-collar criminals and thieves want the childrens money! Psychologist are in favor of shared parenting because they know how much dad and children should rightfully be together. Yet they only compound the matter - not daring to go against the courts as they too do not mind hand outs from the family coiffures. Gary Yannalfo relood@yahoo.com
March 7th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Gary,
You're so right ! I'm not a conspiracy kind of person, but my legal bills came to over half a million dollars. All because I wanted "shared custody". I sometimes think that the system has been "architected" this way to ensure they can extract dollars from those who make them.
Unlike a company making widgets that have to be palatable enough for us to spend money on them, people in the system (ie. Lawyers), do not create anything, more often than not loose a lot more they admit to before taking on a case, and still make gobs of money.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Talking about a news story that needs to be covered child custody / fathers' rights, what about the judge from Georgia, Judge Sidney Nation's who recently during the onset of child custody hearing stated that he was a “Sexist” and ruled that all visits must be supervised by and “Adult Female” one with some “Domestic Skills”. The judge also stated that “Under No Circumstances” would he allow any man to have unsupervised overnight visitation with child under the age one. The transcripts clearly bear out that judge Sidney Nation's is not gender-neutral, nor does he free the litigation process from predetermined assumptions regarding the relative roles and attributes of a men and woman in a child custody case. Do you think this judge should be sitting on the bench?
http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/thread.php?id=983838#thread