Ned Holstein: Major Progress Towards Shared Parenting
March 31st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
From Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of Fathers & Families:
Ned Holstein: Major Progress Towards Shared Parenting
Boston, MA-Fathers & Families has made major progress towards passage of shared parenting legislation in Massachusetts, and these gains can be exported to other states.
Here are our major accomplishments:
We demonstrated that ordinary people overwhelmingly support shared parenting as the usual outcome for fit parents. We did this by winning 86% of the votes cast by 600,000 Massachusetts voters on this subject.
We persuaded over one-quarter of the Massachusetts Legislature to co-sponsor our shared parenting bills, including powerful committee chairmen.
Our Governor has established a website (www.devalpatrick.com/issues.php) on which citizens can record the issues that concern them. Of over 500 issues on the website, we made shared parenting the number one vote-getter, even outstripping votes for or against same-sex marriage.
After we met with Governor Patrick’s top aides, he stated publicly that he supported shared parenting, and told legislators that if they passed it, he would sign it.
We brought the research supporting shared parenting to the legislators to be sure they were aware of it. We even had one of the researchers present her findings right in the state capitol building.
Recently, we met with the editorial writers of the Boston Globe. A few days later, they became the first major newspaper in the country to endorse the principle of shared parenting. For instance, they wrote, “Children should have both parents in their lives sharing daily tasks such as homework and household chores as well as big events.”
It is still unlikely that our bills will pass in the current session of the Legislature. Nevertheless, we will be back in the next session, and one after that, and the one after that, until we win.
I want to hear your suggestions about novel tactics that might put us over the top, so post your comments.
"));
19 queries. 0.340 seconds.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Wouldn't it be possible to put it to a public vote, as a proposal? Skip the legislature and let the people decide?
I can't remember the name of that process, but I know it's available in at least a few states.
(probably going to smack myself once I hear it for not remembering)
March 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Illinois citizens have shared parenting - the Family Court orders the father every other weekend (about four days per month) with the children and the mother the rest of the time (about 26 days per month).
So what is different about Massachusetts legislation?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Bravo to Ned! It sounds as if the tide of public opinion has turned and is with shared parenting. This is one of the first "men's" issues that hasn't been drowned out by a tidal wave of radical feminist derision. (Glenn has, of course, led some campaigns that have also struck a public chord.) Now's not the time to let up.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Novel Idea: Targeting specific legislators. The legislators who decide to publicly speak up to oppose shared parenting should receive negative consequences. More important than one legislator is that each legislator should know that this tactic can and will be used against them, and the more they stand out, the more it will be used. Although I enjoy the positive activism, support with research and build a supporting coalition, the negative side works wonders as well. Legislators who are on the fence will come on to our side if they fear they will lose their seat. So, I suggest a two-sided flier or letter sent to each legislator like the following:
Side 1: Representative __________ supported families, lowered average legal costs for families, and increased benefits for children...
Side 2: Representative __________ sided with government agencies over the children, increased divisive familiy politics, and supported treating children as chattel by opposing a child's right to two parents...
... And then asking the representative which side they want to be on. Even though we want to be leaders by being right, legislators are led by flock mentality. A wolf biting at the edges will direct the flock the right way. Let it be known you are looking for a target. Just one legislator who loses a tough district will scare the others, and opposition will shrink the next time around.
Is Kenbo Iraq still around on the board? And kudos and thank yous to Ned Holstein!
March 31st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Demonspawn, it's a referendum. Or at least it is over here. America/Massachusetts might have another term for it.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I don't know much about this, but the 'concerned issues' thing is best. If legislators know they will lose/win votes on certain key issues, they suddenly care. If divorced disenfranchised dads can be seen as a coherent voter block, the issue will be more powerful if it is seen to represent a segment of the electorate rather than just being an issue.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Ned Holstein, I'ts good to see my donation dollars getting tangeable results..
March 31st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
It's the same thing over here.
*commences smacking*
Danke.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
It’s only natural for them to want to deal with starry-eyed reformers who think it’s all a matter of misguided good intentions, rather than people who want them held accountable for their actions.
---“Fathers & Families seeks to change well-meaning but misguided laws, judicial traditions, and government policies that drive many loving fathers out of their children’s lives after divorce …”
I honestly don’t see how anyone can claim that the present laws which remove fathers from the lives of their children, or that deny half the population of the equal protection of our laws can be construed to be “well-meaning”.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
They're still called referendums in MA..we have them quite commonly...my memory's shot, but one of the last big things I think we voted on over here was the English immersion thing, which passed...and of course, they wanted the gay marriage thing to go to the ballot as a constitutional amendment, but that was shut down by the legislature...
Wow, I thought Deval Patrick's been pretty useless so far...guess I'd have to change my opinion if this thing passes! I went to that site and signed my support for shared parenting when the site first went up, but I haven't visited it since...lost my password..nice to see something is being done with it...
March 31st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
"It’s only natural for them to want to deal with starry-eyed reformers"
Yeah, right--Ned Holstein a naive, "starry-eyed reformer."
March 31st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
The only strategy I know of is you have to communicate to people to make them aware of the problem.
Most people are clueless and have to be educated. Most people are under the presumption that most Dads don't want their children because the public thinking has been predjudiced by feminists.
Only by continued communication will you penetrate the discriminatory thinking that has been sold to the public by feminists.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Wonderful news! Kudos to Ned and his dedicated group.
Could it be that the nose of the camel of the future is insinuating itself under the edge of the gender feminists' tent?
March 31st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Shared parenting really should be common sense. The family law courts have been manipulated for so long through the ridiculous belief that the female is the more qualified parent. I am hoping and praying that this changes during my lifetime. My kids are teenagers now, and their mom still hates the fact that they chose to spend extra time with me. As long as I pay child support, she acts okay, but God forbid I fall behind a week.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Here's a novel tactic Ned, and one which fits with your positive-diplomacy approach:
Explain to both the governor and the legislature that instead of
1. feathering the nests of local lawyers and
2. manipulating a large grab at title IVd incentives, which are an increasingly risky bet,
they could achieve much greater prize for their sagging economy and stem the large scale out-migration reported by their Boston Globe by
3. making their state one of the most attractive in the nation for high-earnings power, highly educated men to move to, and by extension
4. the most attractive for entrepreneurs to (safely) locate their companies in, AND, thus
5. one of the most attractive for large companies to locate in given the prospect of hiring males
who might finally feel safe somewhere in America.
At present, your state has massive disincentives for high-quality males to live there and/or start businesses there, and large companies are certainly deterred from placing operations there for the same reason -- smart men don't want to move there.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
This is not novel, and it is far from sexy, but you can be successful using the tried-and-true grinding it out on the ground one foot at a time:
Get your message before the eyeballs that can make a difference (legislators) and get it there often. Feature the positive impact it has on the kids (and yes, both parents!) when fit parents are involved in raising their own kids. Use success stories and success statistics. Have the message come in from all four corners of the state in e-mail, phone messages, and USPS mail.
Good luck and God Speed.
DanH
March 31st, 2008 at 7:51 pm
DanH: "Get your message before the eyeballs that can make a difference (legislators) and get it there often."
In an email requesting voters to write to their legislators, the NYNJ Trail Conference included a link that allowed me to easily lookup my particular state legislators.
I was more likely to send an email because it was easy for me to find the appropriate address. Because I was not sending the email to many legislators, it is possible that the email was received more favorably by the legislators (or their staff).
March 31st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
"a starry-eyed reformer"
Dr. Holstein does not appear to be a starry-eyed reformer, however I wonder if he does realize the very ugly nature and natures of the range of people who are protecting and profiting from this system?
Clearly, pointing to a large majority of voters hasn't worked.
Clearly, he doesn't expect action anytime soon.
Well, why not?
The reason why not is the very, VERY dirty nature of the players who would protect such a system.
It should also be obvious that the judiciary has a major role in what is going on, right?
I mean, is the Massachusetts judiciary could "interpret" marriage law to anticipate male-male marriages, they couldn't they just as easily "interpret" the term "best interests" to mean 50/50?
Of course they could. They just don't want to, now do they?
So why is that?
Why indeed.
State level, moral and ethical corruption of the judiciary is pandemic in this country. It has never been worse than it is today. And it is getting worse each day, not better.
These judges have all the evidence they need, UNDER CURRENT LAW, to decide that 50/50 should be the norm, and that it defines "best interests".
And they won't do it.
Nobody should be surprised if in the presence of a 50/50 law, these judges find another way to fill the pockets of their lawyer friends, and to horribly bleed and destroy families. As Phyllis Schlafly pointed out, children are being used as "bait". This does not mean that the courts couldn't come up with other ways to bait or compel ruinous proceedings and outcomes.
By all indications, in Ned's state, this is exactly what they would do, because the courts are using the destruction of families to empower themselves and enrich their budgets and puff up their egos.
The legal dismembering of arrogant state judicial power structures may in fact be the necessary path to lawful justice in many states in the U.S.
So I don't think Ned is starry-eyed, but I don't know if he understands the soul-less natures of many who are so busy looting this system for their money- and power-fixes.
Those folks do NOT care about kids whatsoever, they care about themselves. Can Ned shame them into faking otherwise? But the devil is in the details isn't it? And the devil is also occupying a number of public institutions and positions in his state, if their reputation is any indication.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Run advertisements, especially radio. For voice-overs, use females and the voices of adult children of divorce that support shared parenting. Avoid the male/female issue, so that the ads are appealing to everyone. Instead of male/female, use the terms winners/losers, custodial/noncustodial, etc. In the ads, play songs such as Stand By Me in the background to appeal to emotions.
Here's an example: An adult female voice complains that her soon-to-be-ex worked too many hours and didn't make enough money. An adult male voice complains that his soon-to-be-ex once served cold beans to their children. Cut to a female narrator who states that Mass's current divorce laws encourage this type of ridiculous fighting in a divorce court, because there is so much at stake for each parent. As the laws now stand, there is a winner and a loser, with the children the big losers. Currently the system is winner-take-all, and the loser's time with the children is reduced to being called "visitation". When visitation is denied by the custodial parent, make up time is almost nonexistent. Both parents and the children experiencing divorce are going through enough pain, and our current system makes it far worse.
If you noticed, I avoided the impression that it's only men complaining about the system. Also, I never mention child support.
Here's another approach I've effectively used in debates with proponents, especially female, of the status quo: when a mom is the noncustodial parent, she cannot get pregnant again, because, if she takes any maternity leave, she will fall behind in her child support, incur interest and late fees, and may have to spend some weekends in jail. That usually stop women in their tracks when they have been accusing me of being a whining man and have been telling me to get over it. Once I've gotten this through to them, I can then talk about how most noncustodial fathers go through the same thing when they are laid off, injured, or fired. I'm not sure how to incorporate this idea into an ad, but it might be powerful.
Some ads could include humor and still get through a powerful message. E.g., a dad with a milquetoast voice is in his car, talking via cell phone to his wife. He arrives at a school to pick up his kid(s) and sees them in a bad situation. This could be in the form of an unscrupulous looking guy tempting them, or some other possibly dangerous scenario. His jumps from the car, his voice turns deep, gravely and loud enough to scare even Zeus. The kid(s) run to the protection of his arms. Cut to a female narrator, who tells the audience that Mass's current divorce laws reward the first parent that files for divorce, thus encouraging divorce. Divorce then separates the kids from the protection of their two parents being together. The narrator can then accurately state that, since the increase in the divorce rate over the last few decades, children have suffered. Then she can state the negative statistics regarding children in Mass, whatever they may be---more deaths, more victims of violence, lower grades, more drug abuse, more sexual abuse, more teenage pregnancy, etc.
I've got other ideas, but I digress.
Here in Kansas and Missouri, there are plenty of male attorneys and businessmen who have lost their children in Family Court and are pissed. There must be enough male attorneys and businessmen in Mass. who feel the same way and will put some money behind good radio and newspaper advertising.
There's a lot of info in this blog, but it doesn't take much to reduce it to a few, short radio spots. I know, because I've gone into my clothes closet with a tape recorder and recorded an ad. It cost nothing. The only thing left is to pay for airing the ads.
Keep it up Ned. You have no idea how many others are quietly watching from all corners of this country.
God bless ya'.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:57 pm
One other note: the reason I recorded the ad in my clothes closet, is because it acts as a free sound studio. No background noise.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:29 am
Ned Holstein, keep up the good work. we love you and your work. there are millions of fathers in this country who support you but these men unfortunately dont come out in the public as much as women do.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:09 am
I live in Indiana, and I called their offices also. Called them while my daughter was with me. I feel that this should be more of a federal issue than a state one. Everywhere you go, in any state, you get the same story. People are all the same when it comes to this, so I hope every dad out there can reach across the state line when possible.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am
Ryan: "I feel that this should be more of a federal issue than a state one. "
The federal governement could amend Title IV-D of the Social Security Act to require states to enact a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting to qualify for federal matching funds related to child support.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:19 pm
It should be easy enough to get a list of legislators that don't support it and suggest voting against them.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Great news to hear... Any chance you guys can come to MIchigan and help them get us on the shared parenting bandwagon?
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
That's Great. Really. A step.