New Column: Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan’s Kids, Overburdened Court System
May 6th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families"Michigan family law courts are facing a crisis. As Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan explains, two-thirds of all the cases filed in circuit courts are family law cases. At least three million of the state’s 10 million people are currently involved in cases with open family court files. Corrigan warns that this has greatly expanded Michigan’s role in its citizens’ private lives. Moreover, the huge caseload prevents courts from handling these weighty and complex duties in anything but an assembly-line manner.
"There are two main reasons for Michigan’s problem—the state’s high rate of family breakdown, and the way family courts adjudicate child custody."
My new co-authored column, Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan’s Kids, Overburdened Court System (Oakland Press, 5/5/08), supports a bill to institute a shared parenting presumption. The bill will be heard by the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on May 7.
HB 4564 could help solve the family court crisis Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan has detailed. The Michigan National Organization for Women and the Michigan State Bar’s Family Law Section have come out in opposition to the bill.
The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, is below. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Oakland Press, one of Michigan's largest newspapers, click on vop@oakpress.com.
New Column: Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan’s Kids, Overburdened Court System
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Michigan family law courts are facing a crisis. As Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan explains, two-thirds of all the cases filed in Michigan circuit courts are family law cases. At least three million of the state’s 10 million people are currently involved in cases with open family court files. Corrigan warns that this has greatly expanded Michigan’s role in its citizens’ private lives. Moreover, the huge caseload prevents courts from handling these weighty and complex duties in anything but an assembly-line manner.
There are two main reasons for Michigan’s problem—the state’s high rate of family breakdown, and the way family courts adjudicate child custody. HB 4564, a bill which will be heard by the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on May 7, addresses the latter issue.
Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan’s Best Interest of the Child Test. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children’s relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents, usually (but not always) their fathers. Moreover, the custody decisions based on the 12 factors are often subjective and arbitrary.
By declaring the losing party a “noncustodial parent” with little role in his or her children’s lives, Michigan family courts are generating contentious litigation. HB 4564 will help clear overcrowded court calendars by instituting a presumption of shared parenting in divorce or separation. When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially equal time with their children. Under HB 4564, the loving bonds parents share with their children will be protected, greatly reducing the need for court battles.
Two recent studies published in the journal Child Development demonstrate the importance of keeping both parents in a child’s life. One, a study of low-income African-American and Hispanic families, found that when nonresident fathers are involved in their adolescent children’s lives, the incidence of substance abuse, violence, crime, and truancy decreases markedly. The study's lead author, professor Rebekah Levine Coley, says the study found involved nonresident fathers to be “an important protective factor for adolescents."
The study also found that when teens begin to slide towards delinquency, nonresident fathers increase their involvement in response. The researchers found such involvement to be effective--the impact of father involvement was the greatest on the kids who had previously been the most troubled.
Similarly, according to a long-term study conducted in the United States and in New Zealand, a father’s presence greatly decreases the risk of teen pregnancy. The study found that it mattered little whether the child was rich or poor, or black or white--what mattered was dad.
Research also demonstrates that father involvement at earlier stages of a child's life produces similarly positive outcomes.
Unfortunately, misguided women’s advocates (such as the Michigan National Organization for Women) and special interest groups (such as the Michigan State Bar’s Family Law Section) have opposed shared parenting. In December 2006, a similar shared parenting bill was held up in committee on a 4-4 vote (one abstention).
Nonetheless, some women’s advocates recognize that shared parenting helps mothers because it provides them with greater economic freedom and opportunities. Outspoken feminist advocates of shared parenting include Martha Burk and former NOW president Karen DeCrow.
A recent trend in some Michigan courts demonstrates recognition of this. In part because welfare funds are tight, some family court judges say they’ve been increasingly awarding shared parenting in custody cases involving low-income parents. Why? Dividing child care duties between mothers and fathers allows mothers more opportunity to develop careers and financial independence.
Research demonstrates that shared parenting leads to higher rates of child support compliance and fewer rancorous court cases, thus reducing the need for state involvement. HB 4564 will help Michigan’s parents and children, as well as its overburdened court system.
This column first appeared in The Oakland Press (5/5/08).
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. Their website is www.acfc.org.
Glenn Sacks’ columns on men's and fathers' issues appeared regularly in U.S. newspapers. www.GlennSacks.com
"));
19 queries. 0.335 seconds.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
But of course.
NOW is against the bill because it represents equality. NOW is not about equality, the organization is about female supremacy.
The Michigan BAR is against it because this bill means less litigation, and therefore less income for them.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Imagine all the money used in Michigan alone for litigation in Family Court cases used for some better purpose (like clothing and food for their kids). How can the feminists be proud of what they have done? Three million people in court over custody. That's only one state. We all know why too. Maybe NOW we can get legislators to see the light?
May 6th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
It seems like a step in the right direction, but I can see it will be a tough battle with the hardcore feminist groups of NOW and michigan state bars family division against it. It would take some of the power away from day and be a truly equation and step towards equality, a word the radical feminist do not believe in.
I am optomistic about this but will not bet the farm, even if it passes I still see too many loopholes left to the interpretation of the family court judges, and their political life will not let this happen.
My 2 cents.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
The courts being involved in the lives of 3 million out of 10 million people.
That is nauseating.
How dare any government ever do this to its citizens?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
My husband and I fostered our children for three years before they were available for adoption -- despite the fact that Michigan law dictates that a permanency plan must be initiated within ONE year of a child going into the system. "Best interest of the child," nonsense.
If the family court handles custody cases with as much prudence as it handles abuse/neglect cases, it's no wonder everything has ground to a screeching halt. People who abuse their children (or permit the abuse to continue months or years after becoming aware it has started) don't deserve a second chance.
I agree parents should share custody except where it can be demonstrated that one is not a fit parent. However, is it possible to have confidence that the same system that has such difficulty ascertaining the fitness of child abusers, have better judgment when the issues are less clear-cut? For example, in cases of domestic violence the money and free legal counsel follows the perp, not the victim. If the Michigan Shared Parenting Bill becomes law, it's going to be that much more difficulty to get these abusers out of their children's lives.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Yes, we need to get rid of the right to consul so that women can have an easier time getting the father out of the kids' lives when she decides she wants to be back on the market without fear of loss of child support.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Any parent -- regardless of gender -- who abuses a child should be out of that kid's life. The free legal counsel should be protecting the children, not the abuser. (And thinking like yours just underscores my point, thank you.)
May 7th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Less is more. This is a philosophy that is lost in our government. If our government would follow the constitution and give everyone there equal rights they would have 1/10th the problems they now have. By favoring females in almost all child custody cases they have opened up a Pandor's box, that they are now desperately trying to fix.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Off topic, but check this out...
In the supposedly gun-free UK an Oxford-educated divorce lawyer loses it and dies in gunfight with the police in one of the most expensive areas of London. Doubtless the details will filter out in the next week or two but, given that he was married, one has to wonder if he wasn't about to be or in the process of being hoist by his own petard.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1934456/Chelsea-gunman-%27was-ex-armed-services-divorce-lawyer%27.html
May 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
A shared parenting law is a good start, but like the civil rights movement, we will have to spend years getting those that lose out ( if you can call it that) under these new reforms to abide by them. The like the "crooked old system" where they are the winner and get paid and the other parent is treated like a slave. They will have to forced to make the change and that will take making a serious example out of aof them. Many women and many" government terrorist" will have to go to prison to get the point across.
Now even if we don't have what I call a " state of war" between the divorced parents, a shared parenting arrangement is still difficult to do. You have to remmember that these people involved the state in their business( well atleast one wanted to involve the state) and we now have to get the state who has never had to give anything up or to have to respect the parental rights of the father and then there is the father who is usually very angry and hurt because of the abuse and is also not in any mood to be acommodating. We would have to get to the point where the woman now realizes her little reign of control is over and she must behave herself. Many men will have to be rehabilitated as parents, many having never been allow to be a real parents and a few having only limited experience.
It will be a challenge and it may not always work as advertised. Some parents are not fit people and some parents will never get along, no matter how severe the consequence for not doing it. In some rare cases, one parent will not cooperate and will have to be put in or left in a subordinate role, simply because they won't get along and would harm the children.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
This is a nice step in the right direction. It is sickening, however, that fairness for fathers is coming NOT because the unfairness and misandry has been recognized, but primarily because the state simply can't AFFORD to continue being reflexively UNfair. Sheeesh!
May 7th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I would like to add that the primary impact of laws demanding truly equal parenting will not be on the situation after the parents split. With both parties knowing in advance that parenting rights/responsibilities will be equal, the big impact will be felt inside of the relationships -- and will make them more stable.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Jay R Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
This is a nice step in the right direction. It is sickening, however, that fairness for fathers is coming NOT because the unfairness and misandry has been recognized, but primarily because the state simply can't AFFORD to continue being reflexively UNfair. Sheeesh!
SS34: Aaaaah, but Jay R., please notice that we finally know at least ONE way to make change happen! We now know that if we can somehow make the biased Family Court un-affordable to the County, State, or Federal Government, they can and will change. The question left is how do we make this process un-affordable to the government without making it worse for the Dads? We should still fight for what is right, but let us use the correct weapons to do battle. Bringing a single Dad to a Family Court custody battle is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Glenn,
This link keeps coming up blank: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=2146
and I can't find the original article at Oakland Press's site:
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/
Am trying to get confirmation on this rather shocking statistic (3 million out of 10 million).
Please advise on a proper link or other source/s pathways to fact checking/confirmation if you can.
Thanks,
AP
May 12th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
AP--the newspaper published it but doesn't put a lot of their material on line. I fixed the link on our site.--GS
May 13th, 2008 at 11:34 am
MICHIGAN AND THEIR SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ARE THE WORST. THEY NEVER SEEM TO CARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT MONEY. THE POST DATE JUDGEMENTS AND NEVER WORRY A THING ABOUT A CHILDS BEST INTEREST. IT IS A REAL CRIME. THEY ARE TRYING FINALLY TO MOVE A STEP FORWARD. I HOPE THEY CONTINUE TO DO SO. THEIR FRIEND OF THE COURT OFFICES ARE A TOTAL MESS AND THEY NEVER CORRECT AMOUNTS OWED AND NEVER MAKE SURE PATERNITY IS PROVEN AND THAT A PARENT GETS VISTATION. SHARED PARENTING WILL HELP THIS MESS. PLEASE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD MICHIGAN. I HOPE THE BILL PASSES FOR ALL THE DADS WHO HAVE BEEN CUT OUT OF THIER CHILDS LIVES.