Michigan Shared Parenting Activists Ask for Your Help
May 19th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families[Late note: Vote for shared parenting in the Detroit News' reader poll by clicking here. The News asks readers the question "Should kids' time be divided equally between separated parents?"]
Michigan shared parenting groups have been fighting to pass HB 4564, a shared parenting bill, and have gained considerable support in the process. The bill was heard in the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on May 7 in a testimony-only hearing, and Jim Semerad of Dads and Moms of Michigan, an affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, told me this morning that he would like your assistance in getting the Committee to bring the bill to a vote. He asks that my readers, including readers who do not reside in Michigan, do the following:
1) Call Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Paul Condino (517) 373-1788 and Michigan Rep. Glenn Steil Jr. (517) 373-0147 and tell them you support HB 4564.
2) Write Condino and Steil a 250-400 word letter explaining why not having shared parenting has negatively impacted your children. To email Condino and Steil, click here.
Please be polite, leave rhetoric and name-calling out of it, and stick to the negative impact that the win/lose custody system has had upon your children. Semerad says that letters from children of divorce explaining how shared parenting would have helped them during their childhoods are particularly important, as are letters from noncustodial mothers, stepmothers, and grandmothers.
Again, to email Condino and Steil, click here. Feel free to post the letters you send as comments in this blog post.
Michigan shared parenting activists got a nice media write-up today with a front page article in the Detroit News about shared parenting and HB 4564. The article discusses the pros and cons of HB 4564 and also discusses Michigan shared parenting activist Robert Petersen's annual shared parenting bike trip from Michigan to Washington DC. The article is Kim Kozlowski's Michigan father fights for joint custody law: Parents' equal access to children called a civil rights issue; critics say policy may hurt kids (Detroit News, 5/18/08). Kozlowski writes:
"...child custody is perhaps the most heated issue between parents when they split up and try to restructure their lives with their children.
"Michigan hasn't kept reports on custody arrangements for several years, but the latest information, in 2003, shows that the Friend of the Court recommended physical custody of the children for mothers in 68 percent of the 14,470 cases that year, while fathers were recommended 12 percent of the time. Joint custody was recommended in 2,717 cases -- about 18 percent...
"Since the 1990s, Michigan fathers have been trying to get the laws changed to force the courts to immediately presume equal joint custody.
"A hearing was recently held on the fourth bill introduced in the Michigan Legislature, but it was not voted out of the House Judiciary Committee. It includes an exception for unfit parents...
"Michigan dads say their effort is growing -- four new state organizations support the issue, and their ranks have grown from 5,000 to 20,000 people, said Lake Orion resident Jim Semerad, one of the leaders in Michigan's movement.
"The growth appears to be eclipsing grass-roots groups headed by custodial mothers."
The full article can be seen here. To learn more about the shared parenting bill, also see my recent co-authored column, Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan’s Kids, Overburdened Court System (Oakland Press, 5/5/08)
Again, Michigan shared parenting activists ask that you call and write Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Paul Condino (517) 373-1788 and Michigan Rep. Glenn Steil Jr. (517) 373-0147 and tell them you support the shared parenting bill. Condino's and Steil's phone #s, fax #s, and email addresses are below. To email Condino and Steil, click here.
Rep. Paul Condino
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Phone: (517) 373-1788
Fax: (517) 373-5880
Toll-Free
(866) 864-PAUL
(866) 864-7285
Email: paulcondino@house.mi.gov
Rep. Glenn Steil Jr.
District 72
Phone: 517-373-0147
GlennSteil@house.mi.gov
"));
19 queries. 0.364 seconds.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Illinois has a shared parenting legislation too - automatically the father gets four days per month (visitation) and the mom gets 26 days per month (legal and physical custody).
What's different about this proposed legislation?
May 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Kim Kozlowski's article is tainted with a subtle anti-father bias, I am sorry to say. The only people supporting fathers here are non-custodial parents. Others, whose interests are painted as allied with CHILDREN, are quoted as opposing the effort AND they make sure to go out of their way to malign the fathers' motives: non-custodial parents couldn't possibly want joint custody because of the kids' interests, they just want it to reduce support payments or to get back at the mother. The mothers, of course, are too busy raising the children to lobby lawmakers concerning such selfish proposed lesislation.
Fathers are selfish. Mothers are angelic. And Kim Kozlowski ought to be ashamed of herself.
I wish to hell some of these women who oppose this movement would understand that every serious study proves the importance of the father in the kid's life. They don't even bother discussing irrefutable facts, such as the following:
"Since 1960, the number of American children without fathers in their lives has quadrupled, from 6 million to more than 24 million. Children without fathers in their lives are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."
That quote is not from some radical men's rights activist. It's from Barack Obama's official Web site: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/#support-families
May 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
>Carl Bustamante Says:
>Illinois has a shared parenting legislation too - automatically the father gets four days per month (visitation) and >the.mom gets 26 days per month (legal and physical custody).
>What's different about this proposed legislation?
This is why we never get anything done. The minute something postive happens the naysayers come out. The absurd belief that we are going to change everything with one single law being passed is beyond nuts. People wake up it is NOT repeat NOT going to happen overnight. It is with small steps such as this bill that we move forward.
I can tell you I spend literally HUNDREDS of hours lobbying in NYS a few years back for shared parenting and we made some (admittedly small) progress. That being said I got so sick and tired of all the naysayers asking me whats different about the proposed legistlation that I just quit. And I will NOT being going back. Most of the complaints about what we were doing were from people who had never set foot in the Capital, never once written or called a legislator, never once written a letter to the editor. In the end since so many told me I had no clue what I was doing blah blah blah I figured why bother. My kids are almost grown let THEM deal with it since they no better what to do than I.
I can tell you from personal conversations that lawmakers themselves will tell you we are our own worst enemy and I have heard people from NOW just laugh at us because as they said - give them enough rope they will hang themselves (and we ALWAYS do)
Sorry but the problem we face as fathers rights advocates is there are too many Carls ( no personal offense here Carl) who just want to naysay everything that is being done. Instead of banding together with these fine folk in Michigan we start knocking them because it is a "perfect" piece of legislation. Then we blame the feminists for the bill getting stopped. Nope they aren't the problem WE ARE!!!! So if you haven't - pick up the phone, sent a fax, sent an email or DONE SOMETHING for god sakes to support this bill If you don't then you have no right to complain about this legislation or you own situation.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I think Carl was asking a question.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I just finnished leaving messages to both rep's.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILL 4564 AS INTRODUCED 4-5-07
"The bill would amend The Child Custody Act so that in cases of custody disputes between parents, the court would have to order joint custody unless either of the following applied:
** The court determines by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for the child.
** A parent moves his or her residence outside the school district the child has attended during the previous one-year period before the initiation of the action and is unable to maintain the child's school schedule without interruption.
School Schedule Exception. Under the bill, if the parent is unable to maintain the child's school schedule, the court would order the parents to submit to mediation to determine a custody agreement that maximizes both parents' ability to participate equally in a relationship with their child while accommodating the child's school schedule. A parent could restore joint custody by demonstrating the ability to maintain the child's school schedule.
Definition of "joint custody". The bill would modify the definition of joint custody to mean an order of the court specifying (1) that the child resides alternately for specific and substantially equal periods of time with each parent, and (2) the parents share decisionmaking authority as to all of the important decisions affecting the welfare of the child including, but not limited to, the child's education, religious training, and medical treatment. (Proposed amendments to the definition are underlined.)"
May 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
What is different about the Michigan legislation is two fold:
1. It raises the evidentiary standard against frivolous arguments... you know ... the ones where people say things like "I took him to the dentist more."
2. It MANDATES that unless there is something critically wrong and can be proven with the higher evidentiary standard then both parents get substantially equal time with the children.
This legislation will spill into other states if we get it passed in Michigan. I have dedicated my life to seeing family court reformed. I host and produce Get Off The Bench at www.getyourjusticelive.com, I rebut government propaganda, and actively promote and participate in nearly every event that brings us closer to removing government where government doesn't belong.
I hope Glenn, that you also promote the article that appeared on the Front Page of the Detroit News Paper, which has drawn advocates out of the word work to comment on the legislation. Stephen Baskerville says it best when it is the media that the legislators that we need to consistently be working on. For those of you that want to read the article or participate in the polling of readers, you can visit http://www.familycourtreports.com/serendipity and follow the links right from the page to both the article and the poll. They are equally important and we have to keep up with opposition to equal parenting.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Lary Holland Says "I hope Glenn, that you also promote the article that appeared on the Front Page of the Detroit News Paper."
Well, I linked to it in the blog post twice and quoted 6 paragraphs from it.--GS
May 19th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I am thankful for the blog write-up, and enjoyed the piece in the Oakland Press as well earlier this month. If we can tie in effective action alerts when the heat is turned up, we can convert readership into action. A sort of conversion ratio of advocacy.
Equal parenting should be the norm and not the exception.
Lary Holland
May 19th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I agree with Tim. I think that this article is disgustingly biased. It takes advantage of common sentiment to imply that men want to "win" and only want money. It is very insulting to the millions of caring fathers out there.
"Other opponents say noncustodial parents sometimes want joint custody simply
to even the score with their ex-partner or to reduce their child support
obligation. A noncustodial parent's support payments can drop by as much as
40 percent if the child stays overnight 128 times or more each year."
I do not understand why people do not realize that this argument works the other way just as well. Custodial parents may (and often do) also want to get even or get "revenge." In fact, my understanding is that most child abductions are by custodial parents. And why are non-custodial parents the only ones who care about money? Taking money away from one party directly involves giving it to the other. So they should also point out that, "A custodial parent's support income can increase by as much as 40 percent if they prevent the child from staying overnight with the non-custodial parent more than 128 times each year."
"ACES executive director Debbie Klein is not concerned about Michigan fathers'
activism.
They have always had more time and money to lobby lawmakers, while mothers
tend to devote their time to raising the children, she said."
As Tim points out, this statement is extremely insulting to men. I know loads of men who are very devoted to spending time with their children. We need to reshape society into one where these insults are NOT considered acceptable!!
May 19th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Betsy said it better than I could. I'd rather the story not be told at all rather than have it told with an undercurrent of unfair stereotypes -- the chief stereotype it buys into is that men are not "real" parents, and the only reason they pretend to be "real" parents is for selfish motivations that are not in the interest of children.
That article may have pleased the faithful but trust me -- to an unbiased reader, it actually hurts the cause. We need to be a hell of a lot more forceful, a hell of a lot smarter, in combating these hurtful stereotypes, guys. AND we should not be holding THAT sort of tripe out as somehow helpful to the cause of shared parenting.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
What Betsy and Tim fail to mention is that the adverse position can be said about the opposition just as easily. Instead of positioning the statement directly to the newspaper is problematic, because instead of action, we have more debate. This plagues the various family, father, and children's rights organizations that are fighting for their own identity. For God's sake have a back bone and establish that single-parents are fighting to keep their status because of the following steep financial rewards:
1. Tax Credits.
2. Child Support Credits.
3. Welfare Benefits.
See how easily it is done. You have to have these stories to instigate public debate. But when the public turns away and does not position themselves properly against alleged opposition, they win by default.
I applaud the article for it gives a starting point for public debate. Opens up Letters to the Editor, OP-ED pieces, and more.
Lary Holland
Host and Producer "Get Off The Bench"
getyourjusticelive.com
May 19th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Sorry, Lary, you are wrong. If I were a dispassionate observer, the article would lead me to conclude that the fathers at issue are selfish and are not motivated by the best interests of their children; the article would lead me to conclude that only the mothers have the childtren's best interest at heart; and the article would lead me to conclude that the mothers and the children are being victimized by the selfish whims of fathers seeking to skirt their legal obligations and, worse, to exact vengeance on their ex-wives.
Wishing the article were written in an even-handed manner, and wishing the article promoted healthy debate can't make it so. The clear, palpable and indisputable intent of the article was to show that fathers are seeking to change the law in a manner that is not in the best interest of children, and by any objective, fair-minded point of view, it succeeded. I am surprised that you fail to recognize that.
The overriding slant of features stories such as this in every newspaper across America is gynocentric, as everyone who writes for a newspaper knows, because features editors understand that most men don't read articles about family or health. Men read sports and news.
In any event, I fervently wish I could see merit in your position, but sadly there is none.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Rep. Glenn Steil does an excellent job in this youtube segment explaining in simple speak why he is putting forth this bill:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3-fKq_I4JM
At the same time, if one looks at the bio of State Senator Condino, is is readily noticed that he is an attorney, formerly of "Money and Condino", which is would appear is or was engaged in the practice of conducting divorces in Michigan family courts. See this listing:
http://www.hotfrog.com/Companies/Mooney-Condino-PC
Mr. Condino is also, apparently, a member of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.
One would hope that Mr. Condino understands that his duty to the citizens of Michigan is much higher than his duty to fellow divorce lawyers and members of the Trial bar.
If this bill doesn't make it through all entities where Mr. Condino is able to help/hurt it, then I would suggest that he might be a good candidate for a well financed legislator take-out campaign modeled along the lines of the take-out of former U.S. Senator Chuck Percy.
Perhaps the prospect of having to go back to making his money on divorces might give Mr. Condino pause. Enough pause that he faithfully represents the people of Michigan rather than giving in to the dark demands of those who prey on families in Michigan's courts.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Correction, that is "Rep." Condino, not "Senator" Condino.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Tim, you have taken a position that does not address the points that I am raising. My initial point is one of inactivity that you unfortunately are succumbing. My second point is that it is easy to take and turn an issue around that you disagree with back onto the source. For example those of us that have engaged in public debate knows that if your opposition already has established a supposed moral high ground, you need to either find a higher moral footing or undermine the oppositions intentions. Don't whine to the teammates, unless there is ample general consumption. You can't do either of these without going to the source or otherwise publishing counter-propaganda to the same block of people. You will find few of the indoctrinated here at this blog unlike the original source document.
Take your supposed points and instead of bashing another article, create a new article or work product that is original and get it published that is limited to your point of view. Debating who is right in these comment blocks are of limited effect, it is like preaching to the choir. You have succumbed to inaction, which unfortunately plagues most of the [insert name here] rights movements.
I look forward to seeing that stellar piece of writing in a publication and to know that you are signing up as a quotable personality in your own jurisdiction. Organize and accomplish, debate amongst yourselves and deflate.
Lary Holland
Host and Producer "Get Off The Bench"
getyourjusticelive.com
May 20th, 2008 at 11:19 am
"If this bill doesn't make it through all entities where Mr. Condino is able to help/hurt it, then I would suggest that he might be a good candidate for a well financed legislator take-out campaign"
This is easy. Representative Condino is term limited and can not run for re-election this year. It is best to attack his candidate replacements in public debate that goes on the record. The most vulnerable time.
Targeting primary contenders is best. They get a lot of press and you can inject your issue into the debate more easily.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Lary, you're right about one thing. Preaching to the choir doesn't help matters. But dissenting from the choir (as I've done on this thread) is worse since it leads to unfounded personal accusations.
My point is still that the article doesn't cut it, and you've transmogrified that opinion into my "inaction." The gaps, or more accurately, the chasms in this logic are self-evident.
If I want to be ridiculed for expressing an opinion, I'll go to a feminist blog.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Dissenting opinions are great, when they are directed to the appropriate source and the same prior indoctrinated group that the original source appeals to. If anything, dissenting at a feminist blog is probably more productive than dissension/discord inside an initial core group of general support. It is best to be alienated by the opposition, instead of exposing technicalities inside the support. Hopefully you get that new article out to general readership. I am looking forward to seeing it.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Thank you for the sarcasm, Lary. And the lecture.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Just for the record, I'm not trying to say that we would be better off if this article had not appeared. I'm just trying to point out that it the "dissenting view" is described in a way that is quite biased. Overall, I would have to subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as bad press --- these issues definitely need more attention. However, to REALLY make an impact we will have to continually point out some of the extremely negative and unfair stereotypes.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I am very interested to see where this legislation will lead. My husband is one of the few men who has physical custody (70%) of his children. In all honesty, the only reason this is the case is because his ex-wife walked away. If this had been a situation where "all things being equal", he would only see his sons every other weekend and Wednesdays.
Despite that our life has been tough, both my husband and I would have supported equal custody given the right geographical circumstances. If his ex-wife could have committed to living in this state, it would have been ideal for my stepsons to have equal access to both parents.
That being said, I can also see why this legislation is scary. The burden of proof is already pretty high in emotionally abusive situations. PAS is very difficult to prove. While it should be presumed that both parents are equally fit, how does a parent protect their child from PAS with such a high threshold of proof?
As a Michigan resident (and not a huge fan of Friend of the Court), I would like to read more about this.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
My letter to legislators in Michigan.
I am a Pennsylvania resident, a grandmother of 2 little boys who are missing their daddy terribly. The mother abandoned the family home while the father was at work taking the children and all the household goods with a moving truck and moved in with her boyfriend. She is now in the late stages of pregnancy with the boyfriends baby and she is still legally married to my son. My son under court order is paying her medical insurance.
The kids are living in a stressful home, the boyfriend is hitting the kids. The older boy was hurt and my son has called on protection services to intervene. The wife is in serious contempt of the custody agreement and was taken to court yet the judge said he would not punish her, he wants the parents to “get along”. This is insane. The judge nullified the agreement which was court approved and empowered the wife to continue her bad behavior. Activist judges do more harm. She is now in violation of a court order to participate in co parent counseling, and my son will be taking her back to court but unfortunately will have the same judge.
Meanwhile he only has his kids 4 days a month and he wants more custody time and the boys want more time with daddy. He will have to fight for it in court and spend thousands of dollars which he does not have. I pay his legal bills out of my small IRA.
If Michigan passed this bill it would be the stepping stone for other states. Children need their fathers. Society says so, child specialists say so, education specialists say so, and yet those fathers who desperately want their children cannot have them because legislators don’t say so. If children come first, then make it real, be the state that stands up for children and loving fathers. My son is not a dead beat dad, he pays 65 % of his income to support his children and he still buys them clothes and pays lots of their expenses on top of support. He lives with me rent free so he can do this. He cannot sleep at night with the worry over them. They do not want to go back when they are with him, they cling to him and cry. My son is a beat dead dad as are fathers in Michigan. Please help them. Susan Gibbons
November 9th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
No they have not passed the bill this session demonstrating that again the organizations are too fragmented and the entrenched are too organized. There is a need for organizations to properly rally their "membership" to accomplish simple tasks and engage in meaningful activism. Too few are doing too much and too many are not doing enough in the legislative front of things.