Policy consultant Michael Robinson of the California Alliance for Families and Children reports that AB 164, a bill which would have denied thousands of California noncustodial parents the right to receive their children's school records, has been pulled off the floor of the California Assembly.

The bill, which passed the Assembly Judiciary committee by a 9-1 vote in April, was recently amended so that any parent who does not have joint physical or joint legal custody of his or her children would be denied access to the children's school records, unless he or she is able to obtain a court order specifically allowing them to have these records.

Even worse, the change would be retroactive, stripping tens of thousands of divorced or separated noncustodial parents of a right they currently have.

The bill would also have prevented many deployed military parents from monitoring their children's academic lives. According to Robinson:

"Deployed military parents often cede sole custody to the civilian spouse so that the civilian spouse has the ability to make decisions affecting their children in a timely manner. AB 164 would've cut them off at the knees."

Robinson successfully lobbied legislators and helped organize opposition to the bill. As I've noted on many occasions over the past several years, Robinson and the CAFC are doing excellent work in Sacramento to protect the bonds between children and their noncustodial parents. To donate to the CAFC, click here.

As has often happened in California in recent years, the Family Law Section of the State Bar (Flexcom) came out in defense of noncustodial parents' rights, and opposed AB 164. In its opposition, Flexcom wrote:

"There are many good parents, who for a myriad of reasons, do not have legal custody in existing orders."

The summary of Flexcom's opposition as reported in the bill analysis is reprinted in part below:

"In particular, Flexcom points out that the vast majority of child custody cases - perhaps as high as 80% to 85% -- are litigated without aid of counsel. Many parents who represent themselves may not fully understand the legal distinctions between physical and legal custody, and they may agree to grant the other parent sole legal custody in exchange for visitation rights without fully understanding what they are giving up. In addition, Flexcom points to situations in which one parent may live in another part of the country and give uplegal custody thinking that, because they are not nearby, they will relinquish legal custody to the parent remaining in California. Though the parent may have been ill-advised in giving up such an important right or may not have had counsel at all, Flexcom points out that this does not mean that they are somehow a 'bad' parent who should be denied access to a child's record. That parent still has a right to keep himself or herself informed about the child's medical and educational records.

"Flexcom also believes that a parent should not be denied access to records merely because he or she does not have physical custody or legal custody, unless there is an order from a court of competent jurisdiction denying access to the parent without custody. In short, Flexcom draws our attention to an important distinction between a parent that has been denied legal custody and one who imprudently relinquished it in the context of an often emotionally draining marital separation or dissolution.

"Flexcom also opposes the bill because it could 're-open cases that have already been litigated since it appears to apply retroactively - so that there would need to be specifying orders for all existing custody orders.'"

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 16th, 2007 at 9:18 pm and is filed under Family Law, Fatherhood, Fathers' Rights/Noncustodial parents' rights, Divorce/Separation/Child Custody, Education, Bills/Initiatives, Elections, Politics, Court Cases, Family Court Reform Movement. You can trackback from your own site.