North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce

Thursday, July 20, 2006
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

A misguided collection of federal and state officials, divorce attorneys and women’s advocates have all united to oppose a simple proposition: children need both parents.

The North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative is based on the belief that all parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children, and that no fit parent can lawfully be denied custody of his or her children. Under the Initiative, when family law courts adjudicate a divorce, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a mother or father is unfit, all parents will have joint legal and physical custody of their children.

That more needs to be done to protect children’s relationships with their parents after divorce cannot be reasonably denied. In a study published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 40% of divorced mothers admitted that they had interfered with their ex-husband’s access or visitation, and that their motives were punitive in nature and not due to safety considerations. A study of adult children of divorce conducted by Glynnis Walker, author of Solomon’s Children: Exploding the Myths of Divorce, found that 42% of children who lived solely with their mothers reported that their mothers had tried to prevent them from seeing their fathers after the divorce.

Even feminist firebrand Martha Burk admits that our family law system “looks the other way when the father is denied time with the kids or the mother moves them far away, effectively ending contact.” And in the small minority of cases where fathers win sole custody over fit mothers, moms often find similar barriers placed between them and their children.

Under current North Dakota law, joint custody is rare unless both parents agree to it, and mothers seeking sole custody usually get it. The North Dakota Concerned Citizens for Children’s Rights Committee, which was formed specifically to fight the NDSPI, claims the status quo is what’s best for kids. Yet according to a meta-analysis of 33 studies of children of divorce published in the American Psychological Association‘s Journal of Family Psychology, children in shared custody settings have fewer behavior and emotional problems, higher self-esteem, better family relations, and better school performance than children in sole custody arrangements.

The CCCRC claims that the Initiative places the interests of parents over the interests of children. Yet when psychologist Joan Kelly examined children of divorce, she found that they “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. An Arizona State University study queried adult children of divorce, and found that more than two-thirds believed “living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.”

Government officials have publicly asserted that the NDSPI will cause the state to lose federal reimbursement funds for child support enforcement. However, former Federal Reserve Bank economist R. Mark Rogers, an influential policy analyst on child support, asserts that these claims are groundless.

Former lieutenant governor Lloyd Omdahl opposes the NDSPI and Shared Parenting because, he claims, “children fare better under the care of a mother than a father.” Yet according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ new report Child Maltreatment 2004, when one parent is acting without the involvement of the other parent, mothers are almost three times as likely to kill their children as fathers are, and are more than twice as likely to maltreat them.

Omdahl also claims that “in the majority of divorces, it’s the men who want to get out of the marriage.” Yet a study by economists Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that most divorce petitions are filed by women, and that they do so in part because they know they can expect to obtain sole custody of their children. In only 6% of cases women claimed to be divorcing cruel or abusive husbands.

Under the NDSPI, courts will instruct divorcing parents to develop a joint parenting plan. If the parents cannot agree on a plan, the court will facilitate one which will protect and nurture the loving bonds children share with both parents. Does a child deserve anything less?

This article first appeared in the Grand Forks Herald (7/18/06).

Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization. Their website is www.acfc.org.

Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of America’s largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

| More from Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

Stumble It!

Share/Save/Bookmark

How to survive the coming food shortage.

6 Responses to “North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce”

  1. 1
    right2parent Says:

    What’s missing in the equation is the fact that fathers have custody by right because they are the head of their household. This places the burden on the mother or on the state to show he is unfit to continue to enjoy this inalienable right to guardianship. Of course the feminist will support shared custody, because it releives them of the burden of proving fault on the part of the father. Given the misapplication of laws regulating the placement of state wards, Justice Ginsburg admits there is no longer a need for an equal rights amendment. With equal rights to custody comes the guaranteed continued distruction of the family. Reducing the ease and thereby the frequency of divorce does not strengthen the family, it facilitates it. Before someone makes the claim the common law concerning natural guardianship rights have been replaced by laws regulating the placement of state wards, I would challenge you to dig up the law and show me.

  2. 2
    snootfish Says:

    right2parent:

    The notion that the father is the head of the family is in the bible. I am no bible scholar but I know that. I also know that it is a politically unacceptable concept right now. I think it evident that families were more solid when fathers were in fact the head of the family. Now, they aren’t and very few families are intact (even if some “nuclear” families are intact most families will have a divorce somewhere in the extended family). It has been a disaster. I think it would be good if the father could be returned to the position of head of the family but it is so politically inviable that equal rights is about all that can be hoped for now. Even that is probably not particularly likely. Very sad.

  3. 3
    roger Says:

    “The notion that the father is the head of the family is in the bible. I am no bible scholar but I know that. ”

    this is why the liberals, and feminists in general are walking away from the bible, church, and the values it encourages…because its part of the “great patriarchy”….

    What are people left with after they walk away?
    The ability to freely improvise their own concept of moral behavior…and we see it in the jails and divorces rates seen today.

  4. 4
    conservativation Says:

    right2parent, could you please explain what you are saying?

  5. 5
    Billy Jackson Says:

    The problem is greed.Look if a woman is working instead of being a housewife.shes paying taxes.Then instead of a family only needing one household.It needs 2,1 for mon.And kids.And 1 for dad if he can aford one.Than they get to pretty much take about 80% of dads grose income.suport,alimony,Taxes.sales tax.legal fees.ect.And lets not forget the taxes on utilities,and all.Then the states get kick backs from the federal government,and i me sure the judges do to.Thats why they wont give us nothing but the shaft.If we are going to change anything.We will have to revolt.And just tell theise judges to stck it.We need to get ridd of our government and start over.We have no constitution,the media will not cover anything that will not further the femenists agenda.If we want our children we have to take them back.I am for EQUAL PARENTAL RIGHTS,FOR MOM AND DAD AND THE RIGHT OF LITTLE ANN AND ANDIE TO LIVE WITH BOTH PARENTS.Know if mom knew she wouldt get automatic custady of the kids,She would more than likelly stay with dad.But uncle sam dosnt want that he wants every dime he can digg out of the working,class.And he likes to control.dad and subsadise mom.Its as if dad is allways rong.

  6. 6
    Billy Jackson Says:

    And there are other reasons we will not get anywhare.For 1 we are broke.Whe MEN was head of the house hold.Mom took dads money and payed the bills well she could tuck back a little.And donate it to her cause.But the way they have things set up they I mean mom and uncle sam want to keep you broke.So you cant lobbie,or get laywers.To fight OUR cause.

Leave a Reply

International Mens Day and Fathers Day in Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden

Search MND

Introducing MRm: A New Men's Rights Magazine in PDF format

Download PDF Here

Support Our Sponsors!

Please support MND

Subscribe today:

SUSTAINER: $5/mo.


CONTRIBUTOR: $20/mo.


SUPPORTER: $50/mo.


Or Donate Any Amount

Archives

privacy policy | terms of service


Site Meter

MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache!