Shared parenting should be law
What is an extremist? Random House defines it as “a tendency or disposition to go to extremes or an instance of going to extremes, esp. in political matters.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines extremism as “One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.” Reasonable people might disagree where “extremism” begins and a bona fide “minority view” may end. However, no reasonable person would consider the advocacy of a point of political view shared by only 13 percent of the population as somehow beyond the appellation “extremist.”
In 2004, a public policy question was put to Massachusetts voters regarding shared parenting. Shared parenting is a rebuttable presumption that parents should have joint physical and legal custody of children, which may be rebutted by evidence that one parent is unfit (i.e., he or she is drug dependent, violent, absent, abusive, neglectful, etc.) or that it is not workable through no fault of one of the parents. Support of such a policy is a no-brainer, and meta-analysis (studies of the studies) of all the credible psychological studies show that such an arraignment is best suited for post-separation children.
The public policy question was put on about 25 percent of all districts and garnered 87 percent public support. Because the number of districts was so high, its accuracy as a barometer of public sentiment is beyond all reasonable dispute. Public policy questions are unusual gauges of public sentiment not only because the sampling body is much larger than even the most scientifically conducted polls, but unlike most polling, the questions are put in newspapers and voters have a chance to ponder the issue well before they actually cast their vote. So we have an issue that not only enjoys the support of the vast majority of the psychological community, but 87 percent of the Massachusetts public. Given such, a careful and considered use of the term “extremist” could and should be used to describe those that oppose shared parenting legislation. Use of the term is not only justified, but the failure to use such a term would be an act of distortion, suggesting that there is a respectable and reasonable opposition.
Recently, a shared parenting bill, House Bill 1460, with 44 legislative sponsors has been put into “study” by the joint judiciary committee. In plain terms, the two-year legislative cycle has come to an end, the shared parenting bill will not be put to the floor for a vote, and it has died in committee. This makes two legislative cycles after the landmark 2004 public policy question, where shared parenting did not become the law in Massachusetts. Gov. Deval Patrick has publically indicated his support for shared parenting, yet that has not prevented shared parenting legislation from twice dying.
Given such overwhelming support by the Massachusetts voting public and the psychological community, why hasn’t shared parenting been passed into law?
Shared parenting is not currently law due to ideological extremist in the Democratic Party; it is a radical element that call themselves “feminist” but know nothing of the meaning of the term. Instead of embracing gender equality, these “feminists” oppose it in our family courts and embrace outdated stereotypes of women as homemakers and men as breadwinners. They are not above lying. They have repeatedly claimed that shared parenting would end case-by-case determinations, or make the results of custody disputes “automatic” though this can simply be disabused by reading the plain words of the proposed statute.
Finally, there are the trial lawyers. They profit immensely from the current legal regime and bitterly contested divorces. Lawyers would suffer major financial losses because of a tremendous decrease in litigation if shared parenting ever became the law. The failure of shared parenting legislation is a classic case of control by the special interest and the extremist of a political party triumphing over overwhelming popular support and the vast majority of the relevant scientific community.
This past Sunday [June 7, 2008], at the Democratic Party’s convention in Lowell, I tried to introduce a resolution virtually identical to that which was voted on by Massachusetts voters and so overwhelmingly supported by Massachusetts voters. Though there seemed to be more support than opposition (it was a voice vote), it was not allowed to come to the floor, though it had the required 50 signatures. “Together we can,” or “Change you can believe in” make great campaign slogans. But at the end of the day, it takes office holders who are not in the grips of the special interest and partisan extremist to make change possible. In the mean time, children are being hurt.
This article was first published in the The Lowell Sun on Saturday, June 14, 2008.
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, is a practicing family law attorney and spokesman of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition.
About Rinaldo Del Gallo Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. is the spokesperson of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition, whose website is BerkshireFatherhood.com. He has been practicing family law attorney and has been a member of the Massachusetts bar since 1996. Mr. Del Gallo has handled a wide variety of family law cases including issues of child custody, child visitation, child support, restraining orders, grandparent visitation, contempt of family court, access to academic records, guardianship, allegations of abuse, criminal allegations related to domestic violence, disputes over the care of a child, and care and protection proceedings before the Department of Social Services. For years, he has hosted bi-monthly free legal seminars for people of any gender having problems in family court. On behalf of non-custodial parents, he has had made numerous media appearances in printed news, radio, and television. He has authored numerous family law related articles and columns. He has performed extensive bro bono work for fathers. Attorney Del Gallo also has extensive experience as a civil rights attorney, working in the areas of free speech rights and ballot access. Mr. Del Gallo is also an intellectual property attorney and a patent lawyer, and has written what is regarded as one of the most famous law reviews in the area of patent law, “Are Methods of Doing Business Finally Out of Business As A Statutory Exception?,†that helped end the so-called “business method exception,†which paved the way for an entire field of software and Internet related patents. Attorney Del Gallo graduated from Northeastern University (Boston) with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, and graduated from George Washington University (Washington) in the top of his three-year class. | More from Rinaldo Del Gallo, III
Stumble It!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am
More correctly, joint physical/legal custody and shared parenting, they go together, will not become the law, until men learn the law, cut off the money and force corrupt government servants and women to abide by it!
Once the money is gone, the states interest is gone Women,once the states interference is removed, will start to act better, because by this time we will have passed civil rights legislation to force states, ie by federal intervention, to respect any “shared parenting law”. The women will no longer have the upperhand, they will either abide by the new laws and respect the mans right to be a parent or the corrupt states will have to put them in jail.
However, even when shared parenting is the law and is being enforced, this will not magically solve all the
issues. Women will have to go from being arrongant and high handed, down to being respectful and obedient for a a change. Men will have to go up, going from a visitor and financial support to having a real role as a function, hands on parent.
Some women and some corrupt government thugs will have to go to jail to be made an example of, to scare the other reluctant participants into following the law. They are not going to do it voluntarily, they will have to be made to.
Men on the other hand will have to be rehabilitated as parents in a lot of the cases. Many have never had the right and privelidge of being a real parent and many will find it quite shocking just what a functioning hands on parental role actually entails. How much work it will be and how challenging it will be. Most, will relish this” new right” and be readily up to the task.
Even with a new law, it take years of enforcing it and getting men into shape to handle the new role
It won’t be without problems, but just like the racial civil rights movement, it will be worth it. Because when it come to human dignity, it is worth whatever the cost.
June 25th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Good work, Rinaldo. Keep the focus on shared parenting.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Right Rinaldo, the Feminists and the Lawyers are a huge blocker to reason and sense. But the required ‘laws’ discussed are still too wishy-washy. Two very clear and necessary laws need passing.
1. All children must be DNA tested at birth and the parents informed of the result. All other parents must have unimpeded right to a DNA test on all their children born prior to such a new law. It is axiomatic that when talking of children and parents, it must be established which person is parent to which child.
2. Both parents must be held totally, absolutely, wholly, jointly and severally responsible and accountable for the financial, emotional, educational, health, wellbeing and safety of their children. No ifs, no buts. Either may call for a mediator in the event of separation or divorce, without abnegation of their responsibilities and accountabilities; and call upon Courts to enforce those responsibilities and accountabilities.
There ought, under these laws, be no need for any Government intervention or ‘child support’ role.
The application of both Laws may need to recognise ‘odd events and special situations’, and protocols developed, but without reduction of obligation of the parents. Also a parent may have a Court approved transfer of responsibilities and accountabilities by mutual agreement to allow for, for instance, adoption or the involvement of a third party (infidelity).
It may be a sop to the lawyers that they may make a fine business in suits against adulterers.
The current ‘unfit’ issue is far too wooly. Unfit or not – and we can all point fingers or declare criteria, some of which might impact on three quarters of the population – the parents must be held accountable for their resonsibilities.
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 am
Good Going renaldo Men derseve rights.