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.
