Back From The Dead (Sort Of) And More News To Make You Mostly Nauseous

Hello, Hello - It's Been Too Long....

What can I say? I know I mentioned back in April of 2006 that I had taken a new job which I anticipated would severely limit my blogging opportunities. What even I did not realize then was how much this position would take away from my "blogging time."

Those who have spent much time with me (And you are out there ~ I've been getting your emails!) may have noticed that 95% of my posts were made during what is generally work hours on weekdays. Every once in a great while I would blog from home because I simply had to say something right away - but for the most part I allowed my company to pay me to blog.

This is not to say they minded, as they did not. Nor is it to say that it took away from the quality of my work, as it certainly did not. But that I took advantage of the free time I had during my workday and spent my nights and weekends enjoying my wonderful little family and not allowing myself to be consumed with this horrible reality 24 hours a day.

Where I was generally on the road for around a month a week at my last job - now, I am lucky to be home for a whole week at a time. Where my last position seemed to go from manic to dead and average about the same time period of each - this job never seems to dip below steady rush. Where I used to make catty comments about people who had a cell phone permanently attached to their ear - I recently sucked it up and bought the blue tooth headset thing as I swear I was starting to suffer from wrist fatigue. Where I used to scoff at airline mileage programs as I did not fly nearly enough to warrant understanding all the fine print - I just flew my sister to and from Hawaii for a wedding on miles alone.

This job has certainly changed a lot about my life.

And the point of all of this... It has turned me into a lousy blogger. More, it has made me the kind of blogger I hate - those who post on what appears to be a quarterly basis for what can be assumed no other point but to amuse the four friends who may check in or in the desperate hope to continue to accumulate a few cents from adsense.

I assure you I am neither - but you certainly couldn't tell from my abysmal posting of late.

My job slowly ramped up that by the end of the holidays I was functioning at full speed (or more so) and it seems if I am not in a meeting, or on a plane, in court, or driving (always, of course, on my cell phone), at soccer, baseball, basketball, football, class parties, feeding the gaggle of children my step son has brought home, or trying to have a meaningful conversation with my husband, I am crumpled into a small ball on the couch of the hotel of the day or preferably in my living room. Blogging has fallen precipitously on the list of priorities. If it makes you feel any better, I had to quit my book club outright.

And yet, when I (extremely infrequently) find time to check my personal email, I see new subscribers to the blog signing up almost daily and lots of email from readers checking in to see if I am still kicking around somewhere. Thank you all for your kind notes ~ I truly appreciate your thoughts.

I feel desperately uninformed lately. I have no idea if all the links on the site are still active and I could not provide any idea as to the state of my fellow bloggers. I have received suggestions for reciprocal links that I have ignored, requests for help or information that I have been unable to answer, and reader questions that continue to sit in my inbox (I suppose with the idea that someday soon I will sit down and answer them all in some great flourish).

And as I sit here on my first Friday evening home in three weeks - I mostly feel anxious to wrap this up.

But I owe you better than that - and I glanced at the most recent newsletter from Glenn Sacks which contained some (surprise, surprise) horrific examples of legal inequities and feminist nonsense that I feel compelled to pass on.

But first, let me be clear that I don't anticipate (unless I get fired) my postings to get any more frequent. And the little I have posted lately has for the most part been a regurgitation of information that can easily be found in readily available sources. I can't recall that last post I made in which I included a reasoned argument of my own. And while I will leave the blog up because I feel it continues to serve as a good resource - my contributions will be minimal and likely detached from the movement as a whole.

So... that being said, if there are any readers out there who feel as though they could "pick up the torch" so to speak and would like be able to post on the blog, please just shoot me an email (which I probably will not look at for several weeks - but be patient, eventually I will). You can find my email address under the links session on the main page. I have little criteria except for a belief that joint custody (legal and physical) should be the default and custody arrangements outside of this breakdown should have to be justified, move aways should never be allowed except under the most necessary and extreme circumstances, that there are both crazy/bad mothers and fathers, that when dealing with issues of family, divorce and custody there can be no absolutes, that kids (who have to be children of divorce) fair SUBSTANTIALLY better with two involved and cooperative parents, that this blog will always allow for dissent, that this blog will always provide reasoned and articulated positions with supporting evidence if at all possible and that this blog will never be used as a pulpit to simply attack those of other opinions or genders.

Hmm, maybe I had more criteria than I thought.

I started this blog in January 2004 - it has been a big part of my life up until recently. While I would love to have additional people to post, I would like to stay true to the reasons I began it in the first place.

Enough about all of that ~ on to the news....

All of the following came from a Glenn Sacks newsletter which you can access yourself by clicking here....

Colorado has a new paternity fraud bill SB 56.

Glenn wrote the following article: 'Duped Dad' Bill Could Foster Closer Ties.

Excerpts from the article:

SB 56, the new Colorado paternity fraud bill, addresses the dilemma faced by men who discover that the children they are paying child support for are not biologically theirs. The bill would allow “duped dads” to terminate their support obligations by utilizing DNA evidence.

Carroll and others seem to equate child support with fatherhood. There is nothing in SB 56 which prevents a father from continuing his relationship with the children, or from financially supporting them, as long as the mother allows it. If the bill’s opponents want to effectively preserve the bonds between these duped dads and their nonbiological children, their focus should not be on child support but instead on creating a presumption of shared parenting after a divorce or separation. Under this presumption, as long as both parents (including nonbiological fathers) are fit, they will each have the right to substantially equal physical time with their children. Such legislation would greatly reduce the number of men seeking to disestablish paternity.

On Point: Suffer the children offer a different point of view. Excerpts:

Dads, if you are the picky type whose parental love depends on a genetic link with your child, make sure to get a DNA test during a divorce. That way you can establish without a doubt whether your wife deceived you - and if the kid isn't yours, you may be able to toss the tyke overboard with a minimum of fuss, avoiding that everlasting nuisance of child support.

What's that, you say? A kid might grow to love or depend upon a "duped dad" as much as if the two shared a genetic profile? Tough luck. This is an age when adult convenience and autonomy trumps the interests and expectations of mere children. And that, not incidentally, is why it's so important that all right-thinking adults (or at least right-thinking men) support Senate Bill 56, which would allow a duped dad to take the DNA test any time during a child's life with an eye toward ditching child support.

Take a look at this press release about Sherri Donovan's new book Hit Him Where It Hurt$: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony, Custody, Child Support. My favorite excerpt:

Eighty-five percent of the time, it is the woman who initiates the divorce. Amidst the staggering emotional turmoil, they too often make hasty decisions and "play-nice" to get the proceedings behind them. The result: They get screwed.

I suppose at least she admitted women initiate the majority of divorces.

On a better note, Utah Senator Mark Madsen sounds like he might be a reasonable guy. In this article, Child-support delinquency could cost parents their licenses, it stated:

Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, said he wanted to see more punishments for those who interfered with the visitation rights of non-custodial parents before he could support another measure for collecting child-support payments.

"I'd like to see some parity," Madsen said. "There is already a disproportionate amount of methods (for punishing those who don't pay their child support)."

There is lots more in the newsletter like:

"A study in the January/February issue of the journal Child Development found that when nonresident fathers are involved with their adolescent children, the youths are less likely to take part in delinquent behavior such as drug and alcohol use, violence, property crime and school problems like truancy and cheating.

and

"Meanwhile, lobbyist Mike Robinson said that he has found multiple sponsors to draft legislation that would amend California's domestic-violence laws to apply to 'victims,' rather than only to women. He said the language has been approved by the Legislative Counsel. There are several Republicans who have said they are willing to sponsor the legislation, Robinson said, but he is trying to line up a Democratic co-author."

and

"Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

plus

I've written before about the highly-publicized ruling in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian child custody battle between former civil union partners Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl's life.

I've noted that Miller's actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children, including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child's best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child.

Like most divorced dads do, Jenkins soft-pedals her ex-partner's appalling behavior, trying to avoid conflict in the interests of their child. She says that if she does win custody (which she should), she will be very careful to make sure that her former partner's relationship with her daughter is protected and respected.

and finally (though there is more I haven't mentioned in the newsletter)

"A proposed bill may force some Kansas parents to pay child support until their child reaches age 23. The bill was introduced last week in Topeka by the judiciary committee.

So visit Glenn Sacks to read the newsletter in its entirety.

Finally - Signs, Pictures and Billboards I Like (Or Don't)

What the hell is this? Apparently a marketing scheme by Court TV....

borrowed from Cartoon Barry Blog

We have seen this one before from ACFC:

As well as this one from NHCustody.org:

Parents need to focus on what’s best for children in divorce - Illinois

Parents need to focus on what’s best for children in divorce

Excerpts:

Divorce can affect each child differently, and parents need to learn how best to help their children through the situation.

For the last three years, Marriage and Family Counseling Service in Rock Island has offered classes on co-parenting after divorce or separation.

New rules enacted by the Illinois Supreme Court require parents in divorce proceedings to go through a class like the TransParenting class offered by Marriage and Family Counseling Service. Parents who have never married but who are going through a child custody case also will be required to take the class, said Rock Island County Circuit Judge Lori Lefstein.

The state supreme court announced the class requirement in February as part of a series of new rules to help ensure that child custody proceedings be handled expeditiously, competently and with great emphasis on the "best interest of the child."

The rules grew out of the continuing work of the special Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Child Custody Issues that was established in January 2002 to study child custody, parental termination and adoption issues.

Judge Lefstein said she often recommended the class to parents even before the requirement went into effect July 1. Even if the parents are going their separate ways, they can learn to work together for the sake of their children, she said.

"Co-parenting is a very different relationship than a spousal relationship," he said. "Even though the marriage is ending, the parenting continues."

It's important for parents to focus on the child, he said, even though they may have their own emotional issues to deal with.

Families who navigate divorce successfully are those who talk about it and continue to talk about it and allow children to have their say, he added. If a family doesn't address the issues raised during a divorce right away, it can cause problems down the road.

Tips for divorcing parents

1. Don't badmouth the other parent. "Kids have loyalty to both parents regardless of how great or lousy the person is," said Derek Ball, a licensed marriage and family therapist.

2. Don't make your kid the messenger. Your child will be very interested in what's going on and will want to get the inside scoop, but as a parent, do your own communicating with the other parent as much as possible.

3. Be a good listener. Mr. Ball said parents are quick to use opportunities to lecture or teach their child, but in this situation, your child just wants to be heard. Give them feedback to make sure you understand what they are saying.

4. Don't make your kid into your confidante. Your child needs to be allowed to be a child. Go to your friends, parent, pastor or therapist for emotional support, not your child, Mr. Balls aid.

Upcoming Dates
5:30-9:30 p.m. July 13
5:30-9:30 p.m. July 25
9 a.m.-1 p.m. Sept. 9
5:30-9:30 p.m. Oct. 24
5:30-9:30 p.m. Dec. 5

Cost: $50 per person

Location: Marriage and Family Counseling Service, 1800 3rd Ave., Suite 512 Rock Island
For more information, call (309) 786-4491.

Time to get serious about child visitation

Time to get serious about child visitation
by KATHLEEN PARKER

Excerpts:

Bitter parents who try to block their formerly beloved's access to the couple's child(ren) following divorce might think twice in New Hampshire, where a proposed bill aims to make life difficult for uncooperative custodial parents.

How difficult? By inviting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate the offending parent for child abuse and neglect.

The idea behind such legislation is that children of divorce should continue to have access to both parents, assuming there's no reason to protect a child from one of his parents. While child visitation orders are taken seriously in theory, the legal process of enforcement is usually time-consuming, laborious and expensive. In practice, the failure to take them seriously leads to an ever-widening, and predictable, trajectory of distance between the child and visiting parent.

Bickford's bill (HB 1585) would make it easier for parents denied visitation to seek remedy, while promising grief for parents who don't cooperate.

First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect.

Common sense tells us what we seem to need studies to demonstrate — that children need two parents and manage divorce best when they have equal access to both.

While family courts are increasingly trying to ensure that children have that access by awarding joint or shared custody, emotionally distraught humans don't always follow directions.

Meanwhile, courts and the state historically have been more effective in enforcing child support than visitation such that we have entire bureaucracies built around support collection tied to federal incentives. For every dollar that states put up to collect child support monies, for example, the federal government matches with two dollars. Other incentive funds are also available to reward collections.

But the proposed bill is not without critics. As with any law related to personal relationships, this one could be tricky to enforce. Imagine a HHS social worker knocking on your door to ask why you didn't let Johnny see his daddy last weekend.

Such well-intentioned laws also could backfire. As one close observer put it in an e-mail exchange, "Getting (HHS) involved is usually the worst thing to do. They usually side with the 'Mom who is concerned about letting the kids go to their father' and, they (investigators) may decide that neither parent is fit. And take custody of the kid(s)."

Military Parental Rights - Michigan

I am copying this verbatim from an email I received:

MILITARY PARENTAL RIGHTS: Military personnel serving overseas could not lose custody rights of their children under a bill that won unanimous approval Thursday by the House.

Support for HB 5100 was generated when a Grand Ledge National Guard member testified he lost custody after spending a year in Iraq despite sharing custody of his son on an equal basis for five years.

The bill, passed 108-0, prohibits a court from considering a parent's separation from his or her child due to military service when making a "best interest of the child" determination and declares that an established custodial environment with a parent could not be destroyed during that military service. It also prohibits decisions being made on permanent custody of children while a parent is deployed overseas.

BIC- So Lacking Occasionally Even Moms Get Screwed

This is an article about the Colorado Supreme Court SEVERELY overstepping their jurisdiction using BIC (best interests of the child) as their crutch. Just another reminder of how a "judgment call" cannot translate into a constitutionally correct and enforceable law.

BTW, this article still has faults. I love how no mention is made ANYWHERE about what happened to the father of this child. Also, how impossibly ridiculous it is that these people (completely unrelated to the child) are petitioning for custody and not adoption - thereby leaving the biological mom as mom. As if this is all she is after - the freaking title.

DenverPost.com

Court lets Arvadans keep baby, for now U.S. justices refuse adoption challenge
By Howard Pankratz Denver Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 -

An Arvada couple raising a baby they hope to keep were elated Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a Colorado court decision that allows the baby to stay in Colorado - for now.

"Our clients found out about it before we did," said Dan West, a lawyer representing the couple. "They were very happy and very relieved."

The child's birth mother, an unmarried woman who lives near St. Louis, gave birth to Alex on April 18, 2003, and had agreed to the adoption.

But a few weeks after Alex came to Colorado as part of a preliminary placement, the woman, now 28 years old, changed her mind. Six months after the Colorado couple started raising Alex as their own, a Missouri judge ordered the boy returned to his biological mother.

The case participants' last names have not been made public.

After the Colorado couple went to court seeking to keep Alex, Jefferson County District Judge Stephen Munsinger said he had no jurisdiction in the case and ordered the Arvada family to return the baby they had raised since he was 2 days old. However, the child remained with the couple while Munsinger's ruling was appealed.

In April, the Colorado Supreme Court overruled Munsinger. The justices said Colorado judges can hear custody disputes when judges in other states fail to take into consideration the "best interests" of the child when determining custody, as they said the Missouri judge failed to do.
The ruling meant that Alex could stay in Colorado until Munsinger holds a trial to determine who should receive custody based on the "best interest" rule.

Eric Samler, the birth mother's lawyer, filed voluminous briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming the Colorado justices ignored a federal law.

Samler said Monday the federal act requires that "one state has to give full faith and credit to the custody determination of another state."

Samler said the U.S. Supreme Court decision not to intervene was not a victory or loss for one side or the other.

"I just want to make it clear that the U.S. Supreme Court, by denying (to hear the case), did not make a decision on the merits of the case," Samler said. "All it means is that they are not going to get involved."

He said the U.S. Supreme Court usually doesn't get involved in family-court matters, but he thought they'd make an exception here because the federal law is so clear.

The birth mother visited 19- month-old Alex in August and September but not in October.
Munsinger will now decide where to place the child after a two-day hearing.

Tom Beltz, another lawyer for the Arvada couple, said his clients are not seeking legal adoption but are requesting permanent custody of Alex.

Under that arrangement, Beltz said, the Arvada couple would be Alex's "custodians" and the birth mother would remain the child's mother.

"We brought a custody action saying that Alex's best interests would be served by my clients being custodians," Beltz said. "And the birth mom can remain as his mother. So we are not asking for adoption at this point."

Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at hpankratz@denverpost.com or 303-820-1939.