Child-custody bill: Limit court action while soldier-parents overseas - Pennsylvania

Child-custody bill: Limit court action while soldier-parents overseas

Excerpt:

Pennsylvania soldiers sent into battle overseas would not have to worry about custody battles back home under a bill that cleared the Senate last week and moves to the state House.

Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, sponsored the bill that would prevent courts from making permanent changes to custody arrangements involving the children of any serviceman deployed for active duty.

And when a soldier returns home, the bill would prohibit courts from siding against the serviceman on the grounds that his military duties are not in the child's best interest.

Sharing Parents the Best Answer - North Dakota

Sharing Parents the Best Answer

From the article:

Information was also given that social science research supports shared parenting, and that the so-called "best interest standard" is really no standard at all.

A study was also presented stating that 70 percent of young adult children of divorces wanted equal time with the absent parent and that the remaining 30 percent wanted significantly more overnights with the father.

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.

Glenn Sacks - Louisiana Bill Says One Parent is Better Than Two

Louisiana Bill Says One Parent is Better Than Two

Excerpts:

"Current Louisiana law states 'To the extent it is feasible and in the best interest of the child, physical custody of the children should be shared equally.' This is reasonable--it presumes that as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children. HB 315 weakens the law's wise preference for two parents instead of one. Under the bill all that children receive is a vaguely defined 'as frequent and continuing contact as is feasible with each parent.' However, research establishes that shared custody is what's best for kids."

The counterattack against shared parenting is based on allegations that fathers only want shared parenting in order to reduce their child support obligations. We wrote:

"Unfortunately, rather than putting the need to preserve children's relationships with both parents at the center of the discussion, advocates of HB 315 are instead focusing on child support. In Louisiana, like most states, how much time each parent spends with his or her children helps determine how much child support is ordered. Rep. Shirley Bowler (R-River Ridge), who authored the bill, asserts that dads seek shared custody as a way to decrease their child support obligations. She promotes HB 315 as a way to 'remove this angle' in the current law, which she claims divorced dads are exploiting.

"While it is true that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, Bowler and the bill's supporters ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?

"Similarly, critics charge that the child support provisions of current law amount to paying men to spend time with their children. In reality, the provisions simply acknowledge that both moms and dads have child-related expenses."

For more information contact Louisiana Dads.

Senator Withdraws Bill Giving Custodial Parents Free Rein to Move Away

I'm always up for some good news....

AgapePress

Liberal California Senator Gloria Romero has withdrawn a bill that would have created a "presumptive right" for a divorced parent who has custody to move children away from the other parent.

According to men's issues columnist Glenn Sacks, founder of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, Romero received more than 4,000 phone calls, letters, and faxes opposing her measure. He says that is because "a lot of people within the mental health community, the psychological community, and the family law community recognize the value of fathers."

Joint custody works, but it's not easy

Joint custody works, but it's not easy
By Kirsten Feldman

Excerpts:

My children's father and I separated and then divorced several years ago, when my son was in kindergarten. Next year he'll be starting middle school.

I certainly think my children have benefited from joint custody, in our case meaning that they might spend some nights at their father's house and some nights at ours in a given week, and we trade off for vacations and holidays.

Their father and I are amicable, and we have worked out the intricacies of having bicycles, and homework, and sports equipment in the right place at the right time. We attend teacher conferences together. We have resolved thorny issues involving religion and dentistry and Christmas dinner. I hope we are setting a good example for our children of how to relate to someone with whom you differ.

Custody rights bill for fathers dead in Assembly -NY

Custody rights bill for fathers dead in Assembly
Supporters say bill would balance system they say favors mothers

I don't know what to say.

Excerpts:

ALBANY -- An Assembly panel Tuesday killed for the year a proposal to give fathers greater custody rights in divorce proceedings.

By a 12-4 vote, the Assembly Children and Families Committee scuttled a contentious plan that would have made courts presume that shared parenting of children is the best arrangement for divorcing couples and their children, if there was no accusation that it would harm the children.

The bill's supporters say that courts now award custody to the mother in most cases, with fathers limited to occasional visits. They said 13 other states have adopted similar legislation to level the playing field for fathers.

But the majority of committee members were swayed by arguments that the bill would put the needs of the parents ahead of those of the children.

The committee vote means the measure won't advance to the floor to be considered by the full Assembly, effectively killing it for the year. The Senate wasn't expected to act on it until the Assembly made its decision.

Arizona Divorce, Custody & Support Info

Arizona Constitution

Arizona Revised Statutes Title 8 - Children Title 25 - Marital and Domestic Relations

Arizona Child Support Guidelines and Calculator

Arizona Self Service Legal Forms

AZLawHelp.org

Arizona Legal Services Resources

FAMILY COURT WEB SITE

ARIZONA FATHERS' RIGHTS

Women Have a Choice--Men Should Too

Latest article from Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

Excerpts:

One and a half million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by adoption, abortion or abandonment, yet somehow nobody labels them “deadbeats” or “deserters.” In over 40 states a mother can return the baby to the hospital within a few weeks of birth--completely opting out of motherhood with less hassle than it takes to return a DVD to Best Buy. Yet if the mother decides she wants to keep the child, she can demand 18 (or in some states 21 or 23) years of child support from the father, and he has no choice in the matter.

Research shows that many men are unwillingly drafted into fatherhood, just as Dubay claims he was. The National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004 conducted in the United Kingdom found that 42% of the women in the survey said they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners. According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year result from pregnancies which men did not intend.

Women’s advocates correctly note that pregnant women often have legitimate reasons for not wanting to be mothers, including youth, finances and the lack of a suitable relationship or marriage. Yet all of these apply equally to men. Women have a choice--men should, too.

Alaska Divorce, Custody & Support Info

The Alaska Legislature

The Alaska Constitution

Alaska Family Law Self-Help Center

Filing for Dissolution, Divorce or Custody

Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 (Child Support Awards)

Alaska Child Support Calculator

Alaska Legal Services Corporation (Help resolve serious legal problems of low-income Alaskans)

Glenn Sacks and A330

This is all from the latest Glenn Sacks newsletter. You can subscribe by clicking here.

Excerpts:

James Hays of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, which is sponsoring the New York Shared Parenting Bill, informed me yesterday that your faxes have completely shut down the fax machines of the 16 members of the Assembly's Children & Families Committee. The committee members have asked us to stop, and we complied immediately.

Five thousand of you have faxed or emailed the committee members in support of A330, the shared parenting bill. FaFNY wants to deliver your letters personally to the committee members this week, and has asked that you continue filling out the letters form. To write to the committee members with your support for this bill, click here.

This bill has been locked up in committee for 12 years! The vote on the bill was set for March 28 but has been postponed until April 4. This may be a maneuver designed to allow the bills' opponents--which include the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women--to make their impact felt. New York is a battleground state for shared parenting and fatherhood. Again, to support the bill, click here.

New York NOW Defends Mothers' Veto over Fathers' Fatherhood

Pappas wrote a revealing letter to a shared parenting activist explaining her opposition to A330.

In opposition to A330 Pappas writes:

"Many women who are victims of domestic violence and women who have had to endure watching their children be abused, would disagree with [the bill]. Many women have said, 'forced joint custody sent my children right into the arms of their abusive father.' We believe that joint custody should be agreed upon by both parties and if one party disagrees, then there is usually a good reason. A woman who is victim of violence should not have to be victimized again by the courts. This is what forced joint custody does" (emphasis in original).

The old domestic violence bugaboo. A330 only applies to fit parents--abused women would get sole custody.

Pappas' views amount to this--if mom wants a dad to remain a dad, fine, but if not, too bad. Feminist family law proponents essentially seek to give mothers veto power over fathers' fatherhood.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

The New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence's opposition to A330 is a fine example of your tax dollars at work--the coalition receives government funding, probably from the Violence Against Women Act.

One of the things about VAWA which I find the most objectionable is the fact it results in state-funded radical feminist lobbying. Whenever our movement tries to bring fathers and children together, these groups are always among our most vocal and influential opponents.

In California, for example, they opposed AB 1307, the California Shared Parenting Bill, and were instrumental in defeating it last Spring. These groups were also among the leading opponents of Gary LaMusga, a heroic father who fought an eight-year battle all the way up to the California Supreme Court to prevent his two boys from being moved out of state. To learn more about the LaMusga case, click here.

Are You a High Earner Paying Child Support?

Family law reform activist Josh Gonze is looking for high-earners who are paying child support. He says his state has no ceiling on child support and that he is "searching for published legal precedent where a court placed a limit on child support on the grounds that the statute produces excessively high child support." Those interested can respond to Gonze at reformfamilylaw@hotmail.com.

Alabama Divorce, Custody & Support Info

The Alabama Code and Constitution can be viewed here.

Title 30 (Marital and Domestic Relations) can be viewed here.

Alabama Child Support Guidelines

Alabama Child Support Calculator

Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children(ALCFC)

Alabama Family Rights Association (ALFRA)

Alabama Legal Services Programs

THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE

DIVORCE SUCKS

All of this discussion and cataloging of joint custody initiatives has resulted in *at times* forgetting my real position on divorce/custody. DIVORCE SUCKS even under the best, most amicable of circumstances.

Sure, I started this site because of my disgust at a legal system that appears to treat dads as little more than a source of funding. And I know that with no fault divorce - if this is the route your spouse wants to take you have few resources to impede the divorce.

I certainly would not advocate begging anyone to remain in their marriage - but then, who am I kidding? As a child of divorce between two parents with few differences other than conflicting outlooks - the kid left in me wants to scream stop it any way you can even if it means you have to drop to your knees and plead.

The adult in me is disgusted at that idea. I knew that my mother was cheating and I will be the first to publicly say that the best thing that ever happened to my father was their divorce. (The ensuing custody war is something else entirely). And yet, I still hear my seven year old voice wishing they "would get back together" and that things should just PLEASE go back to normal. During this period I loved and hated them both. I knew my mother had made the decision, I knew she had been cheating and I resented the almost instant presence of her new boyfriend in our home. But my dad had abandoned us (I can rationalize now that he obviously did not) but then I couldn't get my head around how he could leave OUR HOME and then let this new man show up, sleep in his bed, boss us around, etc....

Hmm, do I still have unresolved issues about my parents divorce? Absolutely.

The following is from an article printed earlier this month: Even 'good' divorces can make life highly stressful for children

Marquardt discovered that, even in "good" divorces where both parents worked together to make the situation as comfortable as possible for the children, 52 percent of those surveyed said that life was stressful, compared to 6 percent from happy marriages.

And the situation tended to make them feel isolated from both parents. In response to the survey question, "In thinking back on your childhood, when you needed comfort, what did you do?", 69 percent of children in intact families said they went to a parent, but only 33 percent of children of divorce did.

This and other data led Marquardt to the conclusion that - although children are better off after divorce when there was abuse, serial infidelity and other serious problems - they are not better off when divorce ends a "low-conflict" marriage.

"The children of low-conflict couples fare worse after the divorce because the divorce marks their first exposure to a serious problem. One day, without much warning, their world just falls apart," she writes in her book Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce. Along with complete survey data and her analysis of it, the book also includes examples from her own life.

She describes a low-conflict marriage as one "in which parents divorce because they are unhappy or unfulfilled, or have other problems that are not seriously threatening." According to studies, she said, about two-thirds of marriages that end in divorce could be described as low-conflict.

She said she would not presume to tell people that they should stay together just for the sake of the children. What she would hope, she said, is that people who know that their spouse is a good person and a good parent will take her findings into account before going ahead with a divorce.

So what to do (if you are in what was described above as a low conflict marriage)? One of my first suggestions would be as soon as there is talk of divorce visit the uptoparents.com site and both go through the commitments. Try to aware your spouse of the research regarding children of divorce. Explore counseling/therapy to address issues within the marriage. And whatever happens - do not forget who will suffer the most and always keep the welfare of your children at the forefront of your mind.

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts - Michigan

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts

Excerpts:

One thousand seven hundred employees now work full-time in Friend of the Court offices as referees, counselors, clerks, and support staff in all 83 Michigan counties. In addition, many employees of the criminal justice system devote a major portion of their workday to this last vestige of debtor's prison.

So it is no surprise that there was consternation in Lansing over a federal plan that cut nearly a quarter billion dollars in Michigan subsidies for child-support enforcement. But one state legislator, Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton, has introduced a bill that could reduce the need for devoting so many resources to child support enforcement.

It would simply amend the Child Custody Act of 1970 to create a presumption that parents who divorce maintain joint custody of their minor children. Both would retain the legal right to authorize medical treatment, have access to school records and so forth. Both would have physical custody of their child(ren) for alternating and substantially equal periods of time.

The legislation makes provision for rebutting the presumption of joint custody -- if a parent is either "unfit, unwilling or unable," or moves residence so far away as to preclude maintaining established school schedules. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, it will simply give defendants back some control over their own fate.

Virginia Support Groups

Fathers United for Equal Rights -- Information about divorce, custody and support proceedings. 559-7090.

Kid Care -- Resource and referral service for parents looking for child care in the Richmond and Tri-Cities area. Training and resources for child-care providers. 282-5993.

Virginia Lawyer Referral Service Monday-Friday, 8:45 a.m.-4:15 p.m. (800) 552-7977.

Sacks, Allred Debate New CA. Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

In relation to the post below, Glenn Sacks debated attorney Gloria Allred last Friday about this case and move away cases in general. What follows are verbatim excerpts from an email. You can visit GlennSacks.com or His Side with Glenn Sacks for more information or to sign up for email updates.

Excerpts:

California Supreme Court Rules Against Dad in New Move-Away Decision

From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children 40 miles away from their father. Burgess was disastrous for children because it was interpreted by California courts to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as Australia, New Zealand, and Zaire.

In 2004 the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga case in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga, who sought to prevent his ex-wife from moving his two young boys from California to Ohio. LaMusga, who is unable to follow his children because he operates a small business and is tied down by weighty child support obligations, had fought the move for eight years. In siding with the father the court explained that "the likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children."

Soon afterwards a handful of extreme feminists prevailed upon former California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) to introduce SB 730, which would have abrogated LaMusga and given custodial parents almost unlimited move-away privileges. We organized to fight the bill, and generated thousands of calls and letters in opposition, as well as a lot of media attention. To everybody's surprise, Burton withdrew SB 730, and LaMusga was preserved.

Fortunately the new decision in Brown vs. Yana will not have the impact of Burgess or LaMusga--it is more technical and limited in scope, and the father's underwhelming legal effort and behavior hurt him. To learn more about the new ruling, see Court Rules Parents With Custody Can Move (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/06).

To learn more about California move-aways and the LaMusga case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and read my LaMusga radio commentary here. To read a feminist view of the move-away issue, see Allred's column "Moving Matters in Custody" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/3/02).

I discussed how this issue would be viewed if we switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04), and argued in favor of a current Wisconsin move-away bill in my co-authored piece AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05). I clashed with feminist law professor Carol Bruch, who authored the mother's brief in LaMusga, on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate KCET last year--to watch, click here.

Sacks, Allred Debate New California Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

For example, Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways unfairly restrict custodial moms from moving, while not restricting noncustodial fathers. I answer that in these cases both parents are free to move wherever they want--it is the children who may not be moved if a court determines that it is against their best interests.

Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways keep custodial parents "held hostage" in their neighborhoods, and that they should be able to "move on with their lives." I respond that both parents retain responsibilities to their children after divorce which are sometimes inconvenient or limiting, and ask "Would we argue that noncustodial parents' responsibility to pay child support holds them 'hostage?' Do we condone the behavior of divorced parents who decide to drop out of their children's lives or stop paying child support because they've decided to 'move on with their lives?'"

Another Bizarre Father Screwing

According to the article Not guilty, but not off the hook (2/6/06):

"A man who spent 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder faces a debt of more than $38,000 in child-support payments that started accumulating while he was locked up...

"A federal judge released Souter last April 1.

"In 1987, before his conviction, [Larry] Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995.

"Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25.

"Federal law prohibits judges from retroactively wiping out such debts...

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client 'has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.'"

I love the quote from his ex-wife's attorney. Yes, he didn't pay child support because he was in prison framed on a murder charge. I guess we should be grateful the lawyer didn't refer to Souter as a "deadbeat dad." That'll probably be next. One would also think that after seeing her ex-husband rot in jail for 13 years for a crime he didn't commit, she would feel so damn sorry for the poor guy that she would back off. I guess not.

In the article Wrongly convicted man tries to move on after prison (Flint Journal, 1/7/06), Souter had discussed putting his life back together and his plans. Now he may be headed back on the road to jail.

I wrote about California legislation designed to deal with the problem of ex-offenders and child support in my co-authored column Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 9/21/05). The Bradley Amendment, under which child support arrearages cannot be retroactively forgiven, is the cause of countless bizarre injustices, and often hurts deployed military personnel. In my co-authored column Laws must protect the rights of military dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"[Child] support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support.

"For example, a California naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job would have a child support obligation of about $1,600 a month. If this father is a petty officer second class (E5) who has been in the reserves for six or seven years--a middle-ranked reservist--his active-duty pay would only be $2,205 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance. Under current California child support guidelines, the reservist's child support obligation should be $550 a month, not $1,600."

A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the wonders of the child support system would probably think 'OK, but the courts would just straighten it out when the reservist gets back--certainly they wouldn't punish him for something that happened because he was serving.' However, the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date which an obligor has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with as little as one day's notice. If a reservist didn't have time or didn't know he had to file for a downward modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

"When the arrearage reaches $5,000--a common occurrence during long deployments--the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of driver's licenses, business licenses and passports."

This is a particularly long newsletter so I am going to cut the excerpts here. However, Glenn also discusses child abduction, the campaign against PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence, Newsweek coverage of The Trouble With Boys, domestic violence laws, Italian custody laws, and female inmates - amongst other topics. Visit his site to read the newsletter here.

Letterman Case Shows Problems with Restraining Orders

This is the latest article by Glenn Sacks and Jeffery M. Leving

Letterman Case Shows Problems with Restraining Orders

Excerpts:

A Santa Fe, New Mexico judge recently granted a temporary restraining order against TV talk show host David Letterman for a woman who alleges that Letterman—who works in New York City and whom she has never met--has mentally harassed her through his TV broadcasts. According to Colleen Nestler, Letterman has caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" for over a decade, and has used code words and gestures during his broadcasts to show her that he wanted to marry her and train her as his co-host.

Beginning in the 1970s, restraining orders became a tool to help protect battered women. This is as it should be. However, in the rush to protect the abused, the rights of the accused are being violated on an arguably unprecedented scale. Many if not most domestic violence restraining orders are simply tactical maneuvers designed to gain advantage in high stakes family law proceedings. The Illinois Bar Journal calls the orders "part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

A recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that the bar is concerned that "protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody.” The authors note that protective orders are “almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person....it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.”

Such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. This helps women position themselves as their children’s sole caretakers, which aids them in winning sole (or de facto sole) custody of their children in their divorce settlements. In California and other states, the order itself can be considered a finding of domestic abuse, making the restrained person ineligible for joint custody.

Despite these grave effects, many courts grant restraining orders to practically any woman who applies. District Judge Daniel Sanchez, who issued the restraining order against Letterman, explained "If [applicants] make a proper pleading, then I grant it."

Restraining orders generally only limit the restrained person’s contact with the protected person but not vice versa. As a result, husbands who have reconciled with their wives are being arrested during routine traffic stops for being in the same car with them. In one case, a father was arrested and jailed for three days for breaching a domestic violence order by taking his son to the hospital. The mother had called the father, said their son had been injured in a bike accident, and asked him to take the boy to the hospital. The conviction stays on his record and hurts his job prospects but he can’t get it undone.

Some men have been arrested and jailed after being tricked into violating their restraining orders. In one Seattle case, a man was jailed for three months after returning phone calls from his ex-wife, who showed the police the phone screen with the man’s number on it. The man explained that when he received the messages he worried that something might have happened to his kids. He asks “what kind of parent would I be if I didn’t return those calls?”

Supervised visitation monitors face little oversight - CA

Supervised visitation monitors face little oversight

I was particularly comforted by this, "The list of monitors from the Superior Court includes a disclaimer that the court "does not select, evaluate, endorse or supervise" those on the list and that they "have not been screened" regarding law enforcement, children's services bureau or personal history." Isn't it wonderful that such people might be involved in YOUR custody case?

Excerpts:

The monitors, however, face virtually no oversight, and parents or attorneys with complaints about them have few options.

Some court officials and others say they lack the authority and ability to take any action when parents or attorneys complain about the monitors, and that more oversight and regulation is needed.

Karen Oehme, program director of the Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation at Florida State University, said communities "continue to grapple" with what standards and skills supervised visitation monitors should have, and state lawmakers ultimately will have to make any changes."I think certification and monitoring of supervised visitation programs is definitely the future of supervised visitation," Oehme said. "The thing is, it takes money. It will be a state-by-state issue and will be done legislatively."

A local, outspoken critic of the family courts, however, said increased oversight and regulation will not help and that supervised visitation should be scrapped altogether except in cases of documented abuse."

I think we ought to explode the myth of oversight," said Bonnie Russell, 55, of Del Mar, who started the Web site http://www.familylawcourts.com/ during her own custody battle and believes more government involvement is not the answer. "There's not enough budget for real oversight, but more importantly, there's not enough interest."

Superior Court judges generally order supervised visitation for noncustodial parents in divorces that involve allegations of substance abuse by parents, child abuse, domestic violence, parents "venting" to kids about their estranged spouses, or parents sending messages to each other through a child, said Superior Court Judge William Howatt, the supervising judge for the family court in San Diego County.

Supervised visitation monitors can be "nonprofessional" ---- family members or friends on which both sides agree who are not paid ---- or "professional," paid monitors. Paid monitors generally charge between $16.50 an hour to $70 an hour, some monitors said. The rate sometimes is based on parents' income.

California adopted criteria in 1998 that all supervised visitation monitors must satisfy, but no regulatory agency exists for the monitors, a state court official said.

Patricia Chavez-Fallon, the director of the Superior Court's Family Court Services in San Diego County, said people who want to be paid monitors submit documentation to the court showing they have attended a training class and meet the other state standards, which essentially require that monitors be 21 or older and free of any legal trouble in the previous 10 years. Chavez-Fallon then adds them to an alphabetical list of supervised visitation monitors that the court provides.

The state standards, however, do not specify how much training someone should receive, and state and local officials do not certify or authorize specific agencies to do the training, officials said.

The list of monitors from the Superior Court includes a disclaimer that the court "does not select, evaluate, endorse or supervise" those on the list and that they "have not been screened" regarding law enforcement, children's services bureau or personal history.

Howatt said that providing the list may give the appearance that the court sanctions or approves the monitors, but it does not. The court's role is just to determine whether the monitors meet the qualifications in the state standards, Howatt said.

Nevertheless, what monitors write about their observations during supervised visits affects decisions judges make, but how much of an effect they have depends on the questions at issue in each case, Howatt said.

Officials at Griffin's company, Hannah's House at Real Solutions Center for Children, said that if someone completes the 40-hour training course the company offers at a cost of $600, Hannah's House is required to give them a certificate that they received training regardless of how much information they retain or what the trainer's impression of that person is.

Dalton said in an e-mail that the court has no legal authority to act on complaints about the supervised visitation monitors and cannot remove monitors from the list.

The court once removed a monitor from the list, but found it did not have the authority to do so. As a result, the monitor was put back on the list, Dalton said.

Chavez-Fallon said unhappy parents can go to a different monitor if they have a complaint.

Making that change is not that easy, however, with parents incurring court costs and attorneys fees to go back to court to get a new visitation order if the parents cannot agree on a new monitor, some familiar with the process said.