A House Divided - MA

A House Divided

The SJC's pivotal ruling on a joint custody case leaves a blended family caught in the middle and split in two

Excerpts:

Tristan and his 12-year-old brother, Spenser, are at the heart of a case the Supreme Judicial Court decided last week on the thorny question of whether a divorced parent with joint physical custody can move the children out of state.

The boys' mother, Betsy Shanley Coleman, who has a toddler by her second husband, wanted to return to her hometown of Bristol, N.H., where her new husband and his ex-wife share equal custody of their two sons. Shanley Coleman's ex-husband, James Mason, who lives in Nashua, N.H., wanted his sons, Tristan and Spenser, to stay in Chelmsford.

In its unanimous decision, the SJC upheld a 2003 family court ruling that ordered the boys to remain in Chelmsford schools and propelled Shanley Coleman to split her time between Chelmsford and Bristol, 90 miles apart, and sometimes rendezvous with her husband midway between the two towns.

The SJC, which had plucked the case from the docket of pending appeals, outlined a fundamental difference between cases in which one parent has physical custody and cases of joint custody. Although the well-being of a parent influences the well-being of the child, the SJC found, the benefit a parent may derive from moving carries considerably less weight in determining the children's best interests when custody is shared than when it is not.

``While a joint physical custody agreement remains in effect," Justice Judith Cowin wrote for the court, ``each parent necessarily surrenders a degree of prerogative in certain life decisions, e.g., choice of habitation, that may affect the feasibility of shared physical custody."

The SJC's decision not only guides future cases involving relocation and joint custody in the Commonwealth but also promises to generate wider interest because the SJC is a well-respected court and few state supreme courts have considered the subject. The ruling, says Jeff Atkinson, author of ``The American Bar Association Guide to Marriage, Divorce & Families," strengthens an emerging trend of courts looking at each case based on its particular facts without a presumption for or against allowing the move. It also comes in one of the most wrenching areas of family law.

The SJC pronouncement that pleases Mason leaves Shanley Coleman dismayed and awaiting action on her separate petition in family court for sole custody. Their sons, who the trial judge noted had expressed interest in spending more time with their father, now clamor to move to Bristol and live primarily with their mother.

Shanley Coleman and Mason, who met as co-workers in a software company, wed in New Hampshire in 1985, and during the first years of their sons' lives Mason cared for them while Shanley Coleman worked. When they divorced in 1998, they agreed to move from Hampton, N.H., to within 25 miles of Chelmsford to be near her job in Lowell and his in Lexington. They agreed to joint legal custody. They also established a parenting schedule that favored Shanley Coleman when school is in session but, as with many divorce agreements in recent years, did not label the arrangement either joint physical custody or sole physical custody with visitation.

Banned in Massachusetts: Family Court Judge Bars Tell-All Book, According to Fathers & Families

Banned in Massachusetts: Family Court Judge Bars Tell-All Book, According to Fathers & Families

Angry Dad is also covering this.

The book is still available for download on Lulu.com. $20.00 for print version, $9.16 to download.

BOSTON, March 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Fathers & Families reacted today to the ruling by Judge Mary Manzi of the Essex County Probate and Family Court that banned member Kevin Thompson from distributing his tell-all book, "Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts."

"With the stroke of a pen, Judge Manzi has swept away the Bill of Rights,"said Dr. Ned Holstein, founder of Fathers & Families. The book is critical of Judge Manzi and others in the family court system, and reveals details of Mr. Thompson's custody battle for his four-year-old son.

Labeling Judge Manzi's ruling "a trifecta of tyranny," Dr. Holstein noted that Judge Manzi abused her position in several ways, including:

* Conflict of interest: Dr. Holstein questioned why Judge Manzi did not recuse herself, since an entire chapter in the book criticizes her judicial actions in the case.
* Double standard: Judge Manzi applied a different standard to Mr. Thompson because he is involved in a custody battle. Under the bill of rights, any American has the right to publish an autobiography, even if some people don't like what the book says.
* Bias: Judge Manzi indicated that she may punish Mr. Thompson by requiring him to pay the fees of the lawyers who demanded that she ban his book.

Mr. Thompson, a physics teacher and law-abiding father, lost custody of his son Patrick even though he is a devoted parent. The reasons are secret, as the court has impounded the records. The family courts frequently issue gag orders, impound records, and abridge a variety of other constitutional rights, including the right to the care and custody of one's children. Mr. Thompson is available through Fathers & Families.

About Fathers & Families Based in Boston, Fathers & Families is a non-profit advocacy organization protecting children's right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce. Fathers & Families seeks to change well-meaning but misguided laws, judicial traditions, and government policies that drive many loving fathers out of their children's lives after divorce. Fathers &Families counts some 2,200 Massachusetts supporters, of whom approximately 40 percent are women. More information is available at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/ or by calling (617) 542-9300.

Jim Crow Days For Men

Jim Crow Days For Men
by Carey Roberts

Excerpts:

Abuse of these orders is not an isolated problem. In Massachusetts, about 30,000 domestic orders are issued every year. One analysis by the Massachusetts Trial Court found that fewer than half of these restraining orders involved even an allegation of physical abuse.

Another troubling piece of this law -- clearly unconstitutional -- is its “mandatory-arrest” provisions. Let’s say you get into a marital tiff, your wife or girlfriend calls 911, and the cops come running. But in the meantime, things cool down and she asks police to leave. Fine, but don’t forget your toothbrush, because you will be going out in handcuffs.

It’s no surprise that this $1 billion-a-year anti-father juggernaut eventually takes its toll on families. Highlighting the fact that almost 40% of our nation’s children now live in a home without their own father, Schlafly urges Congress to “conduct an investigation to find out how much of this fatherlessness is the result of bad government in the hands of a small radical group that is biased against marriage and fathers.”

Related article: Time to Defund Feminist Pork — the Hate-Men Law by Phyllis Schlafly

Group aims to ease divorce issues- MA

Daily News Tribune - Local News Coverage

Excerpts:

The Divorce Center begins "Massachusetts Divorce in a Nutshell," a free 5-week seminar series for women and men who are separating and divorcing. Sessions will be held on Tuesdays from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the West Suburban Chamber of Commerce on South Street.

Local attorneys, financial experts and a probate court judge will cover the basics of divorce, alimony and child support, child custody and the division of assets. They will provide insight about lawyer's fees, separation agreements, tax implications and even what to expect when entering a courtroom.

The center will also be presenting "A Divorce Play in Four Acts" on Saturday at Newton North High School. The interactive play follows a "husband" and "wife" as they meet with their attorneys, attend court hearings and learn about financial considerations.

For more information about the "Massachusetts Divorce in a Nutshell" seminar series, visit www.divorcenter.org or call 617-227-9713.

Fatherhood Coalition ousts leader - MA

North Adams Transcript - Local Headlines

As with the F4J implosion - inner strife within a movement is likely unavoidable - but is regrettable all the same.

Excerpts:

The coup took place on Wednesday night, when eight members of the fathers' rights group met and voted to eject Rinaldo Del Gallo III, said Richard Hover, who claims to be the group's new president. Hover said Del Gallo's tirades, unreliability and militant stance on the subject of fathers' rights have combined to drive members away, weakening the coalition.

But Del Gallo said the vote was attended by only three of the coalition's eight officers, and thus did not constitute a majority. In a written statement, Del Gallo said that he is the spokesman of the group, and that -- since only the spokesman has the authority to make official statements on behalf of the coalition -- it is the official position of the coalition that he is still an officer and the group's spokesman. He said Hover's statements should be disregarded.

Both Hover and Del Gallo were able to name supporters who, in interviews, bolstered their version of events, and it is difficult to tell which side is actually in control of the coalition, or whether the group has survived the coup at all.

The Fatherhood Coalition is dedicated to pursuing changes in state divorce laws that would encourage judges to grant equal custody of children to fathers and mothers. Del Gallo, an attorney specializing in patent law, has brought publicity to the group through his campaigns for shared parenting legislation, his numerous appearances at City Council meetings and his failed efforts to run for office, including an incident in which he was arrested for trespassing while gathering nomination signatures outside the post office in Pittsfield.

But Hover said the net effect of Del Gallo's involvement with the coalition has been to shrink its ranks. He said the group once numbered about 150 members and now has only eight, and the majority have been chased away by Del Gallo.

Fathers' Rights Victory In Massachusetts

FOXNews.com - Views - ifeminists - Fathers' Rights Victory In Massachusetts

Excerpts:

Dr. Henry M. Fassler has successfully contested a 1998 Massachusetts law that requires a non-custodial parent to have court certification as a non-batterer on a yearly basis before he (or she) is allowed access to their children's school records. The school system currently views all
non-custodial parents as guilty of battery until proven innocent. But all that is going to change.


The specifics of Fassler's case: he wanted to see the academic class list for his 17-year-old daughter Lindsay, who had asked him for help. No charge or complaint had ever been filed against Fassler; he is on good terms with his ex-wife and children.

When the school refused the class list, Fassler not only got angry, he also got active. Last October, he complained to the Family Policy Compliance Office at the U.S. Department of Education, challenging the statute as discriminatory. On May 6, the DOE sent a letter to
Massachusetts' Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll, which warned that "the commonwealth and every school district in Massachusetts is in violation of federal law, and has been for years."

The letter explained, "non-custodial parents cannot be denied access to school records unless there is evidence those 'rights have been specifically revoked'." The government cannot stand between parent and child when no evidence of abuse is present.

Father's rights advocates had fought against the law since its passage. (Indeed, Fassler belongs to Fathers and Families, a leading voice in that battle.) Suddenly, however, with millions in federal funding at stake, Driscoll has indicated that a "new policy" will treat divorced parents more fairly.

This is another lesson from the Massachusetts struggle. Grassroots organizations and actions can prevail over generously tax-funded agencies, but it is crucial to "follow the money." The crusade against the 1998 statute won out only when Fassler called federal funding into question.

MA - Candidates for State Rep Debate

Berkshire Eagle

Just two excerpts:

A crowd of fewer than 60 people was sprinkled throughout the spacious Boland Theatre on the campus of Berkshire Community College, including a handful of protesters holding signs in favor of fathers' rights. They watched the candidates debate without a moderator, discussing subjects of their choosing in three-minute segments.

(Terry) Kinnas said he would support enforcing the votes of past referendums, including one in favor of shared parenting and another to roll back the state income tax to 5 percent.

Republican Terry Kinnas is apparently the underdog in this race. He is competing against Christopher Speranzo who previously "worked as an assistant attorney general in the civil rights division of the state attorney general's office."

Admittedly, I do not know Mr Speranzo's position on the shared parenting referendum. Considering the staggering public approval for the measure I would be hard pressed to think anyone who campaign against it - however, as an attorney, Mr Speranzo might have a vested interest in the status quo.

On Mr Speranzo's website I could find little substantive outside of a position on taxes.

This is a link to Mr Speranzo's website.

From the article it appears as though Mr Kinnas is firmly in support of the referendum. However, I am at a loss for contact info for Mr Kinnas.

The election will be held on April 12th.

Pittsfield, MA Support Group

From the Berkshire Eagle Online:

The Fatherhood Coalition

Meetings will address issues of reconciliation, divorce and child custody, allegations of abuse, shared parenting and fairness in raising children, free legal advice, help people with intricacies of their case, 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of each month, at 7 p.m., Berkshire Medical Center, West Wing, Room A (adjacent to cafeteria); Some meetings will be in Dining Room B. Pittsfield. Information: Attorney Del Gallo, 443-3150.

Child Support Changes in Mass and NH?

I am copying this verbatim from an email list I am on:

The child support showdown is under way in Massachusetts.

Under federal law, Massachusetts must review and possibly revise its Child Support Guidelines this year. (As you probably know, the Guidelines are a formula that is used to compute your child support order. It is based on the number of children, his income, her income, and a few other factors.)

In Massachusetts, the responsibility for the Guidelines falls to the Chief Justice for Administration and Management, Robert A. Mulligan. Fathers & Families has begun its campaign for child support reform by writing Chief Justice Mulligan and requesting a meeting.

As some of you remember, Fathers & Families single-handedly won substantial reductions in the Guidelines in 2002. Whether we are able to win additional child-friendly changes will depend entirely on YOU: how many new members you recruit, how energetic you are in supporting this cause, and your financial support. There are powerful forces that would like to raise the Guidelines even higher than they have been in the past. Fathers & Families is the only force standing between them and success.

Meanwhile, there are revolutionary changes next door in New Hampshire. Due in part to the incessant efforts of Representative David Bickford, the New Hampshire Legislature created a commission to study child support. It issued its report on December 1, 2004, and it is quite amazing.

The New Hampshire Commission found "the current New Hampshire Child Support Guidelines to be unfair and inappropriate in many circumstances and in dire need of reform and revision."

New Hampshire, like Massachusetts, declares that the objective of its Guidelines is to maintain the same standard of living in the custodial parent's household that would have existed had the marriage remained intact. The Commission took particular aim at this principle. A majority of the Commission concluded that the objective of child support payments is to assure that a child's basic needs are met. The Commission quoted a 1986 Minnesota case, Moylan v. Moylan as follows, "The government's interest in family expenditures on children is limited to ensuring that the children's basic needs are met. Not extravagances, not luxuries, but needs. Once that occurs, government intrusion must cease." The report went on to say that the Commission "agrees 'standard of living' should not be a concern of government and government should not be collecting money on behalf of a 'lifestyle' that government has no interest in measuring or actually enforcing." Along the same lines, the Commission wrote, "The economic reality of maintaining multiple households may be inconsistent with maintaining the 'standard of living' of the children in the initial family."

The Commission also recognized that, "Child support is often in excess of the cost of raising children, which encourages litigation."

The Commission also recognized that it is not good for children to base a child support order on the income from overtime work or a second job (unless necessary to meet the child's basic needs), because the order will then be so high that the non-custodial parent will be forced to work endless hours, and will thus be unable to be a parent to his child.

The Commission also recognized that, like Massachusetts, the New Hampshire Guidelines almost guarantee that the second family of a non-custodial parent will be worse off than his first family.

The Commission also recognized that in New Hampshire, like Massachusetts, an increase in earnings by the recipient of child support has almost no effect on the child support award. They stated, "This result is contrary to professional studies on child costs. . ."

The New Hampshire Commission's central recommendation is quite revolutionary. It calls on the state to scrape efforts to base child support awards on something as elusive as the "standard of living" and instead to provide "basic costs" of raising a child. After reviewing four sources of data on the actual costs of raising a child, the Commission concluded that the basic cost in New Hampshire is somewhere on the order of $400 to $600 a month, probably excluding healthcare costs.

The New Hampshire Commission report is one of the first to take a cold hard look at the realities of child support. It discards the pieties, platitudes and slogans that form the basis of Child Support Guidelines in most states and substitutes critical analysis. It remains to be seen whether New Hampshire will implement the recommendations of its Commission.

You can contact Fathers & Families or Rep Bickford through the highlighted links above.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the actual NH Child Support Report. It is a PDF so make sure you have Adobe Reader

MA Shared Custody

Just another article about presumptive shared custody in MA in light of ballot response: MetroWest Daily News

Mass Ballot Initiative

Recent news on the fallout after the Mass non-binding ballot initiative for presumed joint custody.

Mass Representative Collen Garry has a bill pending before the legislature that would require judges to automatically award shared custody unless there is a history of abuse or one parent is declared unfit. Contact Rep Garry to show your support through her website or at Rep.ColleenGarry@hou.state.ma.us.

Also contact Ned Holstein, president of Fathers & Families, in support of this legislation.

Berkshire Eagle

Sentinel & Enterprise

Weston TownOnline Letter to the Editor

Weston Town Crier

Mass Nonbinding Custody Question Results in a Resounding YES!!

A nonbinding question "which asked if citizens want their state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would create a presumption in favor of shared legal and physical custody of children in divorce cases" was included on Massachusetts ballots (Nov 2, 2004). The results came back significantly in favor of shared custody.

The question appeared in approx 30 of Mass 159 districts. "The statewide totals were 557,615 "yes" votes and 90,708 "no" votes."

Article at Berkshire Eagle Online. Older info on how this got started available at His Side with Glenn Sacks.

MA Vote

"BOSTON -- During this November election, voters in Somerset, Swansea and several other neighboring communities will be asked whether they support joint custody of children after divorce.

The non-binding petition to appear on the ballot will basically ask voters their opinion and gauge support. It will not become law.

Approximately 750,000 Massachusetts voters in 36 House districts and one Senate district will be asked their opinion. The question is the result of a statewide signature-gathering process by Fathers and Families.

Locally, it will appear on the ballots in Somerset, Swansea, Dighton, Rehoboth, Taunton and Norton. It will not appear on the Fall River or Westport ballots."

You can read the entire article at The Herald News.

While I believe this is a good initiative, my concern is that the general public does not fully understand the enormity or consequences of this issue. If the general ballot does not provide support for a more equitable division of custody, how will any legislator be able to bring such an issue to a vote?