Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting Bill

Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting Bill

This is verbatim from an email:

Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, a Michigan shared parenting bill which will be heard by the House Families and Children Services Committee on December 6. Last week NOW issued an "Action Alert" against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children's Michigan affiliate, the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan, and others, are rallying support for the bill.

You can access a list of Michigan legislators, their phone numbers and their email addresses by clicking here.

The Case for HB 5267

Michigan NOW makes its case against shared parenting and HB 5267 here.

I laid out the case in favor of HB 5267 and discussed many of NOW's criticisms in my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and I wrote:

"HB 5267 is primarily sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-Horton), who has been joined by 10 other legislators. When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially equal time with their children. The principle behind the bill is difficult to dispute--as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children...

"NOW claims that HB 5267 'places the interests of parents over the child's interests.' Yet when researchers have examined children of divorce, and studied and queried adult children of divorce, they've found that most prefer joint custody and shared parenting.

"For example, a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of divorce 'express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,' and cite the 'benefit of remaining close to both parents' as an important factor.

"When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents' divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that 'living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.' His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003.

"Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan's Best Interest of the Child Test. Both the Michigan Bar and Michigan NOW assure us that this system is effective and should not be changed. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children's relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents.

"Moreover, the custody decisions based on the factors are often subjective and arbitrary. Under HB 5267 a court cannot deny requests for joint custody without stating its reasons on the record.

"Michigan NOW also asserts that HB 5267 will 'further impoverish children of separated or divorced parents' because in Michigan, as in most states, the amount of physical time divorced parents spend with their children and the concomitant expenses are calculated into the child support obligation. These fears are also unwarranted.

"Research demonstrates that joint custody leads to higher rates of child support compliance. This isn't surprising, since parents who are permitted little role in their children's lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for them. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids.

"While Michigan NOW is correct that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, they ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 40 or 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?

"Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will put abused women in harm's way. According to DOVE, HB 5267 'sends a clear message to battered women and children that the 'rights' of a batterer take precedence over their safety and wellbeing.' Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for joint custody--battered mothers should and would receive sole custody.

"Unfortunately, NOW, DOVE and other misguided women's advocates seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces--ones where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will ensure that children won't see one of the two people they love the most pushed to the margins of their lives."

You can access more information about HB5267 on Family Rights Coalition of Michigan site.

Equal Parents Week Rally - Michigan

Dads of Michigan will be holding an Equal Parents Week Rally on September 27th.

Excerpts from the website:

DADS OF MICHIGAN will observe Equal Parents Week (EPW), September 24 – September 30, 2006. Equal Parents Week brings attention to the need for both parents to share their parental rights and responsibilities equally, the right of children to be raised and nurtured by both parents, and the right of families to exist and function as a family. These are civil and human rights inherent and inalienable to all families. Our recent national tragedies further highlight the importance of parents and family. Public and home candlelight vigils observing EPW and the victims of terrorism will also take place on September 27 across the nation and world.

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.

Filing a Complaint Against the Friend of the Court (FOC) in Michigan

Larry Holland at Stand Up Today has an excellent post about the FOC in Michigan and how to go about filing a complaint against them.

I'll be adding a link from my Pro Se post as well

Michigan “Lewd and Lascivious Cohabitation” Law

There is an ongoing case in Michigan regarding whether a divorced parent can have their significant other "sleep over" when the children are present.

While I don't necessarily see any need for such "sleep overs" in the presence of your children - I certainly take issue with the state of Michigan dictating who can or cannot sleep in ones own residence.

The case in question involves two children - ages 5 and 7. The thought of a parent going to court in order to be able to have a boyfriend/girlfriend sleep over while the children are staying overnight - I find to be pretty sick. Why would you want to force this on your child? If you feel so strongly about your new "family unit" than legally formalize it. Otherwise, this could as easily result in a different person sleeping over with your kids a few months down the road.

However, I also realize that our society (men in particular) are becoming slightly gun shy about marriage. This case involves a father who is sharing a residence with his girlfriend. Why should the courts be able to force her to leave her home in order for him to have his legal visitation?

All in all I think the law sucks. But I can't help wondering what kind of parent would so forcefully try to bring this into his home - which is obviously also his children's home.

The impetus of the legal action was the man's ex-wife who asked the courts to forbid overnights with both the girlfriend and the children in the home. As noted in the article, mom admitted to cohabitating with dad before they married. Pretty sick, huh?

Here are excerpts from the article:

It's the law that's lewd, not the action

Christian Muller, a divorced father of two young daughters, is challenging a Michigan law passed in l838 that makes it illegal for his live-in girlfriend to remain in his house while his two daughters, ages 5 and 7, are visiting.

Muller shares legal custody of his two daughters with his ex-wife. When he became involved in a committed relationship after the divorce, his ex-wife asked the court to forbid him from having overnight visitation with his children when his girlfriend, Michelle Moon, was present. (In an ironic sidelight, his wife admitted that she and her ex-husband cohabited before they married.)

Michigan made "lewd and lascivious cohabitation" a crime in l838, the same year it made marriages between blacks and whites illegal. In l883, the Michigan Legislature repealed the restriction against interracial marriage, and has recently repealed many other archaic laws. The law on "lewd and lascivious cohabitation" remains; only six other states have similar laws.

While there doesn't seem to have been a decision upholding a criminal prosecution under the law since 1925, this month the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld an order by Oakland Country Circuit Judge Daniel Patrick O'Brien, forbidding Moon from spending the night when Muller's children were present. Court orders against "unrelated overnights" are common in Michigan.

"By forcing the woman that I share my life with to leave our home sends the message that daddy is doing something bad, daddy is doing something morally wrong," Muller said in a statement last month. "This court order undermined my rights as a parent, as an adult, and as an American with the right to choose how to live my life."

"The unfounded restriction they have put on my parenting time has done nothing but cause confusion, resentment, physical and psychological hardship and distrust, which affects the whole family," he added.

Muller and Moon still live together; when the children visit, Moon sleeps in her car or his van or sometimes at her parents' home.

Lawyers for the ACLU are appealing the case in Muller's behalf to the Michigan Supreme Court. According to the ACLU brief, "If courts are permitted to restrict divorced parents from living with both their unmarried partners and their children without evidence that this restriction is justified by the interests of the children, it will either undermine their ability to move toward permanent loving relationships or their efforts to fully include their children in their lives."

If the Michigan Supreme Court agrees to take the case, privacy rights will be key, according to Michael Steinberg, the ACLU's legal director.

In a recent Detroit Free Press article on the case, Thomas W. Blume, a Bloomfield Hills licensed marriage and family therapist and Oakland University professor, points out that society's view of cohabitation has shifted radically in recent years. While cohabitation still offends some religious conservatives, "it is now seen by many [others] in society as a normal way of life and often as a pathway to marriage," Blume said.

Michigan House Proposes Reduction in Federal Child Support Enforcement

MichNews.com

Excerpts:

The House bill proposes a $5 billion, 40 percent reduction in federal child support enforcement. This is a refreshing surprise, and it may finally raise awareness that child support has been a failure and should be phased out in favor of alternative types of agreements between parents. Recently, Fathers’ rights movements have sprung up all over, advocating a fairer system that doesn’t doubly punish the non-custodial parent and incite hostile relations. Handing impoverished custodial parents free money will not give them the incentive to lift themselves out of poverty, but requiring them to make it on their own will. Eliminating part of the federal bureaucracy responsible for chasing fathers down sends a much-needed message that child support is one government function that should be abolished.

Mlive.com

Excerpts:

It was approved by all nine Republican Michigan House members and opposed by all six Democrats as part of the sweeping Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Differences between the House legislation and a Senate cost-cutting bill are being worked out by a conference committee this week.

The effective 24 percent cut to the budget for child support enforcement would jeopardize positions in the 2,800-member work force that processes child support cases throughout the state, she said.

The cuts would result from a gradual reduction in federal funding for child support enforcement from 66 percent to 50 percent over five years.

"Child support is the safety net for most families ... this is money for groceries, for gasoline, for heat," said Susan Thorman, president of the Friend of the Court Association and Shiawassee County Friend of the Court.

But the Atlanta, Ga.-based National Family Justice Association, which advocates for noncustodial parents, backs the cuts and calls them a move toward improving child support agencies.

"If a system or service is broken or not functioning properly, the U.S. taxpayers should not have to pay outrageous sums of their hard-earned money while the system is not held accountable for their inadequate performance," Murray Davis, who is based in Southfield and serves as group's board president, said in a written statement.

Court Takes Kids from Dads, Saying Service in Iraq Is 'Abandonment' - Phyllis Schlafly

I will likely reprint most of this article but that should not stop you from visiting the source: Human Events Online - Court Takes Kids from Dads, Saying Service in Iraq Is 'Abandonment' by Phyllis Schlafly.

Also, this article mentions Michigan legislation HB 5100 which I mentioned here, more information can be found on the Michigan Legislature site as well as in the Dads of Michigan Forum.

On to the article:

Court Takes Kids from Dads, Saying Service in Iraq Is 'Abandonment'
by Phyllis Schlafly

Gallant Americans are risking life and limb in Iraq to defend home and country. But they never dreamed they might lose their children, too.

When Army National Guard Spc. Joe McNeilly of Grand Ledge, Mich., came home after 15 months in Iraq, he found that a family court "referee" had taken away his joint custody of his 10-year-old son and given full custody and control to the boy's mother.

For five years, McNeilly had had a 50-50 no-problem custody arrangement with his ex-girlfriend Holly Erb. When called up to go to Iraq, he gave her temporary full custody while he was overseas.

While he was gone, Erb persuaded a family court to make her full custody permanent. When McNeilly protested, he was told that his year-long absence constituted abandonment and produced custody "points" against him.

"You want to make a soldier cry, you take his son away," McNeilly said. "It's devastating."

Michigan State Rep. Rick Jones became interested in this injustice. When he contacted the Judge Advocate General's office, he discovered that there are 15 to 20 similar cases in Michigan and it is a common problem all over the United States.

Jones has introduced legislation (HB 5100) providing that absences for military service cannot be used against a parent and that a permanent custody arrangement cannot be established while a parent is on active duty. He is hearing from legislators in other states who want to sponsor similar bills.

Since McNeilly's case was reported in the press, Erb's lawyer and the court's representative are trying to claim that depriving him of his father's rights wasn't because he was serving in Iraq, but because of his poor parenting skills.

The proof? McNeilly sent a couple of postcards to his son that showed soldiers training with a gun. Horrors! How un-politically correct to tell a son that soldiers in Iraq carry guns.

Erb's lawyer asserted that the postcards frightened the boy and showed that McNeilly is not a fit parent. But surely the boy had a right to know about his father's career and that soldiers who use guns are pursuing an honorable vocation.

The referee's report also justified deciding for mother custody because she was the "day-to-day caretaker and decision maker in the child's life" while McNeilly was deployed. But that's what mothers have always done when their men go off to war and it's no argument for taking the child away from his father upon return.

Day-to-day caretaker is feminist jargon to promote their ideology that the mother should have full custody and control because the father is not around to change diapers and do household chores. He is merely working a job, or sometimes two jobs, to support his family.

Follow the money to explain some of the motivation. When the mother was given full custody, the court ordered McNeilly to pay her $525 a month, which she would lose if they return to joint custody.

The real problem in this case is the arrogance of family courts, which claim the right to decide child custody based on their subjective personal opinions about the "best interest of the child." Family court judges, and the psychologists and referees they hire, routinely violate the fundamental right of parents to make their own decisions about the best interest of their own children.

Family courts are subjective and arbitrary, so unlucky divorced parents could get a judge or a referee who is anti-gun, or anti-military, or anti-spanking, or anti-homeschooling, or anti-religion, or a feminist who wants to transform the middle class into a matriarchal society as has already been done to the welfare class, with tragic results.

The notion that family court judges, psychologists and referees can impose personal views about what is "the best interest of the child" rather than a child's own parents is just another way of saying "it takes a village to raise a child." Thousands of good fathers have been deprived of their fundamental rights in the care and upbringing of their children by courts that treat fathers as good for nothing more than a paycheck.

The large number of fathers who have been the victims of family-court fatherphobia is no doubt the reason that one of the most popular songs on country music stations this year is Tim McGraw's "Do You Want Fries with That?" The lyrics are the cry of a father who is working a minimum-wage second job in a fast-food restaurant, living alone in a tent, after being ordered by a judge to support his children living in his house with his ex-wife and her boyfriend.

The father laments, "You took my wife, and you took my kids, and you stole the life that I used to live; my pride, the pool, the boat, my tools, my dreams, the dog, the cat."

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.

Events in Michigan

Dads of Michigan have the following events coming up:

Healing Our Families, A Time For Change - June 16-18 Family Rights Coalition and DADS of Michigan Conference 05

The Family Rights Coalition and DADS of Michigan are hosting an international conference on family issues June 16-18, 2005 at the Metro Detroit Airport Marriott Hotel. Many internationally known speakers will be presenting. The purpose of this conference is to present and discuss international issues on family issues and parenting. Stay tuned to this link for future updates.

DADS of Michigan Family Court Basics Workshop, June 25

MOMS and DADS University is featuring a Family Court Basics program at the Birmingham Community House on June 25. This program will provide instruction on how to navigate family court and obtain the results to ensure that you are involved in your children's life. You will learn basic tools for custody guidelines, child support calculation, visitation enforcement, selecting a lawyer, protecting yourself from false allegations, and much more. Many leading authorities on Family Court will be speaking. This program is designed to help you avoid costly legal fees and help you understand how to navigate the courts and the FOC.

For more details click here: EDUCATION - Mom's and Dad's University

Michigan Governor Granholm Vetoes Marriage Bill

Detroit Free Press

I'm not sure if I covered this already but Governor Granholm "vetoed a package of bills that would encourage premarital counseling for couples and require counseling for married couples with children who are about to divorce. She said the bills were too intrusive on private decisions."

I would like to see, in particular, divorcing couples with children go into counseling.... However, I do understand and respect the resistance to bring the government any further into family life.

"Let me be clear: Marriage preservation is a very important issue," she wrote in her veto letter. "But the decisions men and women make about marriage are private decisions. State government should not expand its role into such private matters."

Michigan Grandparent Visitation

A new law in Michigan (effective immediately) provides the opportunity to seek grandparenting time if:

the grandchilds parents are divorced, or are in the process of divorce, separation, or annulment.

the grandchilds parent is deceased and is the son/daughter of the grandparent.

the grandchilds parents have never been married, are not cohabitating, and the fathers paternity has been established.

the child is placed outside the home or legal custody of the child has been given to someone other than a parent (unless the child was adopted by someone other than a stepparent).

within the year prior to seeking grandparenting time, the grandparent provided an established custodial environment for the grandchild.

This law does provide for the parents of an unwed father to have access to visitation. However, I still find it ironic that with the difficulties fathers have in getting and enforcing visitation, laws are being written to protect grandparents. Also, shouldn't the divorce and the parents schedules with the child be hammered out BEFORE we let the grandparents petition for their visitation?

WNDU

Fathers Ask For Custody, Child Support Reforms

Michigan Dads dressed up in Santa Suits to promote equal custody and their legislative agenda/plans... Fathers ask for custody, child support reforms

Michigan Non Custodial Lawsuits

There is an article in the Detroit News covering the non custodial lawsuits. Look it over, it is a pretty decent article. You can contact the author through the info below... (Seeing as the Detroit News only makes their articles available for 7 days, I am reprinting it below)

Detroit News

You can reach Kim Kozlowski at (313) 222-2024 or kkozlowski@detnews.com.

Divorced Mich. fathers sue for equity in child custody
Class-action lawsuit seeks to make joint custody the first option judges consider
By Kim Kozlowski / The Detroit News

TROY - Michigan fathers seeking to make joint custody the norm in divorce cases are suing the state in a class-action lawsuit they hope will stop the courts from marginalizing their role in their children's lives.

The suit claims the state's family courts have violated fathers' civil rights by awarding mothers custody and reducing them to visitors. The suit was filed when noncustodial parents in 43 other states filed similar suits, and when fathers are seeking similar parental equity in Europe and Canada.

"What I wanted was for my kids to have as normal of a life as possible," said Troy resident Michael Ross, the primary litigant, whose court order grants him parenting time with his three children every other weekend and a few hours during the week.

"This lawsuit is not about me but what is best for them: substantial time with their mother and substantial time with their dad."

The lawsuit is the latest attempt by Michigan's noncustodial parents, who are overwhelmingly fathers, to force courts to presume that joint custody is in a child's best interest at the outset of a divorce. Judges still would have the authority to decide what's best for the child, but it would reduce some of their discretion. Currently, judges base their decision on what they consider to be best for the children, but fathers argue that those decisions are rooted in cultural stereotypes that mothers are better parents.

Physical custody has long been disproportionately awarded to mothers. Out of the state's 19,108 divorce cases involving children in 2002, mothers were given physical custody in 64 percent of the cases and fathers in 10 percent, according to the Michigan Department of Community Health. Joint custody was awarded in 23 percent.

Additionally, for couples who never marry, Michigan law grants custody to mothers, bolstering fathers' argument that the system is unfair.

Experts say the reason mothers are more often awarded custody of children is because of the cultural history of women being the primary caretakers, said Leighton Stamps, a University of New Orleans professor who has studied the decision-making of judges in child custody cases.
"A lot of the judges' attitudes depend on their age," Stamps said. "Older judges tend to be more traditional. Younger judges tend to be more egalitarian."

However, custody laws like Michigan's, which rest on the best interest of the child, give judges a lot of latitude, Stamps added.

"A judge can pretty much pick out any aspect of the family situation in making these rulings," Stamps said.

Fathers have lobbied the Michigan Legislature twice in the past eight years and have launched a petition drive to get equal parenting rights, efforts that have been largely unsuccessful.
However, some observers argue that joint custody is not a viable option in many cases because there are some fathers unable to accommodate the arrangement either because of their job or because they live in another state.

There are other fathers, too, who don't want to be a part of their children's life. And there are situations when the mother and father just can't get along.

"You can't force a joint custody situation on two people who are not capable of getting along, because what will happen to the child?" said Debbie Kline, executive director of Association for Children for the Enforcement of Support. "It takes a lot more cooperation between the two adults, and many divorcing parents can't get along."

Dads demand equal time
Often the animosity of a divorce fuels disagreement between moms and dads when it comes to the children, especially when they are trying to split parenting time. When parents can't agree, the court steps in and typically defaults to a parenting plan that involves every other weekend and some time during the week.

But fathers say that's not enough time to raise their children.

"Just because a family dissolves doesn't mean that it's no longer a family," said Michael Lane of Farmington Hills, who had monthly visits with his now-adult son.

"It's just a family of a different nature. Both parents have responsibilities toward the children and toward one another."

Though the number of joint custody awards has been slowly increasing, which some observers believe is a sign that times are changing, some fathers say they are not being awarded enough. They also say it doesn't always mean they will have equal time with their kids.

Joint legal custody allows parents to play equal roles in making decisions for their child's upbringing such as education, religion and health care. But for some fathers, it doesn't always mean equal time to raise the child.

"It's just unbearable," said Daniel Gee of Novi, who has custody of his 16-year-old son but not his 12-year-old son, whom he sees every other weekend. "This stuff is emotionally devastating, and you go to the courts and they are callous. It's an unacceptable way to treat a parent."

Father's role is vital
Psychologists say children who don't spend enough time with their fathers can develop emotional problems such as low self-esteem, depression and feelings of abandonment. Fatherless children are more likely to act out at school, develop truancy problems and develop unhealthy perceptions about relationships, said Michael Brooks, a Kalamazoo psychologist.

"Both parents bring unique characteristics and aspects to parenting the children," said Brooks, who is a member of the state's Friend of the Court Advisory Board. "But it's difficult to be a parent two days out of 15."

Brooks said a court-ordered parenting plan that only includes every other weekend and a few nights a week could be construed as a situation that creates a fatherless child. This is why he supports the movement that courts should initially presume joint custody for divorcing couples, unless one of them is shown to be unfit.

John Mills, chairman of the family law section of the Michigan State Bar, said mandating a presumption of joint custody would take away the discretion of judges, who are considering each individual case.

"They make the decision on what is best for the children," said Mills, who opposes presumed joint legal custody.

Lawsuit marks new approach
The move for equal parenting time has been under way for some time. In 1996 and 2001, fathers' rights groups got parity bills introduced into the state Legislature, but neither went very far.

Earlier this year, Dads of Michigan sponsored a petition drive to get the issue onto the ballot, but the group couldn't get enough signatures. The class-action lawsuit, filed last month, is attempting to seek change through another avenue that so far has not been explored.
Attorney General Mike Cox, who has earned a reputation for cracking down on parents who don't pay child support, is seeking to dismiss Ross' case on grounds that the state can't be sued in federal court, where the case was filed.

Since the suit claims Michigan has broken laws by violating its citizens' rights, the state is not immune from being sued, said Torm Howse, president of Indiana Civil Rights Council, which is coordinating the lawsuits in all the states, including Michigan.

"This is not about trying to help abusive parents," Howse said. "It's about restoring the equal right of every fit and equal parent to joint or shared parenting."

Ross, the Troy father who filed the lawsuit, says it goes beyond that.

"This," Ross said, "is about a force that is taking place in our culture that is very bad for our society overall."

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox

Mike Cox, the Attorney General in Michigan, started a contest several weeks ago encouraging children to draw pictures to "encourage the payment of child support." Initially, Domino's pizza and the possibility to be have the artwork posted on a billboard were the "prizes." Domino's left the campaign several days ago saying that it was not aware of how precisely the pizza coupons would be used. Detroit Free Press. Apparently, the AG's office has now decided to scrap the program all together. However, after Domino's first pulled out, Cox's office stated the campaign would continue. Wonder why they changed their tune? More info:


Detroit News
Fox News
Detroit News

Dads of Michigan Update

I received the following in an email yesterday:

We achieved 4 of our five goals but we did not get enough signatures to put this on the ballot. We inspired several pieces of legislation to change custody and support issues. We are now represented in every county in Michigan.

Our paternity policy team is currently working with several Legislators to draft legislation on paternity.

Rep Howell is championing legislation to remove custody from the law.
Rep Voorhees is championing legislation to preserve families and reform divorce and custody laws.

Did the petition have an effect. You bet.

We are now working to have the petition language introduced as a bill.

Kind regards.

James Semerad
Chairman
DADS of Michigan PAC

6632 Telegraph Road, Suite 110
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
www.dadsofmichigan.org
(248) 559-DADS phone

While apparently the petition drive was not the success I had hoped, it seems quite apparent that DadsofMichigan is helping to change Michigan laws. If you are a Michigan resident please contact them to find out how you can help.

Michigan NOW Against Proposed Joint Custody Legislation...(Big Surprise)

Okay, this is an article from the Liberation Journal and penned by Gregory Flanagan (who apparently is the only writer for the Liberation Journal, as of yet I can find no other authors on the site...links to other sites, but no other articles written for this particular site by another author...please update me if I am incorrect)

To start, I found this article suspect since it was written by a man. Granted, there has often been cross-over in many civil rights issues in our history- men supported the women's movement, whites supported civil rights, (and the most obvious) women support men's right to equal custody. However, a man outwardly supporting NOW in a blanket fashion did seem suspect to me. So I decided to do a little research on the Liberation Journal and Mr. Flanagan.

From the little I have found, this site appears to be hosted by a Canadian ISP. I'm not sure if that is relevant. I did find a site in which Mr. Flanagan was commenting on content of his site about homosexuals being pedophiles and concerning some type of action by the Canadian government... but not enough to have a cohesive summation.

I can't find much else, except other articles written by Mr. Flanagan, all of which seem to be written on hot button topics. Maybe he is simply fishing for notoriety.

Anyway, I wonder, if he is a Canadian citizen, why the apparent interest in Michigan custody legislation? Or the myriad of other US issues he takes up...

I have to say that I am surprised at the lack of biographical or contrary literature available on Mr. Flanagan. He certainly takes positions on very strongly felt issues; maybe I am the only one stupid enough to give this guy the time of day. (Also, I have on no way reviewed his positions in their entirety, he may very well agree with me on other points)

On to the article... for your reading pleasure I will provide some direct quotes, but first I should give some type of summary. He does cite some sources, primarily NOW. However, at least his first paragraph is startling lacking in support. It seems obvious to me that Mr. Flanagan believes: 1) That mothers are rightly given physical custody in the majority of cases, 2) That fathers are generally happy with their visitation schedule, 3) That mothers and children have a bond not matched by fathers and children and 4) A presumption of joint custody is not inherently in the best interests of the child and any judge who rules as such is ignoring the welfare of the child.

My favorite quotes:

"To make any other decision, a judge must find reasons why joint custody is not in the children's "best interest." This is an ambiguously high legal standard that makes it very difficult for judges to award sole-custody. It is a departure from the traditionally accepted standards determining what's in the best interest of the child based on the biological bond of mother and child and the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the mother is the primary child care provider." (More ambiguous than finding what is in the child's best interest, which this author argues is the "biological" bond between mother and child. Excuse me, but I took biology at some point, and I'm pretty sure there is a "biological" bond between father and child too! Unless we are talking about immaculate conception, maybe Canada has more going on up there than we thought.)

"Most child custody cases are settled through mutual agreement, sometimes aided by mediation, and the overwhelming majority of the time the mother gets custody with the father getting visitation in a way that satisfies both of them." (This is just ridiculous. If the majority of cases were settled through mutual agreement and there were smiles all around, what in the hell would all joint custody legislation be about? Obviously, there is a problem felt by enough to warrant a myriad of father's rights groups, new legislation, etc... We all know these statistics are often used by NOW and are categorically incorrect. Through my first search I found this: This study, conducted in Arizona, showed what the wishes of each parent was, and what the resulting custody decision was:

Fathers Wishes.

Joint Custody: 74%
Paternal Sole Custody: 15%
Maternal Sole Custody: 11%

Mother's wishes.

Maternal Sole Custody: 70%
Joint Custody: 30%

For the conflicting families (Father wanted joint custody, mother wanted sole custody).
Maternal Sole Custody awarded: 77%
Joint Custody awarded: 23%

(Source: Determining the Impact of Joint Custody on Divorcing Families, Sanford Braver, associate professor at the Arizona State University)

"The decrees overwhelmingly favored the mother's custody wishes: 67% of mothers obtained both the legal and residential custody arrangements they desired compared with only 15% of fathers; meanwhile, only 8% of mothers (vs 37% of fathers) found neither stipulation to correspond to their preference."

(Source: Gender Differences in Satisfaction with Divorce Decrees, Sheets & Braver, 1993)

There are also other statistics available ON THIS SITE countering this faulty claim repeatedly made by NOW.)

"Imposed joint custody is "unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support." Says NOW." (What precisely would be the unintended consequences in child support? Mothers would no longer get de-facto alimony titled as "support" in the name of the children? Mothers might be expected to support themselves and 50% of their children's needs on their own? My heavens! Whatever will we do with this unintended accountability!)

"NOW warns that, "Forced joint custody is also a top legislative priority of fringe fathers' rights groups nationwide. These groups argue that courts are biased and sole custody awards to mothers deny fathers their right to parent. They allege that, in most cases, mothers are awarded sole custody, with fathers granted visitation rights. The men cite this as proof of bias against fathers."

"The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases." According to NOW." (Here it is again, mutual agreement, fathers win a majority of custody disputes... Notice NOW only cites several studies, no study titles authors, or dates. Must have slipped their mind. I mean, come on, the findings are so prominent how could you not know this stuff! Women always get screwed, men are oppressors, we (women) are so weak and delicate and intelligence challenged that the courts must be biased in our favor in order for there to be a level playing field. Oh, but BTW, we still want you to "help our children" in the form of cold hard cash. Don't forget to sign the check!! This is a an article on the effects of joint custody and the need for fathers: SPARC)

"NOW says, "The legislature's determination to impose joint custody on parents in conflict is a frightening proposition for many women and places them and their children in harm's way. There is documented proof that forced joint custody hurts children." "In the majority of cases in which there's no desire to cooperate, joint custody creates a battleground on which to carry on the fight," one researcher reported in the legal magazine, The Los Angeles Daily Journal (December 1988)." (I'm not even sure what to say here, NOW speaks more crap... What documented proof? Provide some sources... There is documented proof joint custody is beneficial (see SPARC above), that is the beauty of statistics, you can almost always find some to support your point. The difference is here I'll provide mine, NOW just uses "one researcher" who reported in The Los Angeles Daily Journal. I don't know, but I gotta think that if you go to the card catalog of your library and look up one researcher and the magazine title, you are going to come up with... squat. But then who knows...)

"In "Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access," Janet Johnson and her colleagues compared children in court-ordered joint custody with children in sole-custody homes. In both situations, the parents were in "entrenched conflict." This study showed that under these circumstances frequent shuttling between both parents in joint custody "is linked to more troubled emotional problems" in children than the sole-custody arrangement." They reported." (I just love the "They reported." Anyway, the problem here is that the article says there were conflicts in both scenarios and while they may have been aggravated by joint custody, isn't the real problem the parents? Should we punish, or keep the children from having meaningful and regular contact with one parent because the parents (note the plural) are too stupid to act like adults around each other? That doesn't necessarily negate their ability to properly parent their children and if it did it would require the law to remove the child from the care of both parents, not just one.)

"Imposed joint custody is particularly dangerous to battered women and their children. As the director of the Michigan Domestic Violence and Treatment Board said in her testimony opposing this bill, "...the exchange of children during visitation can be the most dangerous time for the [domestic violence survivor] and her children." (This is a legitimate concern but a ridiculous point. As even the article itself notes, the judge can demonstrate why joint custody is not in the best interests of the child and order sole custody. I'm reaching here, but I think documented abuse would warrant such a decision...)

"My experience with presumptive joint custody as a domestic relations lawyer in Louisiana was almost uniformly negative," said NOW Executive Vice President Kim Gandy. "It creates an unparalleled opportunity for belligerent former spouses to carry on their personal agendas or vendettas through the children -- and with the blessing of the courts."
"Attorneys often referred to it jokingly as the `lawyer protection act' because repeated trips to court over minor issues kept the fees rolling in, and the mothers were more likely to suffer," Gandy said." (Well everybody clap for NOW since they seem to be the only ones worth quoting. As if a lawyer who also happens to be the NOW Executive Vice President wouldn't have an agenda or possibly a differing opinion from your run of the mill divorce attorney. But everyone listen to Kim --mothers are more likely to suffer. Now let's bow down and kiss the feet of this impartial, benevolent pedagogue. What on earth would we do without her to suffer for all the meek, half-witted victims (oops, I meant women). God bless the predominately male judiciary who will save them all from having to share their children with the person who shared the responsibility in their creation and pay their own way.)

Oh crap, there is a link to another article by this Flanagan fellow... Guess what!! It is just as moronic and misrepresented. Thankfully I have very little to do at work today...

Link to the first article here: Mother's Rights and Children's Welfare Threatened by Forced Joint Custody (from the Liberation Journal)

Joint Custody Initiative in Michigan

Dads of Michigan is beginning a petition drive to get presumption of joint custody to appear on the November ballot. This would amend the Michigan custody laws and compel judges to award joint custody unless one parent can be proven unfit. They need 254,206 signatures by May 26 and have 1,000+ volunteers out soliciting support.

To read the article link here: detnews.com.

Visit the Dads of Michigan web site.

If you are interested in signing the petition (and a Michigan resident) contact Dads of Michigan at info@dadsofmichigan.org or call 248-559-DADS.

More Michigan

A more complete article about problems with child support in Michigan. Detroit News

Child Support in Michigan

This article highlights the proposed changes headed by the current Attorney General, Mike Cox. They are most relevant to parents whose support payments are in arrears. Detroit News

Mansfield's Rule in Michigan

What happens when a married woman has an affair and becomes pregnant? In Michigan there are two contradictory scenarios. MLive.com

Legislation in Michigan

This is another article about the 16 proposed bills that make up the Family and Marriage Preservation Plan, the proposed legislation in Michigan. This site does not require a subscription. HollandSentinel.com

Changes in Michigan?

This is an extremely interesting article about 16 bills (Family and Marriage Preservation Plan) introduced in Michigan, aimed at various problems within current marriage and divorce legislation. It includes a measure for mandatory education or counseling prior to marriage, a waiting period of 27 days (up from 3 days) after applying for a marriage license, a tax credit to defray pre-marital counseling costs, etc... Six of the bills are to protect children of divorcing parents, the most important of which "requires that a parenting plan, detailing custody and decision-making for children, be in place before a divorce is finalized." I got to this article no problem, but I believe after a number of days a subscription might be required. I am going to try and find the article elsewhere and if that doesn't work, I may just reprint the entire article here (and hope no one cares). MLive.com

If you live in Michigan, write to the legislature and tell them that you support these bills. If you link to Yahoo here, and scroll all the way down, on the left hand side (under the heading Politics Tools) you can enter your zip code (or search by state) to write or email your elected officials. You can email them all at once or one by one. The ANCPR site also has a LEGISLATIVE ACTION CENTER through which you can contact your elected officials on a variety of subjects relevant to father's rights.

Child Custody And Divorce: Free Legal Advice

This is a very interesting site though it is again particularly relevant to those living in Michigan. I am not sure why so many of these links are relevant to Michigan, I don't live there. Nonetheless, it can be a very valuable resource for anyone looking for advice.

This site is written by James Whalen, Attorney at Law, based in Flint, MI. It is extremely lengthy and comprehensive and includes 50 titled chapters specifically on divorce and child custody. The two major advantages to this site are that the author is a lawyer so it is probably the most credible advice you will find online and that it is absolutely free!

This site is not slanted to either parent and covers the most basic to the most tenuous issues in divorce and custody cases. Further, and I say this hesitantly, the author even allows visitors to email specific questions that he will respond to for free. I have to make two caveats with this information:

First, he is only licensed in Michigan. This means if you live in California he will probably not be able to give you the caliber of advice that he could give a Michigan resident, nor will he likely want to waste his time trying. Divorce and custody laws change by state. Do not expect too much from this service and do not fool yourself into thinking that the advice on this site will keep you from having to retain an attorney. This site can be a wonderful starting point and reference point during your case, it should not constitute the legal premise, plan or direction of your case. Consult your own attorney on specifics.

Secondly, please read through the site before you email a question. Look to see if your question has already been answered. It is an amazing thing that this attorney is doing for free so do not waste his time by asking something that he has already covered. Further, make sure you carefully read his requests for questions submitted over email. You can find his email address under the heading News Flashes, Updates, ..., at the bottom of that page click on the link Emailer and then carefully read the information. After all of this, if you still feel justified sending your question, go for it and good luck. The site can be accessed here: Childcustody.net