Another Boost for Pennsylvania House Bill 463
Not long ago I posted a piece about a Pennsylvania organization, the Pennsylvania Families Association, that's lobbying to get a bill passed in that state's legislature that would establish a presumption of equally shared parenting. It's called 'joint custody' in the bill, which is House Bill 463.
Now here's an article that puts a little flesh on the bones of why state lawmakers should pass the bill (Lebanon Daily News, 6/20/09). It's about a father named Dan Giffin who fought for years with his ex-wife over custody of their son. The two spent years in court and thousands of dollars, just to end up exactly where the presumption contained in House Bill 463 would have put them without all the heartache and attorney's fees.
More than that, Giffin pointed out what many divorced and divorcing spouses know. "I think the system made us adversarial," he said.
Opponents have two objections to equally shared parenting, neither of which seems to hold much water. First,
The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence has released a position paper stating that automatic joint custody could increase a child’s exposure to an abusive parent...
The claim that the presumption contained in House Bill 463 results in "automatic joint custody" is plain nonsense. If the bill passes, family judges will, as they do now, consider seriously any claims of domestic violence or sexual abuse. A presumption in no way prevents them from ordering sole or unequal custody as the circumstances of each case dictate.
The second claim is, as one attorney stated,
“My concern is any type of presumption of joint custody will decimate the best interest of the child standard. I believe starting from that presumption takes away all the discretion of the court and the judge, who is the fact finder and who hears from both sides what is going on and makes the final determination of what is in best interest of the child.”
Again, the bill in no way removes discretion from the judge. As with any presumption, it simply places a requirement on a party wanting to rebut the presumption of producing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption. In other words, if a father wants sole custody, he has to produce evidence to support his request. If he doesn't, the judge will be required to order joint custody.
As to the best interests of the child, does this attorney seriously contend that family courts promote that under the current system? We know that children do better with two involved parents than with just one. But courts resolutely deny custody to fathers, grant custodial mothers the right to move away, effectively negating the father's minimal visitation rights, fail to enforce visitation orders and generally do their best to separate children from their fathers. In short, the best interests of children are not currently being served by family courts, so maybe changing the law is what's required.
Let's be clear. Judges can start giving fathers equal access to their children any time they want to, with or without a change in the law. If they had done that, bills like House Bill 463 would not be necessary. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 84% of custody cases in which there is a child support order gave custody to the mother.
Not only that, but a study done in the mid-1990s by Mnookin, et al and reported in the book Divorce Reform at the Crossroads, found that, even when fathers asserted a claim for custody, mothers were awarded custody twice as often as fathers.
So the idea that the current system promotes the "best interests of the child," is a red herring. What it promotes is fatherless children, which in turn promotes a host of societal ills. If it takes laws like Pennsylvania House Bill 463 to drag judges kicking and screaming into the 21st century, it's OK by me.
|
| More from Robert Franklin, Esq.
Stumble It!
