Mass. Rep. Alice Peisch ‘Knows Better than her District’ on Equally Shared Parenting
A while back, I posted a piece about two separate Canadian surveys that show overwhelming support for equally-shared parenting laws. Each showed support of around 78%. At the time (and maybe still), there was a bill before Parliament to establish the presumption of equally shared parenting in divorce and custody cases. The bill was given little chance of passage, so I pointed out the radical difference between what Canadians say they want and what their elected “representatives” are willing to do. The message “we know what’s best for you; now run along and play” seems to be more and more common on the part of people who are elected and paid by their constituents to serve their interests.
This letter to the editor reflects much the same thing (Metro Daily News, 11/18/09). The writer is targeting a Massachusetts state representative, Alice Peisch, and a senator, Cynthia Creem. He points out that voters in Peisch’s district overwhelmingly support changing the Bay State’s law to establish the presumption of shared parenting, but again, Peisch knows better than the people who vote for her. She opposes equally shared parenting.
Creem is worse. As chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she wields considerable influence over bills heard there. Unfortunately for residents of the state, that means that if they’re going to benefit from real alimony reform, Creem has to agree. And she doesn’t. She’s substituted her own bill for one supported by many lawyers’ groups, non-profits and again, voters in her district.
Unsurprisingly, Creem’s law practice has long depended on family cases and most notably, alimony cases as its bread and butter. As the letter points out, her conflict of interest in the matter is clear.
To succeed in our mission, fathers’ rights advocates must be able to demonstrate political influence at the state level. Clearly, that’s what’s behind the decision by Fathers & Families to employ a lobbyist in Sacramento. But what’s also needed is to show elected officials that they ignore fathers’ issues at the risk of their jobs. If the anti-dad forces in Australia succeed in rolling back equally-shared parenting legislation there, pro-fathers-and-children folks will need to bounce some of them out of office in the next election.
In Massachusetts, Creem, with her obvious multiple conflicts of interest and Peisch, with her disdain for the desires of her constituents, have painted large electoral bulls-eyes on their backs.
| More from Robert Franklin, Esq.
Stumble It!
