Sign of Reform?
In North Dakota, there's a billboard battle going on between supporters and detractors of "Measure 3", areferendum on imposing a presumption of joint physical custody in cases of divorce , unless there's a compelling, empirical reason not to.
The North Dakota State Bar Association opposes the measure for reasons that sound rational on their face, but don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
But when parents cannot agree on how to share custody, measure #3 mandates a 50-50 division of custody unless one of the parents is declared unfit. The best interests of the child come into play only if there has been a finding of unfitness. How are parents who cannot agree on their own going to make a 50-50 custody arrangement work?
Because the "threat" of a 50-50 arrangement might make some parents into better, more thoughtful negotiators?
Seriously - the lack of faith in parents that the NDBA shows is astounding.
The real effect of measure #3 is to disproportionately shift bargaining power to parties who presently are not good candidates for child custody.
Stated without any attribution or fact on its surface - and worse than that underneath.
The measure would give men - fathers - a place at the bargaining table, and a chance to defend their relationship with their children, a chance they are currently largely denied.
The NDBA is saying, if you follow the statement ot its logical conclusion, that men are just not suited to raise kids.
Is this what the law should enshrine?
It has nothing to do with children’s interests, and everything to do with the unhappiness of some non-custodial parents. Shifting bargaining power to non-custodial parents will not result in fewer contested cases, as the measure’s proponents claim. Family law practitioners estimate the current divorce settlement rate of 85% to 90% will drop to around 50%, increasing the trial load for divorces 300% to 400%.
So says the NDBA.
And let's accept this as a given (which I don't); so what?
The current system has a low "settlement rate" because, in a huge number of cases, men are advised they really have no chance of "winning" in court; just settle, pony up your child support, and settle in to being a part-time parent, at the mercy of your ex-spouse, until your kids are 18.
Given that, an increase in "trial load" might be a good thing.
But I'd love to see the basis on which "family law practitioners estimate" those numbers, since it beggars the imagination.
The second thing measure #3 does is to destroy the present child support system, and deprive the state of $71,000,000 in TANF funds, what used to be called AFDC.
Aaaaah. So after all that yammering about the best interests of children - which many studies have shown is best served by joint physical custody anyway - it really comes down to money?
North Dakotans - reject the misery pimps, and vote for Measure 3.
Posted by Mitch at
October 25, 2006 07:30 AM
| TrackBack
So if North Dakotans treat kids like money and presume that they should be divided equally, they'll be swamped with divorce trials?
How many divorces can there BE in North Dakota? Even if ALL of them went to trial . . . .
Quick - call Kevin Burke to start a Alternative Dispute Resolution process. Can't let this "equality" thing get out of hand. Might turn into actual fairness soon, and then where would the social workers be?
.
Posted by: nate bissonette at October 25, 2006 12:37 PMMitch mewled: "The measure would give men - fathers - a place at the bargaining table, and a chance to defend their relationship with their children, a chance they are currently largely denied."
Posted by: angryclown at October 26, 2006 09:09 AMAffirmative action for men. It takes a drum circle, eh Mitch?
Ask me someday when Mrs. Clown takes Clownito and moves in with the cabana boy.
You'll be one of those crying-on-the-inside clowns.
Posted by: mitch at October 26, 2006 11:12 AMThere's million sad stories in the naked city. Republicans only want to fix the problems that affect them personally.
Posted by: angryclown at October 26, 2006 11:31 AMYeah, which is why Mitch, who has always been upfront being a joint custody parent who has a decent situation, is always pushing this issue. Because it only affects him personally.
Posted by: Ali Castro at October 26, 2006 01:16 PMI thankfully don't have much experience in these matters, but I have never been comfortable with the concept of joint physical custody. Again, I have no evidence, no studies to cite, but I feel the child needs one home, not two.
I would also dispense with child support and mandatory visitation. Neither seems to work unless the parties are agreeable, anyway. I would rather have the child see his father (or mother) voluntarily help support his mother (or father).
That said, the courts are still about 50 years behind the times when it comes to treating men fairly. Joint custody is not a cure for that.
Posted by: R-Five at October 26, 2006 07:17 PMClown, the prevailing trend of family courts to trivialize male parents rights affects both republican and democrat fathers equally. (And let's not forget the libertarians, the greens, the independents, etc.) And the affirmative action in this instance is for the child, who benefits from having two loving parents in their life.
Posted by: malcolmania at October 26, 2006 10:28 PMAli, I don't know what to say about your insipid post... In fact, I cannot see any problem with changing a broken-down, misguided-and-wrongheaded, gender-biased system that punishes a parent for being born with male genitalia (and only for being born so, all other qualities being equal!) and punishes that parent both monetarily and emotionally!
"Again, I have no evidence, no studies to cite, but I feel the child needs one home, not two."
Having kids isn't a matter of real estate. It's about having a father and a mother doing the job. Even if they don't live together.
The current system effectively removes fathers from parenting in about a third of all families. The effects on society - violent boys, promiscuous girls - are omnipresent and dangerous.
Posted by: mitch at October 26, 2006 10:43 PMI think we could all agree that, in a perfect world, Dad and Mom and Child(ren) live together in perfect harmony for eternity. I think we can also all be pragmatic enough to see that divorces happen, and the best interest of the child(ren) becomes an issue of the courts. How anyone can say that both parent's direct and equal involvement in a child's upbringing is not beneficial to the child's well-being is absolutely unfathomable to me!
Posted by: malcolmania at October 26, 2006 11:05 PMTo be sure, there are unfit parents in the world. But unfit parents come in two styles; Men AND Women. The current court mentality of minimalizing a fathers influence in the nurturing of his offspring has gone on for far too long, and has given us a generation of young males who have no idea what it means to be a man, as well as young females who have no idea that they should be able to expect young males to behave as men!
Maybe it's time for OUR legislature to look a few miles west for some inspiration. Howzabout our own ballot initiative, or referendum, ar whatever the heck we vote on... besides more school levys.