A nice opinion piece was printed in the Lansing State Journal today with a quick overview of HB 5267 (Presumption of Joint Custody Bill). Although this bill is a step in the right direction, there is much wiggle room for courts to continue exercising nearly unlimited jurisdiction over the protected family relationships between children and parents.
The article alleges that "Michigan Family Courts apply a custody standard designed in 1970 that requires both parents agree to joint physical custody or it is deemed unmanageable. Ask yourself how likely it is that some parent(s) may withhold this agreement solely to deny equal custody to the other parent?" This has happened to me personally in my case and I sympathize with other parents that tolerate this as the status quo.
In reality, the Michigan Family courts apply a broader custody standard that allows the state to claim large amounts of welfare funding under Title IV-D and Title IV-A of the Social Security Act whereas the default custody arrangement is one custodial and one absent parent. Both programs have reward systems in place that allows State agencies to receive large federal block grants when they create and maintain absent parent households, often coined "non-custodial households." Broken homes are encouraged by program guidelines that reward single-parents and prevents children from having access to both biological parents.
Although HB 5267 is a step in the right direction, implementing the federal guidelines called for here, will reduce the size of governmental bureacracies that otherwise exist soley by their efficiencies in creating and forcing one parent to be absent in their children's lives by court order.
Further Information:
Requesting Change: It's a Matter of Adminstration and Legislation
Grand Rapids Press Prints Misleading Propaganda Today
Cory D. Mackwood: Joint custody bill should receive speedy approval (complete article archived below if unavailable.)
Published August 20, 2006 (Lansing State Journal)
Cory D. Mackwood is a Michigan resident and the parent of an 11-year-old son. |
|
Cory D. Mackwood: Joint custody bill should receive speedy approval
The Committee on Family and Children Services of the Michigan House of Representatives soon will debate HB 5267, introduced last October by Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton.
This proposed legislation would require a "presumption of joint physical custody" after divorce unless a parent is unfit, unwilling or unable to care for their child. It makes an exception if a parent doesn't reside in the child's school district and cannot maintain the child's present schedule.
Michigan Family Courts apply a custody standard designed in 1970 that requires both parents agree to joint physical custody or it is deemed unmanageable. Ask yourself how likely it is that some parent(s) may withhold this agreement solely to deny equal custody to the other parent?
HB 5267 has stirred many organizations to use scare tactics to assert that this bill is wrong for Michigan and its children. They remind us of abusive noncustodial parents that would "gain access" to the other parent. HB 5267 wouldn't support this kind of parent as joint physical custodian.
Critics of HB 5267 claim that noncustodial parents want joint physical custody to reduce child support and to rob our children of needed money.
Forget the vileness of this assertion; HB 5267 makes no change to the current child support formula.
Lawyers opposing HB 5267 assert that it will take discretion from judges. HB 5267 doesn't take discretion from judges; it replaces 1970 standards with 2006 standards. It will, however, reduce litigation since many motions involve enforcing noncustodial parental rights being violated.
These special interest groups misrepresent HB 5267. By playing to the pessimist in mankind, they believe they can scare us into leaving things the same.
They do that not in the best interest of children or even the abused parent they purport to represent. They do that in their own best interest.
HB 5267 creates a standard of equality, and assumes both parents want and deserve to be equal in the child's life even after divorce. It also assumes that our children want and would benefit from this equality, absent evidence to the contrary.
Is this really a revelation? Over 85 percent of Michigan residents asked say joint physical custody should be the standard.
Grown adults who are products of divorce say divorce was made more difficult for them because they didn't have "equal time" with both parents.
Are there bad people who will attempt to take advantage of the system? Yes, there are.
Are there bad people that already take advantage of the present system? Yes, there are.
Children need both parents. Parents deserve the right to equal parenting without having to get permission from the other parent - permission that in all too many cases is withheld as a punishment.
It's not 1970 anymore. HB 5267 would create equality. Equality for our children and equality for parents who never intended and don't deserve to divorce their children.
HB 5267: It's about children; it's about fairness; it's about time.
Jeff Creteau
6 Veterans Road #15
Amherst, NH 03031
603-930-9829
The Telegraph
P.O. Box 1008
Nashua, NH 03061
RE: Letter to the Editor - Opinions
To the Editor:
Currently shared parenting or joint custody is only awarded in 16 percent of cases. According to studies by the American Psychological Association, “A major advantage of joint custody may be its ability to address the high rate of current father absence subsequent to divorce. Joint custody has been correlated with increased father involvement.”
Second, “Joint custody versus sole maternal custody was associated with adolescent’s positive adjustment. Several studies found that increased and reliable visitation by the non-custodial parent (usually the father) predicted positive adjustment of the children.”
Feminists oppose joint custody on grounds that child support will be reduced. However, “the consensus of studies” found that “child support is either increased” or not significantly different. A fourth benefit is that there is “decreased re-litigation” with shared parenting, and less conflict between spouses in general.
Legitimate research overwhelmingly confirms that 50/50 joint physical custody is the arrangement that is in the child's best interest. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (Statistics of 2000), children from a fatherless home are 5 times more likely to commit suicide, 32 time more likely to run away, 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders, 14 times more likely to commit rape, 9 times more likely to drop out of school, 9 times more likely to be institutionalized, 10 times more likely to abuse drugs, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality. By contrast, children whose fathers are involved in raising them do better in school, are less likely, to get in trouble with the law, and are more likely to be better parents themselves.
Additional benchmark studies have, for the first time, also culled the opinions of children -- up to now pawns in a "best interests" game that means something different to every stakeholder. University of British Columbia sociology professor Edward Kruk, a specialist in divorce and custody issues, analyzed all new research on the subject from 2000-2005. He found that 70% of college-age children of divorce believe equal time between parents is optimal, and that shared parenting creates better relations with both.
Thus, research proves what common sense would suggest. Shared parenting results in greater father involvement, more financial support, less litigation and happier children.
Recently a bill was introduced in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and the New Hampshire Senate. The bill was called HB529. The house overwhelmingly supported it. This bill would have required the family courts in this state to treat each parent in an equal and comparable manner. This bill would have also required the family courts to make detailed findings on the record of the evidence it relied upon to separate the children from one of their parents.
I know what your readers are probably wondering. Doesn’t the Constitution require everyone to be treated equal? It does, unfortunately the family court system in this state does not treat everyone equally. It really is shameful that a law is required to ensure that every parent is treated equally in the family court system in this state.
Senator Roberge with Senators Odell, Foster and Gottesman along with several other senators were instrumental in defeating the bill as originally introduced.
I believe that these Senators are not beholden to the citizens of this state, but are more beholden to special interest groups, namely lawyers and lobbyists, who by the way, were the number one financial contributors in all four senators 2004 campaigns.
I have also seen several letters of support for Senator Roberge, in The Cabinet and other papers. One letter to The Cabinet, in support of Senator Roberge, came from family law attorney/former state Representative Margy Halliburton “She’ll vote for Sen. Sheila Roberge in GOP primary”. Your readers should know that Ms. Halliburton personally opposed HB529 and testified to both the house and Senate that it should not be passed. A letter to the Bedford Bulletin written by Yvonne Nanasi, “Snyder does not know Roberge”. Ms. Nanasi was registered as a lobbyist with the state as early as last year. One family law attorney, Campbell Harvey of Harvey and Mahony, wrote to Senator Roberge along with other family law attorneys and spoke about these “truly dreadful and idiotic bills” and how Senator Roberge “agrees with me and totally opposes these bills”.
Lawyers and the Senators that they support do not want constitutional parenting protections because it would severally limit the lawyers and the Senators who are lawyers their main means of income. Family law litigation is big business and industry in this state. As the aforementioned studies indicate, joint physical custody means less litigation, less litigation means less income for the divorce industry. Less income for lawyers also means less money to contribute to the politicians who support their interests. Remember, lawyers and lobbyists were the main financial campaign contributors to all four Senators in 2004.
The lawyers will tell you that they know what is in the best interest of children in this state. I believe that the citizens of this state do not need or want lawyers to tell them what is in the best interest of the children of this state, nor do I believe that the citizens of this state want senators who pander to special interest groups and have agendas to be elected again.
I respectfully request the citizens who voted for these Senators to ask these Senators why they did not vote for HB529 as it was originally written, you will most likely be surprised by there reasoning.
Would I characterize these Senators as anti-constitution and/or anti-family? Let the record speak for itself.
I do not think there is any doubt that the voters of this state would agree that HB529 would have immensely improved our society. The demand for equal protections in this states family court system will be a never- ending battle. While the voters of this state have many important issues to contend with in an election, I do not believe there is a more important issue than protecting the future of our children.
As Pope John Paul once said, “so goes the children, so goes the world”.
Respectfully,
Jeff Creteau
Jeff Creteau
6 Veterans Road #15
Amherst, NH 03031
603-673-8950
jjc69@adelphia.net