Home Recommended Products Contact Us
 
 
Home
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Donate
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
 
 
Signup for Newsletter
 
E-mail:  
 
 
Search Site
 
 
 
 
 
 
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
$Account.OrganizationName
 
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Why They Oppose Shared Parenting
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
  May 20, 2005  
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
 
 
Many of you emailed me to ask why the bar associations, the legal aid agencies, Jane Doe and others oppose shared parenting legislation. So I will give you a summary of their arguments.
 
There is a great deal of overlap in the reasons given by the various opponents. In the interest of brevity, I will not state our opposing arguments.
 
First and foremost, they point to domestic violence, and claim that shared parenting legislation will force battered women into continuing, close contact with a dangerous ex-partner.
 
Closely related to this is the claim that most people are settling their custody cases amicably, and only the high conflict cases end up disputing custody. Therefore, the main effect of a shared parenting law would be to force high-conflict couples to do shared parenting, and it is well known that exposure to high conflict is bad for children.
 
Another closely related argument is that shared parenting will allow fathers to use the children as tools for exercising power and control over their ex- partner.
Opponents also state that batterers abuse kids as well as their partners.
 
One witness claimed that several states who previously enacted joint physical custody subsequently changed the law back because it wasn't working.
 
Some opponents simply claim that joint custody legislation is all about the rights of parents, and has nothing to do with what is best for children, or what children actually want.
 
Opponents also claim that instituting joint physical custody legislation will supplant the longstanding "best interest of the child" standard.
 
Opponents characterize our legislation as "forced" or "mandatory" joint custody.
 
Opponents claim that our legislation demands a rigid 50/50 requirement regardless of practical circumstances.
 
Opponents paint the sad picture of "suitcase kids," dragging back and forth, always discovering that the school book they need or their skates are at the other house.
 
Some of these objections may have merit, and deserve close inspection. Others simply misrepresent our bill, are contradicted by the research evidence, or are correct, but outweighed by the advantages of shared parenting.
 
Don't feel helpless and outraged - in our testimony and our one-on-one meetings with legislators, we have persistently debunked the myths. And we are ready to work with our opponents to improve our bill where their concerns have merit.
 
****************************************
 
BTW, one of the most important things that you can do as a member of this e-list is get other people to join. If you think of anyone who would enjoy or benefit from receiving our e-mails, please click on the link below that says "forward email."
 

Best Regards,


Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Fathers & Families

phone: (617) 542-9300
 
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.