Fatherhood Coalition
reps to speak on shared parenting
and restraining order reform
BOSTON, May 17 – Fathers Rights advocates
from across the state will converge
on the State House today to give testimony
to the Judiciary Committee on shared
parenting and 209A reform (MGL 209A
abuse protection “restraining order”).
The hearings are scheduled for 1 pm
today in Room B2. Several shared parenting
bills are on the docket. The Fatherhood
Coalition supports Senate bill 855,
brought forward by senators Scott
Brown, Richard Tesei and Richard Ross.
According to Fatherhood Coalition
co-Chairman Michael P. O’Neil, “[I]n
Massachusetts today, over 90% of the
time, a judge will rule that it is
in ‘the best interest of the child’
to have his access to one of his parents—usually
the child’s father—severely restricted…studies
and statistics show the exponential
increase in teen pregnancy, suicide,
drug usage and school failures that
follow these unconscionable court
edicts.”
Coalition members will also be speaking
to the critical need to reform the
state’s notorious abuse protection
law, MGL 209A, from which thousands
of “restraining orders” restricting
the civil and human rights are yearly
issued, mainly to men. Coalition Spokesman
Mark Charalambous and others will
be testifying in support of House
bill 833, the “209A Reform bill.”
According to Charalambous, “Legal
protections routinely afforded hardened
criminals are denied fathers who are
often merely accused of making their
estranged wives or girlfriends afraid,
with no accusation of any actual violence
at all.”
Under 209A, a defendant can immediately
lose all access to his children as
well as being barred from his own
home.
These restraining orders are known
as the “nuclear first strike” in rancorous
divorces, most often when a custody
battle is likely. A mere accusation
of “abuse” made at a hearing in which
the man is not even present and has
no knowledge of is sufficient for
a judge to issue a 209A restraining
order under the present law.
“The abuse protection/domestic violence
regime which draws its ammunition
from MGL 209A has created a virtual
engine of fatherlessness,” Charalambous
contends.
Steve Basile, the Fatherhood Coalition’s
research director, conducted a study
of restraining orders issued out of
Gardner District Court. The second
phase of the research has just been
published in the June edition of the
Journal of Family Violence (the first
phase was published in the Feb. 2004
edition).
The research shows a clear double
standard in the application of 209A
with respect to male and female plaintiffs
and defendants.
From the Abstract:
“Are male victims of domestic violence
provided the same protections as female
victims? With increasing entanglement
of custody and domestic violence law,
the answer to this question is critical
for fathers embroiled in disputes
where allegations are sometimes made
to secure custody of children… Despite
gender-neutral language of abuse prevention
law (M.G.L. c. 209A), application
of that law favors female plaintiffs.”
Basile will also be present at the
State House today.
Links to the study and ancillary material
can be found at the Fatherhood Coalition
web site:
www.fatherhoodcoalition.org
Shared Parenting Ballot Initiative
garnered 85% approval in November’s
election
On Election Day Nov. 2, voters in
36 legislative districts and one Senate
district voted overwhelmingly in favor
of the notion that children of divorce
and family breakup fare best when
they have frequent and continued contact
with both of their parents.
This is best accomplished under a
“shared parenting” custody agreement,
according to Fathers Rights advocates.
The non-binding referendum question
asked voters if they agree that, absent
exceptional circumstances, both parents
have a “fundamental right” to shared
and physical custody of their minor
children. Overall, the ballot initiative
was approved by 85% of the voters.
According to O’Neil, “Voter approval
of the measure lent credibility to
the shared parenting movement and
spurred the present legislative initiatives;
most of these shared parenting bills
are consistent with the spirit of
the ballot question.”
# # #
|