Home Recommended Products Contact Us
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
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
Shared Parenting - The only Fair and Constitutional Solution and also now Proven Best for Children
Friday, December 02
To the Editor of THE EAGLE:-

In response to the letter ''Shared parenting isn't a 50 percent solution'' by Stephanie Isaak of Nov. 25, the writer asks what shared parenting really means: Shared parenting is two parents who both continue to raise their children after they are divorced and children that continue to be raised by both of their parents. In most divorces the children lose a father because Mom gets custody more than 90 percent of the time and Dad gets to be a visitor one day during the week and every other weekend. This is hardly enough time to be a parent and active in a child's life. The writer asks if this is a veiled attempt to do away with child support. Child support is a whole separate issue and not even related to shared parenting.
The writer states that children are not possessions to be divided 50/50. If such a statement is true, then why are they used as pawns by Mom in most cases for favorable judgment in divorce battles?
Has the writer thought about the child? The child in a standard divorce loses a parent, usually a father. Doesn't the child have a right to be raised by both parents? Is a child not better off having both parents in their life? Social science has proved time and time again that children in shared parenting arrangements do as well as children in intact households.
So, why does the child have to lose a parent? Why does the parent have to lose a child or children? Parents have equal protection under the law in the care, custody
and control of one's children. This right is protected under the Constitution, under federal law and under state law. This being true, then why is there a court battle over equal parenting time with the children in a divorce situation? If both parents are fit, then under the law, they are both entitled to share time with their children.
The writer states that if they worked 7 to 7 then they should be entitled to parenting time in the proportion that they participated in parenting. If the writer is referring to the father, maybe he worked 7 to 7 so that he could provide a home, food and clothing for his family. Should he now be punished and not be allowed equal time with his children because of his commitment and devotion to his family?
I would encourage the writer and readers to go on the Internet and read up on shared parenting. Get the facts and the benefits for the children as well as the benefits for both parents. Shared parenting or joint legal and physical custody as it is called, is two parents that stay actively involved in a child's life and children that still have both parents active in their life even if their parents do get divorced. Is this not the right of every parent and child absent the finding of neglect or abuse?
Dalton, Nov. 22, 2005