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?
JEFFREY
G. NADEAU
Dalton,
Nov. 22, 2005