I'm
here to represent 85% of the
electorate in asking you to
adopt the strongest possible
presumption of joint physical
custody. I'm not paid to be
here and have no self interest
in speaking. I have first
hand experience with shared
parenting, unlike any other
speaker today.
I have 3 things to say.
1. A common tactic of those
who are paid to object is
to claim that joint custody
is impractical, or that it
only works when both parties
agree. This is piffle.
My divorce was high-conflict,
but through 2.5 years of mediation,
then lawyers, we narrowly
avoided court. Not through
mutual agreement, but due
to a threat of mutually assured
destruction if we went to
court. In an odd way, we obtained
equal powers, but courts should
ensure that be upholding equal
individual rights to start.
After 10 years of practicing
equal parenting, my experience
illustrates how joint parenting
works - even when it arises
from a high conflict divorce.
The key to success is to negotiate
a detailed contract that partitions
authority so parents have
disjoint responsibilities,
thus limiting conflict. Parents
must admit the other is competent
and agree not to accost the
other in front of the child,
or consequences apply. Email
works wonders for that part.
My son is 12 now, gets straight
A+'s, and is much better adjusted
than a comparable neighbor
who was raised in the culture
of welfare-state divorce.
In fact, his highest aspiration
is to be one of you. If you
ask him why he wants to be
a lawyer, he says "because
I like to argue". To
isolate children from conflict
is to deprive them of a real
learning opportunity.
My son and I are quite close,
and I know this is due to
our our co-parenting arrangement.
In effect, I retained a right
to shift my role from "primary
earner" to working part
time in order to replace lost
parenting time. I'm lucky
I got divorced in New Hampshire.
In Massachusetts, I would
likely be branded a criminal
for "escaping child support".
I would be forced to pay my
enemy to care for my child
- forced to pay many times
what it actually costs, and
forced to toil for it - a
travesty of labor I previously
did from devotion.
There are many like me, but
you don't hear from us because
we are busy making our lives
work -- without the courts.
Sure, shared parenting is
complex, but I know intact
families who have worse logistical
problems.
So, the arguments used against
joint parenting are easily
refuted with logic and example.
2: How can a state that upholds
individual rights regarding
marriage be so backward regarding
divorce?
The reasoning used in the
Goodridge decision (re gay
marriage), recognizes a class
of people denied certain rights
by biases of the court. This
"scarred" population
suffered a hardship.
There is a much larger population
of parents who are denied
an equal role in raising their
own children, based simply
on their parental orientation.
The primary earner is punished
by being bereaved of parental
rights. The bond between parent
and child is often stronger
than that between spouses,
and to sever it is to take
life.
This is indeed scarring, emotionally
and financially.
The economic and social hardship
wrought upon society at large
by these discriminatory practices
is deep, systemic, and very
very costly, - especially
compared to the hardships
imposed by gender role bias
in marriage.
The current practice of awarding
one parent more rights is
based on "soft"
science - subjective claims
and ambiguous statistics.
There is little evidence to
say that punishing the primary-earner
parent by taking away their
right to raise their child
benefits children. There IS
evidence to suggest that equal
parenting benefits children
and thus society.
Because the evidence for this
practice is inconclusive,
the courts must uphold
a the standard established
by Goodridge, of individual
rights - for children and
competent
parents.
3: The public is adamant on
this topic, especially compared
to its support for gender-role
blind marriage.
So please, let's examine priorities.
In November a ballot question
for presuming joint physical
custody received 85%
approval.
The language in the referendum
was very clear. Although the
ballot was non-binding,
the mandate is clear. This
was a historical result. 85%
too unanimous a result to
have arisen from any gender
or party bias.
For comparison, the public
support for gay marriage is
at around 49%.
If the courts uphold the rationale
behind the Goodridge decision
for marriage, they must agree
to uphold equal rights
for divorcing parents, regardless
of their gender
orientation as parents.
If the legislature saw fit
to enact gay marriage laws
a priority with 49% public
support for it, they should
place almost twice the urgency
on enacting shared parenting
bills, which have 85% support.
I have argued three things.
1: the main objections to
presuming joint physical custody
are easily refuted by counterexample
(mine)
2: the reasoning behind upholding
individual rights regarding
gender role -blind marriage
must also apply in divorce
(or be revoked...).
3: based on the relative hardship
involved and the support for
this legislation, it should
have twice the priority of
any laws involving gender
role -blind marriage.
When will we see amendments
like #855, 841, and the others
enacted?
More importantly, when will
we see the actual practice
reformed?
thanks very much for listening! |