|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The solution to the problem lies in Shared Parenting bills now being considered by the legislatures of several states, including New York, New Jersey, and Michigan. The Michigan bill, for example, creates equality between divorcing couples by replacing the option of Sole Physical Custody, which occurs in the vast majority of custody cases, with the presumption of Joint Legal and Joint Physical Custody, giving equal standing to both parents in a divorce."
I fail to see how this is going to reduce the accusations of DV and Child abuse - on the contrary I would think it would increase them if that is the only way women can achieve full custody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I fail to see how this is going to reduce the accusations of DV and Child abuse - on the contrary I would think it would increase them if that is the only way women can achieve full custody."
This is a good point, and a very important one. It needs attention, that's for sure. I myself would respond as follows.
First, false accusations are only part of the problem. Automatic denials of equal custody to fathers (even when there is no accusation of abuse) is also a problem. Joint custody helps minimize that.
Second, joint custody can reduce the incentives for false accusations if it is strongly enforced (unlike in California) so that the presumption is not easy to rebut and so that one needs evidence and even a criminal conviction for abuse before an accusation can be affect custody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I fail to see how this is going to reduce the accusations of DV and Child abuse - on the contrary I would think it would increase them if that is the only way women can achieve full custody.
The rate of false accusations may go up, down, or stay the same as shared parenting laws are passed. The problem of false accusations must be dealt with largely on its own. False accusations destroy innocent lives. They should be made felonies and the punishment for willfully making them should be severe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with both Marc and Thomas on this and apologise as my response to the article was only focussing on one point and not the overall article.
Yes False accusations should be dealt as a separate issue and I agree that they should punished severely, although I do think in domestic situations that it is often a tough call who is telling the truth. Where their is clear cut evidence of false accusation it should not be tolerated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most divorces are not conflicted with false charges of any kind. However, the laws and the courts being what they are in NJ, the wife and mother has an advantage because the courts are so biased against men that the wife can negotiate far higher than reasonable child support payments and can negotiate a larger cash settlement in terms of the marital home, etc. The bill in NJ would remove this advantage and make the negotiating process far simpler for the majority of divorces.
It comes down to solving 85% of the problem with 15% of the effort. The remainder of divorce cases will remain problematic, and there MAY be a slight increase in the number of false allegations, but the veracity of these charges will become more and more obvious.
I regard this as a good thing, overall, though I agree, it only solves part of the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it sad if you think that joint custody is primarily a financial solution for men. I would have thought that it was the solution to the loss of access to children primarily and foremostly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I DO NOT think that joint custody is a "financial solution for men." I think joint custody is the right thing to do for the best interests of the children. However we may dislike it, the divorce process is little more than a business negotiation, with wife and mother doing everything they can to extract the maximum financial penalty from husband and father. Women and the family court system exploit the "best interests of the children" for the financial good of the mother while bankrupting the father-child bond. Joint physical custody simply breaks down the ability of the family courts to unreasonably exploit their own bias by minimizing the number of points that can be/must be negotiated. It takes custody off the table as a negotiating tool.
The presumption of joint physical custody is, in fact, the best case for children of divorcing parents. And someday, single mothers will realize the value in keeping father in the picture, as their kids will be better "parented" and less likely to stray down dangerous paths.
The divorce process being what it is, it is currently impossible to separate custody from finances. If you choose to spin my position to fit your argument, so be it. The reality is that biased family courts are being exploited as a "financial solution for WOMEN" at the emotional expense of men and children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank,
Well reasoned. Well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Frank - understand what you are saying when you put it like that. Just feel a bit squeamish around men who are more focussed on the money aspect of divorce than they are on the issue of access to the children. Think it important that men are not portrayed as caring more about the money than the child/ren. Sadly some men are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True enough. And it is indeed unfortunate that in divorce proceedings custody and "the best interests of the child" are so intertwined with money that they are nearly inseparable. Joint Physical Custody helps to untangle them.
OBTW, for those of you who are in New Jersey and voting in the Republican Primary for a Senatorial candidate tomorrow (Tuesday 6/4/02), I would point out that Diane Allen is a member of the committee that has succeeded in locking up a prior version of this legislation. She refused to vote for its release from committee thereby deep-sixing the bill. I will be voting for Doug Forrester myself.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
