Wisconsin's Equal Placement bill gets committee hearing

for Wisconsin children and their parents. From a quick read of the bill it sounds like a true "shared/equal parenting" law. If so, I know several people in the state of Wisconsin currently in custody battles who will be directly benefited by it. I will do everything in my power to get the word out.

For more information, please visit: wisconsinfathers.org

I know I know, it's a step in the right direction but I think it will do little if anything to change the status quo. Judges can be very creative when it comes to finding excuses to give full custody to women. How about the excuse that a woman does not have the right to refuse child support because it's in the best interest of the child and it's the CHILD's right to get it. Everything a woman does is right and everything a man does is reason for the woman to get full custody. And if the woman screws up, that's irrelevant to the custody decision.

Nothing will change until we take these decisions out of the hands of judges completely. A mother is ALWAYS a child's mother and a father is ALWAYS the child's father. And they both have equal joint custody unless one can't because he or she is in jail.

We need to take all the fighting out of divorce and make these decisions predictable and equality a foregone conclusion even before they get into court.

One more thing. I think it should be against the law for a woman to marry and have children by a man who is an unfit parent. Wow! Holding a woman responsible for her actions? She can no longer choose an alleged "bad boy" or an alleged "incompetent parent" and then use that against him in court when the divorce comes around? What a concept!

A suggestion for this legislation? I think a provision should be added to require records be kept and percentages of sole and joint custody maintained for each and every family judge. Variances under a set, required minimum percentage of joint custody determinations should spell the automatic replacement of that family judge responsible for the errant statistic.

Dittohd: I know I know, it's a step in the right direction but I think it will do little if anything to change the status quo.

I think you are wrong Dittohd. This bill adjusts the existing law to "presume that a placement schedule that equalizes to the highest degree the amount of time the child may spend with each parent is in the best interest of the child". If the judge wishes to deviate from equal physical placement then he/she will have to state orally and in writing why the deviation was made = Equal Placement = REAL Shared Parenting.

This is real change and will no doubt scare the crap out of divorce attorneys since passage of this bill will remove one of the most contentious issues from the table.

For more information, please visit: wisconsinfathers.org

OK, let's see what the legislation looks like in its final form and then at the bottom line results, the percentage of equal joint custody determinations as compared to single custody determinations as compared to before the legislation.

Under current law, it is very easy for men to be demonized and justification found for sole custody. Have you considered all the restraining orders issued each year for the purpose of giving the woman sole custody along with the house, car, child support, etc?

Would a restraining order not justify sole custody in Wisconsin under this new law?

I predict that with this new law, women will use the restraining order even more often than before because that is what it will take to overcome this new presumption of joint custody. Lawyers will more often be advising their female clients to use it as a result. Not to advise them this way could be considered malpractice, if that's what the woman wants.

Have you read Stephen Baskerville's latest book, "Taken Into Custody"?

The only way this problem is truly going to be fixed is to take the sole custody option away entirely.

"Under the bill, there is a rebuttable presumption that the standard for modification is met, that is, that
modification is in the best interest of the child and that there has been a substantial
change in circumstances since the last order was made, if either of the following hasoccurred: 1) a parent has modified his or her lifestyle or the location of his or her residence to an extent that affects the amount of time the parent is able to care for the child; or 2) a parent has successfully completed parenting classes, a drug or alcohol abuse treatment program, or an anger management program to address a
problem that previously hindered his or her ability to care for the child."

In legal jargon, "rebuttable presumption" means that the party disputing the petitioner has to PROVE the merit of their argument, right?

So, this bill puts the burden of proof on the party seeking a change in custodial arrangements, right?

And, raises the bar for demonstrating that a change in prior court orders is warranted?

Which basically means that if a custodial mother remarries and wants to relocate a few hundred miles away, she has to prove how this is not detrimental to what the court previously decided was best for the kids?

Can someone with legal expertise and the ability to speak plain English clarify this bill?

It seems to be a very clever sabotage of the typical OK for "move-aways" when the mom secures another hubby wallet.

It's my understanding that family law attorneys now routinely advise women filing for divorce to "consider" whether they have been abused during their marriage and whether their soon-to-be-ex-husbands "may have" molested their children.

To not raise these issues with a female client leaves the attorney open for a lawsuit alleging negligence.

That's the law, or what passes for it today.

I'm not a lawyer, only a legal do-it-yourselfer. My Black's Law Dictionary defines "rebuttable presumption" as "In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a "disputable" presumption. A species of legal presumption which holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced... And which standing alone will support a finding against contradictory evidence."

Keep in mind that in family court, evidence requirements are nowhere near as strict as in criminal courts. Would a woman complaining of fearing her husband in a restraining order fill the bill? Duh!

Sure doesn't sound like any bars have been raised to me. Just more rhetoric to appease us men's rights wackos for a few more years.

..Steve Blake..thank you sir for doing alot of the footwork!!