Action Alert: Opponents of Shared Parenting Fire Back at F & F in Boston Globe Sunday Magazine

Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2011-07-15 00:20

Alert here. Excerpt:

'The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine ran a feature interview (pictured, right) with Fathers and Families’ Board Chairman and founder Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S. on Father’s Day.

In the piece — Fighting dad (6/18/11) — Holstein discussed our shared parenting bill H02684, which has been endorsed by nearly a third of the Massachusetts legislature. Holstein explained:

Women’s groups are also against [the bill], but they can’t turn out a crowd on this issue. The public understands this is good for children…Judges still award [physical] custody to mothers by default; fathers still see their children every other weekend and maybe Tuesday nights. It’s a cookie-cutter solution that has outlived its usefulness.

The consequences of this, Holstein noted, include:

There is evidence showing adverse outcomes [for kids]. They feel terrible, they long for the missing parent, and begin to draw conclusions that they’re not worthy.

Predictably, there’s now a blowback against Holstein and F & F from opponents of the interests of children of divorce–the domestic violence group Jane Doe Inc., and a divorce attorney, Laura W. Gal.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I think both mothers and fathers should care for their children. (care=all inclusive needs of the child including financial). I believe children have a right to a relationship with both parents and I believe both parents are equally important to the child. There should be no "default" to mothers, as sometimes the father is the better parent.

However, I do want to expand a bit on my thoughts and definition of shared parenting.

The term "shared parenting" can mean different things. I get the impression that many men here at the site define it as the child lives 50/50 in both parents homes. I don't use that same definition and I don't believe most (all?) state laws define it that way either. In my state, the legal term "shared parenting" refers to both parents being involved in decision making, but not necessarily shared 50/50 physical custody.

I have voiced my concerns about a 50/50 shared physical custody before. If that is what 'Fathers for Families' is promoting, I can see why there are critics. I don't believe it would work for many couples (not practical, too expensive, have to maintain close proximity, etc. I don't think many parents would ask for it). If the households are extremely different it can end up alienating a parent (usually the stricter parent) and hurt the kids socially (if they are taken out of their environment, stops them from social activities, etc)

There are 2 very different situations when determining child support and custody. One is when mother and father were never together and the other is when they were once an intact family and after many years are separating/divorcing. Often one parent is more at fault then the other or one has made more contributions to running the home instead of focusing on personal career or income.The separation/divorce situation is much harder for me to find a perfect solution, as there can be many factors.

I am still taking in everything about shared parenting (I would like the specific definition FF is promoting). Even though I am critical of shared 50/50 physical custody I am still supporting fathers getting equal respect under the law when it comes to parenting and custody. And I think more can be done to include the non-primary parental in decisions and quality time with kids, but of course solutions are much easier when parents have similar lifestyles and are cooperative.

It gets very difficult when the parents have such different household rules or parenting styles that kids easily manipulate or undermine parents; or it disrupts the children's social activities by getting pulled out of their social environment.(are unable to join teams, music lessons, participate in activities they were looking forward to doing because other parent's house is too far away or doesn't want child to participate).....It is a real shame when this occurs.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Fri, 2011-07-15 17:33

I just found this from the bill FF is sponsering:

• The bill does not mandate any particular division of physical custody, such as 50/50.

• It makes no changes in child support orders.

• It is not a one-size-fits-all mandate – any reasonable custody plan can be implemented.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Fri, 2011-07-15 17:36

I think the bill's main purpose is to force society to acknowledge that fathers do matter, and that they should be legally entitled to see their children. I couldn't agree more with this. I know that if I didn't have my dad in my life, I probably would have committed suicide.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Sat, 2011-07-16 13:38