Supervised Child Exchanges Becoming Popular

	posted by Scott on Saturday November 03, @11:16AM from the divorce dept.
	Neil Steyskal sent in an article from the Christian Science Monitor about a new idea that is gaining popularity in the U.S: supervised visitation exchanges of children in a neutral setting. The idea is to keep both parents from seeing each other to avoid conflicts which inevitably harm the children. The system seems fair and does what it's intended to do, so I think it's a great idea.

	Source: The Christian Science Monitor Title: To protect kids, sites keep warring parents apart Author: Craig Savoye Date: October 31, 2001

<  Book Review: Naomi Wolf's Misconceptions | Women's eNews: Kids Need Money, Not Men  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More government by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Saturday November 03, @01:22PM EST (#1) (User #187 Info) http://www.jameshanbackjr.com This idea does sound good on the surface, but anytime more government is used to solve problems like this, I worry. The couples in these situations are being treated like children themselves (and maybe they deserve it), but I wonder how long it will be before ALL transfers of children between parents are government supervised. How long before the government decides that ALL parents are children and there are lines upon lines of parents waiting to receive their children at these neutral government sites... spending all their time waiting for the child instead of being with the child? My biggest concern is that programs like this one will turn into the same thing that many government child support payment services turned into: the money goes in from the non-custodial parent, but the custodial parent never sees it because the government service is so poorly run... then the non-custodial parent gets blamed for not making payments. Maybe I'm wrong, but more government ALWAYS worries me...

Re:More government by Marc Angelucci on Saturday November 03, @02:27PM EST (#2) (User #61 Info) I understand this concern. It's a valid one. But I oppose the bias more than I oppose governent programs per se. And that bias exists in the private sector as well, such as all the corporate sponsorship of DV programs for only female victims or for breast cancer while ignoring prostate cancer. That is something we need to change everywhere, not just in the public sector. Overall I think supervised exchanges would be welcomed by alot of men who are constantly impeded from access to their children by the mother. As things are, courts do almost nothing about it, and they claim that they can't know for sure who's telling the truth about blocked visits. Supervised exchanges would help document this. I fully agree that we will have to watch that this doesn't get turned around against men, as often happens, such as becoming the automatic method for all exchanges. We know who would be behind that and why. It will be interesting to see where women's groups fall on this one. My guess is there will be internal division on it, even if we don't see it. But then we have that in the men's movement too. And it's much more detrimental to us given our numbers and resources.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]