posted April 19, 2005
Our children deserve the love, affection, and support of both of their parents as well as maximum parental involvement in their lives.
On the surface one would think this is a simple statement...intuitive to most people. However, in a divorce this is not generally the case. Why? There are several reasons, but one of significance is the law. Quite simply, the law allows a child to go from a home with two parents one day to one with a parent and a visitor the next. One of those parents is going to become the primary residential parent and the other a visitor for four to six days each month, a couple of weeks in the summer, and alternating holidays...either Auntie Mommy or Uncle Daddy.
During this session of our legislature there has been a bill advanced that would provide a rebuttable presumption of equally shared parenting, HB1729/SB1782. It was also presented during the last legislative session but was killed in committee.
Last night this bill was voted on and passed our State Senate by a margin of 23 to seven. Our own David Fowler voted for this initiative as well as sponsoring the bill, and is to be commended for doing so. Ordinarily, passage of this initiative wouldn't be significant. What I find interesting is that over on the other side of the Statehouse this same bill has 60 primary co-sponsors and has yet to come out of the subcommittee to which was assigned. Why? Because there is about an even split of those who oppose it and those who advocate for it.
Quite simply, and to borrow a line from the mission statement of a parents' advocacy group here in our State, HB1729/SB1782 would "allow fathers to father, mothers to mother, and for children to receive the love and support of both parents." What a concept! ...That fathers would be fathers, mothers mothers, and children can enjoy the love and support of both of their parents.
In providing a rebuttable presumption of equally shared parenting, HB1729/SB1782 would ensure that both parents begin their journey down the path of living separate and apart from one another on equal ground...neither one would have any advantage over the other where their children are concerned, and the children would be one more step closer to being eliminated as the trophies of the divorce wars. Conflict would be reduced. Perhaps the number of divorces would even be reduced, which is this writer’s sincere belief.
Here in Hamilton County, and those surrounding, almost all of our elected State legislators are in favor of this shared parenting initiative...all but two, Representatives Tommie Brown and Joanne Favors. All but the two mentioned have signed on to this bill as a co-primary sponsor. Representatives Brown and Favors are also members of the legislative subcommittee in which this bill is stalled.
Opponents of this initiative would have us believe:
1. "This legislation assumes that one size fits all." - There is nothing in the bill stating this and those who advance this supposition obviously have not read the bill. It allows for the parents as well as any judge hearing the case to determine what is going to be best for the specific situation at hand. It does, however, provide a standard and a basis from which to work that would require proof to overcome. What's wrong with that? When proof is required wouldn't there also be an attendant decrease in the conflict of he said she said?
2. "Many mediators will be pushing equal custody if there is a presumption in the law. In order to contest the equal division of the children, a parent will have to go to court and prove that an equal division is not in the best interest of the child. The lower-earning parent, who is usually the mother, often will not have the money to go to court and the child will suffer as a result." - There is nothing in the bill stating this. Again, someone obviously has not read the bill.
3. "Most children's mental health experts do not believe children should be constantly moved back and forth between living arrangements. Children need stability and continuity." - Again someone has not read the bill because nothing in it advances this at all.
4. "In cases of domestic violence, the abused parent may be afraid to go to court to contest the equal division of the children." and "Many victims of domestic abuse will be afraid to litigate and will have to accept equal custody even if it is not in the child’s best interest." - Someone here is advancing an argument that is stated no where in the bill. Domestic violence is, however, specifically addressed elsewhere in our State law...basically, an abuser loses. Dividing children? I've never read anything about dividing children in any part of our State law.
5. "Equal custody legislation will more than likely result in the children being treated like property and divided down the middle, without regard for the needs of the children." - What are our children now but trophies of the divorce wars? The bill also specifically states that the best interests of the children will be first and foremost in any residential determination. Additionally, this initiative is a "shared parenting" as opposed to "equal custody"...personally, this writer also believes that we take criminals into "custody" and "visit" them while they're in jail.
6. "If joint 50/50 custody is granted to a mother who lives in Donelson and to a father who lives in Union City, the child/children will be required to attend school in both jurisdictions." - Again, this initiative makes absolutely no statement about there being 50/50 shared "custody." The bill specifically states that the best interests of the child will be the prime governing factor and it is ludicrous to believe the argument advanced would be anything of the sort.
7. "Child support will definitely be lowered (which we suspect is the driving reason for this legislation)." - Where in the bill is there any statement concerning child support?
8. "The bill removes the court’s discretion to decide each case individually based on the child’s best interest." - This bill, if one were to read it literally and without attempting to inject personal bias, it specifically states that every case will be addressed individually. What it does provide is a standard by which each situation may be measured to ensure that the best interests of all of our children will be attended to.
9. "The bill requires the court to order equal custody in every case unless the parent opposing it can prove it is not in the child’s best interest." - Where is the word "custody used anywhere in this initiative, the bill?
10. "Many lower-income parents will be unable to afford litigation and will have to accept equal custody even if it is not in the child’s best interest." - If a family is involved with a divorce they are in court anyway. They are required by State law to attend mediation and to develop a parenting plan. What is more important, a few dollars or to ensure that our children's needs are made primary when two adults cannot get along?
11. "Most child mental health experts oppose equal custody in high-conflict cases as being detrimental to children." - The bill specifically addresses this in providing that the court "shall have the widest discretion" in making determinations that are in the best interests of the child.
In reading through what those who oppose this equal parenting initiative espouse, one might think that they are actually in favor of increased conflict when they attempt to state they are not. What is more likely to cause increased conflict, a set of standards to which any specific situation may be compared or no set of standards and each time there is a disagreement the parties involved go to court and duke it out?
If one were to stand on a street corner and canvas the community with one question, that if two people separate should each be equally involved with their children, this writer suspects that the overwhelming majority would answer affirmatively. On a ballot initiative in the State of Massachusetts this past November this very question was asked and resulted in 85% for, and only 15% against, this concept.
Both Representatives Tommie Brown and Joanne Favors have been quite outspoken over the years concerning the issue of equality. If either were to take the time to read the 11 sentences of this bill, 407 words with an average word length of 5 letters which includes both the current wording of the statute as well as the proposed revision, they would see that it is all about equality...that when two people decide they can no longer live together as husband and wife they will still be able to be parents to their children and that they will begin that journey on level ground, instead of one parent and one visitor.
Unfortunately, Representative Brown has instead stated that shared parenting is not good for our children. There are no reasons and no substantiation of that claim, just that it isn't good for the children.
Representative Favors has gone so far as to tell one person this writer knows of to leave her office when he attempted to discuss the issue with her.
Additionally, both have pontificated that our children are to be cherished and that they are the future of our community yet both would hold on to a belief that it is not in the best interests of a child to have maximal involvement of both parents.
This writer is curious about this stance on both of their parts. Their stance on this issue begs the questions:
1. How can maximizing parental involvement in a child's life be detrimental to that child?
2. How can equality be bad?
Hypocrisy is such a drag. This writer is curious as to when Representatives Brown and Favors will walk their talk concerning this issue.
...That fathers would be fathers, mothers mothers, and children can enjoy the love and support of both of their parents.
Roy Burrage
Signal Mountain
RBurrage@bellsouth.net
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |
