Last week a federal lawsuit was filed against the state of Pennsylvania by the Indiana Civil Rights Council and like-minded groups such as the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. These and similar organizations plan to sue all 50 states and U.S. territories. At least 40 suits have already been filed, according to the Council.
The lawsuits use a wide range of constitutional grounds to argue that a child's parents both have an equal right to custody and directly challenge the commonly utilized legal standard known as "the best interest of the child."
The lawsuits seek $1 million in damages for any plaintiffs who sign on to each class action, meaning the potential damages run into the trillions nationwide. But what the groups really want are changes in the laws to provide a "presumptive standard" that physical custody should be split 50-50 unless one parent can prove that there's a good reason for a different arrangement.
Legal custody, which gives both parents a say in issues such as religion, health and education, can be shared equally even when physical custody is not.
But many of the experts say legislating a 50-50 standard is a bad idea. What do you think?
I think this is awful. It is great to see fathers involved in their children's lives, but this emphasis on 50-50 custody takes us back to a foregone era of "children as chattel." It is time for children's rights with respect to their own lives to be vindicated in the courts and balanced against parental ownership claims. I hope that children's rights organizations nationally (the ones that really champion children's rights rather than merely co-opt the phrase) monitor these cases and intervene as amici.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds of a case I was involved in as therapist, in which the judge had ordered 50-50 physical custody and the child was shifting parents every FOUR DAYS. I don't know who was more confused, the school, the child, or the parents. One could argue that this was an extreme case, but it is just an amplification of the practical difficulties of the concept. How exactly are parents to carry out 50-50 physical custody? Months don't have equal numbers of days, so one can't simply alternate months (who would take February?)and have a 50-50 result. One would have to reckon in weeks, of which there are an even number in the year, but which might result in some awkward switch dates, or in years, which is quite a long period for a child to go without seeing a parent. Similarly, must the divorced parents live within blocks of each other in order to provide school continuity (hard economically to do in many suburbs and potentially hard on a career)? Or, if one parent lives in a different community, must the child switch schools midyear, since one can't encompass even a single school year on 50-50 physical custody? What if there is more than one child? Must all switch together or should the changes be staggered, allowing more quality time for the parent with each child, but resulting in siblings who hardly know each other?
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to see how this rigid kind of interpretation could be less than harmful, or why denying the children the stability they need will benefit either parent.
Congratulations James R. Marsh.
ReplyDeleteI feel cheered and grateful for your comments on that very insensitive and dehumanizing choice of subjects for a public television "show". The mind of the producer reminds me of the distorted mind of the Roman Emporer Caligula who ripped open his sisters womb so he could see his illigitimate child en uterero.
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL PARENTS AND EQUAL RIGHTS TO THE CHILDREN TO DESERVE BOTH PARENTS, 50-50!!!! FATHERS ARE THROWN OUT AND REMOVED, AND CHILDREN ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE THEY WANT THEIR FATHERS AND BOTH PARENTS, NOT ONE.
ReplyDeleteSTOP THE INJUSTICE AND BLACK SLAVERY THAT IS HAPPENING TO MEN AND EVEN SOME WOMAN.
WHEN WE WITHHOLD 50-50 EQUAL RIGHTS CUSTODY, OUR CHILDREN ARE THE LOOSERS, OUR PARENTS ARE THE LOOSERS AND THE SOCIAL ILLS THAT ARE CREATED IN OUR CHILDREN ARE COSTING OUR SOCIETY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR!!!!!!!!!
ALL COMMENTS YOU READ THAT ARE AGAINST THIS ARE LAWYERS AND MOMS, LAWYERS NEED MONEY, AND MOMS WILL ABUSE THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY CAN, THERE IS BOTH A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE AND A CONTROL INCENTIVE. BOTH MUST BE REMOVED. YOU WILL SEE, IF BOTH ARE REMOVED, MOMS WILL BE MORE THAN GLAD TO HAVE DADDY HELP OUT 50% and DO HIS SHARE, THEN THE CHILD WILL BE HAPPY TOO, BUT, THE LAWYERS WILL LOOSE THEIR JOBS ( CUSTODY BATTLING AND CONFERENCES ) and STATES CAN NO LONGER TORTURE MEN FOR BLOOD MONEY TO HAVE THEIR CHILDREN REMOVED AND CHILDREN NO LONGER HAVE TO PEEK THRU THE WINDOW WAITING FOR DADDY BECAUSE HE WAS THROWN OUT AND BOOTED. STRANGE THING, THAT DAD IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN TO SEE HIS CHILDREN BY LAW, WHEN, EVEN A DRUG ADDICT FRIEND OF THE MOM CAN SEE THE KIDS EVERY DAY. COOL. OUR CURRENT SYSTEM NEED A BOOT INT HE BUT. MEN, FIGHT, DEMAND YOUR EQUAL RIGHTS, FOLLOW YOUR HEART......................