This week's FOXNews/ifeminists column entitled "In the Best Interests of the
Child" is available for reprinting or reposting. Thank you for your interest
in my work. I appreciate it. 

FOX News URL:

The ifeminists.net URL:


     A new legal term is creating debate across North America: the "rebuttable
presumption of joint custody." It means family courts should presume that
divorcing parents will equally share the legal and physical custody of children
unless there is compelling reason to rule otherwise. Advocates say children are
more likely to emerge from divorce with both a mother and a father in their
lives unless, of course, one parent is shown to be unfit. Why is this idea
controversial?
PC feminist organizations,
http://www.nowfoundation.org/annual/97report.html#custody like NOW, claim that
the rebuttable presumption of joint custody would cripple the current standard,
which is http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v11n1/custody.html "the best
interests of the child." They claim the family court system blindly turns children
over to abusive fathers. Instead of joint custody, such feminists wish children to
remain with "primary caregivers" -- overwhelmingly, the mothers.
The much publicized http://www.canow.org/fam.html California NOW Family Court
Report 2002 recommends, "Abolish the tendency to assume joint custody is always
in the best interests of the child. This is a false presumption with no support
in reality...Sole custody [should] default to the primary caregiver at
separation." 

      In short, father's rights advocates want joint custody to be the default
position at separation. PC feminists want sole custody for the primary caregiver
 Both situations would be rebuttable; that is, they could be revised by a court
with cause.

      Such feminists assume that the welfare of children conflicts with the
parental rights of non-primary caregivers, who are overwhelmingly fathers. Yet
both groups claim to be furthering the interests of the child in promoting their
preferred form of custody.

     Each side of this debate can point to specific cases in which it is clearly
in the interests of a child to be in the custody of either the father or the
mother, not both. But specific cases do not make for good sweeping laws. If
fathers can be said to benefit children in a general manner, then men as a
category should not be slighted in custody arrangements simply because some bad
fathers exist. The same statement could be made of mothers. 

      If children need both mothers and fathers, there should be a presumption
of joint custody upon separation. When exceptions to the rule arise, when a
father or mother is an inappropriate parent -- for example, he or she is
physically abusive -- then the custody arrangement would be "rebuttable." 
       
      In arguing for the importance of fathers, joint custody advocates point
to research such as 100 studies presented and analyzed in
http://academic.uofs.edu/student/sitoskis2/fatherlove.html
"The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence," an essay
published by the American Psychological Association. The essay concludes that
good fathering is as important a factor as good mothering in the "social,
emotional, and cognitive development" of children. Father-deprived children
were far more prone to drug abuse, crime, depression, and violence. 

      At least two aspects of child custody would be significantly impacted by
a joint arrangement. 

      Monetary: money is far from the most important value parents offer to
children but it is an essential one. Joint custody may alleviate a major
complaint heard from sole custody mothers: deadbeat dads who do not pay child
support reliably. http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/fathersmatter.htm The
Hartford Advocate repeats a theme common to father's rights advocates, "There's
an important link between the amount of contact a non-custodial parent has with
a child and the willingness of that person to pay child support. In 1991, about
4.4 million non-custodial parents with visitation privileges and/or joint
custody owed child support. Of that number, 79 percent paid all or part of it.
By comparison, only 56 percent of the 900,000 people with no visitation or joint
custody rights paid all or part of what they owed." 

      Physical: at the risk of stating the obvious, parenting requires regular
contact with children. Alienated parents complain vigorously about "move-aways"
-- custodial parents who move the children hundreds, sometimes thousands of
miles away. (Although relocation may sometimes be necessary -- e.g. for medical
treatment -- it is most often optional -- e.g. for work purposes.) A study in
the June 2003 issue of the Journal of Family Psychology examined the negative
impact of moving-away on children. Father's rights advocate Glenn Sacks
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2383.html explains that "among
14 variables [in the study] related to a young adult's overall well-being,
move-away status was correlated to significant, negative impact in 11 of them." 

      Joint custody would place some additional demands on separated parents,
a greater demand for co-operation regarding children, for example. If so, this
could be a good consequence. Moreover, there might well be less hostility in
joint custody arrangements if only because power and responsibility would be
legally shared. 

      Family law varies from state-to-state. In many states, judges will not
order joint custody -- especially joint physical custody -- if one parent
objects. These are "hostile parent veto states." It should take much more than
an objection to strip someone of his or her rights as a parent. It should take
real evidence of misconduct presented in court. Because every time you deny a
person the right to parent, you are stripping a child of a mother or father.
The rebuttable presumption of joint custody is in the best interests of children
 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Visit my home page and blog at 
drop by ifeminists.com 
For photo (05/02/02) 
Men's Rights Agency
P.O. Box 28, Waterford, 
Qld    4133    Australia
Tel: 07 3805 5611
Fax: 07 3200 8769
Email:  support@mensrights.com.au
Website: www.mensrights.com.au

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/ZCOolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

There are no problems� only solutions and opportunities.
but the last bastion of discrimination is in Family Law, with the target being
FATHERS WHO LOVE THEIR CHILDREN yet have been usurped of as a parent.

To air these grieves and find solutions try some of the following forums.  

www.FamilyMending.net  PAS is CHILD ABUSE  www.StopPAS.info 
www.FatherStatus.org   Fathers ARE important  www.FatherFigure.info
www.OzyDads.com   If we sit quietly we�re sitting ducks   Quack  Quack !!
but if we STAND  (united as one)  then we stand a chance  www.OzyDads.net
www.JointParenting.net  CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS   www.spca.org.au
www.CSAclients.net www.SelfRep.net www.MaleVictim.net www.disenfranchised.net
 
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
OzyDads-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
OzyDads-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/