The introductory paragraph:
Robert Pedersen was devastated three years ago when a divorce judge said he could see his two children only a few days a month.
Pedersen’s divorce agreement now includes long weekends, a Wednesday overnight visit and half of summers, holidays and spring breaks with his children. It’s almost enough time to make him feel that he can provide an equal amount of parenting to his kids.
Michigan law recommends that custody decisions be based on which parent has been the primary caregiver unless it can be shown that another arrangement is more appropriate, but Pedersen and other noncustodial parents are fighting to modify the law so joint physical custody becomes the norm. They view equal parenting access as a civil rights issue, but opponents say equal time isn’t always best for children.
With the pain of a divorce, a lot of stupid decisions are made initially as far as the kids go,” said Pedersen, who plans to ride his bike from Lansing to Washington, D.C., this summer to raise awareness of the issue. “There are different contributions that Mom and Dad make to a child, and kids need both of them.”
Noncustodial fathers think gender bias plays a role in these decisions and reduces them to visitors who pay child support. Children need both parents equally, they say.
But many custodial parents, family law attorneys and domestic violence activists oppose making joint custody mandatory.
They say every family is different, and 50-50 custody doesn’t work in every situation.
It becomes especially difficult when parents live in different school districts or one of them doesn’t want joint custody. Another factor is that mandating joint custody can sometimes disrupt a child’s stability.
“When a child’s whole world is changing, we want to keep as much stable in their lives as we can,” said Karen Sendelbach, chair of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.
Other opponents say noncustodial parents sometimes want joint custody simply to even the score with their ex-partner or to reduce their child support obligation. A noncustodial parent’s support payments can drop by as much as 40 percent if the child stays overnight 128 times or more each year.
“The 50-50 custody split is more about people not wanting to feel the other parent has won,” said Kent Weichmann, chair of the Legislative Committee of the Family Law Section.
“It has nothing to do with the relationship with the child. It’s more about who’s winning. It also has to do with paying less child support.”
A later quote:
ACES [Association for the Enforcement of Child Support] executive director Debbie Klein is not concerned about Michigan fathers’ activism.
They have always had more time and money to lobby lawmakers, while mothers tend to devote their time to raising the children, she said.
Obviously, people ought to meet their child-support obligations, and I’m for strict enforcement. I don’t believe that is the issue. The issue is that some people would rather see child-support payments than a custodial commitment to the child. They would rather have a situation in which one parent’s obligation is to extort as much money from the other as a substitute for support given directly to the child in the course of providing the love and attention that is part of a normal parent-child relationship. And by depriving one parent of consort with the children, the other is given a justification for requiring more direct financial aid from the other. This creates a Janus-faced posture: You can’t have the children/He never has the children.
It’s true that 50/50 isn’t going to be what’s best for children, but it makes a fair place to start as a point of assumption. You can read Robert’s response here (scroll down a bit).
Related:
Just unbelievable. All the nasty things posted about Hillary are Obama’s fault. Periodically.
My hubby’s partner is divorcing his wife. He got the house and the kids- when he’s in town at least. She’s getting the tennis pro.
And, OT, but a follow-up from the weekend … OMG where those morels good. I mean, unbelievable.
“The 50-50 custody split is more about people not wanting to feel the other parent has won,†said Kent Weichmann, chair of the Legislative Committee of the Family Law Section.
“It has nothing to do with the relationship with the child. It’s more about who’s winning. It also has to do with paying less child support.â€Â
How can someone who has, ostensibly, had exposure to many divorced families make such an egregious blanket statement?
Kent, screw you and the blindered horse you rode in on.
Kent Weichmann is an idiot and I feel sorry for his kids if he has any.
Debbie Klein is delusional. NOW and the enormous VAWA funded domestic violence industry are light years ahead of fathers rights groups in terms of lobbying prowess.
Kudos to Rob and the Detroit News.
Dan,
“It’s true that 50/50 isn’t going to be what’s best for children, but it makes a fair place to start as a point of assumption”
I’m sorry, I don’t understand why that should be. It seems to work fine for my kids/us parents. Can you elaborate?
In CT, “divorce” should be called “date rape”, if you are male.
The people I had to see for “family consultation” in the courthouse were two bulldykes that so obviously hated me the minute that I walked through the door, that it almost bowled me over. I was a shithead before even one word was uttered in that room.
It’s just not right that an insane woman (who, full disclosure here, I still care for) automatically is the “good guy” in any divorce in this state.
After paying child support, alimony, internet, phone, cable TV, and an absurd amount of miscellaneous baloney, I am barely able to survive.
And because I have my bank account drained by someone who has never lifted a finger to be a productive part of our family, and, indeed has her vacuum hose hooked straight into my bank account, it is I who am deemed “not appropriate” for custody, because I don’t have enough money!
Go figure…
Now that I think about it, it’s no wonder I have such a bad attitude…
Silver-
I’m sorry, I don’t understand why that should be. It seems to work fine for my kids/us parents. Can you elaborate?
Half here and half there *would* be really disruptive, and thus not best for the kids; but once you get to the point where you will be splitting the household, you have to compromise somehow.
Best situation for kids? Household with mom and dad devoted to each other, loving the kids without spoiling them and are able to support the household while still spending quality time with the kids.
Sometimes, that just doesn’t happen.
Silver Whistle, I mean that in cases where one parent is demonstrably less fit to take care of the kids, that ought to be taken into account.
Dan,
Thanks for the clarification, I was a bit mystified, as my kids are completely used to changing houses every 3.5 days, even if I’m not used to them going. It isn’t ideal for anyone, as Foxfier points out, but for all of us I think it is the best solution to a rather poor deal. But, you play the hand you are dealt.
Dan, what they’re looking for is a rebuttable presumption of shared custody, which is to say that if a parent is unfit, you can raise that in arguing for sole custody. It should, however, have to be proven to a reasonable standard. But the baseline presumption is that the kids should have equivalent contact with both parents.
And of course, this only applies to custody disputes. If the parents agree on a different situation, the courts are generally going to bless it.
I hope that’s what I was saying, Pablo. Maybe not, though. I agree with you, anyhow.
[…] “Misogyny!” […]
Yeah, I gotcha, Dan. I was just pointing out that the laws the FR groups are looking for make allowance for the fact that not all parents are in the best interest of their children.
Guys/ girls? Back in ’92 I got “joint” custody of the kids. 4 days for me. 3 for her. She never showed up again!
Guess what I’m saying is that judges DON’T…They just go along with whatever the popular meme of the day is regarding family law.
That’s NOT judging, nor is it LAW and “family law”?…should be dragged outside the barn and shot…Just my .0002 cents.
“It has nothing to do with the relationship with the child. It’s more about who’s winning. It also has to do with paying less child support.â€Â
See, this is what I don’t comprehend: If the child is living with the dad, DAD’S MONEY IS GOING TO BE USED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD. What on earth are they talking about “paying less child support”? The real concern seems to be that the MOM would get less money and the state wouldn’t be able to take its percentage out of the check.
Not so obvious is the underlying alteration of the social fabric the custody/support regime — a full-on industry complete with contracts between the states and DC and the DA and the courts — has delivered to us, Dan. I’d actually disagree with you, insofar that offering a nation the option of whelping within a safety net produces…whelping within a “safety net”.
The issue, then, is when the corner’s turned, and we move from using the power of the State to ostensibly “protect” the single parent (forget about enriching the kid; support has zip to do with that) to using the power of the State to simply cause single parenting. Pablo’s completely right: NOW and the enormous VAWA funded domestic violence industry are light years ahead of fathers rights groups in terms of lobbying prowess. Those is the teeth of modern gender feminism, most of the time a laughable fallacy. Just not this time.
Given that the support regime is part of the foolish welfare reform act of over a decade ago, you can probably detect that I have about as much use for the indenturement of welfare as I do for the federalized financial incentives that make for single parenting. You see, I actually advocate gender blindness: She’s got responsibilities too, that despite her being preached a constant dogma of victimhood.
At some point you hit another critical mass, where joint parenting (when did we stop saying “family”) is the minority. Give it time: One day being male will simply incur one a simple tax.
ACES [Association for the Enforcement of Child Support]
I dunno how much faith I’d place in an organization that can’t even get an acronym right.
bunch of cry babies!!!!!! how about all the grand parents raiseing there grand children and all of a sudden 5 or 6 years later the parents deside they want to play mommy and daddy again and there only $300 dollors a month comming in to help support the grand child!!!! so what in g.o.d.’s name are you crying about
oh yea buy the way KIDS COME FIRST NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!