Archives
Sep 1999
Oct 1999
Nov 1999
Dec 1999
Jan 2000
Feb 2000
Mar 2000
Apr 2000
May 2000
Jun 2000
Jul 2000
Aug 2000
Sep 2000
Oct 2000
Nov 2000
Dec 2000
Jan 2001
Feb 2001
Mar 2001
Apr 2001
May 2001
Jun 2001
Jul 2001
Aug 2001
Sep 2001
Oct 2001
Nov 2001
Dec 2001
Jan 2002
Feb 2002
Mar 2002
Apr 2002
May 2002
Jun 2002
Jul 2002
Aug 2002
Sep 2002
Oct 2002
Nov 2002
Dec 2002
Jan 2003
Feb 2003
Mar 2003
Apr 2003
May 2003
Jun 2003
Jul 2003
Aug 2003
Sep 2003
Oct 2003
Nov 2003
Dec 2003
Jan 2004
Feb 2004
Mar 2004
Apr 2004
May 2004
Jun 2004
Jul 2004
Aug 2004
Sep 2004
Oct 2004
Nov 2004
Dec 2004
Jan 2005
Feb 2005
Mar 2005
Apr 2005
May 2005
Jun 2005
Jul 2005
Aug 2005
Sep 2005
Oct 2005
Nov 2005
Dec 2005
Jan 2006
Feb 2006
Mar 2006
Apr 2006
May 2006
Jun 2006
Jul 2006
Aug 2006
Sep 2006
Oct 2006
Nov 2006
Dec 2006
Jan 2007
Feb 2007
Mar 2007
Apr 2007
May 2007
Jun 2007
Jul 2007
Aug 2007
Sep 2007
Oct 2007
Nov 2007
Dec 2007
Jan 2008
Feb 2008
Mar 2008
Apr 2008
May 2008
Jun 2008
Jul 2008
Aug 2008
Sep 2008
Oct 2008
Nov 2008
Dec 2008
Jan 2009
Feb 2009
Mar 2009
Apr 2009
May 2009
Jun 2009
Jul 2009
Aug 2009
Sep 2009
Oct 2009
Nov 2009
Dec 2009
Jan 2010
Aug 2010
Sep 2010
Oct 2010
Nov 2010
Dec 2010
Feb 2011
Mar 2011
Apr 2011
May 2011
Sep 2011
Oct 2011
Nov 2011
Feb 2012
Mar 2012
May 2012

Aug
15
2006
I'm going to get a little political on you here; it's a rare occasion, so don't get too worried about it.

I've been hearing a lot about the Shared Parenting Initiative here in North Dakota. A group of non-custodial parents wants the child custody and divorce laws to reflect their desires as an absent parent. In summary, they are asking:

In part #1, all parents retain joint custody, legal and physical, regardless of living situtation;

In part #2, parents are required (or court-ordered) to develop a coparenting plan, which may be amended by cooperation at any time;

In part #3, child support shall not exceed the basic level of caretaking.

Despite my liberal leanings, reading their Initiative tells me what's above is a Bad Idea. I won't use my particular experiences as examples, because that's easily disputed as a rare occurence or inconsequestial. However, I'll point out the greediness of the Initiative. When accused of selfishness, the NDSPI replies that, as citizens, they are allowed to take things before the courts for a decision. However, it does not change the underlying selfishness of the Initiative.

The way things are now, in situations of disputed custody, the court assigns physical custody to one parent or the other; for better or worse, it often goes to the mother (although I am evidence of the other; I was granted custody without my exwife being legally determined unfit or abusive). The absent parent retains joint legal custody, which entitles them to all their former parenting legal rights: medical records, attending teachers conferences, talking to coaches or babysitters, and so forth. Absent parents are also expected to pay child support, based on a set percentage of their income.

What this amounts to is: one parent becomes responsible for all day-to-day activities, recieves a portion of the other parent's income to offset the cost of such, and the other can continue to be involved in the child's life, as a whole.

So, let's look at how #1 in the SPI will change this. Joint physical custody for all parents means both parents, including those who do not live in the home, become responsible for the day-to-day lives of the children. However, the Initiative's focus is on equal time to both parents for the raising of the children. In some divorce situations, this may work fine: both parents may live a reasonable distance from the same school, and both may have enough time to truly take half of the child's caretaking duties on. However, the Initiative assumes that this is the only situation: all parents are presumed to have the resources and situation which accomodates joint physical custody, because this is assigned to all parents regardless of the situation. The simplest of problems arises when each parent lives in a different school's area. Which one does the child attend? Neither parent has any legal standing, because neither can say their child lives there any more than the other home. Or, let's say one parent stays at home, and the other works. This situation immediately results in a bias of time to one parent. If one parent even lives 20 miles away, the possibility of reliable or easy exchange of the child becomes at risk. However, remember: #1 assumes all parents are available and able to have 50% physical custody, regardless of situation, unless that parent is determined unfit.

#2 would like to fix the problems of obligatory joint custody: the parents are required, or forced by the courts, to create a cooperative parenting plan, which would account for the shortcomings of one parent or the other by putting accomodations into the parenting plan outlining responsibility. If either parent wants a change, they either must get the other parent to agree, or present their case to the courts.

Under current laws, parents in agreement are perfectly fine; no legal intervention is required. Parents in agreement can create parenting plans all they like, without restraint. #2 addresses conflict. If the parents have a conflict, the SPI requires them to go to court.

Wait a minute: back in #1, they cite: "Acknowledging the long established legal tenet that fit parents act in the best interest of their children..." If neither parent is unfit, because joint custody was put into place, either parent's decisions are equally valid - requiring them to "demonstrate how the modification serves the child

Well put, Derek. Points #1 and #2 appear to be nothing more than window dressing for the real issue: money. It seems that they really want to pay less child support. If #3 were proposed unadorned, it wouldn't have a chance at becoming law. So points #1 and #2 get added so it looks like these people actually care.

--Phil, 08/15/2006 10:30:29

I couldn't agree more. As a single parent in an atypical version of a very typical scenaerio, that measure scares the crap out of me. Its just a bunch of absent parents who don't want to feel guilty about not paying child support or being there for thier kids. No law is ever going to Make people get along.

--Holly , 09/15/2006 22:23:58


Your Name:
Email:
Webpage:
Your comment:



blog advertising is good for you
Looking For "Wookies"?