Say Anything Blog

I’m glad that the Herald is at least giving recognition that family law in ND needs reform. 

Did they give any evidence that the legislature had ever shown any ability to do so?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Rob,
I am a faithful Say Anything reader and I almost always agree with your opinion and analysis.  Before I comment about this post, I want to say great job on the blog and keep it up.  Because I value your blog so much and normally agree with the content, it is with the utmost respect that I write to point out some things about your support for the Shared Parenting Initiative that I disagree with and feel need to be rebutted.

I especially want to comment on your paragraph regarding the North Dakota Bar Association’s opposition to this initiative.  I think you are terribly misguided when you say lawyers are opposed to this initiative because it will mean less business for them.  In fact, the complete opposite is true.  If enacted, the Shared Parenting Initiative will create huge amounts of work for lawyers.  Because the law will automatically presume 50/50 custody and 50/50 decision-making for every decision made in the child’s life and there is no tie-breaker if the parents do not agree, they will be in court all the time litigating issues.  Thus, lawyers will be extremely busy.

The reason lawyers are opposed to the initiative is because it changes the current standard by which custody is determined.  The current standard takes the “best interests of the child” into account when determining custody.  The Shared Parenting Initiative completely does away with that standard and would make things even more difficult for children who are going through divorce.  While the current system may not be perfect, I submit that divorce is extremely ugly and that is the greater cause for disappointment in child custody determinations, not the current law.

I think it is extremely telling that those who stand to benefit the most from the Shared Parenting Initiative, lawyers, are deeply opposed to the initiative because they deal in these issues every day and know, from an “expert” perspective, what will be best for children.

The current standard takes the “best interests of the child” into account when determining custody.  The Shared Parenting Initiative completely does away with that.

Absoulutely false.  It assumes that children are generally better off with both parents involved, but it is open to the fact that some parents are unfit.

That’s a change only in that as the law currently is enforced it’s always assumed that if the parents can’t agree then one or the other parents having sole legal custody is in the best interests of the child. 

I don’t agree with that.  If fact quite often I’ll bet that the court removes the best parent from the childs life.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Tanner, thanks for your kind words, but I’m not convinced by your argument.

You seem to assume that the best interest of the child is not served by set of laws that recognize the importance of both parents.  That’s not an idea I can get with.

Further, there are constitutional concerns at play here.  The Supreme Court ruled in Troxel vs. Granville that a parent’s custody is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” and one which the “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects.” What this means is that parents have a right to their children, and they cannot be denied that right without due process of law.

That is not happening now.  Now, when custody is disputed, judges arbitrarily pick one parent to be the custodial parent while the other parent gets denied custody as the “visiting” or non-custodial parent.  There is no due process of law before denying the visiting parent custody.  In most cases, there isn’t even a compelling reason to deny the visiting parent custody other than for the convenience of the state.

Clearly, rights are being violated here.  And further, by denying one parent custody the best interests of the child are not being served.

As for parents litigating each and every little decision, are you under the impression that this isn’t already happening?  Decisions about schools, living conditions, moves, choice in domestic partners, religion, doctors, etc. are routinely litigated in court already.  Some of that isn’t likely to change.  What will happen, though, is that custody will be taken off the table as something to fight over.

I don’t know...maybe some of these lawyers are truly concerned about the welfare of the children.  I can understand, but don’t agree with, that argument.  But from a realistic point of view I’m standing back and observing that the only people who are opposed to SPI are the people who feed off the family law status quo.

That’s the human services people and the lawyers.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I can’t believe that anyone would actually listen to the wackos that put this measure on the ballot!  I don’t understand why they didn’t find someone that has an ounce of credibility to their committee. They have placed testimony from an NDSU researcher who is adamantly opposed to the measure and on their committee is a student at NDSU that was kicked out of numerous programs because he isn’t mentally stable!  This Mitch guy continously goes after ex-wife with all sorts of legal battles and needs to grow up.  Anyone with half a brain can understand the implications of this measure.  If it passes, be prepared to open your pocketbook.

Hey, Blogger/Wayne, if you’re going to comment in this forum at least be honest enough to use one name.  Trying to pretend like you’re a bunch of different people to troll the comments here is just plain childish.

Grow up.  And thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

This argument that Shared Parenting is going to create a bunch of litigation is ridiculous.  The litigation that goes on today is caused by one parent being completely disenfranchised by a court system that thinks its in the best interest of a child to have one parent, removed to the sideline in the middle of the game.

If anyone has gone through a divorce, and been that person, who no longer gets to read that story to their child at night, tuck them in, wake up and have breakfast with them, then they will understand.  If you haven’t been through it, or witnessed it, then you are hardly qualified to speak to it.  And an attorney who listens to complaining parents doesn’t qualify either.

These kids have real needs to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.  There are a ton of studies to show that the children and the state benefit from it, like lower teen pregnancy, higher school test scores, lower drop out, lower suicides, etc.  I haven’t seen anyone talk about the savings to the state from this.  Mostly, because noone wants to recognize it. 

When the state starts looking at the welfare of the children, over the welfare of the state employees and special interest groups like the Bar Association, we will have healthy families again.

Excuse me....but my name is not Wayne.  I am female thank you very much, and I don’t know many women with the name of Wayne.  I said it once before and I’ll say it again, the loonies that are our touting this measure are hurting it.  If they had their act together they may get the support they want.  The wackos that are at NDSU passing out their literature are hurting their efforts. That’s all…

The NDSPI will not increase litigation costs. It will do just the opposite. There are 3 primary aspects to a divorce: the dissolution of the marriage, property division and child custody. On issue one, there is nothing to litigate. On issue 2, there are specific formulas to follow, but there can be some issues that lead to litigation costs. By far, child custody is the largest factor that increases litigation costs. In the current system, one parent, typically the father, is turned into a visitor in his child’s life. Any man out there who has not been thru a divorce with children, or been around someone who has been thru it, might find it hard to believe that in the U.S.A., the family court system will treat him unfairly, but take it from someone who has been there/done that; it is true. As a father, when you go in to family court, you have two strikes against you. One, you are a man, strike one. Two, you are a man, strike two. As a father, you must prove that you are worthy of having time with your child. This will require custody evaluations by a psychiatrist at a cost of about $5,000. If you continue to insist that you want equality in parenting time, and your soon to be former spouse refuses, you now have a high-conflict situation. This means you may be ordered to under psychotherapy at a cost of about $175 an hour. If the first evaluation does not come back in your favor, you may request a 2nd evaluation, at a cost of about $3,500. When this one comes back and recommends EQAUL PARENTING TIME, but the evaluator DIES before the court can implement his recommendation, you will then have to request a 3rd evaluation. This one will cost another $5,000. When this evaluation does not provide equality in parenting time you can then ask for a 4th evaluation. This one will cost $2,500. In the meantime, you may be ordered to consult with a special master at a cost of about $5,000. You may never even use this service but you have to pay for it anyway because the court ordered it. By this time, about 2.5 years has passed and you have spent $45,000+. All of these expenses were completely unnecessary and could have been used for more worthy causes like starting a college education fund for your child or putting a down payment down on a house. But instead, you gave this money to an attorney, a psychiatrist, a special master, a child evaluator and more. I could have gotten more use out of this money by burning it for heat. But, I digress. The point is, the largest expense in a divorce is the child custody and all in the current system, all it takes is one person to say “ I don’t want the father to have equal time with his children”. This is not fair. I agree that shared parenting will not work in all situations but these occasions should be the exception and not the rule. I am praying the NDSPI passes. For any man out there who is against this proposition, you are a fool. In a divorce, you will get screwed. There is no doubt about it.

I’ve read information about both sides and I pray that this initiative passes. What do I see as some of the things it will stop?  Let’s see.  How about “You’re going to pay through the nose for child support no matter how much your ex-spouse has started making since your divorce.  Oh, and by the way, we are going to do an audit on how much you are making now to see if you need to start making more.” I firmly believe in supporting my child.  However, I think that there should be an equal share in that support.  Especially when I see personal things showing up around the house and the child has holes in the shoes.  Who bought the pair that lasted longer than a month?  Me.  And this was in excess of the monthly child support.
We should also see a reduction of the former spouse using the child as a pawn.  This hasn’t happened to me but I have seen too many times where one paren has refused to let the other see the children because they “hate” the ex-husband/wife.
Looking at some of the information I’ve seen here, maybe one ought to check out the information presented here: http://ndspi.org/index.php/site/blog/concerned_citizen_for_childrens_rights_false_information_refuted_with_schol/
or here: http://ndspi.org/index.php/site/blog/shared_parenting_research/

Lots of information.

My son who is 8, has been living in two homes for 4 years. Has has never voiced a complaint about having two homes or about going back and forth between his mother’s house and mine. I periodically bring up the subject with him to make sure I understand how he is feeling about the situation. There are two things he has complained about though, but unfortunately, I am powerless to do anything about them: 1) When he was 5, he bagan crying as we were leaving for Kindergarten. I asked him what was wrong. He said he wanted to see me more. 2) On each Wednesday, my son is with me for 2 hours. He has told me and his mother than it would be much easier for him if he can just stay with me. I agree and spoke to his mother about this. Her response was “I am not going to talk about this. You already have all the time you are ever going to get with him. Get use to it”. This is why ND and the nation needs the NDSPI to be enacted. BTW, I live walking distance from my former spouses residence and from my son’s school and I have never failed to pay child support, I am college educated and professionally employed for 25.5 years. I don’t smoke, don’t drink and don’t do drugs. So, how come my son’s mother and I were not treated equally when we went to court?

Excuse me....but my name is not Wayne.  I am female thank you very much, and I don’t know many women with the name of Wayne.

Blogger, maybe you are a female, but i can tell you that you’ve been posting on this site as both “Blogger” and “Wayne.” That’s just deceptive, but then with all your blather about “loonies” I can’t imagine that anyone is taking you seriously anyway.

Mike, I too have a little girl that goes back and forth between me and my ex-wife.  She is perfectly fine with it.  I get her every other weekend and every other Wed. along with six weeks in the summer and just about every holiday you can imagine (which I split with my ex).  I have her about 170 days a year, and the back and forth works great.

This “where will I sleep tonight” stuff is just a pathetic distraction.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, Nice to hear that someone else is able to validate that children can handle two homes. The important thing is to talk to the child about what is going on. I always put a positive spin on things when I talk to my son about the situation. I explain that while most children have 1 home, 1 bed, 1 set of toys, that he has 2 homes, 2 beds and 2 sets of toys and that this is special. The arguments that children cannot handle two homes, that it is harmful to them, that any man who wants equal time with his child is an abuser or a child molester make me sick! Although I have not seen anything change in the family law area since I was thrust in to it back in 2002, I am quite confident that the law will change and that one day fathers will be treated equally in family courts.

Her response was “I am not going to talk about this. You already have all the time you are ever going to get with him. Get use to it”.

This is exactly what I was talking about.  Spouses, your beef is with your ex.  Don’t use the children to get back at them.

I am fortunate that I can have my son whenever I want.  We do split the holidays but everything else is fair game.  My ex says that he should be able to see his father whenever and as much as possible.