Ok so here is a legit question from me…Will this new way to determine the amout of child support, possibly RAISE a non-custodial parents amout they currently pay?? My childs father makes more money then I do…and he only is court ordered to pay $168 a month…and I will tell you what…I have a child with special needs and this does not even come close to paying for HALF her daily needs…plus he doesnt have to pay for ANY medical equipment that is not covered in her insurance…that all comes out of MY pockets…just curious…After talking to Rob last night…i am feeling assured that he will be declared unfit…right now anyways…but I am curious now about this child support issue.

Like the Shared Parenting Initiative failed, so too did your buddy Roland’s attempt.

I notice you aren’t talking about it. I understand why. Failure stings.

Time runs out for ND family law ballot measure

The ballot measure was one of two approved for circulation last year that dealt with child support and custody issues. The second reached its signature goal and was put on the November 2006 ballot, where it was defeated, with 56 percent of the voters saying no.

If you want to help the kids that get mixed in a bad divorce you should provide serious psychological help for the splitting parents.

Well ZZ when I grew up our parents were mature enough to work with us kids as to what was best.

That of course would be the essence of shared parenting in that there isn’t just one party that get’s to decide.

I’m really questioning why there’s a problem with basing support on what it costs to raise the child.

Is child support supposed to be a profit center for the custodial parent?

All too often I have seen women remarry and leave the State, taking the children with them and having little or no regard for the father.

I don’t see that being in the best interests of the child, no way, no how.

But these judges are still on the bench and will still make the same wrong decisions.

I’m glad that you admit that judges aren’t infallible.

If measure 3 passes you’ll have the same judges with the same judgement. But you’ll have a better law for them to work with. Also if a judge totally blows it there’s a better chance to win on appeal with this law.

The one thing I worry about is a judge awarding custody to the “bad” parent. At this point there’s next to nothing for the non-custodial parent to do. I don’t think they get anywhere going back to the judge.

Now I’m going to make the assertion that there’s no way a judge can tell in a few minutes which parent the kids would actually be better off with. They likely make as many mistakes as correct calls.

This measure is absolutely ridiculous. What about our children? Are we not looking out for THEIR best interest. Yes, both parents should be equally involved in their childrens lives. However, some, be it father or mother are only going to ttake advantage of the child support portion of this. I, for one, want my child in the same school system throughtout the whole school year. How will she be in any extra curriculars? Just to join for half the year and leave it behind to leave for a different school.
My daughter’s father is a decent father. However, he lives in a home that is literally nearly condemable. He’s had 3 DUIs, which means he can no longer drive for the time being. There is no school bus that runs where he lives. How is she to get to school? Also, there are 2 sex offenders in his family. I DO NOT want my daughter left in a place where they are allowed to come. I know, they aren’t supposed to be around children, but they probably will be. That is not a chance I want her to be stuck with for 6 months out of the year. She does not deserve to be put in those situations. There will definitely be a NO vote on my part. I can’t understand why people need custody to basically be forced to do right by their children. Unfortunately, there are people in this society who, for one reason or another should not be having children. This is only going to help them not pay for their childrens needs. Also, that doesn’t mean they even WANT to see their children. Just that the court says they can and do not have to pay.

The only people against this measure are the mercenaries who have been profiting financially from the chaos of the current system.

Hi Terry-
I understand where you are coming from…i really do..I think it is horribly wrong for a mother to keep a child from a perfectly fit parent. But the reason this law scares the hell out of me…is because the people who are going to suffer are the children whos non-custodial parents choose to pay no attention to them at all..and once they hear they wont have to pay support they will go for this law…You see…that is what my daughters father will do…I have tried for 8 yrs to get him involved in her life…but he refuses…but he has stated many times…if he can ever find a way to not have to pay me child support he will do it. And whats really sad…he only owes me $168 a month…and thats the most he has ever owed…her first 3 yrs of life he only owed me $14 a month…that didnt even buy diapers! So can you at least understand where some oposition of this law comes from? If I could know for sure that my childs unfit father would not be able to take advantage of this law…I would vote YES in a heart beat for all those fathers who are refused access to their children. Which is why I am asking questions about the law…so I can decide which way to vote.

AS A FATHER WHO HAS DEALT WITH THE COURT SYSTEM I ASSURE YOU THAT I WILL BE VOTING YES ON MEASURE 3. I WISH THEY WOULD ADD SOMETHING ABOUT PARENTS WHO WERE NEVER MARRIED. I DIDNT SEE IT AS COVERING THAT ISSUE!

I would like to add to what i previously wrote. I am soo conflicted on this issue. Part of me wants to vote yes inorder to do whats right for those fathers who do deserve to have their children…but a huge part of me still says to vote no…in order to save my own child from the unstable life it would cause her…should her father attempt to gain joint custody. I really need some opinions either way before i vote. I think i would be way more willing to vote yes…if there was more stipulation on WHO can gain the 50% custody…because I still do not believe a father who chooses to abandon his child for a year here and a year there should be able to have 50% custody…when a mother, like myself has been more then willing to allow him to see her whenever he wants. Am I even making any sence? I am confused and i really need help with this issue….

Are there any other states that have this shared parent law?

Both parents involvement will not always be the in best interest of the child. We should not have to spend that much time and taxpayed money to prove that. I say this with no doubt whatsoever, that I, myself, would spend as much time and or money to do whatever it takes to keep my childs best interest first.

All the more reason for shared parenting!

Re: Glen weeks Jr. Post of Nov 2.

I am a son of an unmarried couple, who has also dealt with the court system, and please know that just because someone is biologically a father; it doesn’t make them a parent with all the rights of a parent. In my case, my biological father refused to get a job, pay for medical or health insurance expenses, support participation in extracurricular activities, failed to pay court ordered expenses leading to his arrest, or provide a good role model as he never married, lived with a gal and raised a baby (along with living with her relatives). Thank goodness for my mom as she was my parent and worked her way through school and was able to provide for me through loving, hard work. There is a lot involved with being a parent and we should not give that right to those who do not deserve it.

I am sure this doesn’t apply to you but please know that there are situations like mine out there.

Jo

Carrie-
I am assuming there will be a standard amount given for shelter costs and such…

I would think shared parenting would benefit all involved, as well as encourage both parents to live in the same district for the benefit of the child??? All too often I have seen women remarry and leave the State, taking the children with them and having little or no regard for the father. BUT make sure those child payments are on time and paid or else. The way it is set up is so unfair for fathers.

Rob, you are telling a number of people on this blog that the court will declare people like Jo’s father (and others) unfit based on arrests and refusal to provide support. That is SO untrue! Do you know how difficult it is to prove a person an unfit parent? There are hundreds of documented cases in North Dakota where sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, drug and alcohol abuse and more were PROVEN and backed by social services findings, and the parent was STILL declared fit to care for their children. And you of all people should already know that in North Dakota, a non-custodial parent’s refusal to pay court ordered costs and child support is no basis whatsoever for refusing custody or visitation. This is fact.

Measure # 3 will change none of this, because Measure #3 does not redefine what it means to be a fit parent, and Measure #3 makes no connection between a person’s refusal to pay court costs and his or her right to visitation or custody. Measure #3 addresses none of these things. How dare you lead these people to believe that they can so easily remedy the chaos that passage of this Measure will cause?

For those who desire and truly deserve shared parenting, you can go to court and ask for it now. I know people who share custody and pay no child support either way. Just like under Measure #3, if both parties agree, a judge can (and has) grant shared physical custody. Measure #3 isn’t going to miraculously increase the number of people who suddenly agree to shared parenting, it’s going to increase the number of people going to court to fight for the best interests of their children, like Carrie and Amanda, who know in their hearts it’s best to keep their kids away from their ex. But these people will have no case, because a DUI doesn’t make someone unfit.

You present yourself as somewhat of an expert on this Measure, and you so assuredly state that the court will make the right decisions in the early precedent setting cases. But most judges are already against this Measure, the same judges who will be hearing these Measure #3 cases. You’ve left way too much to the descretion of the court. And what if these early cases are decided by a judge who is less than fair? Then what do you have to say to all of those who must deal with the precedent setting aftermath? It could be a judge who thinks Measure #3 is bunk, and makes a precedent setting decision that sets you back further than you are right now, what then? Remember, a judge’s job is to UPHOLD the law, not create it. But with so many unanswered questions in the language of Measure #3, what choice does the judge have, but to make it up as they see fit?

Although I do agree with it should be cost. I am not clear on exactly how it will work out. For example, one parent gets the child for 6 months as well as the other parent. Do they pay support to each other for each others time and cost? And if so, say I live in a place that it costs $175/month. I assume half of that would be considered a basic need as far as shelter being provided. Then say the other goes all out and gets a place that costs $1500/month and my wage would not cover that plus other basic needs. What then?? Am I even close to understanding this?

Rob, Whistler,

Our computer is in our kitchen. My son saw me posting and wanted to speak for himself. I allowed him to do so. I left him to his own thoughts, allowed him to post without me in the room, and have just read what each of you said to him. Congratulations. You’ve succeeded in breaking him.

You know nothing of our situation. You know nothing of me. You know not what I do for a living, or what I have seen not only in my own life, but countless others. But you do know how to make a child feel worthless. Way to go.

If I had been manipulating him, I certainly would have had him post much differently. But I didn’t. I can quite clearly speak for myself, and need not hide behind a child. They’re his words. Take them of leave them. But don’t twist them.

Funny, how when a child asserts his opinion and it doesn’t match with yours, you accuse him of being manipulated. Typical.

I’m sorry for allowing my son to get involved. But the last thing I wanted to do was control him on an issue that is supposed to be all about him. Clearly, allowing my son to state his opinion was a mistake. Ironically, you’re making me wish I had told him what to say, but that would have been manipulative, wouldn’t it?

You accuse me of creating a new personality, because I felt I was losing my argument? Quite the contrary, sirs. You have both admitted the system is already messed up. Your new law will only serve to make it worse in cases that have already been decided. I maintain that is where the biggest problem lies. New cases, fine. An even playing ground could serve to do well, but why make it retroactive to all these cases that have been settled for years? You, Rob, admit at least a year of turmoil for how many families. How many lives turned upside down is too many?

Best of luck to you in your endeavors to get this measure passed. I will be voting NO on Measure #3.

If my mother is making me do this then you can call her GOD. Because she isn’t making me do this, and no one short of God could stop me from talking about this.

Parents have to consider the child and their activities they are involved in. Divorce is a considerable burden on everyone. BUT all too many times the bitterness of divorce lingers and most usually fathers are left out of every decision and important event other than funding the child support. How could a child benefit more than being apart of a shared parenting situation? At age 13 not many children want to do anything they don’t want to do. Sometimes we have to do things that are best for us…

Amanda, I understand what you are saying. My daughter and her husband separated without bitterness, and both have moved on. There was never any doubt about who would get custody, but there was never any objection to her father picking her up and spending all the time he wanted to with her, either. I still love John like a son and he will always seem like part of my family, but as time goes on, he is caught up with a new life, new wife, and spends less and less time with her. The most pitiful sight in the world to me is the sight of my granddaughter sitting on the steps, her overnight bag in her hand, then her dad calls to say he can’t make it for one reason or another. Watching the light go out in her eyes, knowing she is wondering what she did wrong that he doesn’t want to spend time with her breaks my heart. Still, my daughter backs him up in his feeble excuses so her feelings won’t get hurt. I’m not sure that is wise, but it’s her call.

My point is that some don’t take advantage of it when they have it, therfore hurting their kids, who know they could spend time with them if they would. Not to take anything away from dads who deserve better than they are getting under the persent system. Being at the mercy of a vindictive custodial parent has to be horrible

Margie…My point is we all make mistakes. BUT when the Dems are caught red handed they still remain in office and contimue to be supported and even reelected. The Republican party isn’t as tolerant of their leaders. We tend to send them packing…

“anyway, if it is a real person, then he is being manipulated”

Not necesserily, Whistler, for all we know he could have a very legitimate reason for not wishing to see his father. I’m not saying that sometimes bitter parents don’t turn their children against each other or use them in power struggles, because, unfortunately some parents don’t care how much they hurt their kids as long as they win. But too often, one parent or the other is truly bad for the child because of abuse, negelect, or lack of parenting skills. The child should never be completly ignored when her expresses a desire to be shielded from a parent simpley to honor that parents rights.

I don’t mean to imply that a child should be denied access to a parent, quite the contrary. But if a parent chooses to move out of the child’s hometown, the child should not be forced to change their lifestyle to fit the parent’s, who could still demand equal time. One cannot begin to imagine the enormous upheaval that would cause in a child’s life. With one person having primary custody, at least some continuity is assured.

Additionally, do you not deny that in too many cases, one and sometimes both of the parents use their child(ren) to hurt each other? I’ve seen both women and men do it. In just one of the cases I am familiar with: the non-custodial parent lives out of state and literally does not call, write, e-mail or otherwise have contact with the children for nearly a year, exercises no visition rights, then suddenly notifies the custodial parent that they will be picking up the children for 6 weeks of visitation. The children refuse to go for obvious reasons. The non-custodial threatens comtempt of court against the custodial parent. How is this fair to the children? How does granting this non-custodial parent “equal time” when he or she will only use it at their convenience help the children? In cases like this it seems to me it would only serve to muddy the waters. Or do you believe that under any circumstance (measure #3 or not) the outcome would be the same?

I do believe that our child support system is seriously flawed. I’ve seen cases where the recipient doesn’t even have to work because of how much money she/he is receiving. Meanwhile the payor struggles to make ends meet. That system can’t be changed quickly enough.

im going to reenstate my thoughts. my dad lives in prescott. ive never lived there. my dad tells me its hot dry and often times the highs are upwards of 100 avg. ive lived in ND my whole life. HE moved when my parents split. not my mom. and HE demanded a refund when he payed 600 dollars for my sister when she graduated. my mom ended up paying back 1200 dollars for HIS mistake. and im also going to add that my dad is OVERBEARING, i mean hes a fit parent, but its definitely NOT a fit situation. which i think needs to come into consideration just as much as whether or not the non-custodial parent is actually FIT to PARENT.if my dad was a fit parent but lived in an apartment in the Ghetto…. yeah. anyways. right now its NO by like 3000 votes

ok. i am 14 years old i live in dickinson north dakota and im severely angered by this proposal. for starters: i TOTALLY agree with DJ entirely. being a teenager with a bill like this in the works is just ugh im lost for words. my father lives in Prescott Arizona, and i live in Dickinson, what 2000 miles or so? away from my FRIENDS, my SCHOOL, my MOM (who provides excellent care mind you) i mean THINK of the differences. id have to make new friends, adapt to a new school, and did i mention i LOVE it here?! i couldnt ASK for better friends, and this situation here is not a wreck like some people are saying it probably is considering i only have 1 parent. i have straight a’s so dont give me that. ugh. totally dumbfounded at this ridiculous proposal.

No. but I will say that DJ is my mother. I saw her writing and I wanted to post my opinion for me.

As I said before, I am a mother who gets paid well over actual cost, yet still believes that actual costs should be the case. Anything extra goes in my daughters account for her future. Also, I could not imagine being left out of my childs life. With that being said, my ex is not legally allowed to see my daughter or me. I can’t imagine being in that postion, that is why I break the rules to let my ex see our child. With that also being said I hope I’m not coming off as a bitter mother who is trying to go against the people who aren’t getting equality with their children. Its those bad parents giving the good ones bad names. Whether it be mother or father.

i agree with carrie that it shouldnt be forced. i wouldve had to go to arizona. that would have sucked. and yes i do agree that it would be better for the OTHER NONCUSTODIAL PARENT if this would happen, but i DO believe that if you want support, make it not FORCED and let the kids have a say. they shouldnt HAVE to see their mom/dad if they dont want to. its just not right.

Nevermind I just found out. Thanks anyway.

I’m glad to know that. Thanks for helping me in the knowledge of areas I’m slacking in.

No, Im saying, as a parent, I would do whatever it takes to see my child rather than make it so kids whos parent doesnt want to see them feel unwanted. For a lack of better explanation.

I’m sorry to those who were for it, but may I say(in short), yay!

I know this is only for my particular situation, but I don’t think shared would be best. Fortunately, my ex sees it the same way. Although he is not unfit. At the time being he is basically incapable. I wish there were more parents who could see eye to eye. Maybe then this wouldn’t be such a hard issue or even one at all.

I am a child who doesn’t want to go see my father and I don’t think I sohuld have to if I don’t wanna.

What if the judge would have assigned you to your father? You’d be totally stuck all of the time.

At some point the “child” should have a say on some things.

Oh man….

Hyde, you don’t talk like any 13 year old I’ve ever. I suspect that you are really your mother sitting at the keyboard perpetuating a childish little charade.

But whatever.

This measure is absolutely ridiculous. What about our children? Are we not looking out for THEIR best interest.

Yes, we are. A child’s best interest is served by involvement from both parents.

However, some, be it father or mother are only going to ttake advantage of the child support portion of this.

THey can’t. It’s an all or nothing proposition. If they assert their parental rights then they must also pay the child support.

I, for one, want my child in the same school system throughtout the whole school year. How will she be in any extra curriculars? Just to join for half the year and leave it behind to leave for a different school.

Measure three does not mandate a 50/50 time split. It simply requires that both maitain their custodial right. How time sharing is split up is up to the parents, or if they can’t get along, up to the courts.

My daughter’s father is a decent father. However, he lives in a home that is literally nearly condemable. He’s had 3 DUIs, which means he can no longer drive for the time being. There is no school bus that runs where he lives. How is she to get to school?

If your ex-husband truly lives in an unsafe environment for your daughter and cannot provide for her care (not being able to take her to school, for instance) then he can be declared unfit under measure 3.

Unfortunately, there are people in this society who, for one reason or another should not be having children. This is only going to help them not pay for their childrens needs. Also, that doesn’t mean they even WANT to see their children. Just that the court says they can and do not have to pay.

Total baloney. Child support is required under measure three just as it is required now. How it is calculated will change, but parents will still have to pay.

This measure does not address the issue of when one parent moves to another city or another state. How do you “share equal time” in that case?

Through a parenting plan. Parents are going to be forced to work stuff like that out. And, frankly, I think that’s the better situation. Make the parents actually work things out instead of just dismissing one another.

It does not assure that the CHILD’S best interests are considered FIRST.

The child’s best interests are served by having equal access to both parents. The Supreme Court ruled that a parent’s rights are a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment (Troxel vs. Granville). If they’re a fundamental right, they cannot be denied by the whim of the court.

Why punish other children who are perfectly happy in their current situation?

Why would you assume that including both parents in a child’s life is punishment?

Is it retroactive? Do ALL existing custody agreements change just like that if the measure passes?

Only if the parent(s) choose to have their situation re-negotiated under the new law.

any event, this will unnecessarily clog the court system because almost no one will be able to come up with a “parenting plan” that both parties can agree on.

That seems like a rather silly assumption to make. Parents agree to property settlements and visitation agreements all the time now, and those usually go through endless court hearings, etc. It’s all dependent on the parents. If they want to fight it out in court, they will under the current law or under shared parenting. If they don’t want to fightit out in court, they won’t. All this does is level the playing field in recognition of the fact that parenting is a right.

The child support part of it makes perfect sense, though.

Well, at least we agree on something.

Both parents involvement will not always be the in best interest of the child.

No, not always, but most of the time. I don’t think we should deny one parent custody all of the time just because a minority of parents are unfit.

I say this with no doubt whatsoever, that I, myself, would spend as much time and or money to do whatever it takes to keep my childs best interest first.

I feel the same way, except that I feel my child’s best interest is served by having both parents fully involved.

For example, one parent gets the child for 6 months as well as the other parent. Do they pay support to each other for each others time and cost?

If it were a six months and six months situation, I would assume that one parent would pay for the six months he/she doesn’t have the child and vice versa.

say I live in a place that it costs $175/month. I assume half of that would be considered a basic need as far as shelter being provided. Then say the other goes all out and gets a place that costs $1500/month and my wage would not cover that plus other basic needs. What then??

The wonderful thing about measure three is that, with child support and a lot of other things, it is very flexible.

Measure three does not mandate that you have to pay half of whatever your ex-spouse decides to purchase for the child (e.g. expensive living quarters, overly expensive clothing, etc.). It simply requires that what you pay in support be based on the basic needs of the child. Basic needs are not fancy condos and designer clothes.

Those sorts of things can be worked out between the parents, and if not between the parents the courts have all the power to make a determination. And I’m confident that what the courts would decide would be reasonable.

Agreeing or not with what? Your little sham of pretending to be someone you’re not?

No. but I will say that DJ is my mother. I saw her writing and I wanted to post my opinion for me.

I’m not buying it. You got caught, and now you’re trying to cover.

As for kids deciding which parent they want to be with, I don’t think that’s a good idea. Kids are kids, and they usually choose the parent that’s more lax with them or they choose one parent because that parent coached them or poisoned them against the other parent.

As long as a parent is fit, he/she should have equal access to his/her children.

But these judges are still on the bench and will still make the same wrong decisions.

So then attack that problem, don’t attack measure three. If what you say is true it is a problem now too. I hardly see this as an argument against shared parenting.

The same written laws they’re supposedly applying now? See my above answer.

If the judges aren’t applying the law accurately then it won’t matter what sort of law we propose.

It’s a separate problem. If the judges are bad, address that problem. Don’t attack shared parenting.

Only now, under measure #3, in cases that have already been decided where the “unfit” parent now only has limited visitation, he or she can now demand shared custody. And if the judge again refuses to declare the drunk, or the drug user, or the abuser, unfit, the child now suffers 50 percent of the time, instead of just every other weekend.

Now that refusing to declare a drug user or abuser unfit means giving that parent joint custody perhaps judges will take those issues more seriously. That’s sort of the point here.

But again, if you have a problem with the judges then that’s a separate issue. If the judges won’t apply the law correctly there’s no written law that can change that.

Also, the number of divorce cases that involve parents who are actually unfit is very small. We should keep that in mind, because most parents in a divorce are good parents. It’s just the bad apples that get all of the attention.

My conclusions are based in fact, based on actual cases right here in North Dakota. They’re not based on what I think or hope will happen.

Really? That’s odd, because it sounds to me like opinion. We disagree, but you are no more an expert than I am.

And Measure #3 will change this how?

By taking custody off the table as something to be fought over in court.

How do you reassure people in this position that their lives and the lives of their children won’t be turned completely upside down when they get hauled into court over Measure #3 and their ex demands shared physical custody?

There will undoubtedly be a spate of old divorce cases coming to court to be re-heard under the new law as non-custodial parents seek to assert their rights. However, the upheaval of reform is hardly a reason to oppose the reform in the first place.

Yes, old cases will have to be re-heard if one party in them wants. But the time for that will be limited. It will last a year or so, and then things will settle down again and the family law situation will be better with the rights of both parents protected.

Wrong or not, as a child I would have rather been mad at the court, thinking that I couldn’t see my father than hate my father for not wanting me. I think that is the way alot of children would end up feeling.

So you’re saying that because a few fathers aren’t interested in their children you’d rather make sure that all non-custodial parents don’t have equal custody rights.

That makes no sense.

Judges will have to determine what exactly these basic needs are which means you will have to litigate and prove all of the costs and why they are basic needs.

And once that fact is litigated it becomes settled case law and future divorce cases don’t necessarily have to cover old territory.

The courts routinely define things such as “basic needs.” We supporters of Measure 3 feel that judges can adequately define basic needs in this instance for all of us.

The idea that “basic needs” would have to be defined by the courts for each and every instance is nonsense.

Not a problem, Carrie. I’m happy to discuss the issue with you and answer what questions I can.

The part I find to be unfortunate about this measure is that we have to let our children be with the unfit until proven otherwise.

That’s not necessarily true. A judge can issue a temporary custody order pending a fitness investigation/hearing.

There are hundreds of documented cases in North Dakota where sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, drug and alcohol abuse and more were PROVEN and backed by social services findings, and the parent was STILL declared fit to care for their children.

Sounds like a failure for judges rather than a failure for the law. The law allows that people guilty of the things you describe be declared unfit. That the judges aren’t declaring them unfit is hardly a failure of the law.

For those who desire and truly deserve shared parenting, you can go to court and ask for it now.

No, you can’t. Joint custody can only exist now if both parties in a divorce agree to it. And that almost never happens because in the vast majority of divorces both sides are too busy trying to use the system to exact revenge on each other.

Measure #3 isn’t going to miraculously increase the number of people who suddenly agree to shared parenting, it’s going to increase the number of people going to court to fight for the best interests of their children, like Carrie and Amanda, who know in their hearts it’s best to keep their kids away from their ex.

At most, the burden on the courts will remain consistent with what it is now in my estimation. Measure three doesn’t create new things to fight over, it takes one thing (custody) off the list of things available to fight over.

You present yourself as somewhat of an expert on this Measure, and you so assuredly state that the court will make the right decisions in the early precedent setting cases.

I present myself as a concerned citizen who has studied the issue and has an opinion based in fact. You toss about conclusions with the same level of assurance I do, so let’s quit with the finger pointing and just keep this on a level where two people just disagree ok?

most judges are already against this Measure, the same judges who will be hearing these Measure #3 cases.

Which judges would those be? I have heard the ND Bar Association speak up on the matter, but that’s just lawyers protecting their pocketbooks.

You’ve left way too much to the descretion of the court. And what if these early cases are decided by a judge who is less than fair?

What stops current cases from being heard by a judge that’s unfair? When ND’s current set of family laws were established, what stopped unfair judges from interpreting those badly?

This is a nonsense argument.

Remember, a judge’s job is to UPHOLD the law, not create it.

It is a judge’s job, in the civil side of our court system, to apply written law to a given situation. That’s all we’re asking the judges to do.

But with so many unanswered questions in the language of Measure #3, what choice does the judge have, but to make it up as they see fit?

You act as though Measure 3 gives these judges a blank check. It doesn’t. It’s very clear. It prevents either parent from losing custody in the absence of evidence proving them unfit and it limits child support to basic needs. Beyond that, other family law policies and practices would remain in place.

You’re making a mountain out of a molehill here, DJ.

It is a defeat for equality of law. The scare tactics from the other side worked. Many of the state’s women didn’t want to lose the monopolistic control they have over divorce situations, the lawyers didn’t want to lose all the money the current system makes them and the social workers didn’t want to lose the single-parent parenting situations that earn them so much in federal funding.

I really don’t see where there’s much to be happy about.

Jo, I’m aware of situations like yours, and you’re right: Measure three would allow that your father be declared unfit (given the arrests, refusal to provide support, etc.)

I know this is only for my particular situation, but I don’t think shared would be best. Fortunately, my ex sees it the same way.

So shared parenting would work for you guys. You’d come to an agreement, and that would be that.