Where Am I Going To Sleep Tonight?

• October 21, 2006

This is a billboard here in Minot on south Broadway (near Menards) put up by one of the groups opposing the Shared Parenting Initiative.
It makes me pretty angry.

Let me explain my anger by saying this: I understand some of the arguments against the Shared Parenting Initiative. When people say that the SPI would lose us our federal human services funding or jam the courts with too much litigation I understand where the concern is coming from. I don’t agree with those arguments because they aren’t true, but I can at least grasp why a person would make them.
What I don’t understand about the implication of this billboard is why anyone would believe that a child spending time with both parents in divorce situations is a bad thing? Children, even children of divorce, need positive involvement from both of their parents. But don’t take my word for it. Studies (like this one from the American Psychological Association) have concluded the same:

WASHINGTON – Children from divorced families who either live with both parents at different times or spend certain amounts of time with each parent are better adjusted in most cases than children who live and interact with just one parent, according to new research on custody arrangements and children’s adjustment. . . .
Children in joint custody arrangements had less behavior and emotional problems, had higher self-esteem, better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements. And these children were as well-adjusted as intact family children on the same measures, said Bauserman, “probably because joint custody provides the child with an opportunity to have ongoing contact with both parents.”

The study concludes that even children in divorce cases where the parents can’t get along are better off with joint custody:

By statistically controlling for past parental conflict (which indicates parental maladjustment), the joint custody children still were significantly better adjusted.

I don’t know who this ND Children’s Caucus group is, but they obviously don’t have the true best interests of children as a goal.

Tags: North Dakota News, Politics

http://Array Andrew

Even though I don’t have any children, I can’t believe some of the responses from opponents to SPI. Instead of making actual arguements against the initiative, they resort to demonizing fathers who simply wish to have an active and equal role in the lives of thier children. Are there men who try to get back at their ex-wives? Sure, but the number is probably equal to the number of women trying to get back at their ex-husbands.

If women truly want equality with men, then they should at least grant man the same.
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/04/11/news/update/doc461d0d0bd Mad Dad is Bad

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

By the Associated Press

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Supporters of a ballot measure to rewrite North Dakota’s laws on child custody and support have run out of time to submit their initiative petition, Secretary of State Al Jaeger says.

The measure sought to limit child and spousal support payments and curtailed any punishment if the payments were not made. It required couples to have prenuptial agreements, and allowed either the man or woman to seek an annulment if the woman did not become pregnant in the first two years of the marriage.

North Dakota law says backers of an initiative petition have one year to gather the needed signatures. The clock begins running once the secretary of state approves the document for circulation. Jaeger approved the family law measure on April 10, 2006.

“You can’t just have these things go on indefinitely,” Jaeger said Wednesday. “For example, in a referendum, you have 90 days to gather the signatures. There’s any number of references in the law where you have a deadline, so you just can’t keep it open forever.”

Roland Riemers, of Emerado, who drafted the initiative petition and was the campaign’s chief organizer, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

His petition needed signatures from at least 12,844 North Dakota voters, which is the minimum needed to put a proposed state law directly to a statewide vote. A proposed constitutional amendment needs at least 25,688 signatures.

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.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

interesting
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I noticed Reimers repainted his shed and I was wondering why.

That’s ok as Reimers isn’t the ideal frontman for the movement.
Mad Dad is Bad

I bet some of these fathers and husbands would like to see forcing kids to split their nights and days in half.

I bet some of these mad dads would love nothing else than to try and force this onto women to get their way. To heck what is in the best interest of the child. He wants HIS.

Face it. Roland Riemers is nothing more than SPI taken to its logical conclusion.

That is why you men lost and will continue to lose.

No one like bullies or “men” who throw temper tantrums when they do not get their way.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

This is the same thing the Democrats did from 1964-1994. They threw the husband out of the house so that the woman/wife could have all the money.
What really happened is that the man is and was denied his constitutional rights, and worse, the children saw this and then gangs began in ernest.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Correct me if I’m wrong Rob, but currently unless the two parties agree from the outset the judge must choose one of the parties as sole custodial parent. The judge can’t decide to award joint custody.

So if you have two equally qualified parents the judge where one doesn’t want joint custody the judge has to pick one or the other.

Sounds like a crazy situation.
Mad Dad is Bad

Indeed, there will be change. Domestic violence laws are being strengthened. Tracking deadbeat dads is becoming easier.

And I know how much that much pain those Mad Dads that tried to push this. As for money, I noticed after the November election that most of the money for SPI came from outside ND.

Funny that.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Please keep speaking up. Your making our case as well as can be made.
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

Parenthood is a joint venture and should be encouraged as that. I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Men seem to get the raw end of the deal when it comes to child custody and reproductive rights. It is so obvious. Especially when it comes to abortion and divorce. Men and children seem to be overlooked on this issue…
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Well Paul, who are they?

I for one am not surprised that a grass roots effort didn’t do the opposition research.
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

Somehow men need to take their fatherhood back. Once the government gets involved in parenthood it takes over. The Gov programs are easy for divorced mothers to sign up for. Are Fathers required to sign something when the mother signs up for wellfare or any of the other Gov programs? It seems to me Fatherhood should be more than child support checks…
Paul

It’s interesting that at 5:28 pm you “don’t know who this ND Children’s Caucus is” and two hours later at 7:41 pm you “did engage the Children’s Caucus.” You’d think you’d now who they are if you really had engaged them.
TruthBringer

Paul sayeth: It’s interesting that at 5:28 pm you “don’t know who this ND Children’s Caucus is” and two hours later at 7:41 pm you “did engage the Children’s Caucus.” You’d think you’d now who they are if you really had engaged them.

You caught another “mad dad” lying. Shocked by this? I am not.

Either they tried to engage them, in which case the “I don’t know who this ND Children’s Caucus is” is a lie OR they did not try to engage them, in which case the “did engage” part is a lie.

My bet is they did not try. Why should they? This is nothing more than a bunch of disgruntled litigants, mostly “mad dads” who want to take it out on their exs. And when they don’t get what they want, they sue, sue, sue with frivolous lawsuits.

This is little more than a temper tantrum by people who do not get their own way when they want.

As for polling, of course they do not want to poll. They know what it will show: they are going to lose.
Puzzlefeet

Rob, I know that we have had this discussion on other occasions, but depending on the vote, you may or may not have another opportunity at this. Did the committee do any research at all on who or which groups you could form coalitions around in support of the measure? Did the committee look at groups and politicians who would be opposing your measure and what the plan would be in response to the opposition. Did the committee have any meetings with the various editorial boards?

A campaign for an initiated measure starts long before the signatures are collected.

The Children’s Caucus has been in North Dakota for many many years and has a good reputation. This is one group you should have engaged early on. But these are lessons for another day.

Have you done any polling to see where you all stand currently? Just wondering.
J

What does the ND Children’s Caucus, the North Dakota Progressive Coalition, NDpeople.org, and the North Dakota Center for the Public Good have in common? They share the address 410 East Thayer Avenue, Suite 2 in Bismarck and the phone number 701-224-8090. I also presume they share the same liberal philosophy.

It appears it might be the same people involved in these organizations and they just use different names depending on the cause. For example, the first I heard of NDpeople.org was when they started running ads attacking North Dakota’s House Majority Leader.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

people say that the SPI would lose us our federal human services funding

I don’t see it that bad if the need goes down and the bureaucracy that grows when more families break up has to downsize.

or jam the courts with too much litigation”.

Right, thats why the lawyers are against it. Because they don’t want the billings.
2Hotel9

Basicly, is this measure insuring equal responsibility, moral and financial, from both parents? No more of one or the other parent skipping out and leaving it all on the other, and by extension the county/state, to raise and care for children? If so, why is this a problem? Why was it not the law already?
a~mom

Rob, under measure 3 it is then the preferred choice for joint custody, right? So why should this be the preferred option when a parent chooses to be AWOL? Why should the absent parent have joint care, custody, and control if he/she is never there? I still say, not a one-size-fits-all answer, this truly should be on a case-by-case basis. Not joint to begin with and only changed if proven unfit. Just because a parent is uninvolved, that certainly doesn’t constitute unfit…and what a financial and legal hassle to have to try and undo “joint custody” when it shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place.
a~mom

So if this measure passes, what would prevent a parent from being AWOL AND not having to contribute financially to the child? Nothing! I am not saying changes aren’t necessary, but measure 3 is not the answer. This won’t fit the bill for all, it should be case by case. The way things are now, nothing is preventing either parent from seeking joint custody. It is just not assumed from the start.
a~mom

I have one question for everyone, either side of measure 3…..why would there have to be mandated joint custody in order for fathers to have more time with their children and more rights as to the raising of their children? This is not a custody issue, but rather a visitation issue and can and should be addressed in the divorce agreement. This measure is not a one-size-fits-all answer. I personally know of fathers who do not wish to have much, if any contact with their children. I certainly wouldn’t want them to have the privilege and honor of “joint custody”.
aNONOMISLY

As I see it, Rob et al, are merely trying to level the playing field at the start of litigation in regard to custudy litigations.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

So if this measure passes, what would prevent a parent from being AWOL AND not having to contribute financially to the child? Nothing!

Nothing under current law requires a parent to be present in his/her child’s life. Current laws which enforce the payment of child support would still apply, however.

The way things are now, nothing is preventing either parent from seeking joint custody. It is just not assumed from the start.

The way things are now, joint custody only exists if both parents agree to it. If both parents don’t agree, then the court makes a determination and picks one parent over the other even when one parent is not necessarily any better or worse than the other.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Why do I get the idea that “Mad Dad” is probably some fat welfare queen who gets kicks out of sticking it to her ex-husband by keeping his kids away from him?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Most of the money from SPI came from individual concerned fathers all over the nation who would like to see a law like this get its foot in the door.

IT didn’t come from a bunch of rich lawyers looking to protect their big, fat pocketbooks.

But I live how you’re all about “deadbeat dads.” You alienate people with that stuff, you know. You’re your own worst enemy. You’re not going to like some of the changes coming down the pipe, I don’t think.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Quite right, Andrew. The problem is that women know they have the upper hand, and they’re backed by a human services bureaucracy that has all the incentive in the world to keep men away from their children and paying as much child support as possible.

See, the federal government bases its TANF funding on the amount of child support collected in a given state. It’s some percentage of the total amount collected, like 66%. So obviously, the bureaucrats have an interest in keeping the amount of child support they collect as high as possible. That way they get more funding.

So they devise all sorts of way to encourage more single-parent parenting. Because fathers who are involved with their children should pay less in child support since they keep, and support, their children more.

The bureaucrats don’t want that.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Reimers was never part of the Shared Parenting Initiative. He had his own thing.

Well over 40% of North Dakotans voted for SPI despite the ND Bar Assoc. spending $15,000 campaigning against it (and the human services bureaucrats spending plenty of our tax dollars campaigning against it as well).

This ain’t going away. There’s going to be change.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

Rob
This: “Children, even children of divorce, need positive involvement from both of their parents.” …is 100% correct. I would even argue that this point should have primacy over concerns about how prgmatic it will be with respect to the fact that, “people say that the SPI would lose us our federal human services funding or jam the courts with too much litigation”.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

You’d think you’d now who they are if you really had engaged them.

Or, it could be that I’m not the leader of the SPI movement, and that there are other people in the movement who have talked to groups in ND.

I wasn’t aware of the ND Children’s Caucus. OTher people in my group are, and they’ve talked with them.

Got it straight now or would you guys like to be sarcastic and insulting some more? Maybe call me a “mad dad” again. Because, you know, this is really all just about ex-husbands trying to get back at their ex-wives.

/sarcasm
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Rob, under measure 3 it is then the preferred choice for joint custody, right? So why should this be the preferred option when a parent chooses to be AWOL?

It is the preferred choice, not the required one.

We can’t make people be good parents, but we can give good parents equal footing when it comes to their children.

If a parents wants to be AWOL…they can just like now (except that they will still have to pay child support).
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Also, very childish how you spam this site anonymously with your copy/paste retardedness.

At least be an honest schmuck and get a reader blog and do your own post.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Puzzle, we don’t have money for polling unfortunately.

And we did engage The Children’s Caucus, but they don’t like us. Mostly because they’re sycophants for the human services establishment, and the human services establishment doesn’t like our initiative because it means less child support. Which in turn means less money for them.

It’s not about the kids for our opposition, it’s about the money.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

a~mom,

Here’s is the full text of the measure.

Notice that while the measure requires that both parents retain parental rights in the absence of any evidence proving them unfit, it does not require a 50/50 time split.

If a father or mother didn’t want to have visitation with his/her child, then they wouldn’t be forced to.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Where Am I Going To Sleep Tonight?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments