From Glenn Sacks
This is a discussion on From Glenn Sacks within the Fathers Forum forums, part of the General category; Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, ...
| |||||||
| ►Link to us◄ | Register | Blogs | FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
          
29th-November-2006
| |||||
| |||||
Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, a Michigan shared parenting bill which will be heard by the House Families and Children Services Committee on December 6. Last week NOW issued an "Action Alert" against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children's Michigan affiliate, the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan, and others, are rallying support for the bill. The contact information for the members of the House Families and Children Services Committee who will be deciding on HB 5267 next week are below--I suggest you call and write them. While letters from Michigan residents are best, letters from other states are also helpful. Rep. John Stahl (Chair)R-North Branch Supports 373-1800373-9981Email Rep. Tom Pearce (Vice Chair)R-Rockford Supports 373-0218373-5697Email Rep. Jack Hoogendyk*R-Kalamazoo Supports 373-1774373-8872Email Rep. Fulton Sheen*R-Plainwell Supports 373-0836373-8728Email Rep. Barb Vander Veen*R-Allendale Undecided 373-0838373-9830Email Rep. Brenda Clack (Vice Chair)D-Flint Undecided 373-8808373-5997Email Rep. Lamar Lemmons, Jr.D-Detroit Supports 373-0106373-7271Email Rep. Gino PolidoriD-Dearborn Undecided 373-0847373-7538Email Rep. Dudley SpadeD-Tipton Undecided 373-1706373-5777Email Rep. Craig DeRoche, SpeakerR-Novi 373-0827373-5873Email Rep. Chris Ward, Floor Leader*R-Brighton 373-1784373-8957Email Rep. Dianne Byrum, Dem LeaderD-Onondaga 373-0587373-9430Email *Sponsor of HB 5267 The Case for HB 5267 Michigan NOW makes its case against shared parenting and HB 5267 here. I laid out the case in favor of HB 5267 and discussed many of NOW's criticisms in my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and I wrote: "HB 5267 is primarily sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-Horton), who has been joined by 10 other legislators. When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially equal time with their children. The principle behind the bill is difficult to dispute--as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children... "NOW claims that HB 5267 'places the interests of parents over the child's interests.' Yet when researchers have examined children of divorce, and studied and queried adult children of divorce, they've found that most prefer joint custody and shared parenting. "For example, a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of divorce 'express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,' and cite the 'benefit of remaining close to both parents' as an important factor. "When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents' divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that 'living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.' His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003. "Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan's Best Interest of the Child Test. Both the Michigan Bar and Michigan NOW assure us that this system is effective and should not be changed. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children's relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents. "Moreover, the custody decisions based on the factors are often subjective and arbitrary. Under HB 5267 a court cannot deny requests for joint custody without stating its reasons on the record. "Michigan NOW also asserts that HB 5267 will 'further impoverish children of separated or divorced parents' because in Michigan, as in most states, the amount of physical time divorced parents spend with their children and the concomitant expenses are calculated into the child support obligation. These fears are also unwarranted. "Research demonstrates that joint custody leads to higher rates of child support compliance. This isn't surprising, since parents who are permitted little role in their children's lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for them. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids. "While Michigan NOW is correct that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, they ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 40 or 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it? "Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will put abused women in harm's way. According to DOVE, HB 5267 'sends a clear message to battered women and children that the 'rights' of a batterer take precedence over their safety and wellbeing.' Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for joint custody--battered mothers should and would receive sole custody. "Unfortunately, NOW, DOVE and other misguided women's advocates seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces--ones where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will ensure that children won't see one of the two people they love the most pushed to the margins of their lives." More on HB 5267 Dr. Michael T. Ross of the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan has some interesting and informative links on HB 5267, including much opposition commentary, below: HB 5267 as Introduced HB 5267 Legislative Analysis Michigan State Bar Public Policy Resource Center (CapWiz) Family Law Section Article on HB5267 (page 3) Family Law Section Position on HB5267 Referee Association Article on HB5267 Michigan National Organization for Women Hanna's Blog: Response to Comments that a Presumption of Joint Custody is Appropriate Hanna's Blog: Custody Determinations Should Depend Upon the Particular Facts of a Case, Not a Presumption Proposed Joint Custody Legislation HB 5267 | Make Your Voice Heard in Lansing Michigan Poverty Law Program - Rebecca Shiemke
  | |||||
|
29th-November-2006
| |||||
| |||||
Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, a Michigan shared parenting bill which will be heard by the House Families and Children Services Committee on December 6. Last week NOW issued an "Action Alert" against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children's Michigan affiliate, the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan, and others, are rallying support for the bill. The contact information for the members of the House Families and Children Services Committee who will be deciding on HB 5267 next week are below--I suggest you call and write them. While letters from Michigan residents are best, letters from other states are also helpful. Rep. John Stahl (Chair)R-North Branch Supports 373-1800373-9981Email Rep. Tom Pearce (Vice Chair)R-Rockford Supports 373-0218373-5697Email Rep. Jack Hoogendyk*R-Kalamazoo Supports 373-1774373-8872Email Rep. Fulton Sheen*R-Plainwell Supports 373-0836373-8728Email Rep. Barb Vander Veen*R-Allendale Undecided 373-0838373-9830Email Rep. Brenda Clack (Vice Chair)D-Flint Undecided 373-8808373-5997Email Rep. Lamar Lemmons, Jr.D-Detroit Supports 373-0106373-7271Email Rep. Gino PolidoriD-Dearborn Undecided 373-0847373-7538Email Rep. Dudley SpadeD-Tipton Undecided 373-1706373-5777Email Rep. Craig DeRoche, SpeakerR-Novi 373-0827373-5873Email Rep. Chris Ward, Floor Leader*R-Brighton 373-1784373-8957Email Rep. Dianne Byrum, Dem LeaderD-Onondaga 373-0587373-9430Email *Sponsor of HB 5267 The Case for HB 5267 Michigan NOW makes its case against shared parenting and HB 5267 here. I laid out the case in favor of HB 5267 and discussed many of NOW's criticisms in my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and I wrote: "HB 5267 is primarily sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-Horton), who has been joined by 10 other legislators. When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially equal time with their children. The principle behind the bill is difficult to dispute--as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children... "NOW claims that HB 5267 'places the interests of parents over the child's interests.' Yet when researchers have examined children of divorce, and studied and queried adult children of divorce, they've found that most prefer joint custody and shared parenting. "For example, a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of divorce 'express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,' and cite the 'benefit of remaining close to both parents' as an important factor. "When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents' divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that 'living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.' His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003. "Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan's Best Interest of the Child Test. Both the Michigan Bar and Michigan NOW assure us that this system is effective and should not be changed. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children's relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents. "Moreover, the custody decisions based on the factors are often subjective and arbitrary. Under HB 5267 a court cannot deny requests for joint custody without stating its reasons on the record. "Michigan NOW also asserts that HB 5267 will 'further impoverish children of separated or divorced parents' because in Michigan, as in most states, the amount of physical time divorced parents spend with their children and the concomitant expenses are calculated into the child support obligation. These fears are also unwarranted. "Research demonstrates that joint custody leads to higher rates of child support compliance. This isn't surprising, since parents who are permitted little role in their children's lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for them. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids. "While Michigan NOW is correct that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, they ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 40 or 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it? "Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will put abused women in harm's way. According to DOVE, HB 5267 'sends a clear message to battered women and children that the 'rights' of a batterer take precedence over their safety and wellbeing.' Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for joint custody--battered mothers should and would receive sole custody. "Unfortunately, NOW, DOVE and other misguided women's advocates seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces--ones where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will ensure that children won't see one of the two people they love the most pushed to the margins of their lives." More on HB 5267 Dr. Michael T. Ross of the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan has some interesting and informative links on HB 5267, including much opposition commentary, below: HB 5267 as Introduced HB 5267 Legislative Analysis Michigan State Bar Public Policy Resource Center (CapWiz) Family Law Section Article on HB5267 (page 3) Family Law Section Position on HB5267 Referee Association Article on HB5267 Michigan National Organization for Women Hanna's Blog: Response to Comments that a Presumption of Joint Custody is Appropriate Hanna's Blog: Custody Determinations Should Depend Upon the Particular Facts of a Case, Not a Presumption Proposed Joint Custody Legislation HB 5267 | Make Your Voice Heard in Lansing Michigan Poverty Law Program - Rebecca Shiemke
| |||||
|
29th-November-2006
| ||||||
| ||||||
Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, a Michigan shared parenting bill which will be heard by the House Families and Children Services Committee on December 6. Last week NOW issued an "Action Alert" against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children's Michigan affiliate, the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan, and others, are rallying support for the bill. The contact information for the members of the House Families and Children Services Committee who will be deciding on HB 5267 next week are below--I suggest you call and write them. While letters from Michigan residents are best, letters from other states are also helpful. Rep. John Stahl (Chair)R-North Branch Supports 373-1800373-9981Email Rep. Tom Pearce (Vice Chair)R-Rockford Supports 373-0218373-5697Email Rep. Jack Hoogendyk*R-Kalamazoo Supports 373-1774373-8872Email Rep. Fulton Sheen*R-Plainwell Supports 373-0836373-8728Email Rep. Barb Vander Veen*R-Allendale Undecided 373-0838373-9830Email Rep. Brenda Clack (Vice Chair)D-Flint Undecided 373-8808373-5997Email Rep. Lamar Lemmons, Jr.D-Detroit Supports 373-0106373-7271Email Rep. Gino PolidoriD-Dearborn Undecided 373-0847373-7538Email Rep. Dudley SpadeD-Tipton Undecided 373-1706373-5777Email Rep. Craig DeRoche, SpeakerR-Novi 373-0827373-5873Email Rep. Chris Ward, Floor Leader*R-Brighton 373-1784373-8957Email Rep. Dianne Byrum, Dem LeaderD-Onondaga 373-0587373-9430Email *Sponsor of HB 5267 The Case for HB 5267 Michigan NOW makes its case against shared parenting and HB 5267 here. I laid out the case in favor of HB 5267 and discussed many of NOW's criticisms in my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and I wrote: "HB 5267 is primarily sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-Horton), who has been joined by 10 other legislators. When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially equal time with their children. The principle behind the bill is difficult to dispute--as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children... "NOW claims that HB 5267 'places the interests of parents over the child's interests.' Yet when researchers have examined children of divorce, and studied and queried adult children of divorce, they've found that most prefer joint custody and shared parenting. "For example, a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of divorce 'express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,' and cite the 'benefit of remaining close to both parents' as an important factor. "When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents' divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that 'living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.' His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003. "Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan's Best Interest of the Child Test. Both the Michigan Bar and Michigan NOW assure us that this system is effective and should not be changed. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children's relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents. "Moreover, the custody decisions based on the factors are often subjective and arbitrary. Under HB 5267 a court cannot deny requests for joint custody without stating its reasons on the record. "Michigan NOW also asserts that HB 5267 will 'further impoverish children of separated or divorced parents' because in Michigan, as in most states, the amount of physical time divorced parents spend with their children and the concomitant expenses are calculated into the child support obligation. These fears are also unwarranted. "Research demonstrates that joint custody leads to higher rates of child support compliance. This isn't surprising, since parents who are permitted little role in their children's lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for them. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids. "While Michigan NOW is correct that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, they ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 40 or 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it? "Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will put abused women in harm's way. According to DOVE, HB 5267 'sends a clear message to battered women and children that the 'rights' of a batterer take precedence over their safety and wellbeing.' Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for joint custody--battered mothers should and would receive sole custody. "Unfortunately, NOW, DOVE and other misguided women's advocates seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces--ones where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will ensure that children won't see one of the two people they love the most pushed to the margins of their lives." More on HB 5267 Dr. Michael T. Ross of the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan has some interesting and informative links on HB 5267, including much opposition commentary, below: HB 5267 as Introduced HB 5267 Legislative Analysis Michigan State Bar Public Policy Resource Center (CapWiz) Family Law Section Article on HB5267 (page 3) Family Law Section Position on HB5267 Referee Association Article on HB5267 Michigan National Organization for Women Hanna's Blog: Response to Comments that a Presumption of Joint Custody is Appropriate Hanna's Blog: Custody Determinations Should Depend Upon the Particular Facts of a Case, Not a Presumption Proposed Joint Custody Legislation HB 5267 | Make Your Voice Heard in Lansing Michigan Poverty Law Program - Rebecca Shiemke
| ||||||
|
29th-November-2006
| ||||
| ||||
Ah I had posted this news here as well. "From Glenn Sacks " is a quite a vague description of what the thread is about.
~ A man needs a woman like a lion needs a stove. ~ ~ Women deserve only equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. ~ ~ Men are not collectively "guilty" of anything. ~ ~ Never needing to be pregnant is a blessing. ~ ~ Feminist ideology “men have to respect women, but women have no reason to respect men” ~ ~ Everybody makes choices, and nobody should be entitled to special treatment because of those choices. Equal results based on unequal treatment amounts to no kind of equality at all. ~ | ||||
|
29th-November-2006
| ||||
| ||||
Ah I had posted this news here as well. "From Glenn Sacks " is a quite a vague description of what the thread is about.
~ A man needs a woman like a lion needs a stove. ~ ~ Women deserve only equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. ~ ~ Men are not collectively "guilty" of anything. ~ ~ Never needing to be pregnant is a blessing. ~ ~ Feminist ideology “men have to respect women, but women have no reason to respect men” ~ ~ Everybody makes choices, and nobody should be entitled to special treatment because of those choices. Equal results based on unequal treatment amounts to no kind of equality at all. ~ | ||||
|
30th-November-2006
| ||||||
| ||||||
Super! I hadn't realised it was already posted, I blame it on someone else though. Anyone else.
| ||||||
|
30th-November-2006
| ||||
| ||||
Super! I hadn't realised it was already posted, I blame it on someone else though. Anyone else.
| ||||
 |