Virtual visits pushed in several states
February 28, 2006
|
Posted by ANCPR
USATODAY.com – ‘Virtual’ visits pushed in several states
By Ann Sanner, Associated Press
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Divorce put David List and his 2-year-old daughter on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and he worried that she would soon forget him.
David List, left, visits with his 5-year-old daughter Ruby Rose via “virtual visitation.” 
David List, left, visits with his 5-year-old daughter Ruby Rose via “virtual visitation.”
By Tony Avelar, AP
She hasn’t, though. List’s divorce agreement guaranteed him “virtual visitation” — the chance to talk with his daughter through an Internet video connection — and he and Ruby Rose, now 5, usually connect at least twice a week. The chats sustain them in between their in-person visits, which come only a few times a year.
“When she gets off the plane, I know what she had for dinner last night,” said List, 49, of Santa Cruz, Calif. “She’ll run right up to me and jump in my arms because I know exactly what she’s all about.”
Advocates of virtual visitation want states to spell out in their laws that judges can make it part of a divorce agreement.
The benefits go beyond helping parents and children stay close, supporters argue. They say non-custodial parents are more likely to pay child support regularly if they can stay in touch, and electronic visits can help keep children from getting caught up in fights when bickering exes meet in person.
Utah made virtual visitation an official option in 2004, and similar legislation awaits the governor’s signature in Wisconsin. Illinois, Missouri and Virginia lawmakers have introduced proposals, too.
“A telephone can only go so far,” said Republican state Rep. Ruth Munson of Illinois.
The idea has its critics, though, who fear judges might use the option of virtual visitation as justification for ordering fewer real visits with children or letting one parent move away with the children.
“Real parents need real time. Real kids need real time,” said David L. Levy, director of the Children’s Rights Council.
“It can be a wonderful accessory, but the danger is that it will be used as a substitute for real visitation.”
Virtual visitation agreements can cover things as mundane as telephone calls, e-mail and instant messages, but the focus is on video connections. With the technology becoming more commonplace and affordable, divorce lawyers say more parents are using it, often without any formal court agreement.
But many lawyers and judges are still unaware of it.
“I think that it is an evolution and, unfortunately, a lot of older attorneys aren’t even aware that it is an option,” said Cheryl Hepfer, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and a Rockville, Md., attorney.
Hepfer said she has seen cases where virtual visitation helped keep the peace between exes because seeing the child’s face eased the absent parent’s fear that the child was being manipulated or monitored. She also called it “common sense” that parents using virtual visitation would be more willing to pay child support.
“In my experience, I have found that parents who feel connected to their children are much more invested and much more gracious,” Hepfer said.
While most judges already can authorize virtual visitation, they hesitate to order it because it’s not addressed in the laws, experts said. Lawyers can be reluctant to fight for it for the same reason.
“Lawyers have tried. It’s very hard,” said Jeffrey Leving, a divorce lawyer in Chicago who specializes in fathers’ rights cases.
Utah passed its law partly because of efforts by divorced dad Michael Gough, who fought in the courts to obtain virtual visitation rights after his daughter moved to Wisconsin.
For the last two years, he and Saige, now 6, have used webcams to talk.
“I saw her first loose tooth. I saw her haircut, new outfits — things you want to see on a daily basis but you can’t in person because you’re a divorced parent,” Gough said.
His divorce attorney, Joyce Maughan, said Utah lawyers are now more likely to suggest virtual visitation, simply “because their lawyers are more aware of it.”
Gough moved to Wisconsin in 2004 to be closer to Saige, and he brought the virtual visitation idea with him. Lawmakers there unanimously approved the legislation last month, said Rep. Robin Vos, a bill co-sponsor.
“This is one way that helps make sure that technology keeps up with the needs of parents who need to stay in contact with their children,” said Vos, a Republican.
Gough, 42, said he is working to get other states to pass similar laws and has launched a website, http://www.InternetVisitation.org, to spread the word.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: News
|
Leave a reply
(sigh)
This is like a band-aid on a cancer patient.
I’ve thought about this and it’s a good thing for the parents that don’t get to see their children now. It just scares the crap of me that legislation could abuse something like this easily because it’s easier to do this than to face the equal parenting that allot of us have been wanting to change. This internet visitation will do nothing but justify move-away moms/dads and decisions in the courts. I hope the legislation keeps very tight on this and it doesn’t get abused. I feel like wierd about this internet visitation, it’s like, you just got screwed over by a woman who just took your kids, 1/2 your pay the house and whatever and I could see this as a trend. Think of it as a excerpt from Buck Rogers or something, but I think this is freaky as all hell.
[“The benefits go beyond helping parents and children stay close, supporters argue. They say non-custodial parents are more likely to pay child supportâ€â€¦]
[“She also called it “common sense†that parents using virtual visitation would be more willing to pay child support.â€]
It’s very clear what the real motivation is. I wonder if mothers would say on-line visits would be enough if men were awarded custody most of the time.
It appears there is no limit as to how low these criminals will stoop in order to extract their extortion.
I emailed Mike Gough and this was his response on his intentions with his website. …………….
The legislation is very specific, it has no impact on Equal Placement movements or move-away movements, which I do comment on when asked.
They are separate issues. Even with 50/50 you still wouldn’t be able to see the first lost tooth or an award if it was not on your watch…
I support Equal Placement and reducing frivolous move-away’s.
There really is nothing to fear EXCEPT if NO legislation exists as you are aware why move-aways are so bad and out of control and why Shared Parenting is a tough battle. Read Cleri vs. Cleri or Lee vs. Lee… the courts misused Virtual Visitation and we do NOT want this to continue, thus why we are doing what we are doing.
We are starting from the beginning and are the conductor of this train and do not intend to let the courts muck up this option with their interpretations. We – us parents, judges, commissioners, Child Counselors, parents are driving the wording – we are united in this cause and all agree the wording is good to protect children and their parents.
Thanks for the feedback.
MG
Just another bone to gnaw on, to draw attention away from meaningful change. Child visitation orders are ignored without legal santions, because there’s no financial incentive to enforce them. Other carefully worded documents e.g. the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights have been usurped by a government controlled by Marxists. History has already shown us how, on its present course, this will end. The question is, will change occur now, or will it take until the bread lines are to long.
I admire all you will have written about this subject right here but will you please develop further on your ideas within the second and third paragraph.