N.O.W. NY Speaks on Joint Custody Bill
March 28, 2006
|
Posted by ANCPR
Here is the view of National Organizatin of Women, New York, on the Joint Custody Bill now before the NY Senate.
Albany, N.Y.: Timesunion.com – Print Story
By MARCIA A. PAPPAS
First published: Tuesday, March 28, 2006
The state Legislature is considering the worst joint custody bill that the National Organization for Women — New York State has ever seen, presuming joint custody in all custody cases, including a deceitful attempt to redefine visitation of non-custodial parents as shared parenting.
NOW NYS has always favored primary caregiver presumption legislation to ensure stability and continuity of care for children. If a person is not involved in the lives of his or her children during the marriage, why would that involvement increase after divorce? Therefore, we oppose court-mandated joint custody and oppose changing the terminology to shared parenting.
Primary caregiver presumption would cut down on the abusive practice by the moneyed spouse (usually the husband) of coercing the non-moneyed spouse (usually the wife) to make monetary concessions rather than risk a custody battle before a biased court. This threat of a fight for custody is the fear factor that leads mothers to make financial concessions in exchange for the chance to give her children a stable life. One attorney has acknowledged that he often gave that advice to male clients. When he became chief justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals in West Virginia, he was responsible for the passage of a primary caregiver bill.
NOW NYS would like to set the record straight. It is a lie that mothers are awarded custody in 95 percent of divorce cases, as fathers rights advocates would have the public believe. Only 1 percent of cases are litigated so mothers get custody by agreement of the parties, whether or not the agreement is coerced as we describe.
Let us learn from the experience of others. In California, a report prepared 15 years after divorce reform legislation, found that one-third of joint-physical custody arrangements were indistinguishable in practice from the sole-custody visitation arrangements. After seeing the harmful effects on children by court-ordered joint custody, California ended its presumption in favor of joint custody awards in 1989.
Joint custody establishes rights without responsibilities. There is no way under current law to enforce visitation. There are no penalties for failure to visit. There is nothing in this bill, or any other joint custody or shared parenting bill, to enforce compliance with a parenting plan. The term parenting time suggests that all non-custodial parents take an active, positive role in their children’s lives. Reality shows us that many parents who are granted visitation choose not to be involved in their children’s lives. Change in terminology does nothing to enforce parental responsibility or involvement. Opponents feel that the term visitation carries a negative connotation with respect to non-custodial parents, stating that visitation is associated with visiting relatives in prison.
This is clearly a ridiculous argument. People visit family members and other people in many and varied relationships. If parents want to take an active role in their child’s life, why would terminology make a difference? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
NOW NYS believes the actual motivation for this change in terminology is to require the court to equate the parenting plan or schedule with actual parenting responsibilities, financial and otherwise. Arguments have been made by non-custodial parents that the costs of spending time with their children should be deducted from their child support obligations, ignoring the fact that it is the primary caregiver who is responsible for the day-to-day expenses of the children. This newly proposed legislation lays the dangerous groundwork for the courts to decrease child support awards based on a change of terminology.
It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the non-custodial parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their children.
The basis for this strong battle of the fathers’ rights groups is totally financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance counselors that a common complaint of children of divorce is that they don’t see their fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain about the inequities of material advantages they often observe when their father acquires his new family.
This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship between children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates in the best interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to advance the welfare of the children of New York.
Marcia A. Pappas is president of NOW-New York State.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: News
|
Leave a reply
This NY shared parenting bill must be good if NOW is so vehemently against it.
[NOW NYS has always favored primary caregiver presumption legislation to ensure stability and continuity of care for children. If a person is not involved in the lives of his or her children during the marriage, why would that involvement increase after divorce? Therefore, we oppose court-mandated joint custody and oppose changing the terminology to shared parenting.]
There are plenty of good reasons why a person would have increased interest in their children after a divorce. A man/woman may be entrusting the duties of primary caregiver in lieu of other responsibilities to the family. I’m sure the primary caregiver wants a nice house and a cupboard full of Post Toasties. The “primary breadwinner†is never going to be able to spend the same amount of time with the kids as the primary caregiver, that’s just common sense – oh but I forgot; common sense seldom plays a significant role in these emotionally charged and inappropriately convoluted decisions.
Let’s cut through the “barnyard excrement†here.
[NOW NYS would like to set the record straight. It is a lie that mothers are awarded custody in 95 percent of divorce cases, as fathers rights advocates would have the public believe. Only 1 percent of cases are litigated so mothers get custody by agreement of the parties, whether or not the agreement is coerced as we describe.]
I like this one. Apparently only 1 percent of mothers get custody by mutual consent (after much litigation, I’m sure). 4 percent of fathers get custody by “the grace of God†and the other 95% of the children suffer the consequences of a morally bankrupt “family court†system. Thanks for clearing that one up. Clearly the only ones coercing anything are mothers who know they are favored by the biased courts. As if “the tender years doctrine†weren’t enough, just throw in child disinterest (while keeping the Post Toasties in plentiful supply) and a healthy supply of spousal abuse (while she’s doing the paperboy when you’re at work) and a generous false allegation of sexual abuse of the kids … and presto … there is your sole custody.
[It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the non-custodial parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their children.]
We do agree on this one. Both parents need to have the same opportunity to be with their children. 50/50 CUSTODY, WITH “NO MONEY†CHANGING HANDS UNLESS AREED TO BY CONTRACT.
There should not even be the term NCP in existence. I believe mother and father are the appropriate titles. No one is saying that financial support is out of the question. What we are saying, in my opinion, is that financial support as a mandate in place of equal time with your children is out of the question. Waving our right to equal protection under the law is out of the question.
Get it through your heads criminals, the days of kidnapping children from their fathers is coming to an end. So are the days of having children for a “free rideâ€. Get on board, or rot in prison, it’s your choice.
Kevin Merck
I have yet to read something as biased. Who is this Pappas demagogue?
[I have yet to read something as biased. Who is this Pappas demagogue?]
It’s not surprising though. For a state that would elect Hillary Clinton for Senator, you wouldn’t expect much in the line of common sense and intelligence.
“If a person is not involved in the lives of his or her children during the marriage, why would that involvement increase after divorce?”
That’s exactly the kind of subjective assertion that a shared parenting bill would serve to eliminate. Who was keeping a clock and measuring involvement before the divorce started? How can one use unilateral subjective assertions such as this to justify their point of view? This is something easily handled on a case-by-case basis. If the father does not stay involved in his children’s lives, that is to his detriment and to that of his child(ren). And, why should it be allowed, you ask? Because every study shows that if BOTH parents are involved to the greatest extent possible it is better for the children (divorced or not).
“Primary caregiver presumption would cut down on the abusive practice by the moneyed spouse (usually the husband) of coercing the non-moneyed spouse (usually the wife) to make monetary concessions rather than risk a custody battle before a biased court.†Spoken like some one who has never experienced the system in our various states or who is blatantly and deliberately making a false assertion. Anyone who has experienced the current system in most states in this grand country of ours, knows that all it takes is for the mothers to assert that the parents: 1) cannot get along (which is silly because, after all, why are they divorcing?) or, 2) cannot communicate (silly again). Regardless of any other evidence, suddenly mediators, custody evaluators, etc. recommend sole custody to the mother and the judges almost always listen to them and, as a result, award large amounts of child support because of that very decision. What a racket.
This threat of a fight for custody is the fear factor that leads mothers to make financial concessions in exchange for the chance to give her children a stable life. Quite to the contrary, what actually is conveyed to father after father is there is no need to fight the system because you will lose in the long run and in the mean time spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to gain what should be yours anyway (equal parenting with your children). Faced with the bias in the system, most fathers compromise and give up custody of the children rather than fight a battle they most assuredly will lose. Ms. Pappas’ own arguments point this out when she says that “Only 1 percent of cases are litigated so mothers get custody by agreement of the parties, whether or not the agreement is coerced as we describe.â€
“There is no way under current law to enforce visitation. There are no penalties for failure to visit.â€
I agree 100%! There is also no law to penalize mothers who refuse to allow fathers to visit to see their children. There is no law in my state or any other that I am aware of that institutes any punitive measures whatsoever. Violation of court-ordered visitation goes completely unpunished and without consequence. However, there is an ever-expanding tome of laws of punitive measures in most states for fathers who fall behind on child support (which is quite rare if the children are allowed be involved in his life). I invite ANYONE to check out the facts on this. So, what is the impression that noncustodial parents are left with? We are important for nothing more than being check books to our children and their mothers.
“Reality shows us that many parents who are granted visitation choose not to be involved in their children’s lives.â€
Really?!? What study are you citing here? How many are “many� Again, this is not a fact but a subjective assertion that is not and cannot be backed up by facts or data. Rather, it is an insult to all of the noncustodial parents who struggle daily to remain relevant in their children’s lives. Ms. Pappas and others of her ilk have so persistently and persuasively repeated false assertions such as this that they are automatically taken as truth without challenge. If one repeats a lie long enough and often enough…..
“Opponents feel that the term visitation carries a negative connotation with respect to non-custodial parents…â€
Oh were the shoe on the other foot….How would most women feel had they been told that they were now only allowed to “visit†their children.
“Arguments have been made by non-custodial parents that the costs of spending time with their children should be deducted from their child support obligations, ignoring the fact that it is the primary caregiver who is responsible for the day-to-day expenses of the children. This newly proposed legislation lays the dangerous groundwork for the courts to decrease child support awards based on a change of terminologyâ€.
Well, now we see why NOW NYS so avidly opposes shared parenting legislation…they are afraid that it will result in less money being awarded to a primary caregiver (note the term “custodial parent†is now missing). Either Ms. Pappas is ignorant to the facts or is misrepresenting them. Only she knows which. Most child support orders assume the children are in the care of the custodial parent 100% and that all expenses should thus be borne by the noncustodial parent. I ask Ms. Pappas to answer two questions: 1) does the mother not bear any responsibility for financial security of her child(ren)? 2) is it wrong to expect a court to consider the amount of time that the children are in the care of their father when awarding child support? When my children are in my home for 10-12 days and nights per month, vacations, holidays, etc, am I not the “primary caregiver†during those times? Am I not “responsible for the day-to-day expenses of the children†during those times? Please use logic in your argument and try not to contradict yourself.
“The basis for this strong battle of the fathers’ rights groups is totally financial.â€
Again, I agree 100%. However, I believe the statements you made above regarding your fear of reduction in child support awards attest to the fact that it is actually finances that motivate organizations like NOW NYS to oppose a father’s constitutional right to be a parent his child(ren). You really should not try and twist this into something it isn’t. It’s a simple, straightforward, question: Why does a person lose his right to parent his children simply because of his gender? I would think that organizations like NOW, which were founded to battle gender discrimination, should support legislation that would force the courts to be gender neutral when it comes to custody and parenting.
“It is frequently reported by school guidance counselors that a common complaint of children of divorce is that they don’t see their fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain about the inequities of material advantages they often observe when their father acquires his new family.â€
I know some one from NOW NYS surely does not want to hear a quote from Ronald Reagan of all people but here it is: “Well, there you go againâ€. This a totally subjective assertion. What statistics, facts, data, are you citing here? It sounds like some one who would say: “Well now, I know a guidance counselor and they said such and so and so about a child who came into their office the other day and I think that based on this we should do such and suchâ€. Facts, ma’am, please stick to the facts. Cite some recent data, while you’re at it. If you want to talk anecdotes, I could tell you about my own case which totally contradicts the assertions you made that fathers are better off after the divorce.
“This bill …falsely legislates in the best interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to advance the welfare of the children of New York.â€
If we are to believe you, then it would follow that having both parents involved to the greatest extent possible in their children’s lives is harmful to them and does not advance their welfare. It comes as no surprise to me that an organization like NOW wants any paternal influence in children’s lives minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Note that nowhere in Ms Pappas’ article does she mention the father’s inalienable right to be a father to his children and the children’s right to have equal time with their father.
Finally, since Ms Pappas’ article is full of assertions but short on facts: please allow me to provide some facts and citations for you:
1. 63% of youth suicides come from fatherless homes (U.S. D.H.K.S. Bureau of the Census)
2. 90% of all homeless children and runaways are from fatherless homes (same source)
3. 85% of children with behavioral disorders are from fatherless homes (Centers for Disease Control)
4. 80% of rapists motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Criminal Justice & Behavior, 14:403-426. 1978)
5. 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
6. 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. (Rainbows for all God’s Children)
7. 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept of Justice special report, 1988).
It goes on and on. But, evidently, Ms. Pappas and NOW NYS believe that its best for fathers to be relegated to a visit from time to time when its convenient to the mother. Oh, and by the way, keep those checks coming or go to jail.
Shared parenting is a step long overdue. We need to break the monoply power women have over our kids.
Kids belong to both parents.
Shared parenting is my childrens second choice their first choice is both parents back to together granting them 100 percent contact with both of their parent’s, this shared parenting bill when passed will help bring the children some light and love that they have been needing badly ever since the bias court and money grubing attorney”s divirted the childrens right to both father and mother ( shared).
As a petitioner in NYS Family Court I fully comprehend the issues. First of all, Schenectady County has separate magistrates ruling on the custody and child support issues. This facts directly contradicts Ms. Pappas claim to coercion based on monetary (child support) matters, the judges are segregated – any compromise comes before a judge’s decision.
The current “tender years doctrine” has been in place since the 70′s. As an apparent feminist, Ms. Pappas would obviously object to women being labeled as “only being able to earn a living by having children and receiving child support”. It also appears to me that NOW is unwilling to show financial independence. Women on the whole have reached prominent positions in gov’t and in corporate management, yet Ms. Pappas seems to be content in living in the 70′s. Not all mother’s are stay at home moms.
We cannot deny the fact that society has changed and our laws need to change with it. There are currently three bills in the NYS legislature right now addressing children ( custody and child support). I urge every NYS resident to write their Senator and Assembly(person) to support the passing of this very important legislation. Bill A00330 has been assigned to the Committee of Children and Family Services.
I was entrenched in every conceivable activity of my son’s life since his birth. I am know fighting to spend the same amount of time with him as his depression-diagnosed mother because she spent a few more hours per week with him than I did. How in the world can anyone see this as being in the best interest of a child.
Kramse:
Good work. I like the way you broke that down. It just boils down to the “oppressed†have become the “oppressorâ€, the only question being; is most of their perceived oppression real or imagined? I don’t think women have ever been “intentionally†discriminated against, with reference to family, the way men are currently discriminated against.
The “tender years doctrine†should be renamed the “legal tender years doctrineâ€. (I hope that’s original)
In any case, you make one of the best arguments I’ve ever heard for fathers nationwide to simply refuse to pay. In my opinion, it’s the only thing that will bring about change in our lifetime.
Executive Director, Fathers Resources International Danny Guspie responds to Marcia A. Pappas article:
” Joint custody bill not in child’s interest” March 28, 2006:
Guspie says: The idea of child custody is a false illusion. The state owns you, our kids and me. Need proof? I win custody. Six months later I make a decision. You as the other parent don’t like my decision and take me to Court. Who makes the decision? The judge – the third branch of Government. Who gets the money – the lawyers. You are fighting the wrong enemy Ms. Pappas…
To The National Organization of Women and Ms. Marcia A. Pappas, President of N.O.W – New York Chapter: What YOU oppose is LOVE. What you are advocating for is HATE.
March 30th, 2006
Dear Ms. Pappas:
How sad that you oppose love from a father who wants to be involved with his child. Even sadder is your lack of insight about what a child needs, wants and requires of both their parents before during and especially after a divorce.
ALL CHILDREN WANT A FAMILY. That means a Mom and a Dad, brothers and sisters. I have to ask – do you have a family? Do you even have children? Do you have a good man in your life? How is your relationship with your Dad? How about your Grandfather?
The number one persistent fantasy of a child of divorce is that Mom and Dad will make up, and get back together. Absent that, they will stop fighting. You reduce it to money. Involved men pay child support without hesitation. That’s just common sense.
Lets call it for what it really is: What YOU oppose is LOVE. What you are advocating for is HATE,
Hate is never a solution, especially when children are caught in the middle between parents. Nor is more government intervention your solution.
HERE IS REALITY: Government can’t fund itself and now it is using our children as a funding source. Follow the money in child support enforcement. Also follow the money in where child support goes when it is paid – YOU CAN’T. There is no accountability for that support for those women who do not spend it on the kids.
And if you are not the dad, but have to pay because the laws encourage paternity fraud – where is the fairness in that? And what about the Bradley amendment? And what about your own constituencies, grandmothers who are denied time with grandkids, young women who want to see their Dads but are blocked from Mom. Aren’t these things as important?
Therefore you oppose the solution to that which you say you seek – fairness. Isn’t that a fact?
You are saying that all men do not love their children that we are all irresponsible, that men win in Family Court because we have the money. That’s the same ignorant sentiment that is the very foundation of all hate, racism and genocide.
I oppose YOUR dishonest arguments against shared parenting: Children’s rights are not bound up with one parent. Children’s Rights are independently their own. They have a right to the love and support of two parents. Rarely does it work that way in Family Court.
Your statistics are self-serving and completely wrong. The truth is this; those who have them commissioned can manufacture statistics.
Here is the truth: No man would ever marry a woman thinking he was anything but an equal partner, nor vice-versa. And that is the presumption before you enter Family Court.
It was equally wrong 100 years ago that men automatically got custody. It’s just as wrong today that women get that same presumption. It strips away the dignity every parent based upon a LIE.
Calling Family Court biased in favour of men makes no sense at all when women have the advantage of organizations like yours, unconstitutional laws like VAWA that do not speak about violence against male children and men, child support laws that force fathers to pay for children that are not theirs if they miss some artificial 30 day deadline and the Bradley amendment. Show me a law on the books for men that do these things to women.
The foundation of YOUR lie is this: That all women are saints and men devils. You are saying women are good and men are bad.
That’s a stereotype. That’s what good women in the 70′s fought against. So why are you engaging in it. Your doing the very thing that your movement originally sought to end.
Women murder, rape and abuse just as good as a man does. It’s not about gender; it’s about morality – Good versus Evil and Right versus Wrong. There are many women who never pay a dime of child support when they lose custody, and Family Courts who bend over backwards to accommodate “the poor woman”.
Liberation for women and men incorporate humanism, dignity, compassion, and collaboration. Peace is always the primary best interest of the child. When there is peace, money flows to kids, not lawyers and special interest groups like yours.
Your views are really hate mongering. Wrapping it in “Apple Pie and Mom” does not change that.
Real liberation is about stepping up to the plate, not blaming others. Not being dependent on anyone or anything. Focusing on the solution rather than blame. Having an attitude of inclusiveness and partnership.
Yes, some men are irresponsible. Not because they are men though. Because they are irresponsible human beings – Period.
What you are saying that woman never:
• Initiates a relationship;
• Pursues men for a date;
• Shames men into marital commitment
• Lobbies for a huge diamond ring
• Demands a big costly fantasy wedding
• Demands an honeymoon that is beyond reasonable means
• Ever lies about their age, nor use of birth control
• Gets depressed when the “the honeymoon” is over
• Never makes a household miserable when they don’t get their way
Do all women act this way? Are all women irresponsible? Of course not. Some do act this way though. Does this mean all women should be vilified? Of course not, that’s stereotypical thinking and profiling. Its not because they are women, it is because they have low self-esteem and are searching for someone to validate their existence.
98% of women initiate a separation and divorce. All without any encouragement to examine how they got themselves in the situation in the first place, and because it’s “the man’s fault”. That’s why so many women want to change us, shame us, medicate us and claim we are unnecessary.
It’s the women’s fault for buying into: “You can have it all baby” and the man’s for not being mature enough to say: “Sorry, you’re not my type…”
Both parties made the situation what it is. Both need to be responsible and share in the blame, and then move past it if there is to be real liberation from the poor choices made that created the situation. Relationships are partnerships.
Finally – in your world men are bad, but women are the primary caregiver’s. I guess that care giving wasn’t too good for the last 30 years, because N.O.W. hasn’t made young boys into good men yet.
Perhaps the problem is not the money, but kicking the man out of the kid’s life and for Mom’s who know so little about the value a good caring people bring to each other in our relationships.
I was taught in the 70′s that a man can do anything a woman can and vice-versa. So I count myself lucky that after my divorce, I raised our kids. And when they felt they needed their mother, I let go without any regrets. Despite the facts that the Mom was not really a suitable parent. I trusted that our children needed to find that out for themselves. I did not engage in silly rhetoric like yours.
And you know what – it all worked out. And even though I never got a dime in child support from their mother in nine years, I paid my child support without complaint.
Finally – the idea of custody is a false illusion. The state owns you, our kids and me. Need proof?
I win custody. Six months later I make a decision. You as the other parent don’t like my decision and take me to Court. Who makes the decision?
The judge – the third branch of Government. Who gets the money – the lawyers.
You are fighting the wrong enemy Ms. Pappas. But then, only an adult child of divorce like me would have the real life experiences to see such distinctions and call a hate mongerer on it and their nonsensical worldview that has nothing to do with LOVE and everything to do with GREED.
For shame for crawling into bed with the lawyers, the State and the continued industrialization of divorce, the harvesting of your constituency who often lose every asset in Family Court chasing your illusions of VICTORY, when there can be no winners but the profiteers and finally – with the savage rape of a child’s identity with rhetoric and polemics more suited to the Nuremburg Rally.
Shame on you Ms. Pappas and double shame on you N.O.W.
Danny Guspie
Executive Director
Fathers’ Resources International
__________________________________________________________
FATHERS’ RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL
We Solve Men’s Custody – Access – Support – Problems
Toll-Free – 1-888-54-Daddy (North America)
Local – (416) 861-0626/Voice
E-mail – info@fathers-resources.com
Web – http://www.fathers-resources.com
Blog – http://www.divorced-dad-daily.com
Come to our free weekly clinics throughout Southern Ontario.
See the web Site for full details, free resources, new ideas and
positive solutions To the difficulties children, men and families
face in Family Court.
Learn how to “wage peace†in order to end war in Family Court.
http://www.fathers-resources.com
LISTEN TO OUR PODCAST – Divorced Dads Rights: DadCast
http://www.fathers-resources.com/DadCast/tabid/621/Default.aspx
__________________________________________________________
“War is over (if you want it)”
John Lennon 1970
“World Peace (begins at home…)”
Danny Guspie 2004
Nothing in this message constitutes legal advice. If you wish legal advice,
please see and/or retain a lawyer. Should you wish a referral to one
of our lawyers, we would be happy to provide one.
This electronic message is intended only for the party to whom it is
addressed, and may contain information which is privileged or confidential.
Any other delivery, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly
prohibited and is not a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. If you have
received this message by error, please notify the sender IMMEDIATELY by phone or return the message and DESTROY it.
I was reading comments to this story at another site, and found this link refuting the NOW propaganda.
http://www.responsibleopposing.com/facts/custody.html
This site is somewhat dated, but not as dated as the NOW propaganda.
I wanted to let you know about some killer traffic video courses i have. just swing by and take advantage of my save the family vacation firesale. right now. http://EasySeoKeys.com/bigall.html
Hello, Neat post. There’s a problem together with your web site in internet explorer, might check this?IE still is the marketplace leader and a large component to other people will pass over your fantastic writing because of this problem.